HL Deb 26 April 1956 vol 196 cc1325-34

6.10 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Increase of pensions specified in the First Schedule]:

LORD BURDEN

Since the first Amendment in my name appeared on the Marshalled List, the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, with his customary courtesy, has agreed that some discussions should take place. In view of that, while reserving my rights so far as the Report stage is concerned, I do not propose to move the Amendment to-day.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Powers to increase other pensions]:

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK) moved, in subsection (2), after "areas" to insert: "in respect of certain service". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really introductory to the two following Amendments which stand in my name. They relate to a matter to which I referred during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and are put down in response to a request made by the noble Lord, Lord Wiley, with regard to Indian pensions. The short point—if may deal with the matter on this Amendment, although it is only an introductory one—is that while there is provision for Indian pensioners to receive pension increases if they terminated their service before August 15, 1947, or if they terminated their service in consequence of the transfer of power in India, if they terminated their service in the ordinary way they would not be getting the increases of pension. These three Amendments will ensure that these other people who terminated their service in the ordinary way will get the increased pensions as laid down in the Bill. I think that that is exactly the point which the noble Lord, Lord Halley, had in mind, and I hope the Amendment meets with his approval. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 39, after ("areas") insert ("in respect of certain service").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD HAILEY

I am glad to say—and I will say it as shortly as possible because this is so satisfactory—that the Amendment fully meets the point I raised on behalf of my friends. We are very grateful to the Government for putting it forward.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is the substance of the Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 46, at end insert ("after the figures '1947' there shall be inserted the words or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fifteenth day of August, domiciled outside Asia'; and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to,

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This also is a substantive Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("and after the figures '1947' there shall be added the words 'or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fourth day of January, domiciled outside Asia'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule [Pensions which tray be increased under section one of this Act]

6.20 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, after paragraph 1 to insert: 2. A pension payable by any local authority partly in respect of local government service as defined for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Act of 1944 and partly in respect of service with the London Passenger Transport Board and the British Transport Commission.

The noble Lord said: In view of the importance of the matter, I hope your Lordships will bear with me, even at this late hour, if I, as briefly as I can, outline the purpose of this Amendment. As your Lordships will be aware, in 1933 the tramway staffs employed by the metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council were transferred under the provisions of the Act of 1933, to the London Passenger Transport Board—now, of course, London Transport. Those who so decided, continued to pay contributions into the superannuation fund of the local authority by whom they were formerly employed, and the employer's contributions were paid into that fund by London Transport (I am using the shorter name). Section 80 (12) of the Act of 1933 required the Board to make those payments. The former local authority tramways staff transferred to London Transport were not covered by the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1952, but the former local authorities were given power by regulations to pay pensions increase to their former employees who ultimately retired from the employment of London Transport.

The local authorities concerned have decided—and I see no justifiable reason against it—to pay pensions increase only in respect of that proportion of pension relating to service rendered to the local authority. London Transport, however, have refused to pay pensions increase in respect of that proportion of the pension based on service rendered to London Transport. I submit to your Lordships that this is a particular injustice suffered by these former tramways staff. It is an injustice for two reasons: first, they would have obtained pensions increase as a right on the whole of their pensions if they had not been transferred out of local government employment; secondly, if, instead of being transferred to London Transport, they had been transferred to the Central Electricity Authority or to the Gas Council, they would have received the increases as a whole.

When this question was raised in another place, it was broadened to include the superannuated staffs of all nationalised undertakings by the Minister, who said: If the honourable Member would think it over carefully, I think he would also accept and sympathise with the argument which I am putting, that the Bill deals with people whose pensions are paid from public funds. He went on to say: It would not apply where pensions are paid by commercial undertakings. Surely these pensions are paid out of public funds. The whole of the monies contributed by the staff are in public funds, in the funds of local authorities. Is it suggested that the funds of London Transport are the funds of a commercial undertaking and not public funds?

It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replying on behalf of the Government, made somewhat the same point. May I direct the noble Earl's attention to this point. Section 80 (7) of the Act of 1933 placed upon the London Transport an obligation to pay the employer's contributions to provide pensions for those transferred tramways staffs. If that legal obligation to provide for pensions was placed on London Transport, I cannot see how it is logical for the Minister to say that the Government cannot insist on outside bodies paying pensions increase. What is the difference between placing a statutory obligation on London Transport to provide for the main pensions and asking them to provide for these increases? I submit to your Lordships that once Parliament has required a board to provide pensions on a local government basis in respect of the period of service rendered to the board by those transferred staffs, the Government ought also to require London Transport to pay pensions increase in respect of the proportion of pension based on that service. If the Government can properly require the London County Council to make provision for pensions increase, why should not Parliament similarly require the London Transport Executive to make such provision?

I understand that there are some 200 employees previously in local government service who are now superannuated. London Transport Executive have refused point blank to do anything to supplement the pensions for the period during which these men were in their employ. May I quote a sentence written by a Member of another place who is interested in this problem, because there are a number of ex-local government employees who were transferred to London Transport now living in his constituency? This is what he says: The Treasury have informed me that they would be quite willing to take all the neces- sary action to put this admitted anomaly right, but they must have the approach made to them by the London Transport Executive. Frankly, I cannot understand the attitude of the London Transport Executive. They have been pressed by the Transport and General Workers' Union to do this. They have been pressed by the National Association of Local Government Officers. The Treasury apparently are quite willing to make the way easy and provide the necessary sanctions. Yet London Transport are unwilling to act in the matter.

And I cannot follow the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. I cannot see why they cannot insist on this elementary piece of justice to these staffs. I could give instances where, under private enterprise, the Government of the day interfered in matters of this kind. Her Majesty's Government can instruct the London Transport Executive not to apply increases in rates and fares which have been recommended by a responsible tribunal; they cart restrain capital development; they can let the Transport Executive either proceed or not, as they see fit. To bring a recent instance to the attention of your Lordships, when the locomotive men were on strike, did the Government sit idly by with folded arms and say: "All we have to do is to hold the ring and let these people fight it out"? No, they appointed a Committee of Inquiry. And if British Railways had refused to put the result of that inquiry into operation, would the Government have said: "This is no concern of ours"? In all these major matters the Government have power, under the Act, to say that the transport authority shall do this or do that. Why then should they be so delicately-minded in regard to this matter and say that they cannot do anything? I submit that the Government ought to say to London Transport: "You jolly well ought to pay these increases. We are willing that you should. Therefore, do the right and proper thing." I could say more, but at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships further. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.(Lord Burden.)

6.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF LESTOWEL

I should like to start by saying that I think my noble friend Lord Burden has raised an important point, and I hope that the Government may be able to meet it, if not in this Bill then in some other way. My noble friend has put his finger on what I feel is a real hardship that is being experienced by former employees of London Transport who have also served in local government, and I am sure that that hardship ought to be removed. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to suggest some way of removing it. I am bound to say that I shall put to your Lordships the view local authorities take about this Amendment, because my noble friend has put the view of the employees and I feel that the Committee should have both views. Having said that, I feel +that the effect of the Amendment would be contrary to the intention that my noble friend has in mind, and would, to sonic degree, defeat the purpose of the Amendment.

The effect of The Amendment, as I see it, is to include among the pensions that may be increased under the present Bill those payable by local authorities for services rendered not only to them but also in part to the London Passenger Transport Board and the Transport Commission. It would make the local authorities alone responsible for payment of the full increase in pensions, which will cover, of course, the time spent by these persons in the employment of the local authorities, as well as the time they have spent in the employment of London Transport. The London County Council would be directly affected by this Amendment if it were embodied in the Bill, for it would increase their payments of pensions in relation to personnel transferred from their employment to the employment of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933, when the tramways were taken over.

As my noble friend has pointed out, the London Transport Executive have no power to repay the London County Council for the part of the increased pension which would be due to service to London Transport as employees of the London Transport authority. But it does seem unreasonable—as I am sure your Lordships will agree—that, if the London County Council cannot recover this part of the pension payment, they should be obliged to pay the whole of the increase. That, I understand, is what would happen under the terms of the Amendment as it stands. The London County Council are perfectly willing, like other local authorities, to pay the part of the increase arising from service under the Council. This seems a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. Whether or not the London Transport authorities could be encouraged to repay the Council their contribution towards the pensions payment, or could be put under a statutory obligation to pay, I do not know; but I hope that some way may be found of righting what I think my noble friend has rightly suggested is a genuine grievance.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised the question of tramwaymen who were retired or who were transferred from the tramway undertakings of West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Erith, Ilford and the London County Council in 1933, first of all, to the L.P.T.B. and subsequently to the L.T.E. I must agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said: that the effect of the Amendment is contrary to that which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind that is to say, it would put an obligation directly on the London County Council, and not on the L.T.E., which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind, to increase pensions subsequent to that date. I think I should make it clear that the regulations affecting the increased pensions, so far as they affect employment under the London County Council right up to the year 1933, have been made right up to date.

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised rather a big point here, and possibly bigger than he quite appreciates—at least that is how it appears from the way he spoke. It is true that when various undertakings have been brought under public control of one form or another, Parliament has made that new national organisation take over the existing pensions scheme. But in no case has Parliament insisted that that nationalised organisation should create a pension scheme where it did not exist before, or supplement or increase a pensions scheme that already existed. With great respect, I think that Parliament is quite right to take that line.

The relationship of a nationalised industry with Parliament is always a delicate one. There are certain subjects on which the Minister can give instructions, and it is a standing measure of control that Parliament can say how much capital is to be invested in the particular industry. But I think it is an entirely different thing to interfere with what is essentially the relations between the management and their employees in these particular industries. The matter of pensions increase may be some long way from what is generally called labour management, but I submit that it is the thin end of the wedge; and I think it would be most unwise for Parliament in any way to lay down the conditions in which men should be employed or should be retired. Parliament has never done that, and I feel that it would be most unwise for Parliament to undertake that particular task. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press this point. I really cannot advise the Committee to accept an obligation on Parliament of that character.

On the justice of the claim, I would rather not express a view. Clearly, we have made similar increases to various similar pensions, and anyone must judge the particular case as to how far it is due. If there is anything the Government can do to make a pension increase which may seem necessary, we will, of course, do our share. But I think it would be most unwise for Parliament to lay down by Act of Parliament—and it is by Act of Parliament—what should be the particular relationship between one of these organisations and their staff. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

With the greatest respect, I must say I do not feel that the reply of the noble Earl is adequate. Let us assume that, following this debate, and if the Treasury are willing that this increase should be paid to the retired members from the local government service, London Transport asks for permission to pay it. Surely, it may be necessary to make regulations to enable them to do so. Is not Parliament then acting and determining what should be done? It is a narrow point, and I give it to the noble Earl that it is a debating point. The fact is that they cannot do it without the authority of Parliament, either in an Act or by Regulation.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think there is a slight difference between authorising something to be done and instructing something to be done. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that if anything is wanted, it will be done.

LORD BURDEN

I quite appreciate the point, and I agree that it must be a little difficult to instruct them to do so. But surely the resources of civilisation are not exhausted. It need not be in the Act or in the Schedule, so far as the phrasing of this Amendment is concerned. But if the Government, as I believe they do, feel that this is a right thing to do, although they are not prepared to instruct British Transport to do it, if they have that goodwill, then I think we are getting on a long way. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel that on the face of it the Amendment looks as if we were imposing this on the local authorities. As I made perfectly clear in my speech, there was no such intention; but the Amendment had to be put in that form because up to now the only means whereby superannuation can be paid s by and through the local authority fund, and they have dispensed those superannuation benefits previously. To their credit, be it said, they have always honoured the increases up to now, so far as the period during which those employees were in their services is concerned. I feel that this is so important a matter that while, of course, I would not press it to a Division, if the Committee in its good sense negatives it, we shall know where we are.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say that it is a fact that the London Transport Executive have asked the Government for power to refund local authorities for these pension payments?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I have no information of that character.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule [Rate of increase of pension under section one of this Act]:

LORD BURDEN

I do not think it would be fair to your Lordships to raise the last Amendment in my name this evening. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Minister and the Committee if I did not move it now, but left it over for discussion as suggested.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.