693
does
Index-Linked Pensions:
[ 20 OCTOBER 1981]
natter what advice they have obtained before- hand. They cannot put over the case. Is this not a glaring example of an injustice which should be put right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the case to which I have been referring is one where there is a discrepancy between the interests of the parents and the interests of the child. The provision I have described is relative to that case. I do not think that the noble Lord has made a case beyond that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the child represented in the case to which the noble Lord has referred or is it merely a question of a report-I am not dismissing it as being valueless-from somebody in the social services department?
Lord Elton: My Lords, what happens is that, if there is an apparent conflict of interest between parent and child, it is clearly not right that the solicitor should take instructions from the parent on behalf of the child. The child is not capable of giving instructions. The solicitor therefore has to have an independent assess- ment of the case-not very often from the local authority social workers because they are parti pris, if that is the term. He therefore goes to an independent social worker for an assessment. That assessment will show to him what he believes to be in the best interests of the child and he will make the child's case accordingly.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would it not be much simpler and better for the child to be represented by a solicitor? This second-hand procedure, this hearsay procedure, does not seem to be very convincing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not a hearsay procedure. The child does have the benefit of representation by the solicitor who makes his case in the courts but I share, as do we all, the noble and learned Lord's anxiety that we should proceed to full implementation. But I cannot give a date for that while the resources are not available.
Index-Linked Pensions: Increased Cost
2.49 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the total increased cost this year of fully indexing the pensions of all those now retired from the public sector who have been granted statutory or discretionary immunity from price rises.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young): My Lords, there are about 1.6 million public service pensioners whose pensions are index-linked by statute. The first year cost of the increases due to these pensions on 23rd November will be about £232 million. I am circulating in the Official Report a table showing the main groups of public service pensioners concerned, together with the cost in each.
case.
HL 35 F2
Increased Cost
694
There are in addition about 700,000 former employees of other public sector bodies whose pensions are index- linked either under the rules of the relevant pension schemes or on a discretionary basis. I regret that information is not available centrally about the cost of increasing these pensions this year, which is met in the main from the pension funds concerned and not directly from central Government expenditure.
Following is the table referred to:
Public Service
First year
Number of
cost of 1981
pensions
increase
'000
£ million
Armed Forces Civil Service Teachers
281
40
384
52
183
44
...
National Health Service
205
30
101
19
356
37
57
10
1,567
232
Police and Fire Local Government Overseas
Total
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that the commitment to pay fully indexed pensions to 1.6 million public service pensioners, and in addition some 7 million, making a total of 2.3 million, is a very considerable burden which in the long run must fall on the taxpayers and industry of this country? Will she, therefore, in the next round of pay adjust- ments for the Civil Service consider negotiating out this commitment? Otherwise, you will continue to have a burden year on year as inflation, albeit greatly reduced, will continue to impose this responsibility on Governments of all persuasions in the future.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government are aware of the undertakings that were given to the public service pensioners at the time of the last election. My noble friend will be aware that we set up the Scott inquiry into this matter, and we hope that the Govern- ment's conclusions on it will not now be too long delayed. We have also instituted another inquiry to look at Civil Service pay, and I have no doubt the points my noble friend has raised will be included in the discussions on that.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who are these highly favoured people who are immune from price rises? Are there any Members of your Lordships' House in that category, and, if so, who are they?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that about a quarter of the working population is covered by index-linked pension schemes. Although I would not like to say that this applies in the case of the noble Lord himself, I believe Members of another place are also covered by such schemes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the private sector very few pension schemes indeed are able to afford index-linking? Will she,