1
1
i,
.t
1.
.e
1.
le
a
e
ROON
.0
it
al
es
he
Pensions Miscellaneous Provisions; Bill
8 JANUARY 1990
Minister did not mention them. Any retrospective legislation, especially if it affects pensions. should not be accepted casually.
I shall put my Scots solicitor's hat back on and draw attention to clause 2(5). It amends the Pensions (Increase) Act 1965, but that Act was repealed by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. That is a very good trick if it can be done, but I think that it is an example of technical incompetence. I am sure that it will interest the hon. Member for Orpington, who is a distinguished observer of these matters. No doubt the Treasury has more solicitors than I could muster on this Bench. Indeed, I can muster the support of only my party leader-but that is quite considerable support, although perhaps not on pensions legislation. He is neither a Scot nor a solicitor. I am worried about slipping through legislation that purports to amendment an Act which was repealed yonks ago. We should have a word about that from the Minister.
Clauses 3,5 and 7 are a bit petty, but clauses 5 and 7 make sensible changes. Although I have accused the Treasury of trying to save money, I must observe that the changes in clauses 5 and 7 are justified because the double benefits that were previously available were over-generous.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Bill is tidying up various pieces of legislation and that it is all minor and technical. Given enough time-preferably not during the Christmas recess which included Hogmanay which is a much more important festival north of the border--and given the opportunity in Standing Committee I could certainly provide a whole list of minor or consequential amendments that will certainly cost the Treasury money. I shall suggest one now.
As the joint secretary and treasurer of the all-party committee on pensioners, the most obvious case that has come to my attention concerns the changes to the Civil Service pension in 1978. Civil Service widows' pensions were not made payable to widows of post-retirement marriages until the pensions legislation of 1978. That gives rise to an anomaly because widows of post-retirement marriages after 1978 are now treated much more generously than those who were widowed before then. I cannot believe that the Treasury objects to that on financial grounds because it must cost a relatively tiny sum compared with some of the other savings being made in other parts of the Bill. That is a clear example of another anomaly that could have been tidied up in the Bill. It would have had a substantial effect and removed an important anomaly which has been causing quite legitimate and justified concern among those who observe the comings and goings of the Civil Service pension funds and schemes.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Orpington had made a valuable contribution concerning colonial pensions. Again through the all-party committee on pensioners I have received representations from a host of different organisations. On the last day of last year I received one from the Consultative Committee of the Kenya Local Authorities Superannuation Fund again complaining about matters such as those raised by the hon. Member for Orpington. Technically, they may not be capable of rectification under the short title of the Bill, but given a bit of goodwill from the Government and a slightly longer short title, the Bill could have addressed some of those problems. They would have required some subvention from central Government funds into certain outstanding funds which are leaving former colonial
373 CD57/7 Job 2-7
Pensions Miscellaneous Provisions} Bill 720
servants in dire financial circumstances. It is a missed opportunity. Small items such as that make it impossible for the Minister to say that the Bill is simply a minor and technical matter.
The Bill embraces some important issues, and the Minister will have to convince the House of some of the financial aspects and consequences of the provisions of the Bill before I shall be entirely comfortable with it. However, I shall certainly recommend to my colleagues that on balance the Bill deserves a Second reading.
4.33 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield): I wish to take part in this short debate mainly to voice my concern that sometimes the House passes legislation such as this late in the evening or, as on this occasion, soon after the holidays without hon. Members understanding the full significance of the Government's intention in future years to use the legislation as a principle. I wish to discuss the principle of discrimination. I seek assurances about the Government's intentions as to whether in future it will be used for levelling down rather than levelling up and whether they attach importance to the Bill in respect of pension matters before the European Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that by clause 1(2)(b) the Government seek to amend a provision which currently discriminates against men who retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health but who cannot take advantage of the specific arrangements by which women with dependants can retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health. The Government aim to end discrimination against male contributors to the fund, but in so doing women's rights will be removed.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West the Minister attempted to use the numbers game in respect of the number of women who currently benefit, and said that the figure is derisory. He gave a more important answer in relation to the number of men who could qualify if the Government ended discrimination more positively by allowing equal pension entitlement for men and women.
The Minister may argue that in calculating for the fire and police services and other employees tens of thousands of men may benefit, but that raises an issue of principle in relation to pension entitlement. Far too often when the
with Government have been faced
an issue of discrimination from the European Community they have chosen to remove the rights of one group to end discrimination against another.
I was a signatory to early-day motion 88, which argued for the ending of discrimination against men who reach retirement age at 65, whereas women benefit at 60. Those who have been involved in ending that discrimination foresee under this legislation the possibility of the Government establishing the principle of levelling down by removing the rights of women rather than legislating for a universal pension age for men and women. That is a controversial matter within the European Community, and at some stage the House will return to it. The debate is continuing not only here but outside, and the Government are receiving advice from pension actuaries and others about amendments that the European Community may force on them at a later stage. Although