Public Service Pensions Bill

Stephen McPartland Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman’s true colours have come through in that way. He is clearly not going to support the move to reduce the retirement age to 60. He should, and I will tell him why. The key question was put by Lord Eatwell in the other place, who asked about the different treatment and whether the Government could justify it. He asked:

“In what way is it less onerous, when they”—

that is, the MOD firefighters—

“have to work on military establishments”—

as the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said—

“dealing on occasion with extremely dangerous materials, and occasionally also in war zones? How is their job less onerous?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 568.]

Unfortunately, my noble Friend did not receive a satisfactory answer to the question, so I repeat it now to the Minister: what reason is there for that different treatment? Do not Ministry of Defence police officers have to stay fit, remain physically alert and intervene in events of great physical danger? Do not Ministry of Defence firefighters have to be ready to run the gauntlet, endure the exertions of search and rescue in extreme circumstances, take intense risks, prove their stamina and make sure that they can rise to the most testing of circumstances? The arguments that justify excluding the police and fire and rescue workers from the link between state pension age and normal pension age apply equally to the MOD police and the MOD firefighters. Just because they are a tiny number of workers should not mean that Ministers can just turn a blind eye and ignore the issue. We cannot allow it to be swept under the carpet. There is no reason for the difference, and the Government have no justification for opposing the amendments.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

This is a difficult amendment owing to its emotive nature, with a small number of people feeling almost as though they have been victimised. If the Government reject the amendment, can the hon. Gentleman offer those workers some hope that if Labour formed a Government in 2015, it would do as the Lords amendments say?

[Chris Leslie]

I am amazed that hon. Members who are in government refuse to take responsibility for the offices that they hold and for the decisions that they have in their grasp. I said that it is important to admit that a mistake has been made for these 350-odd MOD firefighters and police. Why on earth cannot Members on the Government Benches say the same? [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to correct me, I shall be delighted to hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I agree entirely, as somebody who is facing his 60th birthday—it comes up like an express train. I was a care worker, and I would hate to think that I would still be caring for people at my age, and in the physical shape that I am in at the moment. I would guess that the people I would be caring for might share that view.

The Minister says that there will be negotiations and discussions, but if there is to be a serious discussion, a job evaluation scheme needs to be put in place to see who a worker should be compared with. So far, the people in question are being compared with other civil servants. Should somebody carrying backpacks and armour be compared with somebody working in an office? Of course not. They should be compared with people who are out there doing a similar job for a different organisation. That would lead to exactly the conclusion that John Hutton has now come to. That is why we should support the Lords amendments and the Minister should have the good grace to accept them. They would get him off the hook.

[Stephen McPartland]

The Lords amendments are great, and I would like to be able to accept them, but I have some concerns about them. Members of all parties are concerned about the emotive nature of the Bill’s effects on a small group of people. I would like to put it on record that I am proud of the public sector. Many members of my family work in it, and they show great commitment to the services in which they work on a day-to-day basis. Some of them risk their lives, and others almost risk their lives teaching very small children—I would much rather address the House than a classroom of 30 primary school children.

The work of Ministry of Defence police and firefighters is incredibly important, and it would be disingenuous of Members to try to identify whether the job of one set of police officers in the Home Office is more dangerous than that of another set in the Ministry of Defence. Some police officers in the Home Office do a great deal of work in difficult circumstances in some of our areas on a Friday and Saturday night, and some have jobs that are predominantly focused around the desk and paperwork. Those jobs are also very important in the attempt to reduce crime and provide police intelligence.

As I said, this is an emotive issue, and the real problem is the knee-jerk reaction that we are seeing on the Floor of the House to the attempt to resolve it. The shadow Minister said honestly that a mistake was made in 2007 that went through by ministerial order. There was no debate in the Chamber on the retirement age of the forces in question being raised from 60 to 65. I understand, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, that some people of a particular size, weight and age would not be the best at resolving the problems we have in some of our towns and cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is fortunate—as are we all—to have been elected by his constituents to make decisions, and what could be simpler than this? Essentially it is about whether all firefighters and police officers, whoever their technical employer, should be able to retire at 60. The hon. Gentleman is flannelling around trying to find reasons not to do that, but in his heart of hearts he thinks they should retire at 60—does he not?

[Stephen McPartland]

I genuinely believe that people should have the opportunity to make that decision and consult the Government and the trade unions. I do not want a broad-brush approach to this matter. It is not that I do not trust the shadow Minister, but he is trying to pull me into a political trap. I am not interested in politics in that sense; I am interested in representing my constituents and I do not want to accept an amendment that could technically make those fire and police officers worse off in the future. I would like to know far more about the details behind the amendment and what accepting it would mean.

The Minister mentioned a figure of around 8% that could be a reduction in net pay. If we accept such an amendment, and the mistake made by the previous Government in 2007 is reversed, I think we should negotiate with trade unions and fire and police officers so that we fully understand what its impact will be on their take-home salary at the end of each month, and how it will affect decisions in their careers and moving forward. I want everybody to have a fair opportunity, and as I have said, I am proud of the public sector and the work it does. Although the amendment seems fair, I do not feel that I can support it because of the broad-brush approach that could lead to MOD police officers and fire service personnel having a worse set of circumstances in a year or two, just so that party political points can be scored. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the amendment, but I urge the Minister to provide us with more detail in his winding-up speech about how he will encourage the MOD to sit down with the unions and ensure that the pension age will not rise above 65, and that any decision on the pension age will be about 65 and downwards.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I wish to make a few brief points in support of Lords amendments 78 and 79, which seem eminently sensible and seek simply to bring the normal pension age for MOD police and defence fire and rescue personnel in line with arrangements for other fire and police personnel who do broadly similar jobs. As others have pointed out, when the amendments were first debated in the other place, Lord Hutton seems to have acknowledged that the omission of MOD police and firefighters from his original considerations was an oversight. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks when he said:

“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

I support the Lords amendments because MOD police and firefighting officers need consistent treatment with other police and firefighters.

Lord Hutton’s conclusion in recommendation 14 of his report was by no means arbitrary. In recommending a normal pension age of 60 for uniformed services personnel, the Hutton report drew on a wide evidence base. It recognised that the nature of the job places intense physical demands on officers and requires them to maintain levels of health and fitness that are not necessary in other day-to-day jobs. That acknowledgment has underpinned the design of terms and conditions for police and firefighters for many years, and remains as pertinent and relevant as it ever was, even if the age at which those personnel will be eligible for retirement has shifted.

It is useful to remember that changing demographics and increases in life expectancy have underpinned the process of pension reform. However, although life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades, the increase in healthy life expectancy has not kept pace. People are living longer, but they are more likely to live with debilitating health conditions or disabilities. I made general observations on that in earlier stages of the Bill, but it is particularly relevant to the uniformed services, because it is imperative that officers are physically capable of meeting the demands of the job. Hutton implicitly acknowledged that when he called for the increase in normal pension age for the uniformed services to be kept under regular review.

We must be realistic about the physical limitations of mere mortals. Hard physical work takes its toll on human bodies. It is clear that people who work in heavier, more demanding jobs suffer more physical strain as they get older. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), I was struck by the briefing ahead of the debate from the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, which set out in some detail not only the physical demands placed on defence fire and rescue personnel, but the risks to officers, which increase with age—they rise exponentially for officers aged 50 and over. We must be realistic about what we ask people to do. We should not do the sums on paper without thinking of the real cost.

We need to be careful when we talk about the monetary cost. The Minister relied on the argument that the measure will cost too much, but we need to be careful if we assume that the higher pension age will save us money. All hon. Members know that staff retiring on health grounds can be an expensive business. It is all the more expensive when the reasons for a person leaving their job are linked to their occupation. That is an extremely expensive way to do things. We need to look at both sides of the balance sheet before we jump to the conclusion that treating MOD police and firefighters differently from other police and firefighters will save us money.

At the end of the day, this comes down to the fact that MOD police and the defence fire and rescue officers are, to all intents and purposes, uniformed service personnel. They need to be fit and strong, and physically and mentally capable of carrying out their duties in an emergency. We need to recognise that and treat them in exactly the same way—as far as possible—as we treat other police and firefighters.

Another important part of the context is that morale in those services has been put under considerable strain in recent times owing to changes to terms and conditions and proposed reductions to services. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who intervened earlier, I have MOD police in my constituency—they look after the St Fergus gas terminal. I am therefore very much aware of the great uncertainty that has overshadowed the service because of MOD reviews. I am also aware that a proposed voluntary early release scheme, for which, I believe, 600 officers applied, has been subject to a rethink. I am glad that the MOD has recognised the folly of rushing in with ill-thought-through cuts, but officers who had applied for early release have been left in a kind of limbo. The service needs to ensure that younger officers come up through the ranks, but the uncertainties of the past few years have undermined morale and the good will of officers, who take substantial risks in their day-to-day working lives, and who we expect to be on the front line during any crisis.

That is why I do not have confidence in the solution set out by the Minister. I know that some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition have accepted it—if I had not seen officers being mucked about by the MOD’s prevarication over the early release scheme, I would have more confidence in the Government’s proposals. However, having witnessed that, and seeing that the issue is still unresolved, I really do not have that confidence. In that context, I would be keen to see the amendments go through as they are, and I urge Liberal Democrats to come through the Lobby and make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents.

--- 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.