Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mike Freer

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He knows my views and is tempting me down the path of debating the future of defined benefit schemes. I have been entirely consistent on this point: for many years, I have said that all defined benefit schemes are no longer sustainable, whether in the private sector or public sector. That is a debate for another time and is certainly not pertinent to the amendment, but I share his view that perhaps we need more wholesale change and a larger debate.

In supporting specific exemptions where physical demands can be proven, I am not undermining the broad thrust of ensuring that our public sector pensions are sustainable. I have long argued that the contribution rates of both employee and employer do not match: what goes in does not match what comes out. That has driven my long-held view that defined benefit schemes are no longer fit for purpose. Having said that, this Bill is a major step forward in making sure that our public sector pensions are sustainable. We have a duty, however, to protect those who protect us and we ought to revisit this point where there is hard empirical evidence that physicality, in certain roles within those categories, can be proven to be detrimental to people’s health after retirement. I am not suggesting that I will support the amendment, but I am urging my ministerial colleagues to revisit the matter.

I have rehearsed at length the point about physicality. I am sad that the Minister is no longer with us, but I hope that he will address that point when he winds up. Should empirical evidence emerge, I hope that we can revisit this subject.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to refer, in particular, to my amendment 1. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) very interesting indeed. I certainly agree with a range of points he made.

The amendment seeks to place two additional occupations into the Bill, and they have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber. They are those of prison officer and psychiatric nurse. Clause 9(2) lists the three occupations to be enshrined in the legislation as exemptions from subsection (1)—they have been discussed by various Members and there seems to be some agreement—which are

“fire and rescue workers who are firefighters…members of a police force, and…members of the armed forces.”

I fully support people working in those occupations and the courageous work they do on a regular basis. I fully understand why they are included in the Bill and support their inclusion, but for the very same reasons I wish to amend the Bill to include prison officers and psychiatric nurses.

It is widely accepted that prison officers and psychiatric nurses have to deal with some of the most dangerous, dysfunctional and disruptive people in society on an almost daily basis. Expecting these categories of worker to work above the age 65 is totally and utterly unjustified; in fact, when we look at it in great detail, the decision seems absolutely outrageous. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green mentioned a constituent of his, a very fit police officer from the territorial support unit who explained exactly how he kept himself in peak fitness to do his job. We cannot expect people in the Prison Service to be grappling with prisoners at the age of 65 and above, but the Bill as it stands would allow that.

Currently, prison officers regularly have to take five different tests: a grip strength test, an endurance and fitness test, a dynamic strength test, an agility test and a static shield hold test. If a prison officer fails any of those tests, they fail the entire health and fitness test. The current regime is therefore rather stringent. If clause 9 is agreed to unamended, it will mean many prison officers and psychiatric nurses either dying in service or retiring on ill health grounds and not having a very healthy lifestyle thereafter.

Missing Persons (Cyprus)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mike Freer

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sure the Minister heard his intervention and will seek to address that point in his remarks.

I want to return to the role—or lack of—of the Turkish forces. The ECHR judgment continued:

“No attempt was made to identify the names of the persons who were reportedly released from Turkish custody into the hands of Turkish-Cypriot paramilitaries or to inquire into the whereabouts of the places where the bodies were disposed of. It does not appear either that any official inquiry was made into the claim that Greek-Cypriot prisoners were transferred to Turkey.”

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Like others, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important and emotive debate. He mentioned Cypriot prisoners in Turkish prisons. Has he any idea what percentage of the 1,500 could still be in prison in Turkey?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the numbers. There is no definitive answer, because the Turkish will not release that information. It is estimated that between 500 and 800 people were imprisoned in Turkey. The whereabouts and fate of those people remain unknown.

We talked about the Court’s determination of article 1. The Court also concluded that there had been a

“continuing violation of article 2, on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent state to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances.”

I appreciate that hon. Members may think that the use of words in some of these articles—2 and 3; and 5, which I will talk about—constitutes shades of grey. However, it is important in establishing a pattern of behaviour that unfortunately, Turkey is repeatedly failing to comply with those various articles.

In dealing with article 2, the Court stressed at the outset that

“the unacknowledged detention of an individual is a complete negation of the guarantees of liberty and security of the person, that is contained in article 5 of the convention and [is] a most grave violation of that article. Having assumed control over a given individual, it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. It is for this reason that article 5 must be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into any arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and not seen since.”

The Court referred to the irrefutable evidence that Greek Cypriots were held by Turkish or Turkish Cypriot forces without keeping appropriate records. From any humanitarian point of view, that failing cannot be excused. Confusion during a conflict is not an excuse. Fighting during a conflict is not an excuse. The absence of information and the deafening silence from Turkey have made it impossible to allay the concerns of the relatives of the missing persons about their fate. There has been no official reaction to new evidence that Greek Cypriot missing persons were taken into Turkish custody. The Court concluded that there has been a continuing violation of article 5, because Turkey has continued to fail to respond or to conduct an effective investigation.

The lack of an investigation by Turkey into the fate of those who went missing has condemned relatives to live in a prolonged state of acute anxiety. Time has not lessened that anxiety, as anyone who has met the relatives can testify. I have many times been to the green line in Cyprus and met relatives, and I can testify to the daily heartbreak that the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters still endure. No one who has visited and walked up to the buffer zone and met the families, with the pictures around their necks, can fail to be moved by the anxiety and stress the relatives continue to endure. The memories remain vivid in the minds of the relatives, and they endure the agony of not knowing whether family members were killed in the conflict or are still in detention, or, if detained, have since died. The families just want to know what has happened; they want to be able to grieve and to lay their relatives to rest.

The provision of such information is the responsibility of the authorities of the respondent state, and that is Turkey. It has been found to be consistently unco-operative. The silence of Turkish authorities has been classified as inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 3. The Court of Human Rights found no indication that the Committee on Missing Persons is going beyond its limited terms of reference. That committee works under very careful supervision.

It is important to stress that the search for information by the relatives of Greek Cypriot missing persons is not partisan. In fact, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said:

“Determining the fate of missing persons occupies an increasingly prominent role in peace-making...and post conflict peace-building. Handled properly, it can build trust and promote reconciliation…The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus has been a model of successful co-operation between the Greek-Cypriot and the Turkish-Cypriot communities.”

This humanitarian issue must be resolved and, although the resolution should not be mired in the political solution, there is inevitably some linkage. If we are to see a re-united Cyprus, both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have to have trust and faith in each other. If Turkey is to take its place in the EU, it must be seen to be open, transparent and democratic. A transparent return and identification of the missing would be a welcome confidence-building measure. The UK and the EU have significant influence. We contribute handsomely to the work of the Committee on Missing Persons, but Cypriots are EU citizens, and as such, member states have a duty to intervene. We intervene and apply pressure throughout the world; we must do more on our own European doorstep.

Mr Weir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise the concerns of many of my constituents. My constituency has a very large Greek Cypriot community, and it has been my privilege to raise its concerns today.