Public Service Pensions Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

We return today to the Public Service Pensions Bill, which will put public service pensions on a fair and sustainable footing for generations to come. There was broad support from all parts of the House for this measure, and I am grateful to all those who have voiced an interest in the Bill for their co-operative approach. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the progress the Bill has made in the other place.

First, when the Bill left this House, the Opposition were concerned about the wide scope of powers to make retrospective changes and to amend primary legislation. The Government understand that concern. Pensions are an important part of scheme members’ future income in retirement. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to give members or their representatives a complete veto over any significant adverse retrospective change to their pensions and to restrict the powers to amend primary legislation. Furthermore, any Treasury orders for negative revaluation of scheme benefits will now need to be made by the affirmative Commons procedure.

Secondly, the Opposition sought further assurances on the governance elements of the legislation, particularly a requirement in the Bill for employee representatives on scheme boards. Again, I am pleased to report that the Government tabled amendments in the other place to require an equal balance of member and employer representatives, along with an explicit requirement for national scheme advisory boards.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking about some welcome changes that the Government have made, but there is another party to this contract on pensions. The taxpayer will foot the bill for the unfunded part of the obligations of public sector pensions. Will he assure me—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I do not blame him, in the first instance, because the trouble, the mischief, was started, however inadvertently, by the Minister, who is looking at me with an innocent expression belied by the reality of what he was saying in the debate. This is not a generalised debate; these are narrowly defined matters, and we are considering the relevant amendment, to which, to put it kindly, the hon. Gentleman’s remarks were not altogether adjacent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions for all the right reasons. I still have a few more minutes in which to set out the Government’s case, and I hope that I shall answer them in the process. If anything remains unclear, however, I hope that he will come back to me. I will be happy to add to the information that I am giving the House.

[Richard Fuller]

Labour has accepted that it completely forgot about those workers when it was in government. Its spokesman has been noble enough to admit that it did not find the 350 people in the fire service and 3,000 people in the military police. Given that my hon. Friend the Minister now understands that fact, can he tell me why the workers did not bring the issue to the attention of the then Government? Were the unions involved in any negotiations at the time, or has this just become an issue now?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. I cannot answer on behalf of the previous Government, but I can say that the change was carried out by ministerial order. There was no open, ongoing debate on the matter like the one we are having today. A written ministerial statement was issued by the then Minister for the East Midlands, Gillian Merron, on 26 July 2007, and I can find no record of any Labour MP complaining about the change at that time. If my hon. Friend is making the point that the Opposition’s credibility is severely damaged because of this, he is making it very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I think that is indeed the case, but my general point is about the physical demands on these individuals. Today we are debating whether their retirement age should be, as the Minister thinks, 67 or above, or whether it should be at 60—the same age as for other firefighters, police officers and members of the armed forces. It is a simple proposition and the House has the power to make a judgment on it today.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case on physicality for those three classes of public sector employees, but the crucial issue is that those people put their lives at risk, which other public sector workers do not. Can he advise the House why the issue was not raised, and why those people were missed, in earlier pension scheme reforms?

[Chris Leslie]

That is a very pertinent question. We heard from the Minister that 12 million people were affected by the various public service and civil service pension schemes. We heard that even Lord Hutton, in his detailed inquiry, was not aware of the 350 or so affected individuals, because it was a new scheme that started in 2007, and only some MOD firefighters and police will come into the age bracket. Given the complexity of pensions, it is not surprising that some issues were not spotted; apparently even some employee representatives and others were not aware of the anomaly at the time.

These things happen. Mistakes can be made, but it is really important that when a mistake is pointed out, people assess whether they are big enough to accept that it needs to be corrected and justice is done, or whether their pride is such—whether or not this applies to the civil service—that they try to retrofit their arguments to justify a clearly unjustifiable anomaly. That is what the question boils down to.

The only reason I can see for different treatment for those groups is that one set happens to be employed by the Ministry of Defence and the other is in the public service at large. It is such an evident anomaly that the House of Lords, when made aware of the lacuna, correctly sought to repair the fault in the Bill, but incredibly we heard from the Economic Secretary—I am delighted that he has been joined by the Chief Secretary; perhaps he can be lent on by more enlightened colleagues—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says he will have a go, but he does not have much time as the question will be put shortly. [Interruption.] Anyway, Ministers are not particularly interested in listening to the debate, so it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman could text the Economic Secretary to suggest that he pays attention.

In essence, the Economic Secretary said that the Government were too proud to admit that they had got it wrong. They are still defending the indefensible, but the arguments for admitting the error are overwhelming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

How much more of an answer can I give than the actions that we will take in the Division Lobby today? Instead of the party political games that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are playing today, it is a responsible thing to do to try to help—[Interruption.] They laugh, but this is not a laughing matter. They expect these firefighters and police officers to work up to the age of 67 or above, and that is not the right thing to do.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I have given way enough to Conservative Members and I want to make some progress because it is important to bottom out these specious arguments that the Minister can barely grasp.

Lord Hutton said that the reasons for giving uniformed forces a lower normal pension age is the

“simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them. ”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 520.]

In his report he recommended that the Government set a new normal pension age of 60 across the “uniformed services”. That was the phrase that he used. He did not refer to the type of pension they were in; instead he referred to “uniformed services”, and argued that they deserved to be singled out because of the nature of their work. The spirit of Lord Hutton’s recommendation clearly applies to MOD firefighters and police officers. Lord Hutton said:

“The nature of the work the uniformed services perform is unique and this needs to be reflected in their Normal Pension Ages. The modernised firefighters scheme has struck a balance between recognising these changes in life expectancy, but also recognising the unique nature of the service provided by scheme members. The Commission’s view is that the Normal Pension Age in this scheme, 60, should be seen as setting a benchmark for the uniformed services as a whole.”

We agree with Lord Hutton’s reasoning that the amendment was merely intended to correct an oversight that has occurred in drawing up the Bill. He supports the amendment and the reform is based on his idea. He said that

“if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MOD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report…Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so it did not make any specific recommendations about the MOD firefighters or the MOD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

It is important to mention this. We are towards the end of the Bill’s passage and we have not had much opportunity to debate it. This has been brought to my attention during the course of turning the pages on the detail of this pension legislation. The Opposition say the same as Lord Hutton. This is just one of those anomalies that we should be big enough to admit was wrongly overlooked in previous reforms.

It is true that the last Government raised the normal pension age for the civil service to 65 for post-2007 entrants, and that included Ministry of Defence staff. However, I am now convinced that had we known then about the small group of firefighters and police officers who are technically on the civil service payroll rather than employed by police or fire authorities, we would have taken account of these groups, and an exception could have been carved out. There should be no embarrassment inside the Treasury in admitting that this was an oversight. Regarding this previous change, even the Defence Police Federation said that the

“Council of Civil Service Unions did not consult the DPF, and we did not have the opportunity to make the above points about the physical demands of being an MDP officer”.

The issue was not raised or considered when it should have been. Those staff should not be punished because of that particular oversight. If Lord Hutton is able to admit the oversight and if Opposition Members in this Chamber are able to admit the oversight, the Economic Secretary should be big enough now to do the same. Rather than just read out the brief provided to him, he should engage his brain, use his own judgment and discretion, and do the right thing. If he engaged the brain of the Chief Secretary, who is sitting alongside him, that might go some way towards a solution.

There is the cost to the public purse argument, but as I understand it, only 56 people have joined the Ministry of Defence police, and fewer than 300 have joined the defence fire and rescue service since 2007. So the anomaly could be easily corrected by bringing a small minority of pensioners back into line with the pre-2007 entrants’ normal pension age of 60. We are not talking about a large number of firefighters or police officers here. Sadly, we have had to get to the Floor of the House of Commons to put the pressure on the Government. What the Government have tried to present as a cost is in reality a reduction in the predicted saving from this overall package of changes. They overestimated the savings to be made by overlooking the existence of this particular group of fire and police officers and failed to include them in the definition of uniformed services.

The Minister might put up various arguments, but the question of physical burden cannot be overlooked. A worker for the Ministry of Defence police may be required to wear 11 stone-worth of kit, and a normal shift will involve wearing 5 or 6 stone-worth of equipment for up to 11 hours. Workers in the Ministry of Defence fire service carry out the already difficult and dangerous job of firefighters, but do so in war zones and other extremely hazardous conditions around the world.

The fact that these workers are labelled civil servants should not blind us to the reality of what their jobs entail. Along with the police and the armed forces, they are the only public service workers who have to undergo regular fitness tests. In fact, the majority retire before 60 because they are unable to meet the high demands their jobs entail. They are also recognised as uniformed forces in the civil service pension scheme, and there is a small reflection of that already. Unlike civilian police forces, there is no option in the MOD police for officers to move to unarmed work if they struggle to cope physically. Even when mainstream police officers are armed, they are not expected routinely to carry guns around beyond the age of 55.

Another point that has been brought to my attention today—I imagine that this is something none of us is massively familiar with—is that many MOD firefighters have to work alongside colleagues who will qualify for retirement at 60. Royal Air Force firefighters—I think that they are called Trade Group 8—will often be on similar operations with service colleagues, working in the field together. One colleague will retire at 60, whereas another standing next to him will be required to work to 65, 66, 67 or beyond. The same applies to Royal Navy firefighters, who are regarded in their classification as armed forces. This is riddled with anomalies, and it would be very simple for Ministers to overcome them. They really ought not to have allowed this to become such a large point of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and in this case it is a great pleasure to have listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He asked precise questions and reinforced some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in order to move forward what the Minister had said earlier. Thanks to those two contributions, we are beginning to get to the real meat of the issue of how we can ensure that this group of overlooked public sector workers can find an acceptable and fair outcome to their pension situation after all these years.

Within the overall ambit of the Bill, I speak as one who sits outside the cosy compromise between Government and Opposition Members on the principles set out by Lord Hutton. Our decisions on pensions must stand the test of time. People make decisions about contributions to their pensions based on the expectation that those contributions will have an effect 20 or 30 years later when they retire. My concern about the compromise relates to affordability, given that we are asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the specific costs involved in the measure. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the amount involved is £10 million per annum. I am a big admirer of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), but he said earlier that £10 million a year was not really a considerable amount of money. I believe, however, that it is indeed a considerable amount of money to be paid year on year. Under the previous Government, it was that attitude that £10 million here and £10 million there did not really matter that led to the grotesque financial situation that we found ourselves in in 2010.

[Stephen McPartland]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I will give way to my spendthrift Friend.

[Stephen McPartland]

The point I was making was that, although £10 million is a lot of money at a personal level, I do not feel that it should be a reason to allow such discrepancies to continue. The House should be trying to create parity between all those who do that difficult job on a daily basis, and to focus on the overall package of measures rather than just on the pensions question. That £10 million could provide savings, as the Minister suggested earlier.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend has characteristically drawn us to the centre ground. When we consider our public sector workers, we should look not at their pensions in isolation but at the broader question of the compensation terms and conditions under which they are employed.

As I have said, we are talking about a relatively small number of workers. Those members of our public services have a physically demanding job, but it is also a requirement of their public service employment that they are at times asked to put their lives at risk to maintain public safety. It behoves us to take a special approach to such workers and to the way in which their pension conditions are treated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I may have to do so. Many jobs in both the public and private sector are physically demanding, but I would not advocate a different retirement age purely on the basis of physicality. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman tried to make a specific point about physicality, but I believe that that is the wrong course to take. I believe that this group of workers—the MOD police force and firefighters—have an additional requirement placed on them by us, the taxpayers, whereby we ask them as part of their responsibilities potentially to put their lives at risk, or at least to put the safety and interests of the public ahead of themselves. If I may say so, that is a far more appropriate basis for our looking at this particular issue. People may wish to make the case for physicality, but there is a special case here that goes above and beyond that. That is, I think, the reason why the Minister has taken such great interest in trying to find a solution on this issue.

I welcomed hearing the Labour party admit that it completely forgot about these people when it was in office and raised the pension age. Hearing that was welcome, because all Governments make mistakes and people do get missed out in the transitions. Let me explain what I would like to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) today. There is a chance in future—I do not think it will be in 2015, but it is likely at some time for these public sector workers in the MOD, the fire service or the police force—of there being a Labour Government.

[Chris Leslie]

Hear, hear.

[Richard Fuller]

I am pleased that the shadow spokesman raises that possibility. Is he therefore prepared to put his money where his mouth is—today? He has made a commitment, but is it just words? If he is so confident of being in office, will he pledge today to ensure that these MOD workers have the same conditions as he advocates? I give way if he wishes to make that pledge.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not making this decision in 2015; we are making it here and now in 2013. We have to confront the issue. He is trying to find all sorts of reasons not to disagree with the Whips who are leaning on him, saying “Please do not vote with your conscience on this particular issue.” We have accepted that the issue should have been addressed in 2007. Now that there is no excuse for lacking awareness of it—it is being debated now—is he really going to vote today, in his full awareness of these facts, to say that this particular group of firefighters should not be entitled to retire at 60 when all the other firefighters are? Is that really what he is going to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Member for Nottingham East is a fine fellow, but I have to tell him—[Interruption.] “Fine fellow” will be the beginning and end of my comments to him. [Interruption.] I will come to the point, as this strikes at the credibility of the political class in this country. What the Labour party spokesman is trying to do is to use words to set up people’s expectations without taking the responsibility to fund them. That is why the political class is seen through by the public, who are fed up with politicians making up arguments that exist in the world of fancy but not in the hard reality in which people live. If I may say so to the fine fellow opposite, if he wants to be honest to the British people and, more importantly, to the people whom this amendment is designed to represent, it is his responsibility to pledge today to put taxpayers’ money where his mouth is if he is ever in government. I note that that is a commitment that he has very specifically missed out today.

[John Hemming]

The Opposition seem to be saying that the decision should be made today without negotiation, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that negotiation is the best way forward, and that to have such negotiation, we need to support the Government’s proposal for negotiation?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s second intervention, because it enables me to agree with him this time. As I said at the start of my speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made the same point in pressing the Minister for more specificity. I, too, wish to ask him for clarification on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is time-limited? If he wishes to hear the Minister’s clarification, he must leave time for it before the debate ends at 5.37 pm.

[Richard Fuller]

I shall attempt to make my points speedily, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made two requests. He asked when the negotiations that may be conducted between the Ministry of Defence and the workers and their representatives would have to be concluded, and suggested a three-month time frame. I support that recommendation. He also asked for an indication from the Minister, today if possible but otherwise in a subsequent letter to Members, of what the legislative process would be for the reaching of a resolution. I think that both those suggestions are very worth while.

Will the Minister confirm that the assessment by MOD and the workers’ representatives will not specify a particular retirement age, and that the decision will be based on an assessment of the potential ability of members of those work forces to do their jobs effectively? Will he also confirm—I think he said this earlier, but confirmation would be helpful—that the scheme will be flexible enough to allow us to make the changes without any limit, but that it will be up to those in the scheme to make the recommendations? I hope that he will be able to make those two commitments today.

It is important for the Government to be able to maintain a dialogue about the retirement age of our firefighters, both in the MOD and outside it. We are embarking on unknown territory, and I think that a Government who listen to these workers will be seen to be truly putting their money and their heart where their mouth and commitments are.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank all who have spoken during the past hour. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who could not speak in the debate, but who has an interest in the issue and has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I shall be able to respond to the points that have been made in the time that is available to me.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a number of points. As they will understand, I could not agree with everything that they said, but they both made the sensible point that the Treasury and the MOD should take account of those who retire early on health grounds when considering the potential cost implications of the changes that we are discussing. I agree that we must bear in mind all the impacts on costs that the amendments might have.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also raised a number of issues, including the important issue of the Opposition’s credibility in this regard. Some MOD firefighters and police officers who are listening to the debate will already have a retirement age of 65 rather than 60 because of the changes made by the last Government in 2007. When the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) speaks about such matters, his own credibility becomes somewhat shallow.

I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I again did not agree with much of what he said, but I know he believes passionately in what he says, and I respect fully what he had to say. He is a great advocate for his constituents, but he, too, did not address the issue of the change that was made in 2007, and nor did his party colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). For the purposes of this debate, it would be useful to know whether the hon. Members who have spoken up today also did so when the retirement age was changed in 2007.