Baroness Turner of Camden
Main Page: Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour - Life peer)Superannuation Bill
Baroness Turner of Camden Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment that I have some hope that the Government will feel able to accept. Its subject was specifically raised with us, and I think that it has been discussed with the Government by trade unions.
As was stressed by the Government in the other place, before a superannuation scheme can be introduced there is a requirement that the relevant Minister consult persons appearing to represent those who are likely to be affected by the scheme. That requirement is contained in Section 1(3)—and, in relation to employees of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, Section 1(3A)—of the 1972 Act. The amendment is designed to clarify the purpose of such consultation—namely, that the consultation should be with a view to reaching agreement with those affected. In that regard it does no more than import into Section 1 of the 1972 Act the same requirement that the Government seek, through Amendment 2, to import into their proposed new clause on consultation.
We will come to a more substantive debate around this issue shortly in the context of the proposal to fetter the existing requirement for agreement in circumstances where compensation schemes are to be changed in an adverse way. We are clearly of the view, which the Government have also expressed, that the introduction and amendment of superannuation arrangements are best achieved and most sustainable in circumstances where they have been accomplished by a proper process of collective bargaining and one which leads to agreement.
Emphasising that consultation should lead to agreement should not therefore be contentious, and I hope will command full support. However, at the start of our Committee, I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to give us the government view, in so far as he is able, on the extent to which agreement has been reached on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, what if any residual discussions are proceeding and how he sees such matters heading to a conclusion. I am particularly interested in what he sees as the immediate steps which will follow from this Bill becoming law. Obviously I would not want him to stray into matters which could be prejudicial to an outcome agreed by all—I am sure that he would not—but in the mean time I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I had not seen this amendment when I drafted my own amendments to the Bill. Of course I prefer it to the current wording because it at least provides that there has to be an agreement before the Superannuation Act 1972 is amended. However, as will be seen from my amendments, I approached the matter from a different angle. I was aware that the unions that have been mainly involved had not been in favour of Clause 1 at all; they said that it was introduced by the Minister on Report in the Commons to amend the requirement of the 1972 Act that any changes be agreed with the unions. Without that requirement, the Government could simply impose redundancy terms on civil servants under Clause 1 without any collective bargaining agreement at all. That seemed wrong, and I approached the Bill from the standpoint that what has to be done is not necessarily to maintain in full the Superannuation Act 1972 and its terms but to ensure that whatever happens does so only after full consultation and agreement—in other words, after the appropriate collective bargaining has taken place.
It is clear that a number of civil servants covered by the legislation and the previous agreement are very concerned about their future. Like many of us, I have received a number of letters from individual civil servants who believe that they are facing widespread redundancy in a situation where they believed that they had at least stable, if not always well paid, employment. They are concerned that, in the places where they operate, they will not find it easy to find alternative employment. That is not surprising because, some considerable time ago, the Government of the day decided to locate their offices in various parts of the country away from the south-east—notably in Newcastle. With redundancy now facing many people, those civil servants are concerned that they are in an area where no alternative employment is readily available. For that reason, they have become very worried about what will now happen in the event of redundancy.
For those reasons, I am not at all happy about Clause 1 and have indicated my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I will then proceed with my other amendments, the idea of which is to ensure that there is proper consultation and negotiation with the appropriate unions before any action can be taken that changes the terms and conditions on which civil servants were employed.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I gave notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill because of the information that I received from one of the major unions that opposes the continuance of Clause 1 in the Bill. However, I do not want to press the issue at this stage because I listened with interest to what the Minister said and I learnt that the Government still regard negotiation and agreement as a result of negotiation as something desirable. I shall study carefully what he said.
At the same time, I am nevertheless not at all happy about Clause 1, as it sets the scene for a worsening of the terms and conditions under which these people are employed. For me, it is not acceptable that things are to be imposed on people who are currently, according to letters that I have received, very concerned about their future. I am sure that they will continue to be concerned about their future until there has been some movement in regard to negotiation and possible agreement between the parties about their future. I still feel like that about Clause 1, and I may return to the matter on Report if the information that I receive from the unions and from their members suggests that what the Government have said this afternoon still leaves people feeling very worried about their future. However, I shall not press the matter at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, and comment on government Amendments 2, 7, 9 and 16. I thank the Minister for moving Amendment 2 which, as he has explained, seeks to fulfil the commitment made in another place to strengthen the consultation provisions. As he will have gathered from our amendments, we do not think that government Amendment 2 goes quite far enough and hope that he will able to support the thrust of our amendments.
We believe in strong, proactive, responsible trade unions. A successful process of collective bargaining is to be valued and should be at the heart of how changes to arrangements such as the CSCS are given effect. As we discussed earlier, we share common cause in wanting the changes to be agreed by all. Amendment 2, in conjunction with Amendment 9, appears to set down a process for the future, as the noble Lord explained, because the new clause will not come into effect until two months after the entry into force of the Bill. That begs the question how we view the process in relation to the current changes to the scheme.
Leaving that aside for the moment, we consider that, although welcome, the proposed consultation requirements do not go far enough. In particular, we consider that there should be a role for Parliament in satisfying itself that due process has been undertaken. At this stage, we are not seeking to be unduly prescriptive of that approval process, so our amendment is a probing amendment. Having very much nailed our colours to the mast of collective bargaining, we do not see this as a way of second-guessing or overriding an agreement that has been reached.
If we are to move away from adverse changes to compensation arrangements requiring agreement, then, especially when agreement is not forthcoming, I suggest that the appropriate Minister should be held to account. It is also reasonable that the information contained in the report to Parliament is not necessarily determined just by what that Minister considers appropriate, but by what is relevant.
The passage of the Bill has been an opportunity for the Minister to update Parliament from time to time, and I am grateful that he was able to do that again at the start of our proceedings. However, such a requirement is not captured comprehensively in the form envisaged by government Amendment 2—whether or not strengthened by our amendment—so why defer the introduction of this reporting requirement until after the introduction of the currently planned changes to the scheme? Is there really any reason why a report, as envisaged by government Amendment 2, could not be laid before Parliament immediately on the coming into force of the Bill, as the noble Lord has said?
We recognise that there have been genuine and detailed negotiations. To simply collect that process and report it as the noble Lord’s amendment requires does not seem unduly burdensome. Presumably, were there to be any delay to the order of the laying of the scheme that drifted beyond two months, that would have to happen in any event because this amendment’s effect would be in place.
If he is keen on our amendment about a government process or approval by Parliament, the noble Lord may say that that process could delay the implementation of the scheme. Simply in terms of the Government’s own amendment, however, why is it impossible to have the same process for the scheme which now looks as if it will make progress as for that which the Minister envisages for the future?
Baroness Turner of Camden
I support both opposition amendments. When I first read the text of government amendment 2, I thought that I really could not accept an amendment that states,
“such information as the Minister considers appropriate”.
I do not think that that is satisfactory wording to have in an arrangement by which a Minister is bound to report to Parliament. It should not be up to him to decide what information is appropriate to report to Parliament. I do not think that that is acceptable. Therefore, I support these two amendments, which are reasonable in relation to the text of the government amendment. However, as I said earlier, I have some doubts about the Government’s attitude on these matters anyway.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, could give a precedent for a consultation report being required to be both laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament. It seems to me that this is a novel procedure that the noble Lord is suggesting. I am not sure that he has made a case for a novel procedure in this Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5 and also to speak to Amendment 6. The amendments are all part of my position that I outlined when I said that I want to ensure that proper negotiations and agreement take place before any change is made to the redundancy and superannuation terms that we are discussing.
As I indicated before, there is a great deal of concern among the individual civil servants who have written to me, because they expect that, whether they like it or not, a number of them will face compulsory redundancy in a very short space of time. We know that the proposed new offer, which is now incorporated in the Bill in Clause 2(2), is not acceptable to the union or to the numerous individuals who have written in. The union points to:
“The absence of any form of underpin to allow people to earn more than 21 months, or transitional provisions or reserved rights to protect accrued rights”.
The union is very keen to ensure that accrued rights are protected and it points out that there is no attempt to do that in any provision in the Bill.
For that reason, it seems sensible to write into the Bill the requirement that any modifications—the union does not say that there should be no modifications, and it is willing to discuss alterations to the existing terms—should be introduced only,
“following consultation with, and the agreement of, the relevant trade unions”.
Reference has been made to comparisons with the private sector. When I was a union official, I had the job of negotiating for members in the private sector as well, so I think that it depends on what part of the private sector you look at. Some people in the private sector are reasonably well paid and have agreements that cover redundancy—it is not unknown for that to happen, particularly where there is an element of organisation among the employees.
In any event, the Bill deals with public sector employees, who have in many instances for years believed that they would have stable employment. In many instances, those people are not terribly well paid and might be less well paid than people in the private sector with similar qualifications or similar work, but they have nevertheless been prepared to work for the public sector for a number of years—some of those who have written to me have worked in the public sector for more than 30 years. Therefore, they feel that they are entitled to the conditions that were negotiated on their behalf, which they always thought that they could always look forward to in the unlikely event that they were made redundant.
It has to be understood that many of the people affected never previously contemplated the idea of redundancy or unemployment, because they believed that their employment was relatively stable. However, that has not turned out to be the case. Many of them realise that they now face closure of some offices, which means compulsory redundancy whether they like it or not. Therefore, we need to ensure that reasonable terms are maintained.
We will probably be told that the terms that were originally negotiated were far too generous and that the taxpayer should not be expected to have to shoulder such a burden. As a taxpayer myself, I have to say that a taxpayer is also an employer of the people who work for us in the public sector. As an employer, I want to ensure that the people who work for us are reasonably well paid and that the agreements negotiated on their behalf are kept as much as they possibly can be. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My noble friend has, as ever, made a passionate and powerful case for ensuring that people are treated fairly, particularly in relation to compensation when she brought up pension rights. The amendments are an alternative means of achieving something that we have further amendments for later on. They are essentially seeking to get rid of the caps. We obviously support that.
In a sense, this approach is predicated on Clause 1 not standing part of the Bill, which it did. It is now more difficult for these to fit together, but the concept of getting rid of the caps is something that I thoroughly support.
The amendment raises the difficult issue of the extent to which there must be agreement. Again, we are at one in recognising that there must be a proper process. There must be a consultation and every effort made to end up with a negotiated settlement. My right honourable friend in the other place, Tessa Jowell, made clear that we accept that there would be circumstances in which changes would have to be made that did not rely upon agreement. We do not do so lightly, and nor, I am sure, does the Minister. To that extent, we may differ a little on my noble friend’s amendment, but we have some other amendments constructed to achieve, in large measure, the same thing: to get rid of those caps and the right to revive them at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There are, however, a substantial number of low-paid civil servants. I am rather surprised at the number of them earning less than £21,000, most of them working outside London. One of the Inland Revenue computer centres is half a mile from Saltaire, and I am well familiar with average rates of pay in the northern part of Bradford. The reason why the scheme is set to be biased in favour of those earning less than £23,000 is that there are a very large number of them. There are a small number of extremely well paid civil servants; the changes in the compensation scheme are also to limit the payouts to which they might be entitled.
The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, seem designed to remove the substance of the Bill. To rehearse briefly, the intention behind the Bill is to bring to a close two years of negotiation by successive Governments with the trade unions, to change a compensation scheme designed nearly 40 years ago, which does not fit current conditions or circumstances.
Amendment 5 would, in practice, go further than the requirement in Section 2(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972, which, as I have explained, we have already needed to amend. First, under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act, it is for the Minister to judge who should be consulted—
“persons appearing to the Minister … to represent persons likely to be affected by the proposed scheme”,
or with those persons themselves. However, rather than requiring the agreement of those who have been consulted on this basis, Amendment 5 would prescribe that consultation must take place with “the relevant trade unions” and, indeed, that these unions must agree.
We have already explained the efforts that successive Administrations of all parties have made, and which some of the trade unions have made, to reach such agreement. We are setting out in primary legislation and have reiterated in both Houses our commitment to meaningful consultation but, as I have described, our intention in adding Clause 1 was to remove any union veto on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. I cannot imagine that any of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that, after more than two years of consultation, the Government's view on this is resistant to change.
The second respect in which the noble Baroness's Amendment 5 would go further than the approach set out in the 1972 Act is that it would apply to any changes proposed to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, not just to those changes that would have the effect of reducing benefits. This would create a new bureaucratic process, in which any change to the compensation scheme including, to pick a trivial example, a minor amendment to its title would require consultation and agreement from all the Civil Service unions. Amendment 6, which is grouped with this, seeks to remove from the Bill the main provisions covering the potential caps on the value of benefits provided under the compensation scheme. This guts the Bill.
The Government are determined that there is a fallback position that can be used and that, bearing in mind the lessons of the previous Administration's scheme, we are not left unable to progress due to some sort of unforeseen legal challenge to the details of the new scheme. We are therefore providing in Clause 2 to have in reserve the possibility of applying caps on the maximum value of redundancy payments under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme: a maximum of 12 months' pay for compulsory departures and 15 months' pay for voluntary departures. Putting these limits in primary legislation leads to greater legal certainty and democratic accountability and, as I have already remarked, the Government can, by negative order, raise the level of the caps, but cannot lower them. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Baroness and that on that basis she will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has been very interesting. I still have concerns about the Bill and about provisions within it. However, I will study very carefully what the Minister said and the assurances that he has given this afternoon to see what should be done before Report. I do not think that it is useful in present circumstances to have comparisons between the private sector and public sector. A government report has recently been issued that appears to indicate that if you take the total rewards of employment in both sectors, the private sector still exceeds in total the public sector. If you take all the rewards, not just money, but also what is available in superannuation and so on, the private sector is still rather better than the public sector, but that is another issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I hope noble Lords will agree to me moving this amendment as it is not tabled in my name. My noble friend Lord Brett is speaking in the Chamber, and it was not possible to add my name to the amendment yesterday.
This amendment raises the issue of the Government's level of commitment to reskilling and redeployment options for civil servants. During the Committee stage in the other place, oral evidence was taken from the director of the Civil Service workforce in the Cabinet Office. I would like to ask the Minister a bit later about the role of this director, the section or department for which that director is responsible and the extent to which that section or department has been or will be affected by the reduction in posts in the Civil Service.
Evidence was taken in Committee in the other place on how reductions in posts had been dealt with up to now. The representative of the First Division Association said that the workforce had been reduced by more than 80,000, with 20,000 jobs relocated out of London in the past five years, and that this had been done without having to resort to more than about 80 compulsory, as opposed to voluntary, redundancies. He described it as “a wonderful success story”. The director of the Civil Service workforce confirmed that the vast majority of civil servants whose roles had been lost due to reorganisation in the pipeline were nonetheless “gainfully employed” elsewhere in the Civil Service.
In 2008, a protocol was agreed between the Cabinet Office and Civil Service unions for handling surplus staff situations and, most importantly, avoiding compulsory redundancies. It looks as though this protocol has been pretty effective. The question is whether it will continue to be so if we are about to be faced with a much larger and much faster reduction in the workforce than has taken place before. One assumes that while some will be not unhappy to take voluntary redundancy, others will take it because they can see compulsory redundancy just around the corner, and the terms for leaving under voluntary redundancy are more favourable than those for leaving under compulsory redundancy. In all but name, it would be compulsory voluntary redundancy.
However, for many people whose jobs are going to be eliminated, redundancy is not an option they wish to contemplate. For example, they may have a commitment to public service, or their financial and family commitments may mean that a regular income at current levels is crucial, or they may suspect that the prospects of finding suitable alternative employment elsewhere are slim in the current climate. It would be helpful for the Minister to say what the Government intend to do to redeploy and, where necessary, retrain those staff who do not wish to take voluntary redundancy. I understand that if a negotiated agreement is reached, the Government, as part of that agreement, will reaffirm the principles of the relevant protocols, including the protocol for handling surplus staff, and consider how they can be further enhanced to avoid compulsory redundancies.
Just how determined are the Government to avoid compulsory redundancy? The agreed 2008 protocols state that they,
“provide a corporate approach across the Civil Service and relevant NDPBs that will help to ensure that best endeavours are used to avoid recourse to compulsory redundancies for those who want to continue their Civil Service careers”.
I assume that this Government accept that agreement.
Can the Minister therefore explain what using “best endeavours” to avoid recourse to compulsory redundancies for those who want to continue their Civil Service careers means in a situation where job losses are taking place on a much larger scale than previously? What is the maximum number of compulsory redundancies that the Government would regard as acceptable, and within the terms and the spirit of the agreed protocols, bearing in mind the figure for compulsory redundancies given in Committee in the other place?
How long will be allowed for finding an alternative job in the Civil Service for someone displaced, and any necessary retraining given, before the Government decide that redundancy will occur despite the wish of the individual to continue their Civil Service career? How much time and money are the Government prepared to invest in retraining and redeploying individuals whose current job is eliminated and who wish to continue their Civil Service careers?
The 2008 protocols make reference to the role of the Cabinet Office, for which 11 key functions are listed in respect of the protocol for handling surplus staff situations. The first is to establish and maintain commitment to the corporate protocols and ensure that good practice is shared. Another is to work with departments and regional co-ordinators to ensure that all HR contacts have access to information on departmental surpluses and vacancies, nationally and within a regional context. Yet another is to develop appropriate policies that will help in avoiding compulsory redundancies. It is obvious from just those three out of a total of 11 key functions of the Cabinet Office that its role is both crucial and extensive right across government in ensuring that the protocol for handling surplus staff situations is applied in a co-ordinated manner, consistently, thoroughly and fairly and as part of the culture of the organisation.
I referred earlier to the director of the Civil Service workforce in the Cabinet Office who had given oral evidence on the Bill in the other place. Is this the director who is responsible for the Cabinet Office role in relation to the 2008 protocols, including the protocol for handling surplus staff? If not, which director is? Can the Minister indicate how many staff there are in the Cabinet Office engaged in carrying out that office’s responsibilities in relation to the 2008 protocols, including the protocol for handling surplus staff, and whether that number of staff is to be reduced as part of the job cuts in the Civil Service, or increased? If so, increased to what number? The workload will surely increase as a result of the job cuts elsewhere in the Civil Service. Could the Minister provide an estimate of the extent to which the Government consider that the workload in the Cabinet Office section dealing with the implementation of the 2008 protocols will increase as a result of the imminent significant job cuts?
Will the Minister give an assurance that the Cabinet Office will have the necessary staff to carry out its laid-down role in full in respect of the 2008 protocols, including the protocol for handling surplus staff? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the HR functions in the different departments will also be properly staffed to carry out the 21 responsibilities listed in the protocol under the heading, “Role of Departments with surplus people”, bearing in mind that the workload in this area will presumably increase as a result of the job cuts? How many staff do the Government estimate that there will be seeking redeployment and retraining? In particular, how many is that expected to be in the current financial year and the next two financial years, compared with the two previous financial years?
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the specific questions I have raised. I hope that the answers that the Minister gives will provide the reassurance being sought that the Government are committed to redeployment and retraining for civil servants, by showing that the necessary human and financial resources will be provided to ensure that the words of the protocol about providing a corporate approach across the Civil Service and relevant NDPBs to ensure that best endeavours are used to avoid recourse to compulsory redundancies for those who want to continue their Civil Service careers will be honoured in full by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I support the amendment, which is admirable in every respect. At times of economic recession, the last thing one wants to do is to add to the numbers of unemployed. The unemployed not only pay no taxes, they draw benefits from the state. Therefore, unemployment is also more and more costly at a time of economic recession; it has to be avoided above all things. Anyone who has done, as I have, a great deal of negotiation on behalf of employees knows that when you are faced with a possible redundancy, the first thing you try to do is to negotiate an agreement with the employer. It is designed to ensure that the people do not become redundant and unemployed, but that they have the opportunity to retrain, are reskilled and are able to remain part of the productive workforce. That is what the amendment is all about. It is entirely admirable and I hope very much that we have a satisfactory response from the Minister.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, this is clearly a justified probing amendment, but would not suitable to be in the Act. In any event, it will be overtaken by events rather soon, but I would wish to hear from the Minister as much as he is able to say. If it is necessary to postpone a full answer today because these issues have not been fully resolved, I hope that before the next stage of the Bill the Government will be in a position to give indication about redeployment and reskilling.