Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Exactly, but I think it is across the piece. Whether or not we agreed with the last negotiations, or whether they were imposed or signed up to, at least some people felt there was some security for the future. People are becoming demoralised, which is why it is important that we insert in the Bill provisions for full consultation and agreement with organisations representing employees and for full openness and transparency. That is why new clause 3, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, is critical. As has been said, at least in the private sector there is full display and transparency in what people sign up to, but there is no display or transparency in the public sector, particularly now that the Government have given themselves these powers.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the comments about the police pension scheme, I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands the wish of the Scottish Police Federation that police pensions be controlled independently in Scotland. For England and Wales, however, does he feel that in future Governments should act more morally in relation to the terms of agreements that were made years before and under which police officers expect to retire, while also understanding, of course, that in Scotland they want clear of the system?

[John McDonnell]

I can fully understand the feelings of police officers in Scotland, as I can those of officers across England and Wales. People now just want safety and security in their pensions, which are theirs—they have paid for them and contributed to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench, they are nothing more than deferred wages.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. What concerns me is that the Henry VIII powers in clause 3 are retrospective. This is another reason why the valuation process is so critical: if there is not full openness, transparency and consultation, in particular with employee representatives, the Government could in future use the valuation process to withdraw some of the benefits of the scheme or increase the contributions retrospectively. People can sign up to a scheme and pay into it for 20 years, but then be told that the benefits are different—although I think that will be tested in law, because I believe that legally we are talking about accrued rights that are protected under European legislation. The Government do not accept that argument, but it is a critical point. That is why I have tabled my amendments. The Government underestimate the anxiety and fears out there—particularly among trade unions, but also in other organisations—which arise from the lack of confidence in the future management of the schemes in the best interests of employees and members.

Let me turn to my amendments 7 and 8. The Government’s reform was meant to change the nature of the schemes, so that they would be based on career averages, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench. However, that is for a defined benefit scheme, not a defined contribution scheme, yet the Government have not committed themselves to that in the legislation. That is why I have tabled amendments 7 and 8, so that where a scheme is rearranged or staff are transferred into a new scheme, they must be defined benefit schemes, because that is what was promised in the negotiations with the trade unions. It is argued that we are binding future Governments, but all legislation is meant to bind future Governments, and any future Government could revisit this matter. At the same time, we need to try to give at least some security and ensure that the promises given by the present Government are adhered to. That is not much to ask, and it is all my amendments are designed to do.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on the issue: insecurity for future pensioners. That, combined with ever-growing inequality in our society and the economic multipliers that we might see operating, means that people who are now living quite comfortably might be facing penury in their old age, due to the root insecurity at the base of this Bill, which he is doing a good job of exposing.

[John McDonnell]

In part, this is linked to other reforms that the Government are introducing—my hon. Friend the shadow Minister touched on this. Where changes have been made to the delivery of public services—some of this relates to outsourcing, reorganising government or delivering direct services through new Government agencies or public bodies—people understood that there would be a commitment from the Government that they would be transferred into the same scheme they are in now, which would be a defined benefit scheme. That is not in this Bill, which is why I have tabled my amendments.

The amendments put the onus on whatever bodies are established—non-departmental public bodies or whatever—to ensure that they offer a defined benefit scheme. If they do not, they are breaking the commitment that the Government gave. In addition, it will create a disincentive. When staff transfer, they transfer into the new scheme that will be established. Many people now in a defined benefit scheme—whatever its nature, whether final or average salary, although we are moving towards average salary—fear that if at some stage they move, they will be offered only a defined contribution scheme. That is why I want more certainty in the legislation. The amendments propose that whatever happens in the future, whatever restructuring the Government bring in and whatever new schemes are established, the Government will adhere to their promise that there must be a defined benefit scheme. I do not want to be cataclysmic about this, but if that does not happen, the legislation could undermine the whole provision of public service pensions. People could start to withdraw from the schemes because they did not have the certainty that they thought they had when they entered them.

The amendments might seem relatively minor, but they are absolutely key. If we do not bring the employees with us, if we do not consult their representatives, if we do not involve them in the valuation process and if we do not stand by the guarantee of a defined benefit scheme that they have been given, we will break down people’s confidence in the public sector pensions system overall, and we will certainly break down their confidence in this Government’s ability to adhere to their promises. This is not the 25-year guarantee of no further reform that we were given from the Dispatch Box only a matter of weeks ago.

Fuel Prices

Debate between John McDonnell and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a great point, and a serious one, about rural places in mainland Scotland. Places such as Argyll, Caithness, Sutherland and Lochaber, which I must not forget as I worked there, would benefit from the extension and increase of the derogation.

It is interesting that, as the motion states, other countries, from the United States of America to Austria and Germany, are regulating. Ultimately, we will have to do the same in the United Kingdom before the economy is totally strangled. Whether it is the fault of the companies, the distributors, the speculators or the retailers, we need to get the issue sorted for the good of the economy. Indeed, retailers would be quite pleased to have greater regulation or transparency, especially as they are sometimes tied to long-term contracts with distributors, which makes it difficult for them to shop around and means that the price of fuel cannot be brought down in marginal areas.

Transparency might be the answer, but we must bear it in mind that in some areas and markets prices can go up if the seller is reluctant to give discounts to certain buyers. For that reason, regulation must be taken seriously before the economy is strangled. We cannot leave the foot pressing harder and harder on the jugular in the neck of the economy.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening and then leaving, but I am going to meet a group of people with disabilities. This is not just about fuel in the tank but about meeting people’s heating costs. The heating costs of someone who is elderly or has disabilities are always higher. Now, yet again, many people are having to choose between heating and eating. That is why we need to control these prices.

[Mr MacNeil]

My constituency has the highest rate of fuel poverty in the UK, so I know that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I am grateful for his intervention. People are having to make these choices when they get up on a winter’s day, especially the elderly and vulnerable.

This is a poll tax on jobs and on economic activity. The TaxPayers Alliance has produced work that shows that in many places, of £30 paid at the till, £18 goes in tax. That is in line with my own research. In the case of a litre costing £1.50, 58p is tax and 28p is VAT. A total of 83p was paid in tax, but it will be more, and my constituency has the highest tax per litre in the UK.

We must look at what is happening in the supply chain when fuel goes from the refinery to the distributors and then leaves the depot and arrives at the retail forecourts. The best estimate that I can work out from rumours is that in my area, having left the depots, it is going to retailers at about £1.20 or £1.25 per litre excluding VAT. With VAT, it comes to about £1.50, and the rest is the retailer’s margin, which is usually 5p, 6p or 7p. My figures are approximate but they give an idea of what is going on. I can best ascertain that the pre-tax cost of a litre is about 65p.

The Government have promised to bring in a fuel duty stabiliser, and I encourage them to do so. That is what the Scottish National party called it; they could call it a fair fuel regulator, or whatever. That would control spikes in fuel prices, alleviating uncertainty and helping businesses to plan in an uncertain world.

High fuel prices hit the poorest most, and they hit jobs and families. They hit rural constituencies and island constituencies. We cannot constantly come back to this Chamber with the same complaints year after year, Government after Government. I could not tell the House how many speeches I have made about this, but there have been many over the past seven years. There has been some progress in recent years with the rural fuel derogation, and I am thankful for that, but more has to be done. It is the job of Parliament and of Government to solve the country’s problems. We need regulation and we need to bring in the fair fuel stabiliser for the hard-pressed motorists, workers and families of this country.