Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Friday 3rd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is quite a history to this subject, going back far too many years. Back in 2015, the Government resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000 each. At that stage it was estimated that they might be costing the taxpayer at least £250 million a year. The Government legislated to make provision for that to be changed and for exit payments in excess of £95,000 to be outlawed, but the consultation was much delayed.
In the 2017 Session of Parliament, I introduced a Bill to give a bit of impetus to the Government’s agenda, requiring the necessary regulations to be brought forward. I had previously been told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Government were “delivering our manifesto commitment” to end these big payouts, and that:
“These reforms will ensure fairness and value for money across the public sector”.
In June 2017, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the secondary legislation would be introduced, I was told that the Government were
“currently in the process of drafting the necessary regulations.”
As not much progress seemed to have been made, I asked the question again. On 4 December 2017, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that before laying the necessary regulations,
“we will bring forward a consultation in the first quarter of 2018”.
As you might anticipate, Mr Deputy Speaker, no such consultation was forthcoming, so I then asked another question to find out what was happening. I was told:
“To ensure the successful implementation of these changes, a consultation will be brought forward in the next few months.”
That takes us to May 2018, when I asked a further question. In June that year, the Chief Secretary said that the Government “remains committed” to this policy, and that the regulations would be brought forward. Indeed, they were already being drafted, but were subject to “further iteration”. We then roll forward a few years, unfortunately, because the Government ultimately introduced the regulations in February 2021, but no sooner had they introduced the regulations than they decided that the regulations were inappropriate, so the regulations were revoked. What will happen next? We were told that the Government are still intent on pursuing this policy, but nothing much has happened since.
I received a letter from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 October 2021 saying that he would not be able to support the private Member’s Bill I had tabled in the previous Session, but that
“we are continuing to consider and develop new policy initiatives to manage spending on exit payments, including an additional approvals process, and mechanisms for clawing back exit payments where individuals resume employment in the public sector within a particular time frame.”
What has happened since then? In August 2022, the Government issued a consultation paper, “Public Sector Exit Payments: a new controls process for high exit payments”, with which came some draft guidance. The consultation period was expected to expire on 17 October 2022. Have we received a Government response to that consultation? No, we have not.
This whole policy is still up in the air. With the news that the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, has just resigned, I ask this question, perhaps rhetorically: to what extent was she involved in trying to ensure that this clear Government policy has been frustrated for so many years? In one of my meetings with one of the Chief Secretaries to the Treasury involved in this matter, I said that it seems as though the policy of restricting public sector exit payments is being sabotaged by Treasury officials and other Government officials because they do not support it. This is a good example of where the civil service seems to be out of control. The Government need to regain control of the process, as it is unacceptable that something that was in our 2015 manifesto has still not been implemented.
I am pleased to have the opportunity again today to press the Government to get a grip of the subject, because we are no longer talking about £250 million of public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000. It is now probably getting on for £1 billion, for all I know—we do not have that information. The Government seem to be in denial. They will the end, but they do not seem to will the means. That is why I tabled this Bill, and it now gives the Minister an opportunity to make more promises of good intent and to tell us when these proposals will actually be implemented. Perhaps she can also tell us how much she thinks Sue Gray will be entitled to as her public sector exit payment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has shown his dogged determination in bringing this issue back to the House once again. My constituents feel angry when they see these massive payouts, often to people who reappear elsewhere in the public sector on another six-figure salary. That is why it is right that the Government legislated in 2015, which was a long time ago.
Perhaps unusually, I will highlight the good practice of the BBC, which has put in place a voluntary cap. It is £150,000, though, which is 50% higher than the one set out in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Of course, the BBC did that only because it had paid £450,000 to a director-general who had been in post for only 54 days. I am sure my hon. Friend will share my concern at the figures in the latest annual report that over the past two years, the BBC has paid out £127 million in severance payments, with 430 of those payments in the bracket of £100,000 to £150,000. While part of that is about reducing headcount at the BBC, which is too large and needs to deliver much better value for the taxpayer, that is still a very high level of money.
The Government did bring forward the regulations, which were passed by both Houses back in September 2020, but regrettably, in the face of complaints from the unions and others, they were withdrawn over what counted as exit payment caps. It was quite a long list, including redundancy payments, payments to reduce actuarial reduction, payments under settlement agreements, severance payments, payment in the form of shares and payments on voluntary exits. There is obviously an issue that needs to be tackled. My hon. Friend spoke about the consultation published last August, and I think we would all be keen to hear from the Minister when the Government will be bringing forward measures and responding to that consultation, because it is time we dealt with this issue. We legislated for it back in 2015. It is now eight years on, and my constituents want to see action. They want to see an end to this high level of pay-outs.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for bringing this Bill forward. It is on an incredibly important issue that has been the subject of massive public concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) pointed out, in relation to the BBC and in national Government. It is also of concern in local government. In my area, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority hired a chief executive officer who left after eight months and was given a £169,000 payment package last year. Such sums of money are completely incomprehensible to members of the public who pay the taxes that go to such payments. That one was at an incredibly high level that breaches even the BBC guidelines.
There is a fundamental problem. I have been chief executive of two organisations, and one of the horrible things about running an organisation is that occasionally one needs to get rid of people and make payments to them. The statutory payments are incredibly low, so we tend to give payments above that. If someone is working for a private sector organisation, they have a strong incentive to try not to give out too much money. I always capped my payments at one year’s salary. I resisted ever paying out more than that.
In the public sector, it is not your money; you are giving taxpayers’ money away, and often senior managers may well have a conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not quite refer to it as that, but a lot of senior civil servants will be conscious that they may one day themselves be in a position where they will get a payout, so there is perhaps a personal incentive to make sure that the regime is not capped in any particular way and remains generous.
This is a legitimate issue and an issue of public concern. I had not realised that the payments were so much—they are in the region of £1 billion a year now, and that is fiscally significant. These are not tiny sums of money by national standards. It is frustrating that action has not been taken, when it was in the manifesto eight years ago in 2015. The Government have been repeatedly pushing at it. The consultation that closed last year repeated the point about the £95,000 cap. I should say that with inflation at 10%, that £95,000 is becoming worth less and less, and the cap will bite in at a lower level and more and more people will be affected by it. I would certainly be keen to hear from the Government what they intend to do to finally bring this measure in and implement it. In their consultation, they suggest two different mechanisms for control processes. I would also be keen to hear whether this is just for national Government. It should apply across other parts of the public sector and local government, too. I support the intent of the Bill, and I am keen to hear what the Government have to say.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), has reached Second Reading today, and it does have merit in its endeavour to secure value for money for the taxpayer.
I understand that the Government believe that staff exits and exit payments have an important role to play as regards organisational changes in the public sector, and these exit payments need to be looked at through a rigorous process. After all, it is taxpayers’ money that is paying for such exit payments. I also understand that the Government are seeking to reduce the use of large exit payments in the public sector and are looking to develop guidance on it. There needs to be consistency and accountability about the use of such payments.
I note that the Government consultation closed in October 2022. During the last debate on the subject, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), implied that the consultation would be brought forward. I hope that the Minister today might provide an update on the outcome of the consultation and the Government’s response. I draw attention to the merit of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches fully recognise the importance of achieving the best possible value for our taxpayers. I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill, however, that the Government introduced a public sector exit payment cap in 2020 and it did not work. The cap failed to provide value for the taxpayer, it had numerous unintended consequences, and it adversely affected dedicated, long-serving public servants who earned relatively low salaries, often less than £25,000 a year. Indeed, due to those failings, in March 2021—less than a year after introducing the regulations—the Government were forced to U-turn and revoke the cap.
Let me take each failing in turn. First, far from saving taxpayers money, the cap produced additional costs. Because the regulations treated payments under a settlement agreement, but not employment tribunal awards, as an exit payment, they created a perverse incentive for people to go to tribunal. An employment tribunal is a time-consuming and costly legal process for a public sector employer to go through, and I remind hon. Members that that cost is passed on to the taxpayer.
Secondly, the cap had other unintended consequences—for example, it did not take into account an individual pension contribution, so through no fault of their own, long-serving staff over the age of 55 who were facing redundancy were hit by the regulations. They were obliged to take their pension if they lost their job, so their final exit payment, when combined with their redundancy pay, could easily exceed the £95,000 cap under the regulations.
Finally, when they introduced the cap, the Government initially said that the regulations were designed to prevent large exit payments to so-called public sector fat cats, but in reality the cap hit low-paid workers hardest. Long-serving local government workers, who earned as little as £23,000, were pulled into the cap when their pensions were taken into account.
All that was foreseen by public sector unions, including Unison, Unite, GMB, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, when the cap was first proposed, but Ministers refused to listen. The unions were left with no choice but to take the Government to judicial review, which wasted more time and more taxpayers’ money, before the Government finally admitted that the cap had unintended consequences and should be revoked.
The Labour party will therefore not support the Bill today. I advise the Government to do the same to avoid further embarrassment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her advice, but I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing a Second Reading of the Bill. I thank him and several other hon. Friends for their continued focus on this important issue.
We value our public sector workers and the services they provide, but it is important to take a common-sense approach when considering the terms and conditions that should be on offer in the public sector, and to strike a fair balance between the interests of employees and taxpayers. Such payments must be fair and proportionate, and value for money must be achieved for the taxpayer. That is particularly pertinent at this time, when difficult decisions have had to be taken about the public finances and we look to squeeze more out of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Indeed, one of the Prime Minister’s five pledges is to ensure that our national debt is falling, so that we can secure the future of the public services on which so many rely. That is important because in recent years the Government have been concerned about the overall spending on exit payments, and the number of very large exit payments made to individuals.
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Friday 20th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call Sir Christopher Chope.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I had already finished speaking, and I think the Minister’s predecessor was in the middle of responding.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is entirely my error. I did not have the pleasure of being here for the first part of the debate. I call the Minister.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising this important topic. If I may say so in passing, we did not debate today his thoughts about children’s clothing, but I am very happy to meet him about that on behalf of my Treasury colleagues.
My hon. Friend and indeed I and all my colleagues believe passionately in people keeping more of what they earn. To do that, we need to ensure that Government money is spent as if it is our own. We need to ensure it is always spent prudently and delivers the maximum return possible for ordinary taxpayers. It is also true, and I hope he would join me in recognising, that many of our public sector workers are a source of real pride to this country—from our healthcare workers in the NHS to our armed forces on the front line and those local government officials who do such important work for our local communities. Their services are paid for by the taxpayer, and indeed they are taxpayers themselves, and all of us seek to take a responsible and balanced approach to the conditions offered to public sector workers. We as a Government have sought to do that in every pay round. For the 2023-24 round, we accepted the headline pay recommendations of the independent pay review bodies in full for the armed forces, teachers, prison officers, the police, the judiciary, medical workforces and senior civil servants. For most workforces, accepting these recommendations has resulted in the highest pay uplifts for three decades, providing a fair reward for workers and a fair deal for taxpayers and employers alike.
Exit payments, such as for redundancy, are an aspect of this. They help employers to make necessary organisational change, just as regularly happens in the private sector, and they support individuals and uphold employment law as they leave employment. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill for these individual payments. They can be many times larger than average earnings elsewhere in the public sector, and it is absolutely right—I hope to have support for this across the House—that we look at how fair and how proportionate these payments are, particularly at a time when it falls to the Government to make difficult but responsible decisions about the public finances. The Government share his concern about the overall level of spending on exit payments, particularly the number of very large exit payments made to individuals in recent years. That is why we are committed to limiting large exit payments and making provision for the recovery of those payments when that is appropriate.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Can the Minister also give an assurance that large exit payments will never be agreed for public sector workers facing disciplinary proceedings who choose to leave instead of facing those disciplinary proceedings? Can he assure me that no big exit payments will be given in those circumstances?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion of the value of taxpayers’ money, and he makes a very important point. The commitment I can give goes rather more broadly than that, which is that the Government will seek to make sure that any exit payments always offer value for money and that every pound of taxpayers’ money should be well spent. In responding ultimately to the consultation that the Government conducted almost a year ago, I will ensure that the point he raised is fully addressed.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend says that the Government are committed to doing something, but we are now in 2023, and it was in 2015 that the Government first resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of 95k. In the intervening period, the Government have been all over the place, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell me the result of the most recent action, which was a consultation paper in August 2022. The closing date for that was 17 October 2022, more than a year ago. What has happened to that?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the pace with which the Government have been able to proceed. I will write to him, following his important intervention, with the latest on the prognosis for that. I hope he will also recognise that it is not correct to say that the Government have done nothing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is, as we speak, leading an important piece of work about productivity across all public sector spending. All my colleagues in government are endeavouring every day to ensure that every pound of Government money is well spent. My hon. Friend will recall—this is why it is so important to get this right—that past attempts have not always delivered the desired results.
In 2020, the Government laid legislation—notwithstanding his own prolific endeavours on this, I know that my hon. Friend is not in general a big advocate of the Government constantly legislating—but in 2020 the Government legislated to introduce a cap on payments. That was subsequently withdrawn following unintended consequences, and the risk of overriding and conflicting with people’s contractual entitlements. Let me be clear: my hon. Friend is absolutely right in his intention.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Minister says that he will write to me—I always love receiving letters, particularly from him—but the Government have known that this Bill has been on the Order Paper. It was introduced in June last year, and in August last year the Government issued a consultation paper and said, “Everybody must respond to this paper by 17 October 2022”, thereby indicating some sense of urgency. What has happened to the response to that consultation? Surely the Minister can give an answer now, rather than saying that he will write to me later.
Andrew Griffith
As so often is the case, it is sometimes better to be right than to be quick. Given that the Government absolutely understand and share my hon. Friend’s concerns, it is much better that when they bring forward that response to the consultation, we celebrate. I acknowledge today the first anniversary of the closing date for that, and it would indeed be unfortunate for there to be a second anniversary. Notwithstanding that, it is not the case that the Government are not making progress on this matter, and if my hon. Friend really supports the cause that he has so nobly championed over so many years, chronicling the period since 2015 that he talked about, we must do it right. We are dealing with a complex interplay between existing public sector arrangements, consultation with impacted bodies, including the unions, and the potential role of legislation. I said I will write to my hon. Friend. He will have to contain his excitement as to the specifics of my letter, but it will follow in due course.
Sir Christopher Chope
Only “in due course”—it is not being promised for next week, even. Perhaps it will be next year sometime? Will my hon. Friend accept my interpretation of what has happened, which is that we have had eight years since the Government committed to doing this, and the score now is eight to the blob and nil to the ordinary people of this country, who are the taxpayers.
Andrew Griffith
I will not accept that construction, but what I will accept is my hon. Friend’s entreaties that every day it is the duty of this Government—indeed, it is the proud philosophy of this party—to spend taxpayers’ money wisely. There are many, many ways in which we can do that. I have referred to the productivity review by right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Local government has a significant responsibility. Local government was not in scope of that consultation, but separate guidance has been given to local government, and it is the duty of us all to ensure, for example, that the many arm’s length bodies that are so important to the delivery of government in this country are entirely responsible with their pay arrangements. The Government have also separately legislated and taken action to curtail the use of non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements that prevent the transparency of daylight and oxygen intruding into this space, and that is an important measure, too.
To conclude—unless my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch wants to intervene further—this is a very important topic. The Government and my hon. Friend are at one in terms of the destination. I understand that he would like more velocity in reaching that destination. As I say, not only will I write to him, but I am happy to meet him or other colleagues on this important Bill that seeks to achieve the right balance of fairness between those who serve our community in the public sector and protecting the interests of the taxpayer.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
What more can one say? This is just desperate, is it not? I would say it is no joking matter. We have made light of it, and in one sense, perhaps one of the reasons why the blob might respond ultimately is that we are mocking it so much. Up to now, it has been successful in preventing any action being taken on this key policy issue, which is of concern not just to national taxpayers, but to local government council tax payers. There is so much abuse. We reckon the cost to the Exchequer may be as much as £1 billion a year. We hear from the Prime Minister about his commitment to reducing the burden of tax and the debts of this country, but why are we not reducing this area of public expenditure? It is avoidable. We can do it, but nothing is being done and that suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with how this Conservative Government are operating. They are not in control; the blob is in control. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reverse that situation so that the Government once again take back control.
What more can one say today? I will let the House know if and when I receive a response in writing, as promised by my hon. Friend, but I am so lost for words on this that I can only ask that the debate be adjourned. I do not want to put the Bill to a vote.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.