Access to Redress Schemes

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank all hon. Members for a very thoughtful debate this afternoon. I have enjoyed all the contributions, which have raised some very important injustices. I will confine my observations to four issues: Windrush; the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, or the 1950s-born women; Horizon; and the infected blood scandal. Each one has caused hardship. Each one has been scandalous, including in the way that people caught up in these scandals have been treated and been given warm words, but very little action. All involve miscarriages of justice and, because of the delays in redress, we find that many victims are unfortunately no longer with us because they have waited so long. We should take some time to reflect on that during this debate. There are people who have just not seen that justice, not seen that redress and not seen that compensation.

First, let me turn to the WASPI women. We welcome the publication of the long-overdue reports by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which has found failings by the Department for Work and Pensions and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. However, it is staggering that, as the chief executive of that organisation said, the Department for Work and Pensions has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. That is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for any failure to do so. I believe that, if the will of this House is tested on that issue, it will join all of us who believe that the Department for Work and Pensions must acknowledge its failings and urgently deliver a fast and fair compensation scheme for the women affected. Members could of course support the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is trying to force the Government to publish proposals for that compensation scheme for women born in the 1950s.

We also have the Windrush scandal. Just like so many other issues that have been raised by hon. Members today, it is shameful that people have been waiting so long for compensation from the Government and that people have sadly passed away in the meantime. This year marks the fifth anniversary since the launch of the Windrush compensation scheme, yet nearly 1,500 claims from the Windrush scandal are still to be settled by the Home Office. A great grandfather who has helped advise thousands of victims of the Windrush scandal on compensation has said that he fears that the Government are

“waiting for us to die off.”

I hear that phrase all too often when discussing issues such this. There is a real sense from people that they believe that the Government are waiting for the victims to die off. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with 53 people having died while their claims were being processed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay also adds extra heartache, not just because the individual has sadly died, but because then there is usually a legacy case which is passed on in a will, and that then leads to further complications, further delay and further agony for the families involved?

[Chris Stephens]

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perceptive point. When the other place discusses the amendment in relation to infected blood, that is the sort of debate that it is going to have. It is the Government’s intention that the estates will be paid, but what the right hon. Gentleman says will confuse matters. Both the other place and this place will have to think about what that will mean.

The other issue with the Windrush scandal is that the Home Office is in charge of the compensation scheme. An independent body should administer that scheme. The Government tried to do something similar with the infected blood scandal, when they were very resistant to an independent arm’s length body being set up, despite Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It is clear that the Government were nervous about that. The only reason that they tabled their amendment in the other place in relation to an independent compensation scheme in that particular scenario was that the will of the House forced the Government to accept an amendment to set up that independent body. I do hope the Government will consider setting up an independent organisation to administer the Windrush compensation scheme, as that is a far better position to take.

As I have mentioned infected blood, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I welcome in part the amendment that has been tabled in the other place. What is missing from that amendment is a timetable. People are waiting for justice. They need that timetable to know what is going to happen. It is unfortunate that the Government have not built on the amendments that were passed in this place through the Victims and Prisoners Bill. There is, I am afraid, a concern that the Government amendment in the other place is watering that down.

I wish to pay tribute once again to constituents who have been affected by the infected blood scandal, affected by Windrush, and involved in the WASPI women case. The last case that I will mention is the Post Office scandal.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Thursday 11th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. It is also a pleasure to represent the Clyde shipyards and the shipyard workers of Govan in the Westminster Parliament. On Friday morning, I had the opportunity to see the work being carried out on the Type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow, which is being made in Govan. In a few weeks’ time, I look forward to going to the steel-cutting for the second Type 26, HMS Cardiff.

I thank my good friend, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), for securing this debate and for his fantastic work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding and ship repair. I am delighted to serve on that APPG, which reflects the public affection and support for the shipbuilding industry across the UK. That affection and support crosses political boundaries, as we have seen today. Whether someone is a supporter of the Union or independence for Scotland, or indeed of Brexit or remaining in the European Union, right across the range people care deeply about the shipbuilding industry in Scotland and the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Gentleman said—I was delighted that he highlighted it—the export success of the Type 26 frigate shows the world-class design capability in the workforce on the Clyde.

I was not the only visitor to the Govan shipyards on Friday. I was there in the morning, but on Friday afternoon there was another curious visitor to the Clyde shipyards—but I will return to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) shortly. I will first say that I agree with the points made by all those who have spoken so far in paying tribute to the trade union movement. I am clear that were it not for the pressure that the movement has placed on all political parties, we would not have a shipyard industry at all and, indeed, the CSEU—the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which is having its conference today—has written to the two contenders to be the next Prime Minister. It did so because in a couple of weeks—I say this with great affection and respect to the Procurement Minister—he may not be the Procurement Minister; we do not know. There are rumours of shredders in the Departments working overtime in preparation for the new regime. It might even be you, Mr Evans, who is called to become the Defence Procurement Minister.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Scraping the barrel!

[Chris Stephens]

The right hon. Gentleman says that, but I can assure you, Mr Evans, that I could name a lot worse—but I will not.

The CSEU wrote to the two contenders asking them about support for the shipbuilding industry and specifically on the issue of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary fleet support ships. It has yet to receive a response from either contender. It was curious that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip should appear in a shipyard in Scotland but not mention his support or the importance of the shipbuilding industry to the United Kingdom—curious indeed. Not only those who work in the shipyards but the general public are entitled to know what the direction of travel will be under the person with the sunny disposition referred to by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

The public are entitled to know what both of the two individuals contending to become Prime Minister will do for the shipbuilding industry, and in particular whether they believe that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ships should be built in the United Kingdom. As the CSEU clearly stated in the foreword to the all-party parliamentary group report on the importance of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, which other hon. Members have mentioned,

“that work is now coming to an end and the CSEU believes that up to 20,000 skilled jobs in shipyards and 20,000 jobs in supply chains are now at risk. There is an urgent need for work to fill these yards.”

I totally agree with that proposition.

The excuses about fleet support ships not being warships are curious. We might think that they were some sort of cruise liner—that the next time we watched an episode of “The Love Boat”, we would see this fleet support ship that has been built and is somehow not a warship. I understand from parliamentary answers that those ships will take part in, for example, counter-piracy. I have never seen “The Love Boat” involved in counter-piracy, but I know that warships are involved in it. To suggest that ships that are armed with naval guns are not warships is curious.

[Mr Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a ship that is equipped with Phalanx guns is a warship? They are not there to keep the pigeons off the deck.

[Chris Stephens]

That is an excellent analogy, perhaps better than the one I used. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: these are warships. If it looks like a warship and acts like a warship, it is reasonable to assume that it is, in fact, a warship and not a civilian ship.

The criterion should be changed to designate fleet solid support ships as warships. If I understood correctly the answers the Minister gave the right hon. Member for North Durham and others in Monday’s Defence questions, that will be the direction of travel. It is all very well saying that will be the future direction of travel, but it should be the immediate one for those contracts. The GMB trade union has said—a point emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman)—that 6,500 jobs could be created by securing that; £285 million of the estimated cost of the order could be returned to taxpayers—money that would be lost should the order go overseas. That is an important criterion that the Ministry of Defence, and the Treasury, appear to overlook.

After four years in this place I am starting to believe that it is the Treasury that makes the defence decisions, not the Ministry of Defence.

[Chris Stephens]

Apparently the Chair of the Defence Committee agrees. If the Treasury is making those calls, surely it has to take account of the fact that the workers who would build those ships would pay income tax and national insurance that would go back into the Treasury coffers, but that will not happen if the contracts are sent to other places. Unite has estimated that the Treasury would receive 36p in every pound from those defence projects. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister—in the next two weeks, before his elevation—to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to taxpayer value by making sure that the ships are built in the UK. I have other constituency demands, which I have lobbied the Minister about, and I hope he will take my advice on those in the next couple of weeks, too.

There are plenty of examples of other countries—normal-sized nations or larger ones such as the UK—that better plan their sovereign naval defence capability, build their warships and keep their drumbeat going. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife highlighted, and as shown in my exchange with the Chair of the Defence Committee, this issue is important in the context of current Russian activity. The excursions into Scottish waters are increasingly blatant but there are still no Navy surface vessels based in Scotland—they are all based on the southern coast of England. That seems a very curious way of organising defence when there is increased Russian submarine activity.

As others highlighted, promises have been made about the shipbuilding industry. We heard the classic one that there would be 13 Type 26 frigates; the Treasury then interfered and they became eight Type 26 frigates, and then five Type 31 frigates. Despite that announcement more than three years ago, I still do not know exactly where the Type 31 frigate sits within the Royal Navy and what its purpose will be. It may have a general purpose, but where does it fit in? It is just a smaller and cheaper ship, and that seems to be the only reason it exists. That ship was supposed to be exportable—one that would be easier for BAE Systems and others to sell abroad, so perhaps we might think about going back to 13 Type 26 frigates. In relation to the Type 31 frigate, the Minister should look at the benefits of the prosperity agenda across the UK; I hope he will give a commitment to that.

Now, there is the frigate factory. A former Defence Secretary still insists that the frigate factory exists in the Clyde, and has found himself arguing that twice in the House of Commons Chamber. On one occasion, the GMB trade union and a BBC journalist with a television camera went around the site of the proposed frigate factory and found ash. There is an important point here, which is contained in the all-party parliamentary group’s report, and I hope the Chair of the Defence Committee will pick it up: the Ministry of Defence needs to look at giving some support to shipyard investment. It is no use the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence insisting that they want the industry to build more efficiently and save costs if they do not help the industry to invest in its own shipyards. That shipyard investment can ensure that ships are built more efficiently and cheaper.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is about not just Government investment but private sector investment. Companies such as BAE Systems must make that private sector investment if there are long-term future orders for those yards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we do in this country is in stark contrast to the Canadians’ investment in new shipyards at Halifax, and the Australians’ investment in Adelaide?

[Chris Stephens]

I absolutely agree. What Canada and Australia are doing seems light years ahead of what the current UK Government are doing. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, for far too long, the shipbuilding industry has been experiencing feast and famine—a stop-start period in which there is no continuous drumbeat to build. He is right that the Government have to make a continuous commitment, with the private sector, to look at shipyard investment.

The APPG report—the Minister has a copy—lists 10 reasonable and excellent recommendations. As a member of the APPG, I am very proud of the report, which is about ensuring that we have a thriving shipbuilding industry. One of my frustrations when shipyards are shown on television is that there is always a clip from the 1970s, with the welder wearing the welder’s helmet. I have some sympathy for that because I have family members who were welders, but the industry is far more highly skilled than that. The design is far better. I recommend anyone to visit the visualisation suite of BAE Systems—I know the Minister has been there, as have I. It shows the highly skilled way in which warships are built.

I fully support the all-party parliamentary group’s report, and it has been a pleasure, as always, to take part in this debate.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. This is an international market and these skills are very sought after. This comes back to my point that if we want this capability in the UK, we have to nurture and protect it and the only way to do that is by having a throughput of work.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife raised the issue of the Type 26. The delay is adding to that uncertainty. The wider piece really concerns me. To give the impression that we are going to have that drumbeat of work, we have had the Type 31 inserted into the programme. I have studied in detail to try to find out what the Type 31 actually is; no one has been able to tell me yet. It is a bit like the mythical unicorn—everybody thinks it exists, but no one has ever seen one. If the MOD can say that there is a budget line for it, it should please identify that—in the current procurement there is no budget line for it at all in the programme.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Was the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I was, to read in an article in The Daily Telegraph a suggestion from a Ministry of Defence source that there is no budget for Type 31s and that they might not even happen?

[Mr Jones]

As people know, I am a bit of an anorak on this subject and I actually study the MOD accounts, but I still cannot find where this budget line is. Another point that has never been answered is what this ship will actually be used for. I am not sure where it fits into any naval strategy. Will it be able to meet, for example, Britain’s NATO capabilities? Will it have capability to fulfil those roles? If it has not got the air defence capability, it will not. The other thing that people have completely missed is that this is about not just building the ship, but running it afterwards. We all know that there is a crisis in recruitment and manpower in the Royal Navy. Again, where is the budget line for not only building but running this generation of ships?

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife makes a very important point. The Government say that the great thing about the ships is that they are exportable; I am sorry, but we are bit behind the game on this. He rightly identifies at least two other nations that have product out there.

There is another point about strategy. This is about not only skills but the defence of our country, because if we have the gap between the Type 23s going out and the Type 26s coming in, there will also be a gap in the nation’s capability. I understand that there is an ongoing extension programme for some Type 23s, but we need clarity, because if there is a gap, we will not be able to protect the carrier groups or some of our other capabilities.

That leads me to the wider piece about the Government’s strategy in this area. The Prime Minister argues that she is batting for Britain and that Britain is the key market, but we have a situation in which the Ministry of Defence, obviously leant on heavily by the Treasury, is happy to have multimillion-pound contracts with the United States—the Apache and P-8 contracts, to name just two—with no commitment whatever that proportionate workshare will come back to the UK economy. I asked the Minister a written question about the Apaches, and I think Boeing said that 5% of the programme’s value will come back into our supply chain. That point is important not just for the number of jobs, but to keep the capability that we need in this country. I cannot imagine for one minute the United States doing something similar, even before President Trump took office, and things will get even worse now. Exporting highly paid jobs and capability from this country is inexcusable. I do not want to see the same thing happening in shipbuilding, so that we will perhaps just buy ships off the shelf from the United States or anywhere else.

A few weeks ago I asked the Minister in a parliamentary question what she was doing to monitor whether Boeing, for example, would put enough jobs into the economy. She fudged the answer, saying, “We don’t monitor this area.” I am sorry, but that is inexcusable. What really irritates me is that if a British company sold a piece of defence kit to the United States of America, there is no way that we would not have to give guarantees about workshare and jobs in the United States. My fear is that without joined-up thinking on shipbuilding, if we are not careful, a time will come when the Treasury says, “Isn’t it cheaper just to buy these from abroad—from the United States or somewhere else?” We would then lose not only the sovereign capability that is so important to this country, but the skill base and jobs that come with that.

I come to my final point. It is about time that the Ministry of Defence fessed up that it has a huge problem, which is only partly of the MOD’s making, because this is actually a Treasury issue. The National Audit Office report is clear about the procurement budget. The Ministry of Defence is falling into an old habit—as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I know this is easy to do—of just pushing the budget sideways, which is what has happened with the defence budget. However, there are other pressures on the day-to-day in-service budgets. Ships are being laid up, for example, because the cash is not available to run in-service services. In addition, there is a huge black hole—it was highlighted in the NAO report—that the MOD has to deal with. We are not talking about separate money; it will have to find £8 billion over the next 10 years for the defence estate. All that falls within the defence budget, so if does not come out of one place, it will come out of another.

The Government need to be honest about where they are with the equipment budget. The Opposition got lectures from the incoming coalition Government about how frugal they would be, in terms of ensuring that they did not over-commit on defence, but they are clearly doing that now. The shipbuilding strategy needs to be published soon. If we are going to answer yes to the question, “Do we want a sovereign capability for shipbuilding in this country?”, we will have to put the money behind it and ensure that the work is of a nature that allows the industry to develop its skills and retain that capability.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. I also take the view that postal balloting prolongs the length of a dispute because of the time it takes to conduct such a ballot. Electronic balloting allows for greater flexibility and efficiency.

Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we are disappointed that the pilot will not extend to workplace balloting as a secure option, because that would increase democracy in the workplace. The TUC has previously argued that there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace, as has been argued by the Government.

Although the Government have accepted the need to commission an independent review on the use of e-ballots for industrial action, their amendment (a) effectively means that Ministers would only have to publish a response to the review. They would, therefore, not be obligated to introduce a strategy to roll out electronic voting. That is simply unacceptable.

Lords amendment 2 is actually very moderate. The question is whether the Government’s response is good enough or whether it weakens the intent behind the Lords amendment. Having listened carefully to the Minister, we can only conclude that Government amendment (a) does weaken the other place’s intention.

The Government propose to revise the Lords amendment in such a way that Ministers would be required only to publish a response, but they would not need to take any action. That underlines what the Government intend to do after the e-balloting review. They intend to do nothing: there will be no strategy on how to proceed and, therefore, no actual commitment to allowing electronic balloting in the future. That is absurd. If the Government were truly intent on modernising the law, they would allow for electronic balloting and secure workplace balloting. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that. Our view is clear. Electronic balloting will modernise the law, promoting democracy and inclusion.

We have always been clear that the clause on facility time is completely unnecessary and unwanted. Having such a clause in the Bill signals intent: the Government’s intent to interfere with the facility time arrangements—the basic industrial relations arrangements—not only of devolved Administrations but of local authorities across the United Kingdom. As Lord Kerslake put it in the other place,

“The Government are saying that the costs should be transparently known and proportionate to the benefits…However, this is fully secured…through Clause 12. There is no need for the reserve powers contained in Clause 13.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1905.]

He further stated:

“If, however, the public body is a local authority, it has its own democratic mandate and is answerable to its own electorate for the cost. Given the immense financial pressures now on local authorities, do we really think that they are incapable of making this judgment?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1906.]

Although we acknowledge that some amendments have been made by the Government, that is simply not good enough. Any attempt by the UK Government to instruct devolved institutions on how to treat their workers should be robustly resisted. Facility time allows union representatives to spend time in the workplace improving the safety and health of their workers. Representatives also promote training opportunities and negotiate better pay, terms and conditions for employers, among many other roles and responsibilities. Limiting the ability of unions to play such a role in our public sector will have a damaging impact on public sector workers across the United Kingdom.

Trade unions are key social partners, which play an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace. The existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice. In Scotland, the SNP Government have taken a different approach. We have taken a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and believe that trade unions are at the heart of achieving fair work. The UK Government should work with trade unions in a social partnership approach rather than launching yet more attacks against them.

Industrial relations mechanisms should be agreed at a devolved or local level. It beggars belief that the UK Government do not believe that a legislative consent motion is required for a UK Minister to dictate policy in these areas. The detail of much of the Bill is set out in regulations, and there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government to influence such regulations. Today, we need a commitment from the UK Government that the rights of workers across the UK will not be restricted by the imposition of facility time.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked the Minister whether the Health Secretary would

“make regulations that affect facility time in the health services of Scotland and Wales, which are wholly devolved and under the control of Health Ministers in those countries”.

The Minister replied, “Yes,” but stressed that

“health policy and the management of the NHS in those countries will remain…in the control of the Governments” ––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2015; c. 347.]

He was referring to the Governments of the devolved Administrations. I said at the time:

“Having only just debated Evel last week, it seems that the UK Government now want to dictate to devolved administrations”.

On 2 February, the Minister said that the Government would not change the proposals on facility time and check-off provisions in the Bill. However, the infamous letter referred to earlier of 26 January—the letter was leaked by the Socialist Worker newspaper and published widely in other media outlets—contained a number of concessions that the Government proposed to make to the Bill in the House of Lords. Those concessions included giving devolved Administrations the right to maintain facility time and check-off arrangements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed today that devolved Administrations will maintain that control over facility time. The SNP will continue to push to derail any attempt by the UK Government to dictate to Scotland and other devolved Administrations how they should treat their public sector workers.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

First, I declare an interest as a member of the GMB. My wife also works for a trade union.

We often hear the cry from Conservative Members that the turnout in union ballots is not high enough. We have before us a mechanism that would at least assist with that, by getting more people to participate in e-balloting. I have seen some pretty poor excuses for statements, but today’s statement about why we cannot introduce e-balloting for trade union ballots must win the prize for the poorest argument.

This Government pride themselves on wanting to be an e-Government on everything from driving licences to the new universal credit, which can only be accessed online. The Minister said the Government need to be convinced that e-balloting would be secure, but in response to numerous interventions from Labour Members, he did not articulate the reasons why he thought the process was in any way insecure. I would respect his position more if he came up with reasons and said what the problems are. The idea of a review is clearly the classic civil service “kick it into the long grass” approach.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Pension Fund

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come on to say more about the position of the scheme.

The news of the closure of the final salary scheme has come as a terrible shock to long-serving staff, with more than 50% of those affected within 10 years of normal retirement age, leaving little time to readjust. For some, that has meant completely changing retirement plans as they can no longer afford to retire or as key assumptions such as being able to pay off a mortgage are no longer the case. Staff feel betrayed that what was promised to them for years is suddenly being snatched away.

Let us consider the financial position. In the commission’s statement of accounts of March 2014, the key numbers show a surplus of £1.4 million on income of £67 million, with balance sheet reserves up from £4.3 million to £7.2 million and net current assets up from £1.5 million to £2.2 million. The balance sheet shows an improvement in reserves of £2.9 million, due largely to the improvement of £2.6 million in the pension deficit from £8.3 million to £5.7 million. In its 2015 accounts, the position had changed. The balance sheet showed a deficit of £6.1 million, having been in surplus by £6.7 million in March 2014. The reason was a sharp increase in the deficit shown in the pension scheme, a deterioration of £13 million in the year, taking the deficit to £18.6 million. The background is the effect of the recent three-yearly valuation, which reflected a collapse in the forecast interest rates for the pension fund investments.

My first question to the Minister is: what investments resulted in this change from 2014 to 2015? Despite the commission announcing its intention to close the pension scheme in December 2014, formal consultation with the three trade unions representing staff at the commission—PCS, Prospect and Unite—did not start until June 2015. During the consultation period, the trade unions took a reasoned and helpful approach, proposing numerous alternatives in an attempt to find a solution that both recognised the financial position of the commission and mitigated the most detrimental effects on staff. However, the commission rejected all the proposals, remaining resolute on closing the final salary scheme and moving to a defined contribution scheme.

Proposals were numerous and wide reaching and included increasing member contributions to enable the scheme to stay open. The initial proposal put forward by the trade union side, a proposal that directly addressed the commission’s concerns about the pension scheme deficit and about future risk in the scheme, was as follows. First, it proposed a cap on pensionable earnings for future service with effect from 1 April 2016, which would immediately address the pension scheme deficit by enabling a downward revision of the actuarial costs of the scheme. Secondly, it proposed to increase member contributions from 1.5% to 5%, phased in over the next two years. Thirdly, it suggested that the decision on the closure of the scheme should be postponed for three years, linked to a further valuation of the scheme during 2018. That would enable a considered and measured review of the scheme’s funding, taking account of the previous two proposed measures, both of which would have a positive impact on past service deficit and future service costs. These proposals were rejected almost immediately, with no costing done by the commission, leading the trade unions to believe that the consultation was hollow and the commission was intent on closing the final salary scheme regardless.

The final proposal from the trade unions was the option of CWGC UK-based staff transferring to the civil service Alpha pension scheme, as provided for under the Cabinet Office’s new fair deal. We are aware that many scheduled bodies including English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust, the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Imperial War Museum and the British Council have been permitted to join the new civil service pension scheme.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the Adjournment debate tonight and I hear what he says, but what he has just suggested was considered. It was not possible, and if people had been transferred to the civil service scheme, the terms offered to them would have been worse.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has spoken to me about that privately and I have asked questions about it. His comments are surprising because of the aggregate accrual rates in the Alpha scheme. One of the problems is that there has been no discussion of the actuarial variations between the trade unions and those representing the commission in the talks. I hope the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to put that right.

The commission’s response was to assert that CWGC staff are not civil servants, making them ineligible to join the Alpha scheme. However, the Office for National Statistics details the CWGC as part of the MOD accounts, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also lists CWGC staff as civil servants. In fact, the CWGC tends to pick and choose when the civil service hat fits. For example, the 1% pay cap in the public sector is often cited in pay talks as a reason to keep down pay rises.

The trade unions believe that they were never given a satisfactory reason why the CWGC did not apply for admittance as a scheduled body under the Government’s new fair deal policy. Instead of putting forward a case for staff to join Alpha, the commission seemed to decide in advance that they were ineligible to join and then sought confirmation of this from the MOD. The commission’s unwillingness to engage and seek alternatives that would mitigate the financial impact on staff was demonstrated throughout the consultation.

Trade unions repeatedly asked for more information to inform the consultation and aid the consideration of alternatives. However, the commission declined to offer that information, and the trade unions had to conduct much of the consultation without key information. For example, they requested an anonymised breakdown of how the new scheme would financially affect each member of staff, crucial information that would allow unions to see the impact of the proposals and help them put forward alternatives. That request was declined, leaving the unions no option but to ask members to send in their individual statements and to piece them together to form an overall picture.

Staff representatives were denied access to key decision making meetings at which they had requested the opportunity to put forward the case to keep the scheme open. The unions wrote to the commission asking to attend the meeting on 9 December 2015 when the commission put forward its case for closing the scheme to the board of commissioners. The commission wrote back to say that the unions’ attendance would be “inappropriate”.

Despite the trade unions raising numerous concerns and offering reasonable alternatives, the decision to close the final salary scheme appears to have been a fait accompli. The commission made the final decision in December 2015 to go ahead and close the scheme in April 2016. As staff have mentioned, the pension scheme has always been a way of attracting and retaining staff in the commission, and it has featured strongly as part of the overall benefits package that staff have signed up to when joining. To take it away after years of service, when staff are so painfully near retirement, is just unfair. Long-serving staff have put up with great disturbance and sacrifice to their family lives, such as moving to foreign countries. Spouses and partners have often been unable to have careers as a result, and the pension that commission staff accrue should recognise that

Approximately 60% of those affected by the changes are 50 years old or more, so they could be retiring within the next 10 years. Staff within a few years of retirement now have little time to re-adjust their financial planning for retirement, as the alternative Group Pension Plan will not deliver anything like the benefits of the final salary scheme. When changes were made to the civil service pension schemes, protection was given to staff nearing retirement, in recognition of the fact that they would have made financial plans based on the assumption of their existing pension entitlement. That protection has not been offered to staff at the commission.

Closure of the scheme from 1 April 2016 will have a significant detrimental effect on the future pensions of UK-based staff and will cause considerable unrest among employees at a time when they are working hard to further enhance the reputation of the commission with the work on the 1914 to 1918 centenary commemorations. The changes also come at the exact time when workers currently contracted out of the state second pension, as staff in the commission are, will see national insurance contribution increases of 1.4%. From April 2016, staff transferring to the GPP scheme will therefore have the dual disadvantage of paying national insurance increases and pension contribution increases of up to 5% for the new scheme. Closing the final salary pension scheme will create financial difficulty for the commission’s longest-serving, loyal staff, who have sacrificed much for the commission over the years.

The trade unions believe that they have adopted a constructive approach to finding alternatives. However, the commission has refused to make any meaningful changes to its initial position to mitigate the financial impact on staff.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not want to get into a dialogue about this, but I have to say that that is not true. The final scheme was changed, including to help lower-paid staff over the next three years, so changes have been made. I also have to say that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the negotiations, because the trade unions did meet the vice-chair and the secretary-general.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that is a discussion he and I can continue to have.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, has the decision to close the scheme already been made or is it the case that, in the words of the Leader of the House in a letter to me on 24 February 2016:

“The Commission has undertaken a consultation and is now considering in detail the range of responses received but no decision has yet been taken”?

Secondly, what is the current deficit of the scheme, as of today’s date? Lastly, given what I have outlined in relation to industrial and employee relations, does he not agree that we should ensure that talks begin between the commission and the trade unions—hopefully with ministerial involvement—to share information and actuarial evidence properly and to reach a solution that could be agreed by both sides?

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Chris Stephens

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

That is exactly what it is designed to do. This attack is to weaken the rights of trade union members. When it comes to political funds, it should be up to the trade union members to decide. If members have issues about who trade unions are funding, it is up to them to organise themselves and to take up the matter with their trade unions—just as I always do. When my union funds a campaign that I might not necessarily support, I am told, quite rightly, that it should be up to us to organise.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this area is much regulated at the moment? Not only do union members have to vote every 10 years on whether they want a political fund, but individuals also have a right to opt out of a political fund at any time they want. All the accounts of a political fund must be not only validated by the internal accountants but published. How much more transparency can we get?