Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall the context of that meeting. In a framework in which the Government had no role in the negotiating procedure, in the middle of the night the parties appeared to be on the point of reaching an agreement that would have allowed a 16 per cent. pay increase, with no link to modernisation and no way of ensuring that savings would be made to help to meet the costs. No responsible Government could face that prospect, which was at considerable variance with what had previously been envisaged, without offering guidance about the affordability of such a package and the fact that the Government could not be expected to stump up the cash to pay for that deal. That was why the Government had to respond. It is precisely to avoid such an eventuality that, in accordance with the clear principles set out in the Bain report, which envisaged the Government starting the process by laying down the policy framework, we are now legislating to allow for an orderly offer of guidance to inform the negotiating process.
Mr. Hammond: I wanted to intervene on the Minister, but then I realised that he was intervening on me. Now that I have resumed the Floor, I can ask him whether he rules out the use of guidance under the clause during a negotiation. Does he limit the guidance to be given under the clause to advance, broad-framework guidance?
Mr. Raynsford: Of course not, because in circumstances such as those that occurred in November 2002 guidance is clearly necessary. As I have already stressed, our objective is to set the framework for negotiations with guidance from the Secretary of State on the broad parameters that the parties will need to consider in negotiations over public sector pay policy and affordability. That is much more orderly, and that is what we are providing for.
Mr. Hammond: I thought that I heard the Minister say earlier that if he could set out guidance in advance there would be no need for the middle-of-the-night guidance that he was forced to provide before. We are making little headway and we will once again have to trust the goodwill or judgment of whoever occupies the office of Deputy Prime Minister when the next negotiations or problems arise. I hoped for something more concrete, but I will not delay the Committee any further as we have progress to make.
Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): Hear, hear.
Column Number: 308
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his encouragement. We have not had a contribution from him today—most unusual and most disappointing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: I want to probe the Minister on one issue, for which there may be an explanation. The scope of subsection (3) extends to not only a negotiating body established under clause 31, but any other body appearing to the Secretary of State to have been established in accordance with appropriate arrangements. If we are dealing with a third-party body, which is not established by the Secretary of State and therefore not constrained by clause 31, how are we to enforce the requirement on that body to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State?
Mr. Raynsford: That is simply the consequence of the chosen way of proceeding that I have already explained to the Committee. The Government want to encourage a voluntary agreement, in which case, as long as we were satisfied that the arrangements meet the conditions of subsection (3), the body would be treated in the same way as a body constituted by the Secretary of State. We will use the provisions of clause 31 to constitute separate arrangements only where those arrangements do not arise. Guidance has to allow for either circumstance, which is the reason for the wording in subsection (3).
Mr. Hammond: If a body constituted by the Secretary of State that has to have regard to guidance failed to do so, he could deal with it because he constituted it. If a body that he has not constituted failed in his view to have regard to his guidance, what would he do? Would he have to use the powers in clause 31 to derecognise it and create a new body?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Secretary of State can pull certain levers, including financial support to the fire and rescue service that is provided overwhelmingly by the Government. They would be applied if there were a serious disregard for guidance, leading, for example, to a highly inflationary pay settlement. However there is no explicit provision for taking action if a negotiating party or body does not have regard to the Secretary of State's advice.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he is confirming that there is not a sense in which action could be taken against the body for breach of its obligation, but there is an obligation placed on the body, which
''must have regard to any guidance''.
If I were a negotiating body established not by any statutory process but by a discussion that I had had informally with other parties, and the Secretary of State chose to recognise me as being an acceptable negotiating body—that is something that he would do unilaterally—I would object to the requirement that I had to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of
Column Number: 309
State merely because he had unilaterally decided that he wished to recognise me.
If the Minister is telling the Committee that the Secretary of State will use his considerable financial leverage, one is bound to ask why we need the clause at all. He has such leverage and, as we saw, used it in the course of the last dispute.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman recognises that that is the current framework, but it is very messy. The whole purpose of these arrangements is to put in place a more orderly system to ensure that the kind of difficulties that occurred during the dispute of 2002–03 are not repeated. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.
Mr. Hammond: Of course, I would welcome avoiding the kind of unnecessary and messy dispute that took place. [Interruption.] The Minister says, ''Mmm.'' Perhaps he should have thought of that in the spring and early summer of 2002. We have an answer to the question of how guidance would be enforced against a body other than one constituted under clause 31: there is no formal process, and it would be done by informal means. That perfectly adequate answer tells me what I wanted to know. I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Richard Younger-Ross: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I wonder whether in consideration of the next set of amendments you might allow a stand part debate on the clause. Given the time, there will be no debate on some of the broader issues, and they will be lost.
The Chairman: We will just have to see how we go. Clause 33
Pensions etc
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in
clause 33, page 15, line 8, leave out subsection (1)(b).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 166.
Amendment No. 116, in
clause 33, page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (2)(b).
Amendment No. 117, in
clause 33, page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (2)(f).
Amendment No. 118, in
clause 33, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (2)(g).
Amendment No. 119, in
clause 33, page 15, line 41, after 'made', insert 'and accepted'.
Government amendment No. 167.
Mr. Hammond: Pensions are a major issue for the fire and rescue services. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wishes to intervene, I will happily take his intervention.
Column Number: 310
Richard Younger-Ross: If pensions are such an important issue, why has the hon. Gentleman filibustered all afternoon, leaving us only 17 minutes to discuss them?
Mr. Hammond: 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.
4.45 pm
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
Column Number: 311
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
Column Number: 312
''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.
|