My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I seem fated to address technical and lengthy statutory instruments in front of a packed Committee, with the general public watching on with bated breath.
In representing Her Majesty’s Opposition in these circumstances there seem to me to be two options: the one-hour option and the 100-hour option. The 100-hour option would mean tracing through all six documents and referring to, but not excluding, other laws and regulations made in 1992, 1993, 2004, 2006, 2013 and sundry other modifications. Amazingly enough, I have not chosen the 100-hour option.
The one-hour option, of course, is to look at the Explanatory Memorandum and to see whether it is consistent and relevant, makes sense and so on. I have done that and I am pleased to advise the Committee that, in line with normal tradition, we will not be voting against these regulations when they come forward into the Chamber in a day or two’s time.
However, I felt a need to look behind the regulations. The way I did that was to look at the consultation. I felt that if the regulations were straightforward and fairly sensible and everyone involved with them also said that, then everyone would be happy. I looked into the consultation and it is fair to say that the consultees are content with five out of six of the sets of regulations. I shall therefore speak only to the one where the consultee—the Fire Brigades Union—is not content.
In response to the invitation to consult it provided a letter dated 14 November from Sean Starbuck, its national officer. As I understand it, the union has three areas of concern. The first is that the benefits or value in its 1992 scheme could not be, as it were, crystallised and then imputed into the 2015 scheme. I am sure that there is a series of good pension words to more precisely express what I have said but we are all familiar with the system of pensions where you have a pension in one scheme moved to another scheme with a separate employer; there is then a calculation about the value of your accrued benefit, a calculation about the accrued benefits in the new scheme, money changes hands between the schemes and everyone is happy. As I understand the 2015 scheme, if you had worked in another firm or business, the state or—surprisingly in this case—the military, that is exactly what would happen. There would be a transfer of scheme value from, say, a military pension into the 2015 pension.
However, for firemen that is not possible. For firemen, as I understand it, one scheme ends and its value is deferred—I am sure that I have got the words wrong—until the point at which it is earned, and the service then starts in the 2015 scheme. The Fire Brigades Union took the view that it would be a good thing if that option was available to firefighters. Its view was that this should not be a problem because the very essence of these kinds of transfers is by definition cost-neutral. The money is calculated and moves over.
The union is particularly seized of that because, as I understand it—I confess I have not read the parent legislation—there is envisaged in the 2015 scheme a capability for partial retirement, which I gather everyone thinks is a good idea. That involves drawing some proportion of the pension but continuing to work on a part-time basis. It contends that the provisions that fall out of the various Acts and these regulations would make the partial retirement provision non-viable. Lastly, it contends that that does not honour assurances given by Ministers. It quotes in particular a Written Ministerial Statement of 28 October that states:
“Where firefighters are transferring to the 2015 scheme, they can be reassured that the pension they have built up in their existing schemes will be fully protected, and they can still choose to retire at the age they currently expect (which could be from age 50)”.
The Fire Brigades Union has had no formal direct response to its concerns, which seems to me to be of singular concern. In a sense, the union has had a
partial response through the response in the Explanatory Memorandum. I mean “partial” in two ways: first, the response is incomplete, and, secondly, it affirms rather than proves that there is some cost. As the Minister said, the Opposition have more or less gone along with these regulations consensually because we recognise the financial problems and we are not seeking to burden the Government with more of them. However, the response affirms that it will be costly rather than arguing it through.
5.45 pm
I looked at the regulations. The second paragraph says:
“In accordance with section 21 of that Act”—
that is, the Public Service Pensions Act 2013—
“the Secretary of State has consulted the representatives of such persons as appear to the Secretary of State likely to be affected by these Regulations”.
I contend that the Secretary of State has not consulted. A consultation is a two-way process. However, the FBU, which overwhelmingly obviously is the representative of those workers who are affected, has put forward a proposition but has not been responded to directly. I have had communication with one Andrew Cornelius at the DCLG, and it is clear that there is no intention to communicate with the union directly. He says:
“The Department would not normally respond to individual respondents to a consultation and the usual approach to consultation with the Firefighters’ Pension Committee would be for a more detailed response to be provided at the next meeting of the Committee, through a formal Committee paper”.
The killer line is the next sentence:
“However, the Firefighters’ Pension Committee is being superseded by the introduction of a Scheme Advisory Board and there will not be another formal meeting. We will therefore shortly be issuing the paper providing our response to the consultation to individual members of the former committee”.
If I had been able to see the representation from the Fire Brigades Union and a detailed response to the points that it raised, I would be in a position to judge whether or not the response deserved our support or at least advocacy, but I am not in that position because we have not seen a detailed response from the department.
Obviously, we are not going to oppose these statutory instruments; this is the sort of thing that we do about once a year in really exceptional cases. We accept that the general intent of the orders is sound and we support them, but I am not satisfied with the consultation in this case. I seek from the Minister an assurance that the Fire Brigades Union will receive a full response and that the Members of the Committee present—which, realistically, is myself—will get a copy of it. I do not know how he is going to respond to that request but I remind him that these regulations are to be taken tomorrow in another place and, as he will know, a rather more contentious atmosphere might exist there. I am sure that Members of the Opposition will be taking account of his response today.