Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Nick Gibb

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Prison officers in Northern Ireland have had a particular problem with security for decades. They have the same security problem here, although it is definitely not as bad as the problem experienced during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, prison officers put their neck on the block at all times. I have been out socialising with members of the Prison Officers Association when they have been approached by ex-convicts. They were out having a decent time, and those people were coming up to them. They addressed the prison officers very politely, but I have to say that they looked rather strange. I would not want them coming to talk to me. We need to look at the security of the people who work in the Prison Service. As I have said, we need to protect those people.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that members of the police force were highly trained, and that they needed shields and other forms of protection. He said that they were out on the front line when there were problems, and that they would get stuck in to try to resolve them. Prison officers and psychiatric nurses do that on almost a daily basis, and it is not very pleasant for them. There are also problems in the Prison Service and the health service, when prisoners are not only violent but spit in people’s faces and when blood is thrown at people’s faces causing all sorts of distress.

It is common sense to try to ensure that prison officers and psychiatric nurses are added as part of the exemption under clause 9(2), just as we rightly wish to protect police officers in their daily duties. Our brave armed forces and our firefighters are other examples, so we should look to protect the prison officers and psychiatric nurses, whose duty is solely to protect us, in the same way.

I will not press my amendment to the vote, as I do not want to divide the House. Should I say that we are too conciliatory on this issue, and should I say that Members of all parties seem to agree—albeit to different degrees—on it? Rather than split the House on it, I gently ask the Minister at least to consider the amendment to ensure that psychiatric nurses and prison officers are included in the provisions of clause 9(2).

[Mr Gibb]

I shall make a brief contribution and oppose amendment 2, tabled by Opposition Members, which would leave out lines 22 and 23 of clause 9— essentially subsection (1)(a) and (b)—and insert in its place

“65, or current pension scheme age if lower”.

That would drive a coach and horses in many ways through one of the Bill’s key provisions, which is to have a link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. I think that is an important way to minimise the risk of longevity to the taxpayer.

Paragraph 4.5 of the final report of Lord Hutton says:

“It is generally assumed that longevity will continue to increase in the future, but there is significant uncertainty about the scale of any future changes.”

He goes on to say:

“Increases in life expectancy have historically been… underestimated”

when the calculations have been made.

In paragraph 1.2 on page 22, Hutton says:

“As a result”

of this underestimation,

“pension costs…have been much higher than originally expected.”

He cites the example of a female pensioner in the NHS scheme who would retire at the age of 60 in 2010, and says that she would be expected to spend around 45% of her adult life in retirement, compared with about 30% for pensioners who retired in the 1950s. That is the issue that Hutton is trying to address. Spending 45% of one’s life in retirement is simply not sustainable for any pension scheme—even one backed up by the vast coffers of the state sector.

Page 9 of the Hutton report states:

“The main risks within defined benefit schemes are: investment; inflation; salary”—

because salaries can be put up without actuaries being aware of the rises—

“and longevity risk. While government, as a large employer, is capable of bearing the majority of the risk associated with pension saving…present schemes involve too much risk for government and the taxpayer.”

He went on to say:

“There should be a fairer sharing of risk between government”

and scheme members. It is that risk that amendment 2 would push back to the taxpayer.

Hutton says that the increases in life expectancy have been recognised within the state pension scheme, and he therefore recommends that we should follow that lead when it comes to helping members bear pre-retirement longevity risk. That is why he recommends the link between the state retirement pension age and the normal pension age. Recommendation 11—it is in a shaded box, which will please the shadow Minister—states:

“The Government should increase the member’s Normal Pension Age in the new schemes so that it is in line with their State Pension Age.”

Lord Hutton also says:

“The introduction of the link to the State Pension Age, which will initially move Normal Pension Ages to 65, will move the proportion of adult life in retirement for public service pension scheme members back to about a third: roughly where it was in the 1980s. The current State Pension Age of 65 is already the Normal Pension Age for most new entrants to public service pension schemes.”

Teachers, for instance, have a 2007 scheme and a pre-2007 scheme. For those who joined before 2007 the normal pension age is 60, while for those who joined after that date it is 65. Lord Hutton goes on to say:

“In the long term, the timetabled increases in State Pension Age should help to keep the proportion of adult life in retirement for members around this level”—

that is, a third—

“on current life expectancy projections.”

I believe that amendment 2 is a mistake, and would increase risk disproportionately for the taxpayer.

Asbestos in Schools

Debate between Ian Lavery and Nick Gibb

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate. I know that he is passionate about this subject, having campaigned for victims of asbestos-related lung conditions and pleural plaques in the north-east and in his role as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on health and safety. I have read its report, “Asbestos in Schools: the need for action”, very carefully.

The priority for this Government, as for the previous Government, is to ensure the safety of staff and pupils in schools. The report is welcome in raising awareness of the asbestos issue and makes several important recommendations, which I will address, as I will the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The Government’s policy remains consistent with that of the previous Administration. The Health and Safety Executive advice is clear. If asbestos is in good condition and not disturbed or damaged, it is safer to leave and manage it in place than to remove it. In the view of the HSE, removing it would involve a far greater risk to school children, staff and contractors than managing it until the eventual demolition of the building.

The Department for Education and the HSE are proactive in promoting good asbestos management in schools. To oversee this important work, my noble Friend Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for schools, established the asbestos in schools steering group, which is chaired by the Department and has a membership that includes my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), trade unions, campaigners, the HSE and Partnership for Schools.

Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, responsibility for complying with asbestos legislation lies with those responsible for the maintenance or repair of non-domestic premises. For most state schools that will be the local authority, not the school itself, but where budgets for building management are delegated to schools by the local authority, the duty—as it is called—to manage asbestos will be shared between schools and the local authority.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen with the newly introduced free schools? Who would be responsible for the management plan and for ridding those schools of asbestos?

[Mr Gibb]

The duty to manage is the duty of the employer. In academies and free schools, that would be either the governing body or the academy trust. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly to ensure that I am correct on the technical question of who, precisely, is the employer in those circumstances.

There is a need for head teachers and governors to be aware of their responsibilities when commissioning building or maintenance work. Duty holders should have already taken steps to identify whether asbestos is present in their buildings and assessed the condition of the asbestos, and should have access to records of that information. The duty holder also needs to assess and manage risks to ensure that people are not exposed to asbestos fibres. If the asbestos-containing material is deteriorating or subject to damage, remedial measures will be required. The HSE guidance on the 2006 regulations gives schools clear procedures to follow in assessing the risk from asbestos. The guidance requires assessment of the location, type and condition of the asbestos-containing material, and it is the duty of schools and local authorities to take the appropriate measures.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who has responsibility for employment, has set out the Government’s plans for reform of the health and safety system in Britain in the document “Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone”. The proposals make it clear that there is a need to focus attention on the highest risks. As a result, the HSE will not routinely inspect local authority-maintained schools. However, managing asbestos needs effective and ongoing attention from duty holders. The HSE’s recent inspection initiatives of schools under local authority control and those outside it, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, found that the majority were adequately managing asbestos, but a proportion fell below acceptable standards. The findings of those inspections have been published, so that all schools can review their asbestos management in areas where common weaknesses were identified. The HSE is also gathering intelligence to see whether further inspections of schools are necessary. If so, the HSE will monitor the duty to manage asbestos requirements through a series of inspections in 2013-14 to ensure that the HSE’s guidance and the findings of its recent inspection initiatives are properly implemented.