Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Although it has been rather lengthy, I hope that my explanation of how the amendments in this group will work has proved helpful. I reiterate that these amendments all share the objective of ensuring that members affected by the discrimination identified by the courts are able to receive a comprehensive remedy in line with the overall approach set out in the Government’s consultation response, on a fair and equal basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have a current interest to declare, but it would be appropriate to mention that, until the end of August when I gave up the work, I was the paid adviser to a number of trade unions, advising them on this specific issue. It appears in the register of interests for another year, but I no longer have any direct interest.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, he foreshadowed at Second Reading that a raft of amendments was coming. I think it has been suggested that there will be further amendments; clearly not in this House, but there will be a further batch when the Bill is considered in the Commons, which will come back to us. Is this still the case?

Secondly, and more specifically, the Government have made proposals for changes to the cost control mechanism, for which primary legislation will be required. Is it envisaged that they will be made to this Bill or will a separate Bill come forward at a later stage? Before I make my third point, I first thank the Minister very much; he has been extremely open and informative. He has gone out of his way to make sure that we understand what these amendments are for, and I welcome that.

One of the amendments picks up a point I made in my Amendment 6 in Committee relating to the potential payment of remedial AVCs—a wonderful concept. My amendment was obviously very simple, and we now have a much more extensive and substantial change. It will be a complex issue and I recognise that it will be complex to administer. One of the problems we have is that there is a demand, but we have no way of telling how big it will be. The respective scheme advisory boards will have to look at and decide what proportionate and appropriate steps they need to take. I hope the Minister will indicate that they are prepared to facilitate that.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

I too thank the Minister for his time and for the engagement he has provided throughout the Bill, particularly regarding these amendments. Considering the scale, complexity and magnitude of the Bill, together with the millions who will be affected by it, I understand that these amendments try to cover a variety of contexts and circumstances to provide a comprehensive remedy to the previous discrimination. I recognise that the whole range of contexts and circumstances means that many will require fine detail. I hope these will, in many ways, support the millions of public sector workers who have suffered discrimination as a result of earlier circumstances.

We will see later some of the specific issues we raised in Committee. I hope the Minister can assure us that these amendments have taken account of those. We will explore that later.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

40: Clause 21, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(6A) In subsection (5), a loss “attributable to the application of any provision of, or made under, this Chapter” includes a loss incurred by a member with remediable service who—(a) is transferred to the new scheme and reaches the required number of years of pensionable service to retire with full benefits under the legacy scheme, but(b) is unable to access the full value of those benefits because they must continue to work to retire with full benefits under the new scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that certain losses arising from the interaction of the rules of the new and legacy schemes respectively will be compensated.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is about what has been termed “the pension trap”. Much concern has been expressed about this phenomenon by different groups and members of different schemes, not least the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Fire Brigades Union. It is important to be clear that this issue affects all the major public service schemes. It is more salient in the uniformed service schemes as they previously had a much lower pension age, so the impact of the pension trap is more significant, but it runs through all the schemes. When you put two schemes together that work on significantly different bases, problems can arise that perhaps we should have spotted at an earlier stage of the discussions on the scheme.

The key issue concerns where you combine schemes with different normal retirement ages in the legacy and new schemes respectively, and the impact of extending working lives in that situation. Extending working lives has been a theme of the reform of public service pensions, so we should perhaps have thought through this a little more clearly. I may have been a little to blame myself in my previous life. When the issue was first raised I was somewhat doubtful but, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to appreciate that it is a real problem.

The underlying problem is where the combined benefits, old and new, do not reflect the benefits that the members lose by having a later retirement age. They suffer a net loss. With most private sector schemes and the new state or public service schemes, if you defer your retirement, you get some credit: you lose a year’s worth of pension because you have decided to retire a year later, but the money that you have surrendered by doing so is used to increase the subsequent pension. Whether you take the pension at 65, 60 or 67, overall, the broad value of your benefits remains the same. This contrasts with the situation in most, if not all, of the significant public service schemes, where, if you defer your retirement, you simply lose that year’s benefit and receive no credit for it. The reason for this difference between public and private schemes is lost in the mists of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. At the appropriate time, I will indicate my intention to withdraw the amendment.

First, I want to say that the purpose and intention of the amendment—I never believed that it was complete in itself—was to prod the Government into taking the issue seriously. The problem arises in any scheme where, if you do not take your pension at the scheme pension age, you do not get any credit for giving up the pension that you lose by deferring your retirement. That is the underlying problem, and it occurs across the public sector. It is currently far more acute, as we have been told in detail by the Fire Brigades Union and the Police Superintendents’ Association.

I have no doubt that the real solution to this issue lies in scheme-level discussions, but such discussions will take place only if the Government give an indication that they take this issue seriously and want the respective scheme advisory boards to discuss and address the issue and seek out practical solutions. Whether they can be funded, and the extent to which any solution would fall within the cost cap and so not incur substantial additional cost, would have to be addressed as part of those discussions. That is all I am asking for.

I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

114: Clause 80, page 56, line 3, leave out “(2) and (3)” and insert “(1A) to (3).
(1A) In subsection (4) omit paragraph (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment removes from the calculation of the employer cost cap the effect of changes in the cost of connected schemes, including the cost of rectifying the unlawful discrimination.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I raised this issue at Second Reading in the context of questioning the use of directions. I believe that there is a general issue here about the respective weight given to primary legislation, regulations subject to approval by one or both Houses, and directions, which are the decision of the Treasury. Clearly, there is a balance to be drawn here on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny; it is a debate that we should have, but it is not one I propose to pursue any more in the context of this Bill.

However, some concerns remain about issues that are being dealt with through directions which, I believe, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In the context of this Bill, there are two issues of concern. The first is the decision that the cost of the remedy—that is, the remedy required to address the issue of age discrimination—should be counted as a member cost in the cost-control mechanism. The second issue is that, in that calculation, the costs of the remedy should be spread over a period of four years.

This is beginning to verge on technical issues but, at heart, these are policy decisions, and ones that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They go far beyond what have been described. This legislation amends the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, and there was a report on that legislation, looking at the directions, which said that the directions did not need parliamentary scrutiny because they were simply technical matters of actuarial practice. My argument today, on those two issues—and I am going to focus only on the issue of whether this is a “member cost”—is around whether this is a technical matter of actuarial practice or whether it is a policy decision that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

There is no doubt that the decision to make this a member cost will mean that members end up paying more money or receiving lower benefits. It will directly affect the benefits that they receive. The issue was raised in Committee, and the Minister at that stage maintained the position that

“Treasury directions … exercise a particular power, rather than creating a new power”.—[Official Report, 11/10/2021; col. GC 353.]


I would argue that the decision to make this a member cost as part of the cost-control mechanism goes beyond the exercise of a particular power and creates a new power, and hence it should be considered as regulations.

This is a complicated issue, and, to understand it, you need to have a clear understanding of the purpose of the cost-control mechanism. It is not, as the Government have suggested, a mechanism for assessing the value of pensions; this is not something that directly affects the calculation of the contribution rate being paid for the scheme. It simply affects the cost-control mechanism, which is the trigger for deciding whether changes should be made to the scheme. The costs of the scheme are the costs of the scheme; whatever the benefits are, they are the costs of the scheme. This is a mechanism for deciding whether those benefits should be changed or, alternatively, whether contributions should be changed.

It has always been accepted that there are certain elements in the calculation involved in the cost-control mechanism that are regarded as member costs that will impact on the cost-control mechanism—but there are also these other elements in the calculation that are employer costs, which do not impact on the cost-control mechanism. The issue has been discussed, and there have been government reports on what counts as a member cost or an employer cost, but they have never considered the issue of the cost of a remedy incurred by the Government’s own error. It was the Government’s mistake to have age discrimination in this scheme and, to address the Government’s mistake, there has to be a remedy. That remedy is the subject of this Bill. Should the cost of that remedy be a cost for the Government, who created the problem in the first place, or a member cost? The Government argue that members are receiving additional benefits and so it is clearly a member cost.

This is an important issue and what I am arguing about now is not an ultimate answer—I have made my position clear; I think it should be an employer cost—but it is not an issue that should be addressed through directions; it should come before Parliament through regulations. Because of the nature of the regulations, they would probably be financial regulations and considered only by the House of Commons. That is effectively what I am arguing, and I have put down my amendment in order to raise this issue. To a certain extent, our deliberations here are not final, because this is the subject of extensive legal action. However, that is nothing to do with the argument today. The argument is technical; it is on the relatively narrow point of whether the cost of the remedy falls to be treated as an employer cost or as a member cost.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not participated on this Bill before; indeed, I just want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the way that more and more government actions are taken by subordinate legislation. I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and we produced a report last week entitled Government by Diktat. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who chairs the parallel committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, produced another report called Democracy Denied?

We all know that secondary legislation it is not well scrutinised. It cannot be amended, and this House and indeed the other place are therefore reluctant to undertake what I call the nuclear option—we cannot amend a bit of it, so we have to reject the whole lot. The last time that happened there was a huge constitutional crisis, to which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had to set up a committee to answer.

However, we have moved from that unsatisfactory position to one where we now have guidance. Guidance may or may not form part of the regulations; sometimes it says that the guidance “must have regard to” the regulations. What does that mean? Does it mean “I thought about it and I did not want to follow it”, or does it mean “The court will decide, and you had better have a jolly good reason for not complying with it”.

The point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, takes it further away from the control of this House. We have what is now tertiary legislation: directions and decisions made by bodies that are not answerable to Parliament but whose decisions and regulations are enforced and required to be obeyed by every single member of the population of this country. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies—I am not in a position to judge—he raises a very important matter for the House, which needs to be debated and discussed. As we move to new ways of regulating and legislating, because our society is moving on faster than the rather stately pace of primary legislation, we need to find new and better ways of making sure that Parliament, as the legislature, is not subject to the creeping, increasing control of the Executive—the Government.

My committee and my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s committee are pretty convinced that the situation needs seriously addressing here—and of course in the other place, which must lead the way on this—if we are to make sure that the balance, which has shifted, is put back in the right place and in the right form. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, underlines some of the dangers that we are facing by direction, which is not good enough because it does not come before your Lordships’ House or indeed the other place but will nevertheless have a very significant impact for our fellow citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, an amendment has been put forward to Clause 80 by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which concerns the employer cost cap. The noble Lord seeks to amend this clause to prevent the increase in value of schemes associated with the McCloud remedy being accounted for in the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations. I thank the noble Lord for bringing this to the attention of the House and am grateful to him for his prior engagement on the policy.

I can confirm that the Government have received pre-action protocol letters on behalf of some trade unions which have indicated that they may issue judicial review proceedings to challenge the Government’s decision to include the costs of remedy in the cost-control mechanism at the 2016 valuations. As the House will expect, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, acknowledged, I cannot comment on the specifics of live or threatened litigation.

I acknowledge and appreciate the support the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has given in general to the changes we have made to the cost-control mechanism—but there is more I want to say. I will talk through the general background, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of the reasons for the Government’s decision. I will start by commenting on the policy rationale, starting with amending directions.

In Grand Committee, I brought to your Lordships’ attention that the Treasury had published amending directions on 7 October 2021 that will allow schemes to complete the cost-control element of the 2016 valuation process. These amending directions confirm that the increase in value of schemes associated with the McCloud remedy will be taken into account in the completion of the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations. The Government believe this is right, given that addressing the discrimination identified in the Court of Appeal’s judgment by giving members a choice of scheme benefits for the remedy period involves increasing the value of members’ pensions.

The cost-control mechanism was designed to assess costs arising from a change in value of schemes to members. Failure to capture the value of the remedy could have meant that members’ benefits may have changed going forwards, based on an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the value of these pension schemes. This would represent an unacceptable risk to taxpayers, contrary to the objectives of the mechanism.

Turning to some specific detail on ceiling breaches, the Government have previously announced their intention to waive any ceiling breaches that arise from the 2016 valuations, and this is implemented by the current version of Clause 80. However, any floor breaches that occur will be honoured. This means that no member will see a reduction to their benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations. This decision, and the completion of the 2016 valuations, should provide certainty to scheme members over their benefits.

I will attempt at this stage to answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the use of directions. The Government acknowledge the key interest of the House in the scrutiny of secondary and tertiary legislation. The DPRRC considered this Bill and chose not to bring forward any comments for the attention of the House. The Government have powers under Section 12 of the PSPA 2013 to set out in Her Majesty’s Treasury’s directions what costs must be taken into account as part of the cost-control valuations. More broadly, I acknowledge the points my noble friend made; I have no doubt that Hansard will be read and I will say simply that his points are noted.

I will now say a few words about the amendment itself. The amendment seeks to amend the Treasury’s powers, set out in Section 12 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, to make directions which set the employer cost cap. Section 12 grants the Treasury a wide power to specify in directions which costs should be taken into account as part of the cost-control mechanism.

The amendment put forward by the noble Lord seeks to amend subsection (4) by omitting paragraph (c). I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to remove the Treasury’s power to specify that the costs of remedy, or any other costs associated with the legacy schemes, should be accounted for in the mechanism.

This amendment may not have what I understand to be the noble Lord’s intended effect of preventing the increased value associated with the McCloud remedy from being included in the mechanism at the 2016 valuations. Subsection (4) sets out the type of costs that Treasury directions may specify for inclusion in the cost-control mechanism, but it is not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather, it provides some illustrative examples of how the wide power in subsection (3) may be exercised. I also note that the 2021 amending directions came into effect on 8 October 2021, as I mentioned earlier, under the existing powers. The noble Lord’s amendment as drafted would have no effect on the 2021 amending directions.

I want to attempt to answer some questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. There was some debate about why members are being made to pay for, as they put it, mistakes made by the Government. When the cost-control mechanism was established, it was agreed that it would consider only costs that affect the value of a scheme to members. Addressing the discrimination identified in the McCloud and Sargeant judgments by giving members a choice of scheme benefits for the remedy period involves increasing the value of schemes to members. The costs associated with this should therefore be taken into account as part of the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations process. However, any ceiling breaches that occur will be waived, no member will see a reduction in benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations, and any floor breaches that occur will be honoured.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked when we will introduce amendments to reform the cost-control mechanism. I hope I can provide some reassurance by saying that the Government published our response to the consultation on the CCM on 4 October, we are currently working through our options and we will legislate for changes to the mechanism when parliamentary time allows. While a precise date has not been set—I am sorry I cannot give that date—the aim is to implement any changes in time for the 2020 valuations. As should now be clear, the Government have no intention of tabling an amendment in the House of Lords to implement these reforms. Instead, the package of amendments being introduced in this House are technical amendments that ensure the consistent application and legal operability of measures in the Bill.

I hope that, with these explanations, I have provided the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in particular, with some helpful reassurances on the policy rationale and the powers used, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, at the appropriate time I will indicate that I will withdraw the amendment. I am prepared to accept the advice that it does not actually achieve what I would like to achieve, and that the retrospective factor needs to be taken into account. But I would just like to highlight an issue mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.

What the decision to make this a member cost means is that it will impact on those members who gain no benefit from the remedy. The remedy is not arbitrary, but there are broad patterns in who benefits from the remedy, and large numbers of members do not benefit from the remedy but will be affected by the inclusion of this as a member cost in the cost-control mechanism. The Government have suggested that they chose the four-year period within the cost-control mechanism for undertaking the calculation because they did not want to impact on future members of the scheme who gain no benefit from the remedy, but exactly the same problem applies to many current members of the scheme who will be active members during the relevant four-year period. To me, that sounds like an argument that the remedy should not be treated as a member cost, because of its inequitable impact.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his remarks. This is an issue that I have perhaps said more about than I originally intended, but I very much hope it will be taken seriously. What comes to me from it is that it is not easy to say what is or is not suitable to be dealt with through particular types of legislation. The issue is the impact it has, not its precise formulation—and making it a member cost has a substantial impact and so should get the appropriate level of consideration.

I note what the Minister said about the amendments to the cost-control mechanism and that he did not rule out the possibility that it would be added to this Bill during its Commons stages. I am a bit concerned about the idea of debating such significant changes in the context of the ping-pong process, so maybe he could give some sort of reassurance on that. But subject to those points, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 114 withdrawn.