| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 79:
- Page 163, line 20, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: We now take two groups of amendments together, which stand in my name and that of other noble Lords. They are Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 85, 86 and 87 and Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 83 and 84. As I shall be speaking to them all, it may be of convenience to the Committee if the Minister responds to them all, unless Members of the Committee have difficulty with that.
By the time a Bill is published and reaches this stage there have been extensive discussions with the industry, including trade unions, on the practical issues which we are largely discussing today. We are not discussing these matters in an ivory tower. So in our briefing we have accounts of the outcome of such discussions between the industry and different groupings, including trades unions and Ministers. We have submissions that some of these understandings are not fully reflected in the Bill. I shall speak to three aspects of Schedule 8 that are dealt with in the various amendments.
I hardly need add that Schedule 8 is the most detailed exposition of the pension arrangements. We have already had some discussions on Clause 8. But there are three core objectives in the minds of workers' representatives and in these amendments, all of which are intended to ensure that the understandings between the unions and Ministers are actually implemented.
First, there is the need for a statutory right to consultation with regard to any actions taken under the Act in respect of pension schemes. Amendment No. 80 to page 163, line 21, and Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 to page 170 would bring this objective into effect. While they clearly do not provide any guarantees in respect of the outcomes of consultation, they do at least provide an assurance to staff and their representatives that the due processes will be followed and that there will always be a route through which concerns can be properly considered.
The second core objective is to try to secure broad comparability of pension schemes. Dangling potential improvements elsewhere in the employment package should not be allowed to compensate for worse pension provision. Amendment No. 82 to page 168, line 23, and Amendment No. 84 to page 169, line 35, seek to ensure true comparability of pensions. They are—and this is a very important point which will emerge more and more in such discussions—consistent both with the Government's fair deal policy and the Local Government Act 2003.
The third core objective is to try to secure protection for transfer of accrued rights. The wording of Amendment No. 78 to page 163, line 18, is the same as that which appears in this context in the Superannuation Act 1972. Amendment No. 81 to page 168, line 19, and Amendment No. 83 to page 169, line 32, also seek to ensure transfer terms. The wording used is the same as that in the fair deal policy. So the amendment seeks to do something which clearly is already government policy, at least in respect of employees who were originally public sector staff.
I know the Minister has differentiated three groups of workers. We may have to return to that point in discussions at a later stage. We are also aware that we are talking about a matter that is outside the scope of TUPE. We have an evolving formula to deal with pensions in these other sets of principles, such as the fair deal policy. It is hard to underestimate the importance, as my noble friend will be aware, to the staff concerned of ensuring that there is some understanding about how these matters are being dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The objectives that my noble friend seeks are already government policy. They are not, by and large reflected in statute, although there are some statutory responsibilities on consultation. For the most part they are the procedures which the Government enter into concerning pension schemes when there is a change of employment for people who are public sector workers.
There is already a significant protection built into statute in relation to current employees who are transferred into the private sector principally to the onsite contractors via the NDA. To put other aspects of both the consultation and the determination of pension entitlements in statute would go significantly further than has ever been the case. It may have been pressed for but it has never been agreed between the public sector and the unions representing the members involved.
In this particular case where we are dealing with the NDA, we are developing an overall stakeholder engagement programme, which will obviously include a significant part of the consultation with employees. That degree of consultation will be laid down in that document, as it generally is in agreements and procedures in all these cases. I do not therefore think that we need to lay down more in terms of the consultation than is already provided for by existing statute and by the normal approach of government to these matters.
The main concern on what was the second group of amendments relates to where we have to transfer into the new licensees—the new contractors on site—and the protection of the terms of those schemes. There is already some significant protection, and we have written that in. The amendments would have the unhelpful effect of defining very clearly how the comparability was to be measured rather than dealing with no less favourable terms. That would mean that there would be a constraint on alternative—but equally or more favourable to the employees—types of schemes being introduced. The policy is clearly to protect the real value of existing employees' pensions. There are well established standards and precedents for doing that which do not need particular statutory reference in order for them to be observed.
On the consultation issue, clearly the NDA would wish to consult with representatives of its own employees and so on, but the terminology could open the door to disputes over who represents potential employees or the employees of the new contractors coming on site. So the NDA has an obligation, which is reflected in its normal procedure and in the framework document, to consult with the representatives of its employees. But the terminology about employees who could be affected by the modification obviously goes wider and could involve other organisations beyond those which would normally negotiate that employer's pensions. That seems to be unhelpful both to the recognised unions and to the employer.
I recognise what my noble friend seeks to do, but it is either unnecessary or could be restrictive in providing an equivalent pensions package. It is not a question of trading pensions against other benefits; we are talking about equivalent, at least favourable, pension packages. There are different ways to ensure that that happens and different actuarial assessments, which may be constrained if we took literally the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend Lady Byford in moving Amendment No. 77F and speaking to Amendments Nos. 77G and 80A, my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in moving this present group of amendments, have made some very important points. One advantage of just sitting and listening while having the experts in one's team moving various amendment, is that it is possible to reflect on them and reach a conclusion.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin referred to the White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action. It states:
Under those circumstances I should like to ask the Minister: when was this changed? Who was told? How has this happened?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: The broad arguments have been well put by earlier contributors to the debate on this and on the previous group of amendments. I should like to add something simply by way of a footnote. Having heard the Minister's response, it does not seem that the Government may have reflected sufficiently on the degree of disquiet and unhappiness that there has been on sites hitherto. Contractorisation has been extended and has led to considerable differences in the terms and conditions of service between the work force engaged on the same job. In many cases that is because it is employed by, on the one hand, contractors and on the other by the authority, or perhaps also BNFL.
I had understood that what was sought was some greater reassurance, particularly in respect to pension rights, that those who were working on a project on a new agency's site would not be afflicted with such problems of comparability or differences in the rights to which they were entitled.
I acknowledge that this may mark out new ground and that there is no precedent for some of the proposals contained in these amendments. But I think that it would be fair to acknowledge that the reason for that is that existing precedents are not entirely happy. There is a case for reconsidering whether there should be comparability and transferability, regardless of whether it is a public sector owner or a private contractor doing the work at any given point in the process.
From the Minister's first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, I infer that the amendment regarding consultation is not necessary because it would be provided for in another way. That seems to be an acceptance of the principle. However, if, as he said—and I noted it—it merely reflected government policy, one must say that government policy has been known to change. It has been known to change whether or not there has been a change of government. I think that it is reasonable to ask the Minister to look again at these matters as in my mind these issues reflect what has been a continuing source of discontent on the
"(a)"
4.45 p.m.
"The Government recognises the key role that current employees play in the safe operation of nuclear sites and is concerned to avoid unnecessary changes to terms and conditions."
The White Paper clearly gives an undertaking to protect the pension rights of all BNFL employees. That most definitely is not reflected in the Bill. My noble friend asked the question: is it divided? The Minister said, "Well, no, certain ones who are not transferred to the NDA will not be covered by these". The White Paper clearly says they will. It is not reflected in the Bill and it certainly has not been reflected in what I have listened to this afternoon.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page