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

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

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

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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 ---

[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 ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

Thank you, Sir Graham, for chairing the Committee, and I also thank your co-Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma).

Even though we did not win the votes, we broadly support the Bill. We recognise that the remedy needs to be put in place. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate and I thank Mark and my team, who worked very hard on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported .