Clause 33 - Pensions etc
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he wants to be very careful about the language that he uses. No one has filibustered. If anyone had attempted to, Mr. O'Hara, you would certainly have dealt with them with your customary firm hand. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the timetable, I suggest that he address himself to the Government Whip, not to Opposition Members. There are two more sittings of this Committee. Most of the remaining clauses are entirely uncontentious, and the amendments are almost exclusively probing or minor amendments. I cannot see that there will be any difficulty in reaching the end of the Bill in the total time available to us. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the knife that has been inserted at 5 pm tonight, he must take that up with the Government.
Turning to the question in hand, pensions are a major issue and all fire and rescue services are concerned about the way in which the pension system operates. The Minister has circulated a helpful memorandum on the subject, but I believe that even he would acknowledge that we are not much further forward at present. It is clear that there must be changes to the pension system. The Bill provides a framework to enable that, but my reading of the memorandum is that beyond the broad principles, or aspirations, we are not very far forward in producing the mechanisms that will be deployed to address the problem.
I note, however, that it is intended that firefighters will continue to be dealt with separately from control room and other non-uniformed staff in respect of pensions and pay negotiations. Does the Under-Secretary believe that to some extent that undermines the sensible attempt that the Bill makes to get fire safety and prevention work and community fire education work on a level footing with intervention, as a core part of the fire and rescue service's responsibilities?
As I think everyone concedes, in future firefighters will have to stay in a fire authority's employment for longer. They will not be able to retire at 55, because the world has changed; this is no longer a world in which we can afford to have people retiring at 55. However, it is likely that an increasing number of firefighters will want, at the end of their working lives, to do a period of service in duties other than front-line firefighting. That seems sensible, but we will have to address the issue that pay negotiating arrangements and pension schemes will be different. It is vital to ensure that retained firefighters also have access to the pension scheme. I am pleased that the Government specifically acknowledge that in the memorandum.
Again it falls to me to second-guess the reasoning behind Government amendments Nos. 166 and 167, but first I want to apologise to the Committee for the style of our amendments. I am a great opponent of the lazy opposition school of amending, in which ''leave
out subsection (x)'' is the preferred form. However, in this case, because subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (l), the best way to raise specific issues is to propose leaving out a paragraph so that the Under-Secretary can explain why it needs to be there.
Amendment No. 115 was tabled with the aim of asking two questions. First, why is there a lack of symmetry between subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b)? Paragraph (a) clearly refers to people who have been employed, but paragraph (b) does not refer to people who have died. The Government have now addressed that issue by tabling amendment No. 166, which, using the past tense, refers explicitly to people who have died.
Secondly, why is paragraph (b) necessary at all? Clearly a person who dies, or has died, while employed by a fire and rescue authority or a Scottish fire authority is also, by definition, a person who is or has been employed by that authority. Every person who falls within paragraph (b) will also fall within paragraph (a), so unless I am missing something, paragraph (b) is redundant. I wonder whether there was a particular reason for including it.
Amendment No. 116 would delete subsection (2)(b), which allows employment that is not employment by a fire and rescue authority to be treated as if it were. That is very wide in its scope. The memorandum that the Minister has circulated makes it clear that the subsection deals principally with firefighters who transfer away from operational duties. However, it seems to me that they remain employees of a fire and rescue authority. As I understand it, this subsection is not to deal with firefighters who transfer into non-operational duties with the fire and rescue authority; it can only be to deal with issues relating to firefighters who have ceased to be employed by the fire and rescue authority, because the overarching definition is, as I understand it, ''employee of a fire and rescue authority''. So, I would like the Under-Secretary to tell me what employment he has in mind in subsection (2)(b), which provides for
''treating employment that is not employment by a fire and rescue authority''
as such employment.
Amendment Nos. 117 and 118 seek to leave out subsections (2)(f) and (2)(g) respectively. Those paragraphs give the Secretary of State powers to step into the shoes of a fire and rescue authority and to receive or make payments on behalf of the authority or in respect of a person's past employment. Many authorities would be delighted if the Secretary of State decided to step into their shoes and take over their pension obligations. I strongly suspect that he has no intention of doing so on a general basis. So, before too many bottles of champagne are broken out in authorities throughout the country, perhaps the Under-Secretary could explain the intended purpose and scope of the provisions.
Amendment No. 119 deals with subsection (2)(k) and a specific point that I hope will not be contentious. The paragraph provides for the exclusion or modification of
''rights to compensation or damages in respect of injuries, in cases where awards are made under the scheme''
that the Secretary of State will put in place to persons
''in respect of the injuries''.
The amendment seeks to make it clear that those must be awards that are made and accepted. I take it that the intention is that this is not a unilateral arrangement whereby the making of an award by the scheme or by the employer, without reference to whether the employee accepts the award, precludes or limits the possibility of seeking rights to compensation or damages. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could confirm that.
I dealt with the Government amendment by referring to it earlier, because it largely addresses the purpose of amendment No. 115. I hope that the Under-Secretary can respond to the other part of its purpose.