§ Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has received representations about the delay in the determination of care proceedings as a result of delays in adult courts; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what advice he has given or intends to give to those responsible for juvenile court proceedings as to how to avoid delays in care proceedings which occur as a result of proceedings against an adult accused of an offence against a child who is the subject of the care proceedings.
§ Mr. BrittanClerks to the justices have been advised—in Home Office circular No. 88/1972—that the Crown Court should be notified if it is decided that care proceedings should be adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal trial of a parent, so that any delays may be minimised.
The legal group working party of the Association of British Adoption and Fostering Agencies has recommended in its publication "Care Proceedings" that guidance should be given to courts and social services departments on the circumstances in which care proceedings should continue to be heard without awaiting the outcome of proceedings against a parent. We are considering this recommenadtion in consultation with my 399W 1972 when he was married, or, if at the point of retirement he was a widower, divorced or judicially separated, it is reduced for such part of the period before 1972 when he was a married man. The magic of 1972 is that apparently thereafter GLC employees were not compelled to contribute to any pension for their wives or widows.
The rationale for the first reduction in the case of a married man upon retirement is that should he have a widow surviving him on his death there would be a pension for her. I concede that that did not cover Mr. Denby's case because, regrettably, by the time he came to retire he had—in December 1976—become divorced. He did not retire until March 1977.
Under the second leg, however, there was a case for reduction in his lump sum because at any rate up to the point when he was divorced there was a contingent liability on the Inner London Education Authority to pay Mrs. Denby a pension. The GLC was indifferent to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Denby were separated. So far as the council was concerned, no divorce had taken place and so there was a contingent liability. It was on that basis that a deduction was made when Mr. Denby retired in March 1977.
Mr. Denby may claim that this was a harsh, disadvantageous provision and that the deduction was too big for the contingent liability which in Mr. Denby's case never matured. I do not think that it is proper for me to debate the merits or demerits of that proposition. I am not charged with any particular responsibilities. I am here, to put it crudely, to defend the position of the Inland Revenue. That charge could more properly be put to the Department of the Environment. I can only tell my hon. Friend that this is a point in the rules that has never yet been raised by the staff associations. I am not necessarily encouraging them to do so. It does not seem to be a matter of general concern for those who, like Mr. Denby, are subject to these rules.
In drawing the threads together, the first question I ask is: should the pension regulations for GLC employees follow the tax code? Should there be a precise correlation between the rules of the pension fund and the conditions set out in section 8 of the Act? That is a matter 400W for the Department of the Environment and for the employers and employees. It is not necessarily a matter on which I should care to express an opinion, although I do not see any particular reason why there should be. These matters can be adjusted by negotiation, and Mr. Denby can perhaps argue that he has not been well treated.
Let us turn the proposition round another way. Should the tax code follow the pension regulations? I am sure that my hon. Friend would hardly argue that the tax code, which is designed for the generality of taxpayers, not just for GLC employees, should be made to fit the circumstances of the pension regulations.
I say, not with smugness, because I understand the feeling of deprivation, that this matter cannot be laid at the Inland Revenue's door. The Revenue is operating within the statute. If it is not, it is open to Mr. Denby to take the matter to the appeal commissioners. He has not chosen to do that. I do not quarrel with that as I know that the law delays and is expensive.
The Inland Revenue has properly administered the code. I am sorry that Mr. Denby should have a sense of grievance. His case has been most ably put by my hon. Friend. I hope that, in turn. I have put the problem in perspective and that my hon. Friend will explain to Mr. Denby.
§ Mr. HordernI do not dispute that what was done was within the statute. However, two statutes are involved in the case. The statutes define married and separated persons differently. Mr. Denby falls foul of both. It is clear that the statutes are wrong, not Mr. Denby. The simple position is that Mr. Denby found that he was making a substantial contribution unwittingly, in the potential event of there being a liability for his widow if he had died before her. Under the Revenue rules there should be a deduction from earnings before tax so that there is an allowance for the steep payments from which Mr. Denby has suffered. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. and learned Friend will be able to look at that with more care when he has had more time.
Mr. ReesI can assure my hon. Friend that I have given deep thought to the problem. I have examined it from every possible angle.
401Wonly when there is reason to believe that a police officer may have to face an armed man, and may be used only if human life is endangered.