My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his comprehensive speech introducing these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for putting her name to the amendments in my name.
There are two issues raised in Amendment 15 to which I would like briefly to add my voice. These are the realities of the current situation which various police forces have raised with us. As I understand it, proposed new paragraph (b) in Amendment 15 refers to members who were given a commitment that they could retain access to the legacy scheme until their retirement but are facing difficulties because their retirement is based on years of service, not a retirement age. What is particularly concerning is the reported risk that the changes will be disproportionately impactful on female officers, who are more likely either to have worked, or to be currently working, on a part-time basis. That permission has been granted for a judicial review on this issue is testament to the complexities which sit alongside this Bill and which still have to be navigated. The amendment would not alter anything in the Government’s plans but would require this situation to be considered as one type of compensatable loss. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue.
Proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 15 makes reference to what has been introduced to me as the “pensions trap”—as referred to by my noble friend—in which an officer who makes financial decisions based on one pension will find their contributions from the alternative scheme reduced as a consequence. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue. As my noble friend says, it has gained a great deal of traction in the press.
4.45 pm
As a whole, this group deals with compensation. There is no disagreement that compensation will be necessary as part of the remedy. Examples of compensatable losses incurred by members are included in the Bill. The amendments in my name, kindly co-signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, are intended to probe further on how such a compensation scheme as provided for by Clause 84 would operate.
Amendment 27 would require, rather than simply allow, the Treasury to make provision for a compensation scheme. Can the Minister foresee a situation in which the Treasury would decide that no scheme should be operable to consider the losses by members?
Amendment 28 probes whether there will be a right of appeal for a member who receives a decision from the body established to administer the scheme. Is the Minister able to provide any further detail to the Committee on how the intended scheme will operate for a member who is interacting with it?
Amendment 29 probes the intended membership of the administrating body. It would require the body to be run by an independent chair and to include members recommended by a relevant scheme’s advisory board. This suggestion seeks to secure a level of independence from both the scheme managers and the Treasury and to ensure that the body includes expertise on the impact of the discrimination on scheme members. Is the Minister able to provide more information to the Committee on what membership is planned for the administering body?
Amendments 30 and 31 deal, once more, with oversight and consultation. Since Clause 84 provides for substantive details of the compensation scheme to be made in regulations, Amendment 30 would require the Government to consult representatives of the impacted scheme members ahead of making those regulations, and Amendment 31 would provide that these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative.
Finally, Amendment 20 touches on the same issues. It would amend Clause 24 to provide that before giving Treasury directions under that section the Government must first consult groups who will be affected by the directions and related regulations. In its report on public service pensions in June this year, the Public Accounts Committee referred to the McCloud judgment as:
“The Treasury’s £17 billion mistake”.
It went on to say that this was:
“A mistake which could have been avoided by listening to advice”.
The concern that Amendments 20, 30 and 31 are all pointing out goes back to the role of the Bill as enabling legislation. The Bill establishes a wide range of regulation-making powers to allow schemes to take actions to support the discrimination remedy. Significant details are then to be written in at a later stage through not only regulations but Treasury directions. While regulations are the appropriate vehicle for much of the detail, the question is a simple one: how do we action the legislation to allow the remedy to be established while also allowing oversight and proper engagement on the next steps which are to come? How do we ensure that this time the Treasury is “listening”, as the Public Accounts Committee puts it? The Police Superintendents’ Association has raised particular concerns about how its members will be consulted on the finer details of the provisions that are made through Treasury directions. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what commitment he can give to ongoing consultation with members, including on provisions made through directions rather than legislation, and what long-term provisions there will be for oversight of the Bill and the regulations made under it, particularly on such key issues as compensation arrangements.