717
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
8 JANUARY 1990
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
718
[Mr. Ivor Stanbrook]
was at the time, and I hope that it will eventually be replaced by a provision consistent with the spirit of the Bill.
Civil servants in Hong Kong are among those with similar problems. The colonial or overseas Government --not the United Kingdom Government-are bound to a pension obligation unless an arrangement has been made between the two Governments for the money to be transferred to the United Kingdom Treasury. The United Kingdom and Nigerian Governments reached such an arrangement for my pension, but, as the Hong Kong Administration are within the British colonial empire. pension arrangements are still governed by Hong Kong regulations.
The main difficulty is that the value of Hong Kong pensions is established by the prevailing exchange rate, and the Hong Kong dollar is inclined to fluctuate. At present it is notoriously subject to the influence of world events, and to other matters that have nothing to do with the interests of the people involved. Such influences do nothing to assure those people that they will receive an appropriate retirement income, whether or not they have already retired. We want them to stay in Hong Kong, but there is still the problem of their pensions.
Expatriate staff of the Hong Kong Administration who are on pensionable establishment will in due course retire, and their pensions will be determined by the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Surely the United Kingdom Government have a moral obligation to ensure that those people do not suffer because of the instability of future foreign exchange conditions, but are guaranteed the full value of their pensions-uprated by arrangements in the legislation referred to in the Bill-so that they need not fear the suffering experienced by other colonial service pensioners in, for instance, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Part of our imperial responsibility is still the obligation to protect those who have served the Crown, often in an inclement climate and unhealthy circumstances. The conditions of people who maintained and controlled the government of the empire and our remaining colonies should not be prejudiced by the fact that their service was notionally directed towards a Government separate from the United Kingdom. I appreciate that this precise point is not strictly covered by the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it and that he will ensure that those who are responsible for taking this overview of our obligations to all British public servants abroad will take their cases into account so that this injustice is remedied.
4.20 pm
Mr. Archie Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)' I endorse everything that has just been said by the hon. Member
The for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Government ought to examine carefully the provisions that have been made for former colonial servants of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman may be right that the long and short titles of the Bill will make it difficult for the Standing Committee o consider amendments covering that point, but I hope that the Government will deal with the plight of former Crown servants. The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
372 CDS7 6 Job 2-4
I am worried about the way in which pensions legislation in general is enacted by the House. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the Bill rectifying
"certain anomalies and unintended consequences"
in previous legislation. The parliamentary draftsmen are doing no service to public servants who are in receipt of public service pensions by drafting legislation that is technically flawed and that, to lay persons, is completely unintelligible.
I hope that the Government will consolidate some of the pensions legislation. I recognise that a different series of Acts governs public service pensions. They are quite distinct from the Acts which apply to most pensions, but there is an overlap between the Treasury's responsibility for public service pensions and the Department of Social Security's responsibility for other pensions.
Has any consideration been given to the systematic and cohesive consolidation of all the statutes relating to pensions in all their different aspects? It would then be easier to understand the ramifications of the legislation, some of which has been in place since public service pensions were first given in the year 1684, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just told us. The hon. Gentleman also made a valuable point when he suggested that the House should examine carefully how the Government are seeking to cope with requests from the European Community, or anyone else, for a pensions system that would eliminate discrimination between males and females. Such a move would be welcomed. It is long overdue.
states to
The Government pick and choose between benefits. Some of them they are prepared to level up, while others they level down. They are breaking the spirit of European Community directives that place an obligation on member end discrimination. By and large, the Government are levelling down all the time. I speak as a humble Scots solicitor. I am not an expert in pensions legislation. It can be argued that what I have described breaches the spirit of the directive and could be challengeable through the European legal system. The Government must make it clear what principles they will adopt when they approach the problems that they will experience with ending discrimination between males and females.
My overall impression, on skimming through the Bill, is that the Treasury has done a quick trawl to see where it can save the odd bob or two. The Minister shakes his head. I am more sceptical than he obviously is. Some of these provisions will save money. With his usual eloquence and competence, the Minister skipped over the fact that it was mooted that the police, fire and armed services should receive additional benefits. The idea was given careful consideration, but the decision went against them. Nevertheless, the sum involved must also be weighed in the balance.
The pensions industry has studied the Bill. I give it a cautious welcome. On balance, it improves things. The Government can be accused of looking for quick ways to save the odd buck, and the House should examine that carefully before giving it a Second Reading.
As I have already said, there is confusion about pensions legislation. Clause 2 contains quite a substantial element of retrospection. There may be reasons or cases which justify retrospection in some circumstances, but the
1
1
{
1
.་