Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Simon Clarke Excerpts

Committee debates 2nd sitting & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 100 to 103 stand part.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

It will be helpful if I can preface my remarks on clause 99 onwards by returning briefly to clause 5 in relation to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, because I can now provide some further information about opting into the remedy. The purpose of clause 5 is to rectify any discrimination that may have resulted in members opting out of relevant pension schemes. It is very important that schemes are permitted to require information to be provided by members to establish why they opted out of the relevant pension scheme, as there may be reasons other than discrimination why members have opted out. It is appropriate that schemes have the power, so that they can ensure that the remedy applies for appropriately affected members. The power allows schemes to set conditions in scheme regulations, as schemes will be best able to assess what it is reasonable to expect a member to provide. The consequences of opting back into the pension schemes are very significant for members’ pension rights and therefore it is important that schemes can take decisions under clause 5 while in possession of relevant information. To help to ensure consistency, scheme regulations are generally subject to Treasury consent, which will ensure fairness.

Clauses 99 to 103 will allow the Treasury to make regulations that establish new public pension schemes for the members of the Bradford & Bingley staff and NRAM pension schemes. Those schemes currently reside under UK Asset Resolution, the holding company responsible for the Government’s remaining interests in those companies. The provisions also include protections that will ensure that members’ rights to pensions and other benefits are at least as good following their transfer to the new public schemes, and set out requirements to ensure that members are protected in the event of future changes to the scheme rules. These clauses will further allow the Treasury to make regulations transferring the assets and liabilities of the current schemes to a nominee of the Treasury, or a company established by the Treasury, for their disposal.

Establishing the new schemes will accelerate the timeline for UKAR to be wound up, helping to relieve the taxpayer of the cost of UKAR’s ongoing operations, and create a more efficient structure for the Government to meet their liabilities towards the scheme members.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Government have yet to set out the estimated costs of the provisions for Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock and whether those costs are in addition to the £17 billion budgeted for the McCloud response or are part of the same overall costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on that matter.

[Mr Clarke]

To be clear, the measures affecting Bradford & Bingley and NRAM are net cost savings, so this is a net benefit for the Exchequer; it actually reduces costs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 100 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104

Transfer of other pensions and benefits

[Mr Clarke]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 104, page 83, line 7, leave out “Plc” and insert “Limited”.

This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 40.

Clause stand part.

Clause 105 stand part.

Government amendments 41 and 42.

Clauses 106 to 108 stand part.

[Mr Clarke]

The amendments in this group will ensure that the Bill reflects the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public limited company to a private limited company in October 2021, after the introduction of the Bill. Following the nationalisation in 2008, the Government have gradually been divesting their assets in Bradford & Bingley, and confirmed the return of the company to private ownership on 2 November 2021. Prior to the sale, Bradford & Bingley, which was then registered as a public limited company, was re-registered at Companies House as Bradford & Bingley Limited. These amendments will reflect that change, by changing references to Bradford & Bingley plc in the Bill to Bradford & Bingley Limited.

The amendments will allow the Government to transfer pension liabilities residing under Bradford & Bingley to the Treasury. They will also allow information to be shared between the Treasury, UK Asset Resolution Ltd and Bradford & Bingley for the purpose of facilitating those transfers.

Clauses 104 to 108 will make a number of additional provisions, including those giving the Treasury the power to transfer other relevant pension liabilities related to individuals’ past employment at Bradford & Bingley or Northern Rock to the Treasury; conferring powers on the Treasury to vary the way in which taxes apply to persons in scope of part 2, with the intention that this part of the Bill will be tax neutral; conferring powers on the Treasury to obtain the information needed to establish and administer the new public schemes, and to administer the other relevant pension liabilities; and requiring the Treasury to consult the trustees of the current schemes before making regulations concerning the new public schemes.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment made: 40, in clause 104, page 83, line 11, leave out first “Plc” and insert “Limited”—(Mr Clarke.)

This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.

Clause 104, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 106

Information

Amendments made: 41, in clause 106, page 86, line 6, leave out “Plc” and insert “Limited”.

This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.

Amendment 42, in clause 106, page 86, line 14, leave out “Plc” and insert “Limited”—(Mr Clarke.)

This is one of a number of amendments reflecting the conversion of Bradford & Bingley from a public company to a private company.

Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 109

Retirement date for holders of judicial offices etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 48.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

Amendment 48 very simply corrects a cross-referencing error in schedule 1. It references the power described in paragraph 44(2) in schedule 1, which confers upon the Lord Chancellor the power to reinstate retired magistrates, rather than referencing sub-paragraph (3), as currently drafted.

Clause 109, together with schedule 1, will increase the judicial mandatory retirement age to 75. Schedule 1 also gives the Lord Chancellor powers, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, to reinstate retired magistrates below the new mandatory retirement age where there is business need.

[Tulip Siddiq]

We support the clause, which raises the retirement age of judges to 75, as we recognise the need to deal with the backlog in the judicial system. However, I wanted to make the point to the Minister that measures to deal with the backlog should not distract from efforts to improve the diversity of the judiciary. Shockingly, according to Government data—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister—only 1% of judges were black, and only 4% of senior court appointments came from ethnic minority backgrounds. I want some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will take steps to ensure that this provision does not hinder efforts, in any way, to bringing a more diverse workforce to the bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which was well made. Obviously, judicial diversity is very important. That is something that we place a firm emphasis on as we look to the future of the judiciary. As she rightly says, we must ensure that we can deal with the backlog in our courts, which has accrued due to the pandemic, and also deal with the genuine challenges of ensuring that we have enough people in the medium term.

The measures that we are taking will retain around 2,000 extra magistrates and 400 extra judges annually, when compared with retaining a mandatory retirement age of 70. We therefore believe that that is the right thing to do. We absolutely remain committed—as does the Ministry of Justice, more importantly—to the wider principle that we must do everything within our power to ensure that the bench better reflects modern society.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Retirement date for holders of judicial offices etc

Amendment made: 48, in schedule 1, page 105, line 35, leave out “(3)” and insert “(2)”—(Mr Clarke.)

This amendment corrects an error in the cross-reference in paragraph 44(6) of Schedule 1.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 110

Allowances for judicial office holders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 110 and schedule 2 will provide the Lord Chancellor with the power to pay allowances to judicial officeholders where that power does not currently exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 111

Sitting in retirement offices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 111, by reference to schedule 3, creates new sitting in retirement offices. Schedule 3 lists the existing judicial offices, referred to in the Bill as original offices, in respect of which sitting in retirement offices are to be created.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 112

Appointment to sitting in retirement offices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 113 and 114 stand part.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 112 creates the appointing power for the new sitting in retirement offices, as well as a secondary power for regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland or Welsh Ministers, as appropriate, to determine eligibility to apply to these offices.

Clauses 113 and 114 make further provision in connection with sitting in retirement appointments, including matters such as remuneration, retirement age and judicial discipline.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 and 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

Power to add new offices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 115 creates a new power to add new judicial offices to schedule 3, which in turn will create the sitting in retirement equivalent of that office. This power is given to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, Welsh Ministers or the Lord Chancellor, as appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Consequential etc provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 116 introduces schedule 4, which makes technical changes to existing legislation to give effect to the new sitting in retirement policy. In some circumstances, schedule 4 also repeals existing legislation.

Clause 116 also creates a new regulation, making power exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, Welsh Ministers or the Lord Chancellor, as is appropriate by context. This power allows additional consequential amendments to be made in connection with part 3 of the Bill, to ensure the new sitting in retirement policies operate as intended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 117

Regulations and directions

[Mr Clarke]

I beg to move Government amendment 43, in clause 117, page 93, line 22, at end insert—

“(ba) scheme regulations for a local government scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 3 of Part 1), or”

This amendment disapplies the subsections (1) to (7) of clause 117 in relation to scheme regulations for a local government scheme.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 117 defines the terms “affirmative procedure” and “negative procedure”, in order that regulations made under the Bill follow the appropriate parliamentary process. Amendment 43 is a clarifying amendment to make clear that the provisions described in clause 117 do not apply to regulations under chapter 3 concerning the local government schemes.

Regulations under chapter 3 have been made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 or the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, rather than under this Bill. The 2013 and 2014 Acts contain the relevant provisions for regulations made under those Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Clarke]

The clause sets out that the Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations are currently considering providing legislative consent motions where the Bill makes provision in respect of areas of devolved competence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

Commencement

[Mr Clarke]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 119, page 94, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) Chapter 3, and sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, come into force in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(a) or (3)(a) on—

(i) 1 October 2023, or

(ii) such earlier day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint;

(da) Chapter 3, and sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, come into force in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(b) or (3)(b) on—

(i) 1 October 2023, or

(ii) such earlier day as the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland may by order appoint;”.

This amendment ensures that Chapter 3 of Part 1 (local government) comes into force, at the latest, on 1 October 2023, and confers power on the Treasury (or, in Northern Ireland, the Department of Finance) to bring the Chapter into force earlier.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 45 and 46.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Clarke]

The clause provides when and how the provisions of the Bill are to come into force, including powers for certain provisions to be brought into force by commencement regulations. The amendments in the group relate to local government schemes and align the coming into force of the Bill with that provided for in respect of the chapter 1 schemes. The amendments provide that chapter 3 of the Bill, to the extent that it has not come into force already, should come into force on 1 October 2023, unless regulations issued by HM Treasury or the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland provide for an earlier date. This change ensures consistency across the public service pension schemes and allows time for local administrators to make detailed preparations for the implementation of the remedy.

Amendment 44 agreed to.

Amendments made: 45, in clause 119, page 94, line 41, at end insert “, or

(b) Chapter 3, or sections 97 and 98 so far as they apply for the purposes of that Chapter, in relation to a local government scheme within section79(2)(b) or (3)(b).”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.

Amendment 46, in clause 119, page 94, line 46, after “(2)(b)” insert “, (2)(da)”.—(Mr Clarke.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 44.

Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

Short title

[Mr Clarke]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 120, page 95, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Clarke]

The purpose and effect of clause 120 is to confirm that the short title of the Bill is the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. Amendment 47 is a procedural amendment to remove the privilege amendment from the other place.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Amendments relating to employer cost cap

“(1) Section 12 of PSPA 2013 (employer cost cap) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (9).

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.”

(3) For subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) A reference in this section to “the employer cost cap” of a scheme under section 1 is a reference to the rate set by virtue of subsection (1) in relation to the scheme.”

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) after “cap” insert “of a scheme under section 1”;

(b) after “set” insert “, and the changes in the cost of such a scheme are to be measured,”.

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) for “subsequent valuations” insert “the second or any subsequent valuation”;

(ii) for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;

(c) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for “the extent to which” substitute “whether and if so to what extent”;

(ii) for “of this section” substitute “mentioned in paragraph (b)”;

(d) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) that the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) are to relate, to any extent, to—

(i) the growth in the economy, or any sector of the economy, of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom,

(ii) the growth in earnings of any group of persons over any period, or

(iii) the rate of inflation (however measured) over any period.”

(6) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The power to give directions by virtue of subsection (4)(d) is not affected by any statement made before 27 May 2021 by the Treasury, or any Minister of the Crown, relating to the data, methodologies and assumptions that are, or are not, to be used for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4)(b).”

(7) In subsection (5)(a) for “(and any connected scheme)” substitute “(determined, if and so far as provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(c), taking into account the costs of any connected scheme)”.

(8) In subsection (6), in the opening words—

(a) for “the scheme” substitute “a scheme under section 1”;

(b) for “the margins” substitute “either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a)”.

(9) After subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) Treasury directions may specify the time at which any increase or decrease of members’ benefits or contributions that is provided for under subsection (6) is to take effect.

(7B) Treasury directions may require that provision contained in scheme regulations under subsection (6) permits steps to be—

(a) agreed by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or

(b) determined by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection,

only after the scheme actuary has certified that the steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.

(7C) Treasury directions under subsection (7B) may specify—

(a) the costs or changes in costs that are to be taken into account, or

(b) the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used,

for the purposes of determining whether any steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.

(7D) In subsection (7B) “the scheme actuary”, in relation to a scheme under section 1, means the actuary who carried out, or is for the time being exercising actuarial functions in relation to, the valuation under section 11 by reference to which it has been determined that the costs of the scheme have gone, or may go, beyond either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a).”

(10) Section 12 of PSPA(NI) 2014 (employer cost cap) is amended in accordance with subsections (11) to (19).

(11) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.”

(12) For subsection (2) substitute—

“(2) A reference in this section to “the employer cost cap” of a scheme under section 1 is a reference to the rate set by virtue of subsection (1) in relation to the scheme.”

(13) In subsection (3)—

(a) after “cap” insert “of a scheme under section 1”;

(b) after “set” insert “, and the changes in the cost of such a scheme are to be measured,”.

(14) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme ”;

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) for “subsequent valuations” insert “the second or any subsequent valuation”;

(ii) for “the cap” substitute “the employer cost cap of the scheme”;

(c) in paragraph (c)—

(i) for “the extent to which” substitute “whether and if so to what extent”;

(ii) for “of this section” substitute “mentioned in paragraph (b)”;

(d) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) that the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) are to relate, to any extent, to—

(i) the growth in the economy, or any sector of the economy, of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom,

(ii) the growth in earnings of any group of persons over any period, or

(iii) the rate of inflation (however measured) over any period.”

(15) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The power to give directions by virtue of subsection (4)(d) is not affected by any statement made before 27 May 2021 by the Department of Finance, or any other department, relating to the data, methodologies and assumptions that are, or are not, to be used for the purposes mentioned in subsection (4)(b).”

(16) In subsection (5)(a), for “(and any connected scheme)” substitute “(determined, if and so far as provided for by virtue of subsection (4)(c), taking into account the costs of any connected scheme)”.

(17) In subsection (6), in the opening words—

(a) for “the scheme” substitute “a scheme under section 1”;

(b) for “the margins” substitute “either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a)”.

(18) After subsection (7) insert—

“(7A) Directions given by the Department of Finance may specify the time at which any increase or decrease of members’ benefits or contributions that is provided for under subsection (6) is to take effect.

(7B) Directions given by the Department of Finance may require that provision contained in scheme regulations under subsection (6) permits steps to be—

(a) agreed by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or

(b) determined by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection,

only after the scheme actuary has certified that the steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.

(7C) Directions under subsection (7B) may specify—

(a) the costs or changes in costs that are to be taken into account, or

(b) the data, methodologies and assumptions that are to be used,

for the purposes of determining whether any steps would, if taken, achieve the target cost for the scheme.

(7D) In subsection (7B) “the scheme actuary”, in relation to a scheme under section 1, means the actuary who carried out, or is for the time being exercising actuarial functions in relation to, the valuation under section 11 by reference to which it has been determined that the costs of the scheme have gone, or may go, beyond either of the margins specified under subsection (5)(a).”

(19) In subsections (3), (4), (5), (8), (9) and (10) omit “and Personnel”.”.—(Mr Clarke.)

This new clause reproduces, with technical changes, the effect of subsections (2), (3), (6) and (7) of clause 86 as it currently stands in the Bill. It also adds provision for the changes to the operation of the cost cap regime that are to be introduced for the 2020 and subsequent valuations - in particular the economic check and the reformed scheme only design.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Operation of employer cost cap in relation to 2016/17 valuation

“(1) The requirement in provision made under section 12(5)(a) of PSPA 2013 that the cost of a section 1 scheme must remain within a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to the cost of the scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation.

(2) Accordingly, provision made under section 12(6) of that Act does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to a case in which the cost of a section 1 scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation goes beyond a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) and this subsection—

(a) “section 1 scheme” means a scheme under section 1 of PSPA 2013;

(b) “the employer cost cap”, in relation to a section 1 scheme, has the same meaning as in section 12 of PSPA 2013;

(c) a reference to a section 1 scheme’s “2016/17 valuation” is to the scheme’s valuation under section 11 of PSPA 2013 the effective date of which is a date in 2016 or 2017.

(4) The requirement in provision made under section 12(5)(a) of PSPA(NI) 2014 that the cost of a section 1 scheme must remain within a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to the cost of the scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation.

(5) Accordingly, provision made under section 12(6) of that Act does not apply, and is treated as never having applied, in relation to a case in which the cost of a section 1 scheme that is calculated by reference to the scheme’s 2016/17 valuation goes beyond a margin above the employer cost cap of the scheme.

(6) In subsections (4) and (5) and this subsection—

(a) “section 1 scheme” means a scheme under section 1 of PSPA(NI) 2014;

(b) “the employer cost cap”, in relation to a section 1 scheme, has the same meaning as in section 12 of PSPA(NI) 2014;

(c) a reference to a section 1 scheme’s “2016/17 valuation” is to the scheme’s valuation under section 11 of PSPA(NI) 2014 the effective date of which is a date in 2016 or 2017.

(7) The actuarial valuation with an effective date of 31 March 2016 that was signed on 18 December 2018 under regulation 123 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (S.R. (N.I.) 2014 No. 188) is of no effect.”— (Mr Clarke.)

This new clause reproduces, with technical changes, the effect of subsections (4), (8) and (9) of clause 86 as it currently stands in the Bill.

Brought up, read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I intend to press new clause 14, which I tabled on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, to a vote. It would require the Government to review how losses arising from the pension trap can be compensated and to report on the review within two months of the passage of this legislation. We are concerned that the Bill does not take into account the so-called pension trap, which means that some members may lose benefits due to a higher retirement age brought in under the new pension schemes. This has come about because police and fire service pensions operate differently from other public sector schemes in that they are based on a 30-year service record rather than a specific retirement age.

The Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union and others have raised fears that individual members could lose out in their pension schemes because of the way that the affected years, between 2015 and 2022, are being treated by the legislation. It cannot be right that pension scheme members in the police and fire service, who have given so much service to the country, will see the overall value of their pensions decline even as they continue to work and to pay contributions, so I ask the Minister whether he will commit the Government to entering discussions with the relevant unions and membership bodies to bring forward a fair solution to the pension trap, as it is called. To demonstrate the Government’s commitment to reviewing the issue and finding a fair solution, he should support the new clause.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause, which would require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within two months of the passing of the Act setting out how the Government could compensate scheme members who had reached the required number of years to retire with full benefits under the legacy scheme but who would need to continue to work if they wished to retire with full benefits under the reformed scheme. The intention of the new clause appears to be to require the Chancellor to devise a way to compensate scheme members with remediable service for any reduction of future pension benefits resulting from the prospective McCloud remedy legislated for in clause 8, and the difference in pension ages between the legacy and reformed schemes.

The Government received representations made by police staff associations regarding members of the 1987 and 2015 police pension schemes who reached 30 years of service in the legacy pension scheme before reaching minimum pension age in the reformed scheme. Lord Davies of Brixton proposed amendments regarding that issue during the Bill’s passage through the other place; however, by referring to full benefits in the reformed pension scheme, the new clause appears to go considerably beyond the police staff associations’ representations and proposals, effectively requiring compensation for those below normal pension age, not minimum pension age, in the reformed scheme.

Under the Bill, all members in active service will be moved into the reformed schemes in respect of service from 1 April this year onward—that is what is known as the prospective remedy—to ensure that all active members are treated equally from that date onward. For the avoidance of doubt, no legacy scheme member will be unable to access the full value of their accrued benefits in their legacy scheme once they reach the required age or length of service. The vast majority of scheme members will be able to access their benefits in reformed schemes at this point, with a fair actuarial reduction for taking scheme benefits below their normal pension age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

There is obviously a serious issue here, on which the Government have had representations. Can the Minister assure the Committee that discussions will continue between trade unions and other associations and the Government to try to fix this problem?

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asks his question. We always want to discuss these issues as fully as possible with a view to finding viable options where they exist. As I said, the Home Office has consulted on detailed regulations to implement the prospective McCloud remedy for the police pension scheme, and it will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course.

The Government must not take action that inadvertently creates a new form of the very discrimination that this legislation is designed to address. The Government must also safeguard the purpose of the reforms proposed by Lord Hutton and ensure that public service pension schemes are put on a sustainable fiscal footing. As the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission put it,

“Allowing current members to continue to accrue further benefits in the present schemes for many decades would be unfair and inequitable to the new members coming behind them.”

The reformed public service pension schemes remain among the most generous schemes available in the United Kingdom. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ most recent assessment, 6.3 million public sector workers participate in these valuable schemes, while only 0.7 million workers in the private sector have access to defined-benefit schemes that are open to new members.

I am concerned that the new clause ultimately seeks to oblige the Chancellor to devise measures that would contradict these crucial aims of the prospective McCloud remedy. Compensating members with remediable service for the difference in pension age between their legacy and reformed schemes would, effectively, leave a protected class of public service pension scheme members beyond 31 March 2022, which could perpetuate the discrimination identified by the courts, or give rise to new discrimination. It would also severely weaken the efficacy of the prospective remedy for many years to come, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.

To summarise, I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for bringing attention to this issue, and reassure her that the Government have been considering the position of these members. However, careful consideration must be given to the need to avoid perpetuating the discrimination identified by the courts, or introducing new discrimination against other pension scheme members, or inadvertently undoing much of the policy aims of this Bill, and this new clause asks the Chancellor to propose a means of doing just that. I therefore, respectfully, ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister started off by suggesting his main concern was that the new clause seeks to go further than has been requested by the Police Superintendents Association. If that was the case, then the Minister could have easily tabled an amendment that came closer, in his view, to delivering what the PSA was asking for without going significantly further. He has not done that, so we have to wonder if he had any intention of addressing the issue had the new clause not been tabled.

We are asking the Chancellor to table a report and present it to Parliament. There is nothing in the new clause that would require the Chancellor to commit a single penny of additional spending. It does not tell the Chancellor what his or her conclusions have to be at the end of that. It is perfectly in line with the wording of the new clause for the Chancellor to produce a report to say, “We could remedy the situation by doing a, b, c, x, y and z, but I cannot recommend doing that because that would introduce unfair discrimination that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act.”

The Minister is trying to make it seem as if the new clause is about forcing the Government to incur additional expenditure. My reading of it is that it is deliberately worded to avoid asking for a commitment at this stage, but it seeks to force the Government to recognise that there might still be a massive weakness in the Bill and to force the Chancellor to come forward with a solution that might address that weakness. If the solution proves to be unworkable or to be unfair in other ways, Parliament has the option to reject it.

Surely, it is wrong, at this stage, that a potentially serious unfairness should be left sitting in the Bill just because we are not sure we can find a way of fixing it. That is not a fair response to give, either to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who moved the new clause, or to those officers who are likely to be affected by it.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to echo the points made by my friend the hon. Member for Glenrothes. The new clause calls for a review to consider the issues further. In responding, can the Minister say what steps he will be taking to resolve those outstanding issues and through what form the discussions will take place?

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Members for their comments and questions. I entirely echo what the hon. Member for Reading East said about the debt we owe to our police and fire services. Collectively, they are perform enormous public service and we are all in their debt.

We have concerns about the wording of the new clause, particularly where it says that a loss “could be compensated,” implying that compensation should be paid. We are concerned that that creates an expectation on Government.

The Home Office, as the responsible Department, is leading a genuine consultation process about the police pensions services. It will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course. To address the issue at this point would fall outside my remit and the remit of this Bill.

[Tulip Siddiq]

First, I want to say that my new clause is supported by the Police Superintendents Association. I checked it with the association before I tabled it.

I listened to what the Minister had to say, but the new clause does not really propose a solution, which is the Government’s job. We were pushing for a review of the issue, which we know is important to the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation and the Fire Brigades Union. I am disappointed that the Minister does not seem to recognise what a concern the pension trap is to those organisations. I wish to push the new clause to a vote, Sir Graham.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank you, Sir Graham, the Clerks and the officials for all their work on the Bill, and colleagues throughout the House and in the other place for their contributions. I repeat what I said at the outset about the debt I owe to my team for the hard work that has gone into the Bill, which I really do appreciate. It is very impressive.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the Bill’s underlying intent—that public servants should be provided with high-quality pensions on a fair and equal basis—is shared throughout the House. I listened closely to Members’ comments today and am grateful for them. I hope I have provided reassurance where it was sought and that we can continue to work together on the Bill. I look forward to further consideration on Report.