Public Service Pensions Bill

Baroness Harris of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, Amendment 15 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova. I am most grateful to them for adding their names to my amendment. I, too, apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading when I might have raised these particular concerns, which I am very grateful to the Ministry of Defence Police Federation for drawing to my attention. As I have only just started to speak on this matter, I declare an interest as a former member and chair of a police authority and a current member of the Independent Police Commission, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington.

As we have heard, the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, recommended that the normal pension age for members of public service pension schemes should be the same as their state pension age, which means that those on the scheme should retire at 65, rising eventually to 67 or 68. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, it was also recognised that those who were in the uniformed services—the Home Office police, fire and rescue service personnel and, of course, the Armed Forces—should have a retirement age of 60, but that this would be kept under regular review. The Government were happy to accept this recommendation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, reminded us, for some unaccountable reason, the Ministry of Defence Police are not treated in the same way as Home Office police as they are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

I contend that it is reasonable to say that someone on that scheme would be fairly limited to doing mainly desk work, unless, of course, they are James Bond. However, that is most definitely not the case with members of the Ministry of Defence Police. The reason the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, felt that the age for uniformed service personnel should be 60 in future was to recognise the unique and physically demanding nature of the work that they do. However, because the MDP were lumped in with the Civil Service pension scheme—the reason for which I have never really understood—they were never considered separately in his proposals. Indeed, the MDP were not even consulted on this when the Council of Civil Service Unions negotiated the age increase for all other civil servants. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, eloquently laid out, it seems wholly unfair on a number of grounds that they should be treated differently from colleagues who do very much the same sort of work: namely, Home Office police, fire and rescue personnel and our Armed Forces. The Ministry of Defence Police have a pay structure linked to that of Home Office police forces, so why are they to be treated differently in pension terms?

As we have heard, all MDP personnel are required to be armed. They have to wear heavy body armour and equipment which weighs more than four and a half stones and is removed only when they have meal breaks. This means that in a 12-hour shift, they carry that amount of weight around for 11 hours. This can be even more physically demanding than general policing. Unlike Home Office police forces, MDP officers have no option for to move to unarmed work, should they no longer be able to cope with the physical demands of the job. They either have to retire early, as there is little scope to offer easier work assignments, or they could be dismissed on grounds of inefficiency. That is not much of a state thank you after serving in such high-profile roles.

It is a fact that the MDP’s main role is that of counterterrorism. It is easy to see that their officers, who are routinely armed, are exposed to danger every bit as much as their Home Office colleagues. Indeed, MDP officers continue to serve in Afghanistan and other overseas theatres in support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as protecting sites of critical national infrastructure. Did noble Lords know that our Home Office police are not expected routinely to carry guns beyond the age of 55? I certainly did not know that; perhaps I should have done. Therefore, it seems to me even more urgent that this anomaly in pension age provision is hastily cleared up.

The national state pension age is already due to rise to 67 and could well go to 70 and beyond in the future. There is provision, I understand, for negotiation for the normal pension age for MDP officers to be reduced by three years, but I submit that this could still leave a situation whereby officers in their late 60s are expected to carry firearms and their associated equipment weighing four and a half stones. As I say, at the moment, the Government have the power to vary the retirement age from the state pension age by only three years. Therefore, the older these officers are allowed, or expected, to retire, the greater the health and safety issues will become. I urge your Lordships to consider that dilemma.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I would also like consideration to be given to similar arguments relating to the Defence Fire and Rescue Service, where operational firefighters are to be asked to work until they are around 68, whizzing up ladders, rushing about putting out fires and wearing breathing apparatus. As we have heard, they can also be deployed to war zones. Their concerns also urgently need to be addressed.

If this amendment is accepted, it would not reduce the normal pension age for MDP officers to 60 but would allow the Defence Police Federation to continue to negotiate on behalf of its members. I feel that that is a right and proper thing to do. A review of terms of service is being undertaken and the Government will have the power to make a separate decision on the MDP retirement age, if they choose to do so. My amendment simply asks for time to allow those negotiations to continue. Even if my noble friend cannot accept my amendment, I ask him at least to agree to his officials meeting the Defence Police Federation to explore this matter further. However, I hope, of course, that he will accept the amendment.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, these amendments seek to add members of the Ministry of Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence Police to the categories of “fire and rescue workers” and “members of a police force” set out in the Bill.

I would like to begin by setting out the current situation before responding to the proposals for change. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, members of these forces are civil servants who currently, and historically, have access to the Civil Service pension scheme. This scheme currently has a pension age of 65. The principle of working beyond 60 for the MoD fire and police services is already established and has existed for a number of years, while the retirement age for the police and fire services has been well below 60.

Secondly, we should remember that the Civil Service scheme is an extremely good pension scheme with benefits which are far beyond the aspirations of many in the private sector. The scheme has provisions in place to ensure that any individuals who face ill health can be provided with their pension early. Alongside this there is, of course, the option for individuals to retire before their retirement age on an actuarially reduced pension. The value of the Civil Service pension scheme is shown in the fact that DFRS and MDP staffing levels remain good and that individuals in this force have already taken employment on the basis of the package of terms and conditions currently in force. The Government do not believe that there are significant recruitment and retention issues associated with the continued use of the Civil Service pension scheme.

Thirdly, it is worth remembering that the employment status of those working in the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the MoD Police is very different from those working for fire or police authorities. Members of the DFRS and the MDP are direct employees of the Secretary of State for Defence and their remuneration package is managed in a different way. The kind of changes that are suggested by the amendments would make most sense only as part of a fundamental restructuring of not only the terms and conditions of these forces but their roles and responsibilities and they way in which they are managed. They are currently part of a single scheme that is administered at a national level. There would be significant logistical and administrative difficulties in moving them to be part of a locally administered scheme. The Government do not believe that such a restructuring is a way forward.

Having said that, I should point out that, within the new Civil Service scheme, the flexibility will exist for the impact of the later retirement age to be mitigated for certain groups, should this be felt to be justified. This could, for example, be through fully funded early retirement or more generous early retirement factors.

As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, these issues were not discussed substantively in another place and the amendments have gone down only in very recent days. However, I can give an assurance that the Government will give these matters extremely careful consideration between now and Report. We are very happy to meet members of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Defence Fire and Rescue Service if they would like to do that. I will be in a position to give a more considered response to movers of the amendments and to the House as a whole on or before Report. I therefore urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendment today.