Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Baroness Jowell(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Jowell
We ought to take into account the reduction of bodies at the Department of Health, link to that the significant reduction in the number of bodies announced by the Haskins review of Natural England and consider the systematic reduction in the number of other bodies, as well as the fact that some were merged and others increased their functions. However, in March 2010, we announced plans to go further and faster and to reduce the overall number of bodies by a further 123.
Tessa Jowell
I do not necessarily accept that that was the largest reduction. However, devolution was one of the most significant policies introduced—and proudly so—by the Labour Government, and of course previously reserved powers were then devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
A 20% reduction would have saved £500 million from next year. The Minister jibbed at that, but we viewed the process of altering, closing down and merging public bodies as one that should take place systematically over time. Those £500 million of savings would have been realised by next year.
Tessa Jowell
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to make some progress, as there are lots of Back Benchers who want to speak in this debate.
The approach that the Government have taken in this Bill is the opposite of the clear and costed plan that was produced by the last Government. They are abolishing and merging bodies, in some cases without any idea of what their functions are. Again, I hope that a greater understanding of those functions will result from further scrutiny. Even now, more than 10 months after the review of public bodies began, we are still in the dark over what the Government have planned for a number of the bodies in this Bill. A number of consultations have begun, but the Government are not even waiting for the results. Consultation was eventually promised on the regional development agencies, but it has now been withdrawn because it would disrupt the process of disassembling RDAs that is already under way. Today the Secretary of State for Justice has announced a public consultation on all the bodies that affect his Department, but this will report after the Bill has gone through Parliament. Therefore, the Minister here today is effectively asking this House to give its permission fundamentally to change or to abolish those bodies before his colleagues have decided what will be put in their place.
While the Government cut quangos in this Bill, they are adding hundreds of bodies elsewhere. Let us take the national health service. As a result of the Government’s chaotic approach to the NHS, they have tripled the number of statutory bodies in the NHS, which now number 521. There will now be new shadow commissioning groups and authorised commissioning groups, primary care trust clusters, strategic health authority clusters, clinical networks and clinical senates, all of which will be overseen by the NHS commissioning board, which the chief executive of the NHS has described as
“the greatest quango in the sky”.
The question that we now have to ask the Minister is whether, even with the passage of this Bill, he believes that there will be fewer public bodies in 2015 than when he first entered his Department. What is his baseline number and what will be the number of quangos in 2015? I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to speak at the Dispatch Box. Okay, the House will note the absence of an answer to that question. The Government do not even know how much money they are going to save. In an article in The Sun—the Minister’s newspaper of choice for these purposes—in March, he claimed that the Government would save £30 billion in spending on quangos,
“so we can protect jobs and frontline services”.
What he failed to mention was that the majority of those savings were from cuts to the very front-line services that he had pledged to save. Almost £25 billion are from cuts to housing and universities, with almost another £2 billion from our arts, our sports and our museums. Only £2.6 billion of the claimed savings were from actual administration, and even that figure has now come under scrutiny.
In written evidence submitted to the Public Administration Committee, the Minister’s own Department admitted that only £1.6 billion of cumulative administrative savings can be found. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to the House where the other £1 billion of administrative savings are likely to come from. [Interruption.] Again, the Minister appears not to know where the administrative savings will come from, and this is before the Government have even looked at redundancies, which are a major cost of any organisational transformation. The Local Government Chronicle has estimated that the bill for redundancies at the RDAs alone will cost the Government at least £100 million, yet the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has not even estimated how much they will cost in this financial year. Information gathered from parliamentary answers shows that out of all the Departments affected, only two have so far made estimates of the likely costs of redundancies, neither of which is the Department headed by the Minister. The Minister should take this opportunity to admit to the House that he has no idea what the net savings will be from his reform of public bodies, and no idea of the cost of the redundancies. This deeply flawed Bill is part of a deeply flawed, ill -thought-out programme of reform that could well end up costing more money than it is projected to save.
Mr Maude
I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have done before, that these are cumulative administrative savings over the spending review period of £2.6 billion, and that they are net of restructuring costs—[Interruption.] That was made absolutely clear in March, in my response to the Select Committee. The right hon. Lady has lots of suggestions for what should not be done in the Bill; has she any suggestions for what should be done to reform the quango landscape?
Tessa Jowell
Yes, we certainly have. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the programme of reform that was clearly set out by the previous Government, on which I am sure full information is available in his Department. If not, I am happy to provide it for him. It involved £500 million-worth of savings by 2012-13.
Let me now turn to some of the specific bodies listed in the schedules to the Bill. When the Minister began this process of reform, he said that public bodies would be allowed to remain if they fulfilled one of three criteria—namely, if they performed a technical function, if they dealt with issues that required political impartiality or if they needed to act independently to establish facts. I should like to say to the Minister that those are good, rigorous tests of public bodies.
Let us apply those tests to the Agricultural Wages Board. If the Minister believes that we should preserve bodies that perform an important technical function, surely the board should be removed from the Bill, because it sets the pay of 140,000 people in England. That also covers holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. If the board is abolished, fruit pickers and farm workers will see their wages fall. Workers could lose between £150 and £265 a week in sick pay, because that would no longer be guaranteed. School-age children working at weekends or in summer jobs will also lose out. The Farmers Union of Wales has warned that
“unless there are systems in place to protect payments to agricultural workers, the industry will not attract the highly skilled technicians it needs to thrive.”
I hope that the Minister will recognise that Labour is seeking to help him by today launching our “Back the Apple” campaign, which shows our commitment to fairness in the countryside and our backing for the Agricultural Wages Board. It is a precious asset that helps to ensure the decency of fair wages and to enable people working in the countryside get a fair deal.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Baroness Jowell(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
I acknowledge that there is a problem—and it is one caused by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and supported. They left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to apologise for that; that would be timely.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In looking at an increased role for small and medium-sized businesses, will the Minister let the House know when his Department will publish the public services reform White Paper? It was commissioned last October to be published early in the new year. January became February, and the Prime Minister said that it was only two weeks away. Two weeks have become more than two months and there is still no sign of the White Paper. Is that the Government’s biggest pause, or have they just given up on public services?
Mr Maude
I am thrilled that the right hon. Lady is waiting for the document with such obvious excitement, and I can assure her that it will be well worth waiting for. This Government are committed to breaking up the old public sector monopolies and providing diversity, particularly with the growth of public service mutuals. The document will be published later this summer, and I can promise her that she will be delighted with it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Baroness Jowell(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
That will be one of the bank’s priorities. The legislation allowing the money from dormant bank and building society accounts to be put into a social investment bank provides a priority for youth projects. As I say, this will be a serious priority. The bank will be able to provide wholesale funds into the already growing social investment market, for which there is a huge demand. We want to see much more money—including, over time, mainstream finance from the mainstream banks—being made available for this market.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
We welcome the progress the Government have made in setting up the big society bank, and we note that it will be launched with £300 million-worth of capital at the end of this year. However, community projects also rely on revenue funding to support capital investment and according to estimates from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the total loss of revenue faced by civil society organisations will be at least £1.14 billion in the next financial year, rising to £3.1 billion a year by 2014-15. Does the Minister accept these figures and, if not, will he undertake to provide the Government’s own estimates of the revenue losses faced by community organisations over that period?
Mr Maude
The social investment bank planned by the last Government would have received a meagre £75 million of investment at best, and probably a great deal less than that.
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady noted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told the conference of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations yesterday. He said that the Government had “reasonable expectations” that local authorities would not impose greater cuts in their funding for community, social and voluntary organisations than they imposed on their in-house services, and that if authorities did not follow those “reasonable expectations”, he would contemplate making them statutory.
The fact is that we face the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. As a result of the legacy of the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a prominent member, we are spending £4 for every £3 in revenue, and we cannot carry on like that. The necessity—and it is a necessity—to eradicate the structural deficit is something for which the right hon. Lady should bear her full share of responsibility.
Superannuation Bill
Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Baroness Jowell(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
If my hon. Friend will allow me I shall come to that later, because I want to talk in a little more detail about the terms of the scheme that has been brokered by the negotiators for five of the unions.
I repeat that we want a long-term negotiated successor scheme. We want a package of reform that provides genuine protection for lower-paid civil servants, that caps the total amount that can be paid out, that provides protection for those closest to retirement and that reforms the accrual rates. It takes time to negotiate such a scheme and it has been a very intensive process. That is why the caps were put in place in the Bill—as a safeguard to ensure that if agreement could not be reached, we could at least limit the payouts in the short term. I have always been hopeful that we could reach agreement with all six unions by the time the Bill reached Report.
After the intensive negotiations throughout the summer, we reached an impasse. The same five unions that agreed the February deal with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood came together once again and put to me concrete proposals for reform. Sadly, the PCS refused to join them in that approach. That was disappointing, but I made it clear to the PCS that it was welcome back at any stage if it was willing to put forward concrete proposals, and I wrote to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary, to that effect. In the meantime, my officials and I engaged productively with the remaining five unions to attempt to reach agreement. Last week, all five union negotiators, representing Unite, GMB, Prospect, the First Division Association and the Prison Officers Association, agreed terms with us that they were prepared to recommend to their executives. The terms of that agreement represent a reasonable outcome for everyone involved and deliver on our objectives of being fair, affordable and sustainable.
It is worth dwelling a little on the terms of the agreement. We reached agreement on a standard tariff in which each year of service would provide one month’s salary in the event of redundancy. That compares with one week’s salary for every year of service under the statutory redundancy scheme. The tariff would be capped at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and at 21 months for voluntary redundancy. All civil servants being made redundant would be entitled to a three-month notice period. That is in contrast to a cap, in some circumstances, of well over six years’ pay—six and two-thirds years—and paying up to three months’ pay for every year of service, as is the case currently. It contrasts with the current situation of having a six-month notice period for all compulsory redundancies, but no equivalent notice period for voluntary redundancies. The new scheme will be simpler, fairer and more affordable.
We also agreed on significant protection for lower-paid civil servants. Under the terms of the scheme, any civil servant on a full-time equivalent salary of less than £23,000 who was made redundant would be deemed to earn £23,000 when their redundancy payment was calculated. So for someone earning £13,000 in those circumstances, the multiplier by which the number of years would be multiplied to calculate the redundancy payment would be deemed to be £23,000. For the very lowest paid in the civil service, that is significant additional protection and, I have to say, better protection for the lowest paid than the February scheme. I say again that that would be a permanent feature of the scheme, not a transitional feature of it. It would be in place for all time, or for all time until some subsequent Government chose to revisit it.
Conversely, staff earning more than six times the private sector median average earnings, which is around £150,000, would have their salary capped at that figure for the purpose of calculating their redundancy payment. That would be an end to the mega-payouts, which have been highlighted in a national newspaper recently and which cause a certain amount of offence to taxpayers.
We also agreed on protection for staff who have reached the minimum pension age of 50, allowing them to opt for early retirement when they leave, in return for surrendering the appropriate amount of any redundancy payment. Again I stress to the House that under this proposal that will be a permanent feature of the scheme, whereas in the February scheme, which the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood attempted to impose, it was framed as a transitional arrangement that would run out over time.
I believe that that is a fair deal for civil servants and for taxpayers. Given that we had agreement from five of the six union negotiators on the terms of the new scheme, I therefore proposed an amendment—the new clause that we are now discussing—to allow the Government to impose that scheme, which is a power that the Government thought they had and used when the right hon. Lady was in office, but which was subsequently struck down by the High Court.
I want to make it absolutely clear that there will be an obligation for the Government to consult properly before any scheme is imposed. I believe that that obligation already exists in section 1(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972, but lest there be any doubt, I undertake that we will introduce a further amendment in the other place to put the matter beyond doubt. In the intervening period, I shall want to discuss with the right hon. Lady and with the unions how we can frame that measure in a way that gives the necessary comfort that this is a serious process. That commitment is there. There is already in the existing Act an obligation to consult the unions. It is not framed in quite that way, but that is the effect of it. We shall introduce further amendments if they are regarded collectively, by us all, to be necessary to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt.
I want now to make it absolutely clear what the new clause does. It does not create any unprecedented power for me that has not been available to my predecessors. It simply recreates precisely the power that the right hon. Lady had when she imposed the February scheme. It does not go one whit beyond that. It is rigorously framed so that it goes no further at all than the power in the original Act, on the basis of which the right hon. Lady—in good faith, and with our full support—acted before the election.
Let me say a word about the PCS. I have no wish at all to exclude the PCS from the negotiations. Late last week, the leadership of the PCS came back to me and indicated that they would like to return to the negotiating table. I welcome that and have told them that I am looking forward to seeing their proposals. The other five unions have been making constructive proposals for some little time now, and those suggestions have formed the basis of the proposed new scheme brokered and agreed by the negotiators for those five unions. I have stressed to the PCS that any changes to the proposed scheme cannot exceed the cost envelope of the scheme already agreed, and that any changes must be agreed with the other unions, which have already worked hard to reach this agreement.
May I say a word about the Opposition amendments, which have been grouped with the Government new clause and amendment? The Opposition amendments would effectively invalidate the effect of the Bill, as they would remove the caps, which are the essence of the Bill. There is nothing more to say about that. On Second Reading, I set out the reasons for having the Bill at all, and I have reiterated them today. I say again that no one would be more happy than I would if, the day after Royal Assent is given to the Bill, should it get that far, I am able to put those provisions into abeyance; I do not want us to be in a position whereby those caps are what applies in practice. I want there to be a new scheme—ideally agreed by six unions, but if not, agreed by as many as possible, and imposed using the powers that the right hon. Lady herself used, which the Government new clause will put into effect and allow to be used.
I earnestly hope that a successfully negotiated new scheme agreed by all six unions will follow from today’s debate. I stress that I remain completely committed to achieving that. If we can achieve it, neither the caps in the Bill nor the power contained in the new clause will be needed, but if there were no such agreement, it would be wrong for the PCS to be able to veto any changes to the current scheme, because that scheme has been universally agreed in the House to be unsustainable. This amendment will simply put the current Government in the same position as the previous Government—committed to consultation and to negotiation, but able, in the end, to decide. I commend it to the House.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I shall speak against Government new clause 1 and in favour of the amendments standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). I give notice that I intend press amendment 4 to a Division, subject to your will, Mr Speaker.
I also want to put on record my appreciation of the conciliatory tone in which the Minister has addressed the House today and note what I think was very constructive scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, which gave the opportunity to hear witnesses.
I would like to identify the common ground that we share, but also what still divides us. We agree that the civil service compensation scheme is in need of reform—as the Minister observed, I spent many hours trying to secure that reform—but it is also important that new legislation take account of the conclusions of the judicial review. It is important, too, that that is done in the right way, giving the 500,000 or so civil servants who are liable to be affected the confidence that the process will be fair and that the fairness of that process is institutional.
The legislation represents very high stakes for the 500,000 or so civil servants whose lives stand to be directly affected by its provisions. The Bill is not simply a blunt instrument for negotiating purposes. For those 500,000 civil servants, it could be a matter of their keeping their home, helping their children through university or averting financial hardship while they look for a new job. We heard eloquent evidence of that anxiety from witnesses who appeared before the Public Bill Committee.
To summarise, we have two central problems with the Government’s position on the Bill. The first problem, as we argued from the outset on Second Reading, is with the unacceptable caps set out in clause 1. Our amendment 4 is intended to deal with that. The second is the unbridled powers that the Government are seeking to impose on any new scheme that fails to secure a negotiated agreement. We will take every step we can to insist that a requirement for consultation and due process appears in the Bill.
Tessa Jowell
I accept that only in part, in that the scheme set out in the Bill, with the caps, is substantially less generous than the scheme that we negotiated with the trade unions only a few months ago.
Mr Maude
I am not talking about the scheme; I am talking about the power in the new clause for the Government to impose a new scheme, which the right hon. Lady has just described as an unbridled power. I am asking her to agree what is certainly the case: that the power that the new clause would give to me is precisely the same power as she had and exercised when she held my job eight months ago.
Tessa Jowell
I shall make progress. Many Back Benchers want to speak in the debate and the hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity.
We cannot support the Government new clause as drafted because it allows the Government to impose changes to the scheme at any point, without the contingent obligation to consult the work force or their representative trade unions.
Mr Maude
To be absolutely clear, the Superannuation Act states, at section 1(3):
“ Before making any scheme”—
this would refer to the schemes that we are discussing—
“under this section the Minister . . . shall consult with persons appearing to the Minister . . . to represent persons likely to be affected by the proposed scheme”.
So there is an explicit obligation in the 1972 Act to consult representatives of staff affected by any new scheme. That is absolutely explicit. It was the obligation that the right hon. Lady herself followed scrupulously when holding the job that I now hold, and it is the obligation that I absolutely undertake we have been following. If there is any doubt about it, we will make that even more explicit with an amendment tabled in the other place.
Tessa Jowell
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but as nearly 30 years have passed since the Superannuation Act was introduced, both the terminology and the reference to the negotiating structure could be updated to make the two commitments clear—the right to impose in the absence of unanimity among the unions, but a right that is exercised only on the basis of clear, systematic, open and proper negotiation with the appropriate trade unions and work force representatives.
The other underlying issue is the lack of confidence in the process so far. The Bill was published before the civil service unions had even met the Minister or his officials. None of the work force had the opportunity, unlike during the negotiations that we undertook, to comment on the proposed reforms, despite the fact that they marked a significant and detrimental departure from the previous package. The obligation to consult the work force at every stage is missing from the Bill.
Given the powers that the Government have asked the House to grant them through the new clause, it is only right that safeguards be put in place to ensure a fair and reliable process whereby the work force have a right to be consulted, the Government are obliged to seek an agreement with the representative trade unions and the House is the arbiter of whether that process has been fair and transparent. If those safeguards had been put in place, we would have supported the Government and not sought to vote against the new clause.
We have outlined a very clear basis for our opposition to the proposed change, but we make it equally clear that if the Minister for the Cabinet Office seeks to introduce in the other place a revised amendment that addresses the judicial review and puts consultation and proper process in the Bill, we will support him. That is dependent on Mr Speaker taking his usual principled and pragmatic view and not judging the Bill to be a money Bill, which would eliminate the possibility of any such constructive amendment and scrutiny in another place.
Mr Maude
To be absolutely clear, I am advised that if the new clause were not agreed to and the Bill remained as drafted, it would be possible for Mr Speaker to exercise his discretion—and it is a discretion—and certify it as a money Bill. However, I am also advised that if the Bill were to include the new clause and amendment that I have tabled, the question of its being a money Bill would not even arise. So, if the House were to carry our proposed changes, there would be no question of the Bill’s continuing to be a money Bill for the purposes of the other place; it would go through the full and usual processes there.
Tessa Jowell
The Opposition would very much welcome full and further scrutiny, as the negotiations are ongoing.
The issue is about the right reforms, which we seek to put forward through our amendments 4 and 5, whose purpose is to strike out the arbitrary caps that the Government introduced at the start of the process. Those caps have led to an improved offer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, as a result of negotiation, and we welcome that. There is now an improved offer on the table, so we do not understand why the Government oppose our amendment. Given that new clause 1 would give them the power to impose any settlement, why have the caps, which have caused such distress and anxiety to civil servants, remained in the Bill?
We are pleased that the Government claim to have reached an agreement with at least some of the trade unions, and the Government have declared that that will supersede the terms before us. To echo the Minister’s language, I note that he has managed to introduce a “sharp instrument” to replace the “blunt” one, but that leads us to question why the Government persist in wanting those terms to remain in the legislation.
The caps are simply out of kilter with the subsequent agreement that the Minister claims to have reached. He, his colleagues and his officials have told us that he wants a negotiated settlement, and on both sides of the House the consensus is that that would be the right course of action. Instead, however, the Government want to proceed to impose the arbitrary caps that they sought to impose at the beginning of the process. For those reasons, we ask the House to oppose the Government’s proposed changes and to support our amendments 4 and 5.
Tessa Jowell
For the record, I think I have made the position absolutely clear. The Minister’s words were more of a debating game than a substantive discussion of policy. We oppose new clause 1, because it creates no specific obligation to consult. Removing the caps would remove the structure of a settlement that the Opposition believe is profoundly and fundamentally unfair. The settlement is substantially detrimental to 500,000 civil servants compared with our February 2010 scheme, which has been grossly misrepresented by Government Members.
Mr Maude
This is not a debating game. The Bill is deadly serious for hundreds of thousands of hard-working, dedicated public servants. The fact is that the right hon. Lady has today proposed removing everything—the ability to create caps on the existing scheme, which she says needs to be changed, and the Government’s ability to impose changes.
Let us look at what the right hon. Lady has argued on new clause 1. She accepts that my new clause is necessary and needed—both words that she has used at times to describe it—but she plans to vote against it on the grounds that it is, she says, an “unbridled power”. It is exactly the same power that she herself exercised earlier this year. Did she feel then that it was an unbridled power? Of course she did not, because there is already on the face of the Superannuation Act 1972 a clear and explicit obligation on the Minister to consult trade unions before imposing a scheme. Sadly, she seems to be unaware of that, so I am happy for the opportunity to enlighten her. She followed that obligation, and I undertake to follow it as well.
In the spirit of good will that has—broadly—dominated these deliberations, I have made a clear commitment that if further amendments are needed to make it clear in the Bill that proper consultation must take place before a scheme is imposed, they will be introduced in the other place. However, it must be recognised that as a “bridling” of this power—to adopt the right hon. Lady’s word—the legislation already contains an obligation to consult, and it has done so for nearly 40 years.
This new clause is necessary to give effect to a successor scheme to the current unsustainable, unaffordable and frankly unfair scheme, and the whole House accepts the need for that change. I stress again that it is the Government’s aim—we will strain every sinew towards it—to achieve a negotiated scheme that is supported by all six trade unions, in which case neither the caps nor this power will need to be exercised. However, to have any chance of reaching that point, it is necessary to reject the right hon. Lady’s amendments and to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Superannuation Bill
Debate between Lord Maude of Horsham and Baroness Jowell(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, whilst affirming its belief that civil service compensation should be reformed, declines to give a Second Reading to the Superannuation Bill because it provides inadequate protection for some of the lowest paid and longest serving public sector workers; believes that the reform proposals of February 2010 were fair, reasonable and non-age discriminatory, offering protection for the lowest paid workers whilst making substantial savings; and is strongly of the opinion that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by a full process of pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill and in full consultation with Civil Service employees.”
I hope that the Minister has studied the amendment closely, because Labour Members believe that it holds the answers he seeks.
At the end of the last parliamentary session, the day before the Bill was published, the Minister declared that when it came to reform of civil service compensation, he wanted to negotiate an arrangement that had fairness built into it. Obviously we welcome that ambition, but we argue that as the negotiations have progressed and the detail of the Bill has become clear, he has failed to live up to his commitment.
The Minister says that he wants a fair settlement, but he has proposed reforms that are harsh, and harshest of all for some of the longest-serving, often low-paid, civil servants. The Minister says that he wants a negotiated settlement, but he has thrown out the progress made by the last Government through just such negotiations, and instead seeks to impose a short-term solution which lacks the legitimacy that comes from open and honest dialogue with the trade unions representing the people who will be affected by the reforms.
I welcome the Minister’s generous remarks, which were sincerely meant, about our nation’s public servants. I join him in recognising the important role that they play in our national life. However, I also argue that they deserve better than the proposals in the Bill. Public servants are too often represented as dead-weight on the taxpayer, as if they were somehow the cause of the deficit.
Tessa Jowell
That is also misguided, and we can have a further debate about it.
In fact, it is public servants who make our borders safe, help unemployed people back to work, run our courts and prisons, collect our taxes, and support our armed forces both at home and abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan. With professionalism and integrity, they make the process of government work. The representations that I suspect we have all received in our constituency surgeries seek to make that point. It is being made by the people who provide those services, many of whom are members of the PCS but feel that their motives and their importance are being misrepresented.
Mr Maude
Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not blame public servants at all for the disgraceful budget deficit that the coalition Government inherited. Like Tony Blair, we blame the last Prime Minister, who as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister presided over an incontinent approach to the public finances.
Tessa Jowell
And let me make it absolutely clear that the Minister has grossly misrepresented the words of the former Prime Minister. Let me also remind him that the deficit arose because of a global financial crisis, and that it was our Government—led by the last Labour Prime Minister—who steered our economy at that stage, who, indeed, provided leadership for the world, and who drew our economy back from the brink of disaster. Let us have no more trivial point-scoring on that subject. I hope that during this debate we shall be able to move on from some of the crass misrepresentation of our country’s public servants and once more recognise the importance of their work, both public and private.
Tessa Jowell
I think that those at the higher earnings end and those at the lower earnings end are equally entitled to be apprehensive about the proposals.
Mr Maude
Let me make it absolutely clear that the point I was making is that, under the current scheme, lower-paid people are more likely to lose their jobs because it is so prohibitively expensive to make higher-paid, longer-serving senior officials redundant. As a result, more lower-paid civil servants get made redundant. The reform is therefore necessary for this reason alone: to protect the jobs of lower-paid workers.
Tessa Jowell
Well, let us see how that commitment plays out in practice. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the people who work in job centres and at our borders often doing relatively low-paid jobs are the people who make those services happen at all, and I think there would be a marked degree of cross-party agreement about ensuring fairness and protection for such employees. We on the Opposition Benches, however, feel considerable scepticism about whether the proposals will deliver that.
Let me illustrate that and pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton). A member of staff earning less than £20,000 made compulsorily redundant after more than 20 years’ service would see their redundancy package more than halved under the provisions of the Bill; and staff covered by the civil service compensation scheme would receive substantially less in redundancy terms than comparable public sector employees, despite being among the lowest-paid public servants. The proposed cap is half that often seen in local government, education and the NHS.
On the question of protection for the lowest-paid, let me repeat the words used by the Minister in the House in July—he was right about this:
“Contrary to general belief, large numbers of civil servants are not very well paid—half of them earn £21,000 a year or less—and we want there to be extra protection for them.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 931-32.]
So say all of us, but the fact is that the Bill gives no confidence to those lower-paid employees.