Finance (No. 2) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Finance Bill so far. Today we are focusing on a number of potential amendments to the Bill. Many of the amendments seek to ensure the proper functioning of the legislation in response to stakeholder scrutiny and feedback. Others take forward responses to substantive issues that have emerged during the Bill’s passage. I will address each amendment in turn.

Amendments 1 to 8 to clause 36 relate to the Bill’s measures to establish a residential property developer tax, or RPDT. These amendments ensure that those holding a specific type of build licence giving them effective control of the land are subject to RPDT. That will ensure that the legislation works as intended, and closes a potential loophole.

Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 58 relate to the Bill’s clauses on the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy. These amendments seek simply to amend clause 58 by replacing two references to “entities that are” with “persons”, providing further clarity by using terms consistently throughout the legislation.

Amendments 11 to 13 form part of the extensive action that the Government are taking to address the current heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. As Members will remember, at the last autumn Budget, the Government temporarily extended cabotage rights for foreign operators of heavy goods vehicles until 30 April this year to ease supply-chain pressures. That change was made on a short-term basis to support essential supply chains. These amendments seek to introduce an enabling power through the Bill to make temporary changes to vehicle excise duty legislation should the Government decide to introduce a further temporary extension of road haulage cabotage flexibilities beyond April and up to 31 December 2022. These amendments do not, in themselves, extend those flexibilities. The Government have made no decision to extend the cabotage easement. Any such decision would be taken only after consulting with interested parties, and in consideration of wider pressure on supply chains at the time.

Amendments 14 to 17 are technical amendments to clauses 7 and 8, and to schedule 1, which seek to abolish the basis period rules for the self-employed and partners, and introduce the tax-year basis from April 2024. The amendments will ensure that eligible taxpayers are able to benefit from certain tax reliefs, including double taxation relief, that are given as a deduction against tax rather than against profits during the transition to the new tax-year basis. The amendments are required to avoid an unintentional outcome of the basis period reform transition rules.

Amendments 18 to 30 address a number of technical points in the new asset holding companies regime to better reflect the original policy intentions. These amendments follow engagement with industry. They will make the rules of the tax regime clearer for companies that will use it, and will ensure that it can be more effectively implemented.

Amendments 31 to 33 relate to accounting standards. They make minor technical changes to part 2 of schedule 5, which revokes the requirement for life insurance companies to spread their acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes. These changes will simply ensure that the legislation functions as originally intended.

I turn now to the Government new clauses and new schedules. New clause 1 and new schedule 1 will deal with provisions about regulations regarding freeports. These new provisions seek to build on our existing powers that allow us to introduce, amend and remove conditions to enable businesses to qualify for freeport tax reliefs. The provisions do that by allowing the Government to use secondary legislation to remove and recover those reliefs from individual businesses, if necessary on a prospective basis. This power could be used to enforce compliance. For instance, it would allow the Government to introduce new reporting requirements if needed, and to respond if companies did not adhere to them by removing reliefs or taking other action.

These provisions support our critical freeports programme, which will help to create employment in left-behind areas, and allow them to prosper with additional and much-needed investment. We look forward to seeing them, and the businesses within them, prosper.

New clause 3 and new schedule 2 seek to legislate for a new public interest business protection tax. Energy groups will often enter into derivative contracts to hedge their exposure to fluctuations in wholesale energy prices, and help to ensure that they can supply energy to customers at the prices fixed and under the price cap set by Ofgem. They will typically use a forward purchase agreement to buy energy in the future at a price that is fixed at the time when the contract is entered into.

The Government have been monitoring the global rise in wholesale energy prices very closely. We have a serious concern about certain arrangements whereby energy suppliers do not own, control or have the economic rights to the key assets needed to run their businesses, including forward purchase contracts. It is currently possible for an energy business to derive value from such a valuable asset for its own benefit and the benefit of its shareholders, while leaving its energy supply business to fail, or increasing the costs of a failure. The costs of that failure would then be picked up by the taxpayer or consumers, because it would trigger a special administration regime or a supplier of last resort scheme. These are special Government-funded administration routes that help to ensure that UK customers continue to be supplied with energy.

Ofgem is now consulting on a range of regulatory actions that it proposes to take to ensure that the right protections are in place in these circumstances. That work will ensure the ongoing resilience of energy supply businesses. However, it will take months for these changes to come into effect. The Government recognise that it would be unacceptable for a Government to allow business owners to profit from engineering this kind of outcome in the interim period, at great and direct expense to the taxpayer.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I do not think that anyone would argue with the intention behind the new schedule, but it is not so much a new schedule as a Bill within a Bill. It is 25 pages long, and it introduces a tax that has not existed before. It was tabled less than 48 hours ago, and as far as I can see there has been no consultation with anyone. Given that this issue has been known about for so long, why has it taken until now for the Government to table such a large, complex and unwieldy amendment to their own legislation?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Bill has been tabled at this time because Ofgem has identified a risk related to energy suppliers in the circumstances that I have described. If that eventuality came to pass, there would be a significant loss to taxpayers if we did not introduce the legislation to prevent it. I understand his concern, but it is necessary for the Government to introduce this tax and to introduce it now, to ensure that these risks do not materialise.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

No one denies that the NHS needs more money, but hiding behind the hon. Member’s intervention is the idea that there is no other way to raise the £12 billion that the national insurance rise will raise. It takes some cheek to hear that from Conservative Members, when just yesterday we heard of £8.7 billion being wasted on PPE procurement and £4.3 billion of fraud being written off by the Chancellor—there is the £12 billion. Frankly, the Chancellor should stop wasting money, stop letting criminals get away with fraud, and stop expecting working people to pick up the bill.

[Peter Grant]

I commend the hon. Member for reminding the Government just how much of our money they have wasted in the last year. Does he remember a message on the side of a bus that promised a huge cash boost to the NHS if we left the European Union, and has he wondered what happened to that money?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government are not using their powers, including fiscal powers, to alleviate those inequalities; they are actually exacerbating them. It is a shameful record. The Government would do well to remember that equality is not expendable. It is not an add-on. It is not an extra. It is actually our law. If they are so certain that they are delivering for everybody in this country, I call on them to accept my new clause to show they are actually delivering for people right across the country. The fact remains that inequalities are out of control and they are doing absolutely nothing to stop that.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I can see two Members standing and I intend to call the Minister at 5.55 pm. I call you first, Mr Grant, and any time you do not use up before 5.55 can be used by your colleague—no pressure.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to tonight’s debate. I commend the three previous speakers, the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). It is unfortunate that the very inadequate time that the programme motion allowed did not give any of them the time they deserved, given the amount of work they put into their amendments.

I mentioned new clause 3 and new schedule 2 earlier, but “schedule” is a misnomer here. We are not talking about a schedule; we are in effect talking about the “Finance No. 3 Bill”, 25 pages long and intensely complicated. This is our one and only chance to get it right and none of us can feel comfortable that it was tabled on Monday, it is being debated on Wednesday and it comes into force on Friday—not next Friday, but the previous Friday. What on earth are the Government playing at?

I do not have an issue with any of the other important business that took up today’s time—nobody could have any issue with any of that. My issue is that when the Government knew they were going to table such a substantial, technical and complicated amendment at this stage, it was up to them to amend the programme motion to give a decent amount of time, because 90 minutes for this debate is ludicrous. Only the Government had the ability to put forward a change to the programme motion; and only the Government had the opportunity to consult with Opposition parties in advance of that amendment being tabled, or indeed to discuss it with outside stakeholders. Not doing so was a failure, unless the Minister can give a very good reason as to why secrecy was so important. Springing it on the House in this way was, I believe, an abuse of the Government’s powers and shows contempt for Parliament.

The aim of the new tax is laudable and nobody would argue against it, but we have been given no indication as to why the tax is the way to prevent the kind of behaviour that we are trying to deter. It appears that it is just because they can change the tax system immediately and make it retrospective, whereas other things would take a bit longer. I ask the Government this question outright: is the urgency because they have picked up intelligence that another major player in the energy market was about to cut and run—to cash in and bail out? If they cannot answer that in public today, I would appreciate it if they contacted me after, on a guarantee of confidentiality. To be honest, I can see no other reason why there was a need for such secrecy and last-minute panic.

The amendment is restricted to energy companies, but it can also be extended to apply to any other kind of company the Treasury chooses to designate. What is that for? Can the Minister explain what other companies might need to be brought in, and in what circumstances that might need to happen? The measure is only to be in place for a year, or for such other time as the Treasury decides it wants to extend it, and it can extend it as often as it wants, although only until 2025. However, given that the Minister has said that the amendment is essentially a stopgap until Ofgem is able to amend the regulatory environment to prevent these abuses in the market, just how lacking in confidence are they of Ofgem and its ability and willingness to fix this long-standing problem if they think it might need another three years before it is fully dealt with?

Paragraph 41 of new schedule 2 gives the Government the power to change the law retrospectively. No Parliament should ever lightly agree to such a power, but tonight we have been given no choice; we simply have not had sufficient time to look at the detail of that or to get the assurances we would usually want about what that power will and will not be used for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and the Association of Tax Technicians told me yesterday:

“We have a brand-new tax without any prior announcement, no consultation, little debate, which will be enacted before the next Budget, and will be effective from 28 January 2022. OK, these are arguably special circumstances, but is this a good way to run a tax system?”

The short answer is no, it is not.

[Lucy Frazer]

I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised swiftly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) began by asking in new clause 6 for us to publish a review of the impact of the amount of tax working people will be paying. He will know that we have already published the “Impact on households” document in the October Budget of 2021 and the Office for Budget Responsibility already produces fiscal forecasts. However, he used the amendment to discuss the issue more broadly, suggesting that the Government were not doing enough to help working families. That simply is not correct, and he knows it.

We have cut tax for low-income families by introducing the universal credit taper rate, saving working families £1,000 a month. The hon. Gentleman will know that we increased the rate for the national living wage, and he will know about the half a billion pounds of household support for the hardest-hit families—not to mention the significant covid support that we have given the families who have needed it over the last 18 months to two years. However, the best way to help people to have appropriate incomes to support themselves is to get them into jobs, and that is why we have spent £2 billion to get young people into the kickstart scheme, and £2.9 billion to help the 1.4 million long-term unemployed to get into jobs, ensuring that we have a lower unemployment rate than comparable countries such as Canada, France, Italy and Spain.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) talked about the need to put more money into people’s pockets, and to support services. That is exactly what we did in the spending review, with a cash increase of £150 billion a year by 2024, the largest real-terms increase provided by any Parliament in this century. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see an announcement about levelling up education funding across the country.

The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned the NHS and social care levy. I am proud that this Government are willing to tackle the really difficult issues that face this country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out that if we secure sufficient funds, we shall be able to tackle waiting times and have more doctors. I should point out that it was a Labour Government who, in the same way, increased national insurance contribution rates by 1% in 2003, specifically to increase NHS funding. The hon. Member also mentioned the banking surcharge, but, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), tax rates for banks are going not down, but up—to 28%, when they would otherwise be at 27%.

A number of Members on both sides of the House mentioned the economic crime measures in the Bill, and the beneficial ownership register. I hope that those Members were present for Prime Minister’s Question Time this afternoon and heard what the Prime Minister said, showing that we are committed to introducing this legislation. However, we have already done a significant amount to tackle economic crime. Since 2010 the Government have introduced more than 150 new measures and invested more than £2 billion in HMRC to tackle fraud. We do not want in this country money that has been gained through criminality or corruption—it is not welcome in the UK—and the international Finance Action Task Force concluded in December 2018 that we have some of the strongest controls in the world. Since then, we have strengthened those powers even further.

I will spend a couple of seconds on the new clause relating to tonnage tax, referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing North, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It is important to ensure a fair wage for our seafarers, who are recognised worldwide as some of the most highly skilled. That is why, in 2020, the Government extended the minimum wage entitlement to seafarers on domestic voyages.

The Department for Transport’s “Maritime 2050” strategy shows that we want a diverse and rewarded workforce, so we will continue to engage closely with industry and trade unions to support the training and employment of both British officers and ratings. I understand that the RMT has had recent meetings with the DFT and the Maritime Skills Commission on the training of ratings and has been invited to submit its analysis to inform further discussions. I wish I had more time to deal with that matter, but I will be happy to take it up further.

On the residential property tax, the hon. Member for Ealing North will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is actively working on the matter.

Climate change goals were mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who said that there was not enough investment in businesses to incentivise them. However, in the last financial year, we issued £16 billion-worth of green bonds and set up the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in net zero, backed with £12 billion of capital, which will also help to unlock more than £40 billion of overall investment in infrastructure.

For all those reasons, and many others, I urge hon. Members to accept the Government amendments, but not the others.

Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree that there needs to be probity when it comes to that kind of money and that kind of behaviour—particularly the overruling of civil servants, if that has indeed been the case.

When I raised some of these matters in the House last week, Ministers pointed to unexplained wealth orders as a great badge of success, so I tabled a parliamentary question to find out how successful they had been. In 2018, the year in which they were introduced, there were three. In 2019, there were six. I thought, “That is great—the numbers are going up”, but there have been none since then. Is this a measure that is actually effective in tackling unexplained wealth? I am not sure that it is.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will recall that the first ever unexplained wealth order was awarded against someone who was only allowed to become a United Kingdom citizen because of the billions of pounds that she had promised to bring into the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend believe that that is an indication that Government policy is fighting against itself? On the one hand the Government want to get people with lots of money into the UK, and on the other hand they do not ask too many questions about where that money has come from.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to draw attention to that. It is one of many deficiencies in the Home Office systems as well. It seems that those with money are given a free pass, whereas those who come here with more humble undertakings to begin their lives here, to work and to build a family, end up being penalised and having to pay an awful lot more in fees, and experiencing all the challenges that that brings.

Hon. Members may think that some of these issues with Companies House seem a bit remote from the real world and the real lives of our constituents, but that could not be further from the truth. During lockdown, a company in Glasgow using myriad company structures made claims under the furlough scheme, but employees of that company never received the money that they were entitled to. Even if the company directors ended up being prosecuted, or HMRC ended up getting its money back, those employees would still get nothing. That shows the complete unfairness in the system. I would be interested to know whether the Government have any figures, from when they have chased down these companies, on how many employees never saw the money that they should have got and that they needed to get by.

For those completely excluded from the covid support schemes, this is all the more galling. Limited company directors and pay-as-you-earn taxpayers were left out because they were deemed too much of a fraud risk, and new mothers who had taken time off to have a child in the preceding three years lost out because calculating their maternity leave was thought to be too complex. Yet as they were being told that by Ministers, the real fraudsters were raking it in, with drugs gangs getting payouts, and many of the people who benefited will never be caught.

These most recent examples of the Government’s relaxed attitude to the wasting of public funds are by no means the only cases. Best for Britain’s “scandalous spending tracker” sets out the following examples—I will list just some of them; otherwise, we could be here all afternoon, and I am sure that others want to speak—since the current inhabitant of No. 10 Downing Street came to office. It categorises them in three ways: as “crony contracts”, “duff deals” and “outrageous outgoings”.

Here are a few highlights: £11 million on blue passports; over half a million on chauffeuring Government documents, never mind Government Ministers; £56 million contracting to big consulting firms outside tendering processes; £29 million on the festival of Brexit; £900,000 painting a plane; £900,000 researching a bridge to Ireland, which I could have saved the Government money on, because I did a second-year geography project—at high school, not university—that could have told them it was a ropey idea; £32 million on unusable PPE suits; over £38 million on a test and trace contract that was not fulfilled; £10 billion on a failed test and trace system; over £300 million on expired PPE, and billions more on contracts for friends and family of Ministers and Conservative party donors through the fast-track lane.

All that totalled £25 billion, and all of it at a time when the screw was being tightened on those who have the least, with cuts to universal credit, some getting no money at all, and more effort spent chasing down those who happened to wrongly claim child benefit than those who deliberately defrauded the public purse to the tune of billions.

I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so careless with our money and why they do not want to act on fraud and money laundering. The question “who benefits?” continues to rattle around in my head. While those on the Government Benches do not like the inference that it was them and their chums, I wonder whether the fact that this coincides with the undermining of the Electoral Commission and the relaxing of the rules on overseas donors is any kind of accident. It is not just me; the Centre for American Progress flagged recently:

“Uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry.”

This should worry us all, but it does not seem to worry those on the Government Benches.

Lord Agnew’s estimate of the total fraud loss across UK Government Departments is £29 billion per year. That could go, as he suggested, to tax cuts or, as we on the SNP Benches would argue for, to investment in public services and increases in social security. Either way, there is a cost to this fraud, and it remains absolutely baffling that this UK Government have continued to let it go on their watch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Fell]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Too often, people are subject to fraud and they get almost no response whatsoever. That undermines faith in the system and in policing. In some truly terrible cases, it has a huge emotional and psychological impact on the victims.

As I was saying in answer to the previous intervention, we need to give law enforcement, the public sector and the private sector the tools they need to better share information so that they can drive some of this stuff down and start to turn the ship. Prevention is better than cure and, as great as the taxpayer protection taskforce is, we need to invest early on in spending a fraction of the money on stopping the money walking out the door, rather than trying to recover it after the fact. Data sharing is the key to that.

As the MP for Barrow, the home of the national deterrent, it would be remiss of me not to linger on some of the points that have been made by the Opposition on defence spending, which has been called out as an area of waste. I have read the report that this claim is based on, and I have to say that I am somewhat sceptical about some of its claims. It is of course crucial that the Government improve on the procurement of defence matériel, and on the contracts they sign. Some of the details in that report do raise eyebrows. They relate to accounting adjustments, extensions and overruns, which are not the same as waste, let us be honest. Going into the detail of the report, we see that two of the programmes commissioned by the Opposition account for half the waste being claimed: Nimrod, which accounts for £3.7 billion; and aircraft carriers, which had a £2.7 billion overspend priced in.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman seemed to cast doubt on the reliability of some of the reports that Opposition Members have relied on. I know that he has a keen constituency interest in the MOD’s nuclear activities. The Public Accounts Committee published a report on the management of contracts for defence nuclear infrastructure—the nuclear infrastructure part of the MOD—and found a total overspend of £1.35 billion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the reliability of that report, which was unanimously agreed and backed by a Committee with a Conservative majority?

[Simon Fell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. I am not throwing the entire report under the bus, but I think we have to be sceptical of some of the claims that were made in it. When I sit down with the managers in the shipyard in Barrow, it is clear that the programme is moving on and that we cannot look at it as a static object that is being built. The requirements are changing, and what will be delivered is also changing. There is a cost attached to that.

We need to question the constant undercutting of our national deterrent. This is a real concern. To make a political point, which I rarely do in this place, the Leader of the Opposition did not come forward and back the AUKUS deal, which will lead to a considerable number of jobs and skills, and will bottom out the supply chain, not just in my constituency but across the country. That is a tremendous opportunity for us, in partnership with Australia, and we need to support such deals. We need to show across the House that we are backing them. I have digressed, but I hope it was worth it.

I praise the Chancellor and his team for their work to cut down on fraud and waste, but much more can and should be done. I return to my point that we need an economic crime Bill; as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central says, it needs to reform Companies House, make it transparent who owns property in the UK, and introduce an offence of failure to prevent economic crime. That would strike the right balance between shining a light and providing a disincentive of peril to stop bad actors going ahead.

My other point is that there needs to be enhanced data sharing across the public and private sectors and an emphasis on fraud, so that when our constituents are hit by fraud—when they get that phone call or that scam email—they can be relieved to know that there is support for them and that we will go after the perpetrators. Fraud so badly affects so many of the people we represent. We need to step up and deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I welcome the Opposition motion on fraud. I am one of several people on the Government Benches who often speak out about tackling fraud, so I object a little to one or two of the comments from the Opposition that Conservative Members are not bothered about fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth, for a number of reasons, including the cost to our taxpayers. It undermines the very system that underpins our economy if people do not feel that the game is fair for all players, and fraud undermines the principle of everything I have stood for over my whole life in business—the fundamentals of a free-market economy are that it is a fair and level playing field.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), my company took a coronavirus business interruption loan—quite a sizeable one—which was paid back in full without touching it, which I am sure the Economic Secretary will be pleased to hear: we discussed it at length at the time.

It is important to put the issue in context. I had an Urgent Question on the issue last week, following Lord Agnew’s statement, because I was very concerned by many of the things he said in it and in his subsequent press articles. He said that the bounce back loan scheme, which has been the subject of many comments in the debate today, was

“an important and successful intervention”.

It was critical at the time. It is easy with hindsight to say that mistakes were made—of course they were, given the speed with which the scheme was rolled out. The initial iterations of the loan schemes did not include a bounce back loan scheme, which was introduced at a later stage, vitally.

[Peter Grant]

I certainly would not disagree with the hon. Member about the remarkable speed from when the Treasury sat down to devise the scheme to when the first loans were delivered. Does he share my disappointment that in the 10 years from 2010, when we knew a pandemic was coming, no planning whatever was done for the economic impacts and the impact on businesses of the protective measures that the Government might be forced to implement when the pandemic finally got here?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. The whole country would acknowledge that we need to be better prepared for a future pandemic. One of the lessons that we need to learn is to have a template ready for bounce back loans and other measures that we can roll out at pace, but we should not undermine the ability of that scheme to get money out to businesses in need.

The British Business Bank said that it had

“ensured that key counter-fraud measures consistent with the…design of the scheme were in place from the outset.”

It is not the case that the schemes were rolled out without any consideration for the potential for fraud. That highlights the issue of what checks and balances were in place—the Paymaster General set out some of them in his speech, which was useful—and which banks performed better in taking into account those measures. As Lord Agnew said, 81% of the amount that has not been repaid so far—as far as we understand from the Treasury—relates to two of the seven biggest banks. Clearly some banks did better than others with know your client checks and fraud checks.

We need to understand exactly what happened. We cannot just roll out a scheme, let it run and that is it. The implications for recovering loans are hugely important. We need the dashboard of information that Lord Agnew called for so that we can clearly understand the performance of the banks. One criticism that I would level at the Treasury is that far more transparency is needed about which banks are issuing loans, what percentage of applications are successful and the success in recovering loans. As somebody who took a loan for my business, I would advocate complete transparency about which businesses take loans. If all that were open—access to Government loan schemes or furlough, and so on—it would be far easier for the public, the media and parliamentarians to hold individual businesses to account. Businesses motivated by wrong and perhaps nefarious purposes would be far less likely to try to access the loans in the first place. Far greater transparency is needed, and to get that taxpayers’ money back there certainly needs to be transparency around the bank’s performance now.

Many people have called for an economic crime Bill, and some of us have been banging on about that for some time. It could really help. One of the elements is the failure to prevent economic crime. I think that corporate liability should extend to individuals, rather than at corporate level. The No. 1 thing we could do to deter financial organisations and corporations, even smaller corporations, from defrauding people or enabling fraud and money laundering is to say to the individuals behind those companies that they will be held personally responsible. It could have had an effect on the bounce back loan scheme if the banks that cared a little bit less about where the money went were held to account through the senior managers regime and the Financial Conduct Authority, and potentially by other charges too. Failure to prevent is absolutely fundamental to the economic crime Bill.

Companies House reform is also absolutely fundamental. It is clear that that should be the case and I know the Government are doing something on that already. One perverse situation at the moment is that if someone sets up a business through a company formation agent, they should be subject to money laundering checks by HMRC. If they set up a company directly with Companies House, however, there are no money laundering checks. It simply cannot be right that if someone goes to one and cannot get set up, they can go to Companies House. Companies House, therefore, needs to be a regulator, rather than just a register.

The register of overseas entities does not come under the taxpayer, of course, but through a simple levy attached to the cost of creating a company, currently £12. That could raise enough money for Companies House to be that regulator, so we could see who was trying to launder money through UK properties. That is absolutely critical. The Government are committed to all this stuff, but we just need them to commit to bringing it forward in the next parliamentary Session. It was great to hear what the Chancellor said on that today. He seemed to be really keen on that being in the next parliamentary Session. I hope recent events will push it up the political agenda.

One issue we neglect in the conversation about cutting economic crime is the role of whistleblowers. Most economic crime is not highlighted by our very good agencies. They are good sometimes and the legislation we are bringing forward will help them to take forward successful prosecutions, but they need the evidence in the first place. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who made a fantastic speech and who has huge experience in this area, agrees that we need people to come forward with the evidence. Our regulators and fraud agencies can only really be watchdogs rather than bloodhounds and they need to be given access to the information in the first place.

Whistleblower protections in the UK are pretty woeful now compared with how they used to be. We used to be world leaders in this area. If we want to uncover economic crime, we have to make sure that the people who identify and highlight it, and help the Serious Fraud Office to make prosecutions stick, are protected. That is not the case at the moment. My constituent Ian Foxley highlighted the case of GPT special projects. Some £28 million-worth of economic sanctions against that company were handed down in Southwark court, but for 10 years my constituent has gone without a penny, having had a six-figure salary in his previous role. He blew the whistle. One could say that his whistleblowing led to the Airbus fine of £3 billion, of which £860 million came to the Treasury, but he has gone without a single penny and that cannot be right. We have to make sure people are protected when they come forward, and are properly compensated for the distress and financial impact it has on their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my birthday wishes to you. You are almost a twin of my wee sister, although I think Wikipedia may have got the year wrong. We will give you a chance to correct it later, because it cannot possibly have been that long ago.

I commend the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for her opening speech. Some of this afternoon’s Back-Bench speeches have been quite outstanding. One thing that struck me on listening to them was that hon. Members were using very specific examples to point to themes that come back time and again—examples where there were obvious danger signs and things were going wrong, but nobody did anything. Sometimes publicising them and getting people embarrassed—those who are capable of being embarrassed—is the only way to deal with the problem.

It is very easy to make political capital in this place, which is designed to encourage the political ping-pong of playground insults that sometimes passes for debate, but vitally serious questions are being raised not just about failings in the present party of government, but, perhaps even worse, failings in the machinery of government that have to be sorted out. A change of Government just now will not fix the problem on its own unless we change the mechanisms by which decisions are taken.

Running a Government is not easy, and running a Government at a time of global crisis is even more difficult. No Government get it right all the time. Complimentary things have quite rightly been said about the Welsh Government, but the Welsh Government have got it wrong sometimes, and the Scottish Government have got it wrong sometimes.

When Governments get it wrong, they have to expect to be held to account, and it is reasonable for them to expect to be held to a reasonable standard. We are not expecting people to have been perfect or able to see into the future; we are expecting them to have planned for the most likely and foreseeable contingencies, to have been able to change their plans when circumstances changed, and to have been willing to come back and hold up their hands when they got it wrong and say, “We got it wrong.” I would like to see certain people in this place saying, “I am sorry for what I did,” instead of constantly saying, “I am sorry for what other people did” or “I am sorry for what happened to me.”

Inevitably, a lot of our comments today will be directed against this Government, but in some cases I am talking about failings that have been there for decades or even longer. The Paymaster General appeared to speak somewhat dismissively of figures cited in a National Audit Office report in October 2020. I have gone back and had a look at that report. For those who are interested, paragraph 3.7 and figure 16 gave forecasts for the levels of fraud in some of the schemes that have turned out to be over-pessimistic, but the report says in a footnote that the sources for those over-pessimistic forecasts were the British Business Bank, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

It is a matter of public record that the advice that went with the ministerial directions required to allow some of the schemes to be established very often talked about levels of fraud of the same order of magnitude as those that the NAO talked about. The Government went into these schemes knowing that the best advice that they could get was that such eye-watering levels of fraud were possible—maybe not particularly likely, but distinctly possible.

Comments have been made about some National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports that have been published recently. I want to flag up a few of them to demonstrate that wastage and inefficiency are not just a problem within one or two Government Departments; they are actually endemic in this place. On the defence nuclear infrastructure, which I mentioned earlier, the Public Accounts Committee found a total overspend of £1.35 billion. Even at that level, projects are delayed at best by 1.7 years and some by 6.3 years. If these projects are so important to the defence of all of us, then I suggest that leaving us undefended for 6.3 years in the present climate is not a particularly good idea.

As for the national law enforcement data programme, 68% of its budget was overspent—an overspend of £445 million. Things got so bad that at one point the police chief constables threatened to walk away because they had lost confidence in the way that the programme was being delivered—or not delivered.

On a smaller scale, but with a significant impact on individuals, the green homes grant voucher scheme promised to improve the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes, but managed 47,500. It still spent £50 million on administration. That is over £1,000 in administration for each house that it dealt with—almost a sixth of the entire budget.

When the Committee looked at the problems in a lot of digital change programmes across Government, we found, worryingly, that the intended transformation programme in primary care services in England was so flawed that it

“potentially put patients at risk of serious harm”.

We need to remember that this is not just about money. If there is inefficiency, mismanagement and sheer incompetence in managing the money, then the chances are that outcomes for people who rely on this work could be seriously affected as well.

A common theme in a lot of Public Accounts Committee reports is that the Government are always over-promising, giving wildly optimistic forecasts of all the benefits that will come from these schemes, and then quietly slipping out a report admitting that they have not really delivered anything like the promised benefits. It is also a standard practice of this Government that among the achievements they claim credit for having delivered now are things that they were saying they might manage to deliver sometime in future—when their track record is that if they promise 1,000 of anything, we will be lucky to see half a dozen.

Not only has there been a long track record of massive overspends, massive delays and massive inefficiencies throughout the Government, but, speaking personally from my experience over the past couple of years on the Public Accounts Committee, I am still not convinced that there has been a sufficient culture change to be willing to be accept that this level of waste is simply unacceptable. Structural and cultural problems in the way the Government are set up and the way they operate mean that we will be very limited in how much of this waste we will be able to get to grips with.

For example, HS2 has overspent by almost £40 billion above original estimates, for a single project that we have recently discovered is not actually going to get as far as it was supposed to. All these things are supposed to be accountable to us, but I discovered at the first meeting of the Public Accounts Committee I went to that in the year that the massive overspends on HS2 were brought to the attention of the National Audit Office, HS2’s own annual report did not mention the fact that it had been delayed. It managed to produce a glossy report for its shareholders and the public but somehow forgot to mention that the public money it was overspending was not even delivering what it was supposed to deliver.

Let me pick up on a few of the comments made by others. It is small money in some ways, but £900,000 could do a lot in my constituency. The Prime Minister, over the heads of the Scottish Government and against the wishes of 80% or 90% of Scottish MPs, hired a consultant and paid them £900,000 to say to him, “A bridge to Ireland? Are you daft?” I have 80,000 constituents who would have given the Prime Minister exactly the same answer for £900,000 less than he chose to spend on it. Remember that this is a Prime Minister who couldnae build a bridge over the Thames, which is not quite such a technologically innovative project as building one to Ireland.

There has been comment about the economic crime Bill. Earlier, the Chancellor promised us that nothing is off the table in relation to economic crime, but unfortunately the economic crime Bill has not got as far as the table yet. Last week, the Government said that that was because they could not find time in the parliamentary timetable. Almost exactly two hours after they said that, the business in this place collapsed three and a half hours early. For the second time in three weeks, it had collapsed over three hours early because the Government could not think of important enough business to fill up a day. I suggest that it is not about a lack of parliamentary time but a lack of Government will. This is a Government that can find the time to legislate to strip citizens of their right to peaceful protest, but cannot or will not find the time to legislate to strip Putin’s pals of their ill-gotten billions.

I entirely agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is no longer in his place, about the protection of whistleblowers and the encouragement of whistleblowing. When it is done properly, it is one of the best defences against any kind of financial crime that we have. I wonder what it says about this Government’s genuine commitment to protecting whistleblowers when we see the comments that Sue Gray made about the culture of bullying at the heart of Government. Nobody asked her to look to look at bullying—it was not part of her remit—but there were clearly a lot of people in No. 10 who decided that this was a chance to talk about it.

The best way to deal with fraud is to prevent it from happening, rather than trying to deal with it a year or two after it has happened. I used to do fraud awareness courses when I was a local government senior auditor, and it was always made clear—as it was when I was chair of the audit committee of the third biggest council in Scotland—that the culture has to come from the top. It is the same as dealing with bullying, harassment and other unacceptable behaviour in any organisation. The message that is sent out and the ethos that is demonstrated day in, day out by the leaders of the organisation is much more important than what is written on an official document in a policy library somewhere.

The ethos and the example set by those at the top are crucial. What example does it set when the Standards Committee of this House finds that a senior Member of the House is guilty of “egregious” and “corrupt” acts, in the words of the Chair of the Committee, and the Government’s response is to try to discredit the Committee and the Standards Commissioner and get them removed from office? Does that look like the action of a Government who are committed to setting a culture where no level of corruption and no level of abuse of position is acceptable? It does not look like that to me.

I know that there are Members on the Conservative Benches—I certainly include the Economic Secretary to the Treasury among them—who are utterly decent people. I can understand why some of the Conservative Back Benchers who were here earlier were not too pleased to be included in some of the accusations that have been levelled against their party. There are decent and honest people on Conservative Benches, but we need to say to them that it is time for them to step up. What we have just now is a system of government that has always been wide open to serious abuse, with far too much power concentrated in far too many hands and far too little genuine oversight or genuine responsibility. It is a system that has just been waiting for the wrong person to come along and abuse it, and I believe sincerely that we are bearing the fruits of that now. It is up to those who have the integrity that is needed—particularly those on the Government Front Bench—to step forward now and start clearing out the corruption in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

We all vividly remember the triumphant statements from the Chancellor at the time about how much money was being made available, but can the Minister refer us to any mention in Hansard from the Chancellor at the time about the levels of fraud that were being provided for in any of those schemes?

[John Glen]

When we designed the schemes, it was clear that we had to put in reasonable measures around the identity of individuals and that we had to allow people to self-report their turnover. The whole conversation with the banks was designed to ensure that that money was available as quickly as possible while not being reckless with those finances. We did it on the basis that, inevitably, there would be a measure of fraud. I am grateful for the measured way in which the hon. Gentleman speaks in the House. I cannot give a specific answer to his question, but that explains the context in which the schemes were designed.

The measures that we put in place were robust and comprehensive. There was no one single point in time where we said, “We’ve got everything right”—I would never stand at this Dispatch Box and say that. Some £2.2 billion of potentially fraudulent bounce back loan applications were blocked through up-front checks and extra fraud checks were introduced in relation to the bounce back scheme at the earliest practical point. The Government categorically do not accept the suggestion, however, that those checks could have been part of the scheme at its launch.

I have spoken to officials on several occasions over the last two years about what more could have been done at the inception of those schemes. The extra checks that we put in place as quickly as we could would have delayed the start of the schemes, which were already delayed because of the circumstances I explained earlier. It would have caused further delay—in some cases, not just weeks but months—and would have led to serious harm for many SMEs at a time of what we all acknowledge was acute crisis.

Subsequently, however, we have given the Insolvency Service and Companies House new powers to prevent rogue company directors from escaping liability for their loans by winding down their businesses. We have invested £4.9 million in the National Investigation Service to probe serious fraud and it has recovered £3.1 million in the last year alone.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee debates 2nd sitting & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asks his question. We always want to discuss these issues as fully as possible with a view to finding viable options where they exist. As I said, the Home Office has consulted on detailed regulations to implement the prospective McCloud remedy for the police pension scheme, and it will bring forward the outcome of that consultation in due course.

The Government must not take action that inadvertently creates a new form of the very discrimination that this legislation is designed to address. The Government must also safeguard the purpose of the reforms proposed by Lord Hutton and ensure that public service pension schemes are put on a sustainable fiscal footing. As the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission put it,

“Allowing current members to continue to accrue further benefits in the present schemes for many decades would be unfair and inequitable to the new members coming behind them.”

The reformed public service pension schemes remain among the most generous schemes available in the United Kingdom. Based on the Office for National Statistics’ most recent assessment, 6.3 million public sector workers participate in these valuable schemes, while only 0.7 million workers in the private sector have access to defined-benefit schemes that are open to new members.

I am concerned that the new clause ultimately seeks to oblige the Chancellor to devise measures that would contradict these crucial aims of the prospective McCloud remedy. Compensating members with remediable service for the difference in pension age between their legacy and reformed schemes would, effectively, leave a protected class of public service pension scheme members beyond 31 March 2022, which could perpetuate the discrimination identified by the courts, or give rise to new discrimination. It would also severely weaken the efficacy of the prospective remedy for many years to come, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer.

To summarise, I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for bringing attention to this issue, and reassure her that the Government have been considering the position of these members. However, careful consideration must be given to the need to avoid perpetuating the discrimination identified by the courts, or introducing new discrimination against other pension scheme members, or inadvertently undoing much of the policy aims of this Bill, and this new clause asks the Chancellor to propose a means of doing just that. I therefore, respectfully, ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister started off by suggesting his main concern was that the new clause seeks to go further than has been requested by the Police Superintendents Association. If that was the case, then the Minister could have easily tabled an amendment that came closer, in his view, to delivering what the PSA was asking for without going significantly further. He has not done that, so we have to wonder if he had any intention of addressing the issue had the new clause not been tabled.

We are asking the Chancellor to table a report and present it to Parliament. There is nothing in the new clause that would require the Chancellor to commit a single penny of additional spending. It does not tell the Chancellor what his or her conclusions have to be at the end of that. It is perfectly in line with the wording of the new clause for the Chancellor to produce a report to say, “We could remedy the situation by doing a, b, c, x, y and z, but I cannot recommend doing that because that would introduce unfair discrimination that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act.”

The Minister is trying to make it seem as if the new clause is about forcing the Government to incur additional expenditure. My reading of it is that it is deliberately worded to avoid asking for a commitment at this stage, but it seeks to force the Government to recognise that there might still be a massive weakness in the Bill and to force the Chancellor to come forward with a solution that might address that weakness. If the solution proves to be unworkable or to be unfair in other ways, Parliament has the option to reject it.

Surely, it is wrong, at this stage, that a potentially serious unfairness should be left sitting in the Bill just because we are not sure we can find a way of fixing it. That is not a fair response to give, either to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who moved the new clause, or to those officers who are likely to be affected by it.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I pay tribute to our police and fire service. I appreciate that the Minister shares that sentiment. I want to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and others that we are just asking the Government to consider this again and to produce a report. That seems to be the very least that could be asked of them at this point.

It is worth remembering that the police and fire service—these valuable services, which are at the frontline of our public service and respond to challenging issues in our communities—have been through the pandemic after 10 years of quite serious austerity cuts in staff numbers. Once again, I ask the Minister to consider this new clause that asks only for a report to be produced, which would allow further discussion to take place.

I have met the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, both of which have genuine concerns, and I understand that the Fire Brigades Union does, too. We should listen to these public servants. They have genuine concerns. This is an important issue about the future and the status of these services. I ask the Minister to consider the new clause very seriously.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will start by talking about our public sector workforce and the service they give to this country. The pandemic has highlighted how much we depend on the NHS and on teachers, police and other frontline professionals who keep us and our loved ones safe. It is only right that the state ensures that our public servants are secure in retirement by providing a decent pension on a fair and equal basis.

Labour therefore welcomes the main provisions in clause 1, in particular the attempt to introduce a remedy for the discrimination of younger members in the new pension schemes established by the coalition Government between 2014 and 2016. I recognise that the remedy the Government have opted to include in the Bill—the deferred choice underpin, or DCU—was the preferred option of the overwhelming majority of respondents to the Government’s consultation, including Unison and GMB—my trade union. However, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that trade unions continue to have concerns about the lack of clarity on how the remedy, expected to cost around £17 billion, will impact the future value of members’ pension schemes.

On Second Reading on 5 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said

“liability…will fall on the Exchequer.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 112.]

That is an important commitment, but as Lord Davies of Brixton, a Member of the other place and one of the country’s foremost pension experts, has said, it does not address the question of whether the remedy will be included in the cost control mechanism at a later date. If this cost were to be included in a future cost control mechanism valuation, it would result in members receiving lower benefits and having to make higher contributions to their pension schemes. As the Public Accounts Committee has warned, this would, in effect, be unfairly penalising our public sector workforce for the Government’s economic incompetence by passing on some of the cost of the Treasury’s £17 billion mistake to members.

Can I ask the Minister to confirm, once and for all, whether the estimated £17 billion cost of the remedy will be included in future valuations of the pension schemes under the cost-control mechanism? If it is to be included, can he please set out how that will impact on the future value of members’ benefits and contribution rates? I think he will agree with me that our public servants deserve better than to be left in the dark, so I hope he will clarify this in detail.

Today, the Government have failed to address concerns about how pension scheme members will be protected from unscrupulous advisers. I know that Minsters have been reluctant to include pension scams in the draft Online Safety Bill, despite the spiralling costs of pension fraud and mis-selling. I would like the Minister to set out what steps he is taking to protect members from scammers, who may try to exploit the greater choice that this Bill provides by getting people to transfer out of the pension schemes in a way that is not in their best interest.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Some of the comments that I will make today will repeat the assurances I asked for on Second Reading. Looking back over the Hansard record, I think I was the only Member who spoke in that debate who did not have their queries addressed in the Minister’s summing up—not that I was keeping track or feeling got at, at all.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the query from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West; it should concern all of us that such a massive injustice almost slipped through the net. There have been dozens of chances for amendments to be made and for this Bill to be got right. I said on Second Reading that I was concerned that the number of very late amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords was an indication that there were still big gaps. Something as vital as not denying a public service worker their pension rights was missed because, as a result of a dreadful piece of legislation, their job was sold off to the private sector and then brought back in house again. For that potential injustice to have got this far, until the Government spotted it and brought them in, will leave us all at the end of today’s proceedings—and Tuesday’s if we sit then—still wondering what else is left that has not been picked up.

It is quite clear that, with some of the later amendments, the Government did not identify issues for teachers, whose length of service provision and their age sometimes will not fall into line with each other in a way that would be expected. Some of the later amendments suggest that the Government forgot that sometimes the Treasury does not decide things in Northern Ireland, but rather, it is the Northern Ireland Department of Finance that decides. How could such a crucially important piece of legislation have got to that stage without basic facts of the UK constitution having been picked up somewhere within Government?

I hope that when we come to those sections that the Minister will have the good grace to admit that sometimes there have been simple blunders by the Government, that mean we will have to consider these things as amendments rather than them being part of the substantive Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are taking about deferred pay for public sector workers, and therefore we should be treating this Bill with a great deal of care and attention?

[Peter Grant]

I absolutely agree. I made it clear during my comments on Second Reading that I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister’s and the Government’s intention to do the right thing. However, I believe it is a fundamental principle that if someone signs up to a pension scheme, they get what they were promised, even if it becomes inconvenient or the Government discover afterwards that it is going to cost more than they expected. That is why it is important we get clarity on who is going to pick up the tab for the £17 billion, for example. It concerns me that a group of workers who were very badly treated by legislation in the past would have lost even more than they thought they had done if the Bill had not been amended at such a late stage.

I hope that these will be the last substantive amendments that we need to see, but I suspect that on Report the Government will have another raft of big amendments for things that nobody spotted until now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is important to clarify one of the misapprehensions about what has happened over the course of the passage of this legislation to the issue that we are working to address. The Government did not, as it has been described, make a mistake. We inserted transitional protections into the scheme after the recommendations of Lord Hutton, expressly at the request of the trade union movement. It is important to establish that the request for transitional protections to be inserted was a trade union-led request. That is what triggered the discrimination action against the Government, which we are now working to address. I would defend the Government’s record here quite strongly; this is not something that we have brought about. None the less, we are obviously working in good faith to seek to address it.

[Peter Grant]

It just will not wash for the Minister to blame the trade unions. If this Government were in the habit of paying a blind bit of attention to anything else the trade unions say, that might be credible. But the trade unions did not make the regulations that were proved to be unlawful; the Government made them. Why can the Minister not accept that the Government took the decision and got it wrong?

[Mr Clarke]

The Government obviously take responsibility for all of those things, but it is important to establish the full context. We inserted the changes at the request of the trade union movement, and they were found to be discriminatory in a way that could not have realistically been anticipated at the time that the legislation was brought forward. None the less, we are where we are, and I want to address some of the substantive concerns raised in particular about the cost of remedy. We will come back to this later as well in the course of the Committee, because it will arise again in the context of some of the other clauses.

It is really worth clarifying definitively that the Exchequer is responsible for paying out pensions due from unfunded public service pension schemes, to which this relates. This works in practice by current employer and member contribution incomes being used to meet the costs of paying current pensioners. Where contribution income does not match the cost of pensions in payments in any given year, the Treasury has to make the balancing payment. In this way, the Exchequer guarantees the benefit that members worked so hard to earn, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly said, during their time in service.

Remedy increases the pension rights of eligible members over the period in question—2015 to 2022. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, the estimated cost of this remedy for unfunded schemes is in the region of £17 billion, in terms of long-term liabilities for the Exchequer. The Exchequer will therefore pay out these increased pension benefits due to members over several decades as members retire. There should be no doubt that the ultimately liability sits with the Exchequer, rather than scheme members. It is worth noting that, overall, these reforms are estimated to save the Exchequer some £400 billion in long-term liabilities, which is important for the long-term sustainability of our public service pension schemes in an age of rising life expectancy.

On the question of remedy, which is really important in the cost control mechanism, I should be clear that member benefit levels and contribution rates are set out in individual scheme rules and can be adjusted through the cost control mechanism at scheme valuations. The cost control mechanism—again, I will expand on this later—is designed to both protect the value of schemes to members and to protect the Exchequer from unforeseen costs.

At each scheme valuation, the mechanism assesses the benefits that have accrued and are accruing to members to determine whether future benefit levels of member contribution rates need to be adjusted to manage the cost of the scheme. By increasing the pension rights of eligible members, the remedy we are talking about today increases the value of those schemes to members, which is why it is right that it is reflected in the cost control mechanism for the 2016 valuations.

However, because we are waiving the ceiling breaches while honouring floor breaches of the mechanism, it is vital that we establish now, for the avoidance of any doubt, that no member benefits will be cut and no member contribution rates will increase as a result of the 2016 valuations. Any benefit improvements due will be honoured, but no additional costs will be imposed. I reassure the hon. Lady, on her important question, that the costs of our remedy genuinely sit with the Exchequer, not scheme members.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s important point regarding people not being caught up by pension fraud. Public service pensions schemes do not allow members to transfer to such arrangements, only to equivalent defined-benefit schemes, so there is a degree of protection against the most egregious fraud, but we are always happy to work with individual schemes and the industry to try to promote best practice and make sure that people do not fall victim to any form of mis-selling.

As I set out, this is a highly complex and technical Bill. The amendments in this group, and some we will come on to discuss, are crucial to ensuring that a robust remedy is in place—in this particular instance, for teachers with excess service and those who have a period of service that was subject to a local government contracting-out transfer. On the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes raised, it is important to note that many of these amendments result from close discussion with individual schemes and stakeholders right up until this moment, not because we had not anticipated many of these questions but because, in truth, how best to resolve them—there are sometimes multiple ways—has been a matter for close discussion. We are confident that the remedies we are bringing forward and the amendments that fall within the scope of today’s proceedings are the optimal way of making sure that we have a new system that is fair and, crucially, provides the most robust possible remedy to the concerns being raised.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments made: 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 37, at end insert

“, or

(c) is, as a result of a local government contracting-out transfer, pensionable service under a pension scheme that offers pension arrangements that are broadly comparable with those offered to the person before the transfer.”.

This amendment amends the definition of “disqualifying gap in service” so that it includes a period during which the person was transferred to a private sector employer under local government contracting out arrangements.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 3, line 3, after “scheme” insert “or excess teacher service”.—(Mr Clarke.)

This amendment is consequential on the amendment of the second condition in this clause made by separate government amendment.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Remediable service treated as pensionable under Chapter 1 legacy schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Clause 5 requires scheme regulations to make provision to allow a member who opted out in relation to a period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 to elect for that service to be reinstated as though they had not opted out, if they satisfy conditions that may be specified in the regulations. This ensures that the member can be put back in the position that they would have been in had they not chosen to opt-out as a result of the discrimination.

[Peter Grant]

Can I raise with the Minister the concern that I raised on Second Reading but did not get an answer to? I welcome the vast majority of clause 5, because it is right that if a member of a pension scheme took a decision about opting in or out based on circumstances that have now changed beyond their control they should be given the opportunity to reconsider that decision. That is absolutely correct. And there has to be some kind of provision as to the conditions about when that right is put in place; I do not have a problem with that.

However, paragraphs (5)(c) and (6)(a) refer to conditions potentially being applied that would require the applicant to submit certain information before the application could be accepted? The House of Commons Library has suggested that one type of information that could be asked for would be for the individual to demonstrate that the reason that they took action was because of what we now know to have been unlawful discrimination built into the scheme.

My question to the Minister is this: is it reasonable to expect somebody to be able to demonstrate that? What standard of proof will be required? I need to remind the Minister that the Windrush scandal happened because the Government retrospectively decided to demand that citizens produce certain information in order to have their rights of citizens respected and they made completely unreasonable expectations on people to have retained information.

Okay, we are talking now about something five or seven years ago instead of 30, 40, 50 years ago, but the principle is still the same. Is it reasonable to assume that people will have kept documentation to demonstrate that they acted on the basis of information at the time and not for some other reason? Can we have an assurance that any regulations will not put an unreasonable burden of proof on people who may well have acted for the reasons set out in the clause, because the chance of them having kept any evidence to prove it five or 10 years later is pretty slim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Again, I have a question that I put on Second Reading that was not truly answered then.

In the background papers for the Bill, the Government suggested that clause 6(7) would apply to a fairly small number of people—I think that was how they described them. These are the people who would have a better deal if they were able to mix and match some provisions from one scheme and some from another, and they are now being told that they can opt for entirely one scheme or the other.

I understand the Government’s position, which is that these are people who have been given a benefit that they would not have had if there had not been unlawful discrimination, so they can have no reasonable objection if it is taken away. I suspect that the people who will lose that benefit will take a different view.

However, my real question was this: how many people are potentially affected? The information I have seen—this is the figure I quoted on Second Reading—is that we could be looking at somewhere up to 245,000 people. That is a small percentage of the total number of pensioners affected by this legislation, but a quarter of a million people cannot be described as a small number. Will the Minister confirm how many people he expects to be affected particularly by the restriction in clause 6(7)?

[Mr Clarke]

I can commit to write to the hon. Member with our best estimate, although it may be that my officials can provide me with such an estimate. In that case, I will relay it to him in a later answer as we make progress on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 10

Deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Clauses 23 to 25 are concerned with ensuring that schemes have further powers to remedy the discrimination that arose. Clause 23 provides a power for scheme managers to pay compensation in respect of any compensatable losses incurred by members as a result of the discrimination suffered. Clause 24 provides a power for scheme regulations to award a member additional benefits where a member has suffered a tax loss because of the discrimination. Finally, clause 25 provides that scheme regulations for a chapter 1 legacy scheme may make provision to give members with remediable service the facility to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions, to further address the discrimination.

[Peter Grant]

I have some similar questions to the one that I asked on clause 10, although the wording here is much more specific. I am looking at clause 25(3), where, again, there is a requirement that if someone wants to pay the additional voluntary contributions that they would have paid earlier but for the change in the scheme regulations, they can do so

“only if the scheme manager is satisfied that it is more likely than not”

that they would have chosen to pay them had they known that the change was coming.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, how do we ensure consistency of treatment if we have scheme members applying to different scheme managers? Perhaps more importantly, what is the route of redress if someone is unhappy with the decision of the scheme manager? Do the Government plan to legislate in order to set out clearly what the redress is in those circumstances, or do members have to fall back on the grievance and dispute procedures that are built into their terms of employment or the terms of individual schemes? That could mean that we get inconsistency when people in similar circumstances put in similar applications, so that one is approved under the rules of one scheme, and one is not approved under the rules of another. That does not deliver the equality of treatment that the Bill is intended to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, Labour Members are also concerned that the economic check is insufficiently transparent and provides too much room for ministerial interpretation of long-term economic assumptions, which could risk politicising the mechanism. I sincerely believe that the Government should rethink their approach to the economic check. We are opposed new clause 2 as it stands, and I will press it to a vote.

[Peter Grant]

I share a lot of the concerns that have just been expressed so eloquently from the Labour Front Bench. I have a couple of other issues with what is in the new clauses; perhaps the Minister will explain.

I understand why the Government want to build in growth in the economy, but at the same time I agree fully with the concerns expressed by the official Opposition. In new clause 1, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage

“or any sector of the economy”

becoming relevant? In which particular sectors of the economy does he think that growth will be particularly relevant to local government or other public sector pensions?

The provision goes on,

“the growth in the economy…of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.

Who takes the decision that the economic performance of one particular part of the United Kingdom is relevant to a particular pension scheme or to all pension schemes? What do we mean by a “part” of the United Kingdom? Is that simply the four constituent nations? Can it be influenced more by the economy in London than the economy in Yorkshire?

As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned a minute ago, the Bill will be far too vague at this point. It will put far too much power into the hands of, presumably, Ministers. There is no guarantee of any accountability or transparency as to the way this is operated. For that reason, my understanding is that a number of unions, although they support the intention behind new clause 1 in its entirety—I am struggling over whether to oppose the entire new clause, as I want to see a lot of stuff in there in the Bill—have significant concerns about that particular part of the economic check. If I were not opposing the new clause, I would be minded to table a more significant amendment at a later stage in proceedings. Will the Minister explain when he envisages a particular sector of the UK economy to be relevant, and when he expects that to be the economy in a particular part of the United Kingdom?

Finally, the Minister was keen to tell us what the unions had said about the previous transition arrangements. Will he tell us what the unions are saying about the economic check in this part of the Bill? Will he explain why he listened to the unions previously, but does not seem to be listening to them now?

[Matt Rodda]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. She is making an excellent point, and I am glad that she will press for a vote. The issue here relates to the need for transparency and trust, and the Government must reassure worried public servants, who have worked hard and have every right to expect a decent pension and retirement, that there is no sleight of hand here.

One of the three issues the Minister mentioned is to be dealt with in regulations, and the other two are on the face of the Bill. I would like him to reassure the Committee about the nature of those regulations, how they will be dealt with by the House and when they will be brought forward. I also remind him of the views of the independent Public Accounts Committee, which urged the Government to take the matter seriously, saying that the Government should

“quickly resolve the challenges presented by the McCloud judgment and cost control mechanism”

and that that was important to rebuild trust. I hope the Minister will consider the PAC’s thoughtful advice on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

We have modelled the full detail. In so far as there is any particular point of clarification that the hon. Lady would like, I will happily write to her after these proceedings to provide whatever we can.

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister clarify something about the other part of my question? Who will decide whether the appropriate measure to use is the growth in the economy of the entire UK, the growth of the economy of one sector, or the growth in the economy of one nation or region? Is that decision within the remit of the OBR?

[Mr Clarke]

It is the OBR’s decision to make.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 86 accordingly disagreed to.



Clause 87

Amendments relating to the Secret Intelligence Service etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cost of Living Increases

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The UK economy is roaring back to life following the unprecedented challenges that we faced during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. It may have escaped the attention of Scottish National party Members, but job vacancies have hit record highs while the unemployment rate has fallen sharply. Our GDP has rebounded. We are set to enjoy faster growth this year than anywhere in the G7, and our economy is now bigger than it was before the pandemic.

Job numbers are rising, unemployment is falling and the economy is back to its pre-covid level, but that has not happened by accident. The economy has been able to bounce back so strongly and quickly only because of the decisions made by this United Kingdom Government. Let me remind the House of those decisions. The £400 billion of direct economic support has protected millions of people’s livelihoods in every part of the United Kingdom, with the furlough and self-employment income support schemes safeguarding, in Scotland alone, more than 1 million jobs. The success of our vaccine roll-out has meant that we have retained the most open economy and society anywhere across Europe. And our plan for jobs is creating work opportunities and ensuring that people have the right skills to get into work.

Those achievements are underpinned by the fiscal strength and stability of our economic union. That is why, at the autumn Budget, we confirmed that the devolved Administrations are receiving an extra £12.6 billion of Barnett-based funding this year, taking total block grant funding to £77.6 billion.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In that glowing list of statistics that the Minister had prepared for him, does he have a figure for the current level of child poverty on these islands, and if not, why not?

[Mr Clarke]

What the hon. Gentleman misses is that a jobs-based recovery lies at the heart of this Government’s plan. If he cares to look at this Government’s record, as opposed to that of the Government in Holyrood, he will see that the United Kingdom Government outperforms Holyrood every day of the week on job creation, growth and stability, which, in the end, goes to the heart of all our constituents’ life chances.

Over the next three years, the Government are providing, on average, an additional £8.7 billion a year to the DAs on top of their annual £66 billion baseline. That funding equates to an average of £4.6 billion a year more for the Scottish Government, £2.5 billion more for the Welsh Government and £1.6 billion a year more for the Northern Ireland Executive. It will support the devolved Administrations as they shape the economic recovery and decide how best to invest in the vital public services on which people rely.

We are acutely aware of the cost of living challenges that people face. Inflation is expected to average around 4% this year, 2.6% next year and then to return to target by the end of 2023. It is true that almost every other developed economy is facing similar issues due to increasing global demand after the pandemic and a global spike in wholesale gas prices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The Scottish pound—there we go. That has answered all the problems. There are no concerns about what the Scottish pound would be or when it would be introduced. I think that the muted response of the hon. Member’s colleagues tells him that that was not the best intervention to make. Yet again, none of them can answer that question. I have asked them many times before, but none of them can credibly say what currency an independent Scotland would have. I think that is telling.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

rose—

Rebated Fuel Rules: Construction Industry

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing the debate and her excellent opening speech. She has clearly spent a long time familiarising herself with the issue and getting the views of the people who really matter: those whose jobs and businesses are at risk if this goes wrong. There has been huge amount of agreement from all the speakers, which is what happens when we put a good bunch of Ulstermen and Scots together: agreement on most things, shall we say.

As has been said, Mr Bone, there is no argument about the principle. We want to reduce carbon emissions and the other air pollution that comes from almost all fossil fuel use. We would support anything that will achieve that, but there is nothing in the policy paper that the Government have produced about a long-term reduction in the use of fossil fuels, and the Exchequer impact, the tax take, sits at around £1.4 billion to £1.5 billion every year for the duration mentioned in the paper.

[Mr Carmichael]

On the subject of emissions reduction, there is a possibility that in fact we will see an increase in emissions. I have one company in Shetland that manufactures polystyrene boxes for use in aquaculture and fishing. It can manufacture their boxes in Shetland at the moment and sell them economically, but its competition on the Scottish mainland do so with mains gas. That company will lose its competitive advantage and polystyrene boxes will then have to be transported from the mainland to Shetland. The carbon consequences of that are just lunatic.

[Peter Grant]

I am not familiar with the details of the example that the right hon. Gentleman gives, but I have no reason to doubt that he has researched it as thoroughly as he researches everything else he says, either here or in the Chamber. There will be unintended consequences that the Government have not identified yet.

I have the privilege to serve on the Public Accounts Committee. One of our reports, a year or two ago, looked at what are termed environmental taxes. We raised concerns about how it is often difficult to see where the environmental impact of environmental taxes is being measured or monitored, or whether there is even any target impact when they are introduced. A lot of environmental taxes might be well intentioned to begin with, but they quickly become just another money-making scheme for the Treasury.

It appears quite clear to me that that is what this proposal is set out to be from the beginning. If it is not about making money, but about reducing fuel use and pollution from fuel, why does the policy paper tell us how much more money the Treasury will get out of it, but not the expected reduction over the next four years as a result of the tax? In answering, can the Minister tell us by how much the Government expect the use of diesel fuel to be reduced as a result of this measure? If he cannot give that answer, he should ditch this plan and bring it back for parliamentary approval when he can tell us what the environmental impacts are likely to be. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to a case where the proposal could actually increase fossil fuel use.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann pointed out that some of the Government’s own guidance tells us that, as a consequence of a fuel reduction scheme, people are supposed to flush more fuel down the drain than they were before. Every time they change from one use to another, they are supposed to flush out the fuel from the tank. A supplier who wants to switch from using white diesel to using red diesel instead is told to flush every trace of white diesel out of the tanks. What a waste of fuel from a system that is supposed to be about reducing fuel usage.

[Dave Doogan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of the traces of red diesel that will still be intact, the construction sector should be genuinely concerned about the pragmatic approach of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in enforcing the excise situation? Should we not have something that is much less opaque and more defined?

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have seen other examples of proportionate, pragmatic and reasonable enforcement from HMRC. Certainly, the experience of my constituents in a lot of tax enforcement is that those terms tend not to come up in conversations very often.

We should be clear that this is not an example of the Government closing a tax loophole that is being exploited at our expense by rogues, villains and scallywags. Those companies have done everything legally, and quite often put themselves at significant difficulty to separate the red and white diesel that they use for different purposes.

We are talking about criminalising on 1 April something that was perfectly legal on 31 March. If the Government suddenly decide to criminalise what those companies are doing, surely it is reasonable to use some of the £5.5 billion that the Government will make over four years from the changes to support businesses that will need it to comply with the new regulations.

The Government have said that the measure will have no macroeconomic impact. I do not know how macro something has to be to be considered macro, but I suggest that taking £5.5 billion out of the economy over the space of four years will have a macroeconomic impact on a lot of businesses. If someone’s business closes, that has a macroeconomic impact on their family’s finances. It is not even as if we are adding this tax to a low tax burden for businesses and individuals. The UK tax burden is already close to the highest it has been since my mammy was at school—I have a free bus pass, so Members can do the arithmetic for themselves.

Some of the indirect impacts of the measure have already been mentioned, including on the cost of construction. It will no longer be viable for self-employed people in the construction businesses to continue trading. Construction businesses will close down, and construction projects will stop mid-stream—or might never be completed—when the main contractor goes bust without warning. That kind of thing already happens all too often.

Affordable house building will become less affordable because the builders will not be able to continue to build at the prices they had given previously. There is only one place those additional costs will go: to the people buying the houses at the end of the construction. If that purchaser is a council, a housing association or another social landlord, the additional costs will go to tenants or will lead to the cancellation of the project because it is no longer affordable.

As has been mentioned, there is extreme volatility in the prices of raw materials that construction firms rely on. I have spoken to construction supply firms that find that the price of raw materials can increase by 100% and then drop back down again in a matter of weeks, making it difficult for them to price jobs and to rely on affordable pricing from which they can make a profit without pricing themselves out of the market.

If there were clearly demonstrated environmental and pollution-reduction benefits to the tax, there might be a price worth paying by us all, but there are none whatsoever. The impact is targeted at far too small a portion of the economy, and in a part of the economy that was already on its knees because of the combined impact of Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic.

The construction sector and the construction materials sector should be getting Government support; they should not be getting kicked while they are down. If the Government are not prepared to give up on this plan entirely, I ask them to delay it or, at least, to phase it in over a longer time, to give our hard-pressed industries a chance to survive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

The right hon. Member has asked me to forecast something that clearly has a level of uncertainty. Some businesses will—[Interruption.] If he will just listen to me, some businesses will continue to use diesel but will switch to standard diesel. Others will shift to alternatives. We also expect to see greater fuel efficiency. What we do know, as I said earlier, is the size of the problem. Diesel emits 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year—around 3% of total UK emissions. It is a significant amount, which we should not be overlooking and trying to delay taking action on. I am surprised to hear colleagues arguing for that.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the Minister for admitting that the Government do not know what reduction in diesel fuel usage they expect to get from the proposal. I will ask the question another way. The figures in the Government’s Budget papers have been cleared by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will have looked at the assumptions built into them. Is it correct to say that in forecasting the tax take from the tax over the next four years the Government have assumed that there will be no reduction in the number of litres used and therefore in the usage of diesel fuel?

[Helen Whately]

That is not a figure that I have seen, but I can double-check that. I was asked specifically whether there has been an economic impact assessment. We consulted on the proposal and assessed the expected impact. As usual, a tax information and impact note was produced and published, as hon. Members would expect.

For those who said that the change will not make a difference to the environment, or will backfire, as I mentioned it is about incentivising the development of alternatives. Alternatives are already being developed. Specifically to support that, the Government have doubled the funding for energy innovation through the £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently announced £40 million of funding for the red diesel replacement competition, which is part of that portfolio, to specifically grant funding to projects that will develop and demonstrate lower-carbon, lower-cost alternatives to red diesel for the construction and mining and quarrying sectors.

Downing Street Garden Event

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I say to Jane that, again, I apologise unreservedly for the upset that the allegations have caused. I say to Jane that I am very sorry for her loss. We are conducting an investigation independent of Government and we will await the results of that investigation to establish what exactly has occurred as regards the gatherings that the House has been discussing.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Some think that the Paymaster General’s performance in stonewalling at the Dispatch Box for almost an hour and a quarter now is something to be congratulated, or revered, in politics. I do not. This is not a courtroom. The Paymaster General is not representing a client to whom he owes an absolute duty to represent their best interests. That Dispatch Box is where Ministers come to tell the truth with complete candour, holding nothing back. Does the Paymaster General not realise that, regardless of the Prime Minister’s non-existent reputation, his own reputation has been shredded in the past hour and 15 minutes? Does he not realise that, as a result, not only is the Prime Minister finished, but his own position has become almost untenable?

[Michael Ellis]

I can only say that I leave others to make those judgments.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Peter Grant Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I begin by wishing a somewhat belated bliadhna mhath ùr—happy new year—to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to colleagues. I include in that colleagues across the House who would have had something positive to contribute to tonight’s proceedings, or to the proceedings earlier in the day, but have been prevented from doing so because they are not able to travel to be here and for reasons that I will never understand are not allowed to participate without being physically present in this place.

The reason we have the Bill here today is that the court has ruled that the way that the Government have treated 3 million of our most valuable citizens is unfair, discriminatory and unlawful—a £17 billion mistake, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pointed out. We therefore have to approve either this Bill or something like it very soon. We cannot allow that illegality to continue. We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, although there are a number of areas where we have concerns, some of them echoing the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We may want to raise some of these matters in Committee in due course.

Before I go on to indicate some of the detailed concerns, I will set out some general principles. First, I entirely endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East in that somebody who is giving valuable service anywhere in the public sector is absolutely entitled to a proper wage, to proper conditions of employment, and to a decent pension when they come to retire. This used to be quite a regular source of outrage for those on the Conservative Benches, egged on by their pals in the right-wing press—people like the Rothermeres and the Barclays who do not rely on a state pension, or any other kind of pension, all that much. They used to think it was outrageous that people who had worked a lifetime in the public sector were guaranteed a decent pension when they retired. It is not an outrage that somebody who gives 30 or 40 years of loyal service retires on a decent pension; it is an outrage that so many people who give 30 or 40 years of loyal service do not get to retire on a decent pension.

Although the Bill improves things following the mistake that was made, the Government have not even begun to look at possibly the single biggest weakness in a number of big public sector public schemes, including the ones that we are talking about tonight—that is, that they are unfunded. That does not mean that there is no money for them, but it means, effectively, that somebody making a pension contribution today is paying not their own pension but the pensions of previous generations that have already retired. They are just hoping that when they come to retire a future generation of workers will be there putting into the pot to pay their pension, while the Government—the taxpayer—have to pick up any shortfall. It is almost like a legalised Ponzi scheme.

I would love to know what the thinking was when the schemes were set up. Why did anyone think that that was a good way to set up an employee pension scheme? It is intrinsically unstable, especially if the number of people employed and contributing to the scheme changes significantly over time, because a smaller number of people are trying to pay the pensions of a bigger number of retired colleagues—and clearly over the years most areas of the public sector have seen a reduction in employment. That is why we have the difficulty in affordability and sustainability that we are trying to address just now. To be honest, I do not envy whatever Government Minister it is who will eventually have to find a fair way of squaring that circle, but we cannot afford to keep ignoring it for ever.

Secondly, I believe in principle that for someone in a defined-benefits occupational pension scheme, a career-average scheme will be fairer than a final-salary scheme. It does not necessarily mean that it is cheaper. It does not necessarily mean that they have to contribute more. It does not necessarily mean that their pension has to be less. It would be quite possible to set up a scheme where the workers did not have to contribute any more and where most of them got the same pension or better than they already had. When I say that I agree with the principle that the Government have stated previously that a career-average model will tend to be fairer to a lot of workers than the current final-salary scheme, that does not mean that I want it to be used as an excuse to cut pensions, to force workers to contribute more of their wages to the pension scheme, or indeed to increase the pension age. We can move to a career-average scheme without having to do any of those things.

The third general point is critical. When somebody chooses to contribute to an employer’s pension scheme on the basis of promises that have been made by the employer, by the scheme administrator or by the Government, those promises must be honoured. Retrospectively moving the goalposts is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for public sector workers with regard to their employment pension, and it was not acceptable for the WASPI women. I know that that means that it takes much longer for any changes to pension schemes to have their full effect, but there is an important question of trust at stake. In October 2010, the Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission said that protection of accrued benefits

“is a prerequisite for reform both to build trust and confidence and to protect current workers from a sudden change in their pension benefits or pension age.”

I know that the Government have said that they want to comply with that recommendation, but it remains to be seen whether the Bill, as it is now or as it may be amended later, achieves that.

The contribution that people have made to their final salary scheme gives them an entitlement to the benefits that they were promised from that scheme at the time that they made that contribution. The fact that there seems to be widespread acceptance now that those promises might no longer be affordable for the public sector finances is not the fault of the workers and it is not the fault of their employers. For decades, successive Governments have failed to provide a public sector pension scheme that was affordable and sustainable in the longer term.

The final general point is that we need the Bill because the Government got it catastrophically wrong. They passed legislation that embodied unlawful discrimination. Regardless of what remedy is eventually put forward and agreed, it will have a cost. It will have a direct cost in terms of changes to people’s retirement age, changes to pension contributions, and changes to the pension they get when they do retire, and a substantial indirect cost as a result of the mountain of extra administrative work that will be needed. There should not be any argument about where these costs should fall. They should fall on the Government, not on the workers because it is not their fault, not on the employers, because it is not their fault, and not on the scheme administrators, because it is not their fault either. The Government created the problem and the Government should be making sure that they and they alone carry the costs of fixing it not only in the short term but permanently.

Let me turn now to some of the more detailed provisions of the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment says that there is “a small number of people” who currently have a mix of legacy scheme and new scheme benefits and that that mix is more advantageous than it would be for them to have all of the eggs in one or other of those baskets. Clauses 6(7) and 10(5) will force those people to put all their eggs into one basket. They will lose out. The Government have said that they are only losing out on something that they should not have had, because the Government previously passed a bad law. That is a feeble excuse. I would like the Minister’s clarification on this point. Table 4 on page 68 of the Government’s equality impact assessment—this is not the same as an assessment of impacts, although, presumably, the two should be compatible with each other—says that about 245,000 people have what is termed tapered protection. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who will lose out from clauses 6(7) and 10(5)? If that number is anywhere close to 245,000, is it right that the Government should just dismiss them as a small number of people? Two hundred and forty-five thousand livelihoods do not seem like a small matter to me.

Clause 5 allows regulations to be made that would let members opt back into a scheme if they opted out during what is termed a “remedy” period. That is only fair as it protects workers from losing out if the rules on which they based their decision are retrospectively changed. Later on in the same clause, subsections (5) and (6) appear to allow the regulations to require the member to provide certain information, including the reasons why they opted out or did not opt out at the time. An excellent briefing prepared for us by the House of Commons Library suggests that those subsections could be used in regulations to restrict the right to reinstatement except when the member can demonstrate that they opted out as a result of that unlawful discrimination.

A similar situation is explicitly set out in clause 24. It allows members retrospectively to pay additional voluntary contributions if they can show, on the balance of probabilities, that they would have done that during the remedy period had it not been for the unlawful discrimination. In both those scenarios, how is somebody supposed to prove, even only on the balance of probabilities, the reasons they did something or opted not to do something seven years ago? Who keeps that information for that length of time? Who will they have to convince—the Government or individual scheme administrators? If it is individual scheme administrators, how do we ensure that there is consistency and fairness in the way that different applications to different schemes are applied?

Most importantly, where will the legal risk lie if, as seems inevitable, somebody is aggrieved that they have been prevented from opting back into a scheme or from making backdated additional voluntary contributions and takes legal action? Will the legal risk lie with the Government who caused the problem or with the pension fund administrators who are desperately trying to fix it?

One further query concerns the admittedly hugely complex interplay that has been mentioned among the amount of money that someone contributes to a pension, the amount of money they get as a pension, and their tax liabilities when they are paying into a pension and when they are collecting it after they retire. Again, I do not want to give the impression that I doubt the Government’s sincerity; I appreciate that they are entirely sincere in trying to ensure that tax consequences do not undermine the intention behind the Bill. All too often, however, I have seen the irrational way that the UK tax system works, even before the Bill has been enacted, so I genuinely do not have a good feeling about it. It concerns me that in passing the Bill, we will be relying on clause 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which is still in Committee and has not received Royal Assent, to sort out the problem that the Bill creates in relation to the potential impact on someone’s pension annual allowance. I do not like the idea that we are deliberately giving Second Reading to a Bill tonight while relying on a Bill that is somewhere else in the parliamentary system to fix the problem that we are creating. It does not seem to be a good way to do business.

After Second Reading and several days of Committee in the Lords, the Government had to come back with 123 amendments on Lords Report, and we have just been told that they are preparing an unknown list of amendments to table on Commons Report. That should make us all wonder how many other serious flaws that nobody has yet spotted are still lurking in the 116 pages of the Bill. The Bill should receive its Second Reading tonight, but I fear that many further amendments may be required before it is close to being fit for its stated purpose.

Draft Solvency 2 (Group Supervision) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve on a Committee that you are chairing, Ms Rees. Like the official Opposition, I do not intend to divide the Committee on the regulations, because there is a clear need for them in place of the existing temporary fix. As the Minister has said, the regulations are intended to make sure that, where the Prudential Regulation Authority—the UK’s regulatory body—is group supervisor of a UK insurance group whose parent company is in a third country, it can defer to that third country’s supervisory authority under certain circumstances. That includes the essential requirement that the insurance group supervision regime in the third country has been assessed by the UK Government as being equivalent to the UK’s regime.

A few questions arise from that. I have been trying to find out how big an issue this is in the world of insurance in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us how much of the UK insurance market is likely to come under the scope of the regulations? If we did not agree to these regulations or similar ones, how big a problem would we be leaving ourselves with, either by percentage or by value in pounds? Related to that, are there particular sectors or specialist types of insurance that might be especially exposed to the additional costs of duplicate regulation?

Conversely, how significant is the issue of UK insurers whose parent companies are in countries that are not recognised as equivalent? Does that continue to create a difficulty? I would hope that UK companies that are complying with legislation and regulatory requirements in the UK are more likely to be controlled by parent companies that act responsibly and would not give us any concerns about their governance, but it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister can answer that question.

The Minister has given us a list of the countries that are currently recognised as being equivalent. Are there any assessments currently under way that might add further countries to that list? How often will such an assessment need to be redone if there is divergence in the regulatory environment between the UK and some of these countries? Remember, we were told that one of the big business pluses of Brexit was that the UK’s regulatory framework could diverge from the European Union’s in all sorts of areas. Will these assessments need to be redone periodically to ensure that the equivalence that is there today is still there in future?

Related to that, does the Minister have any concerns about the current review of the Solvency 2 directive that the European Union is undertaking? Is that likely to mean that decisions that have been made about equivalence or anything else will only have to be reviewed when that directive is reviewed by the European Union? Of course, this time when the European Union reviews the directive, we are not there. Previously, the UK Government had an equal part on the commission that would carry out that review, but now it is being carried out without one of western Europe’s biggest insurance markets being represented, so are there any potential problems coming along the road as a result of the review?

As the Minister has said, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did not flag this up as an instrument that needed particular attention, but it did highlight the fact that the UK Government, the UK Parliament, is about to address the issue from one side even though there is no definite indication that the European Union will address the same issue from the other side. Does that create any advantages or disadvantages, either for a UK insurance company that has subsidiaries trading in the European Union or for UK companies that are subsidiaries of EU-based parent groups? It seems at the moment that we are heading towards a lop-sided equivalence, and I would be interested to know whether that creates any difficulties for any UK insurance companies. I cannot understand how something can be equivalent in one direction and not in the other, but perhaps the Minister or somebody from the European Commission could explain that one.

I have a couple of other questions. I suppose the main one is whether the Minister can confirm that the effect of this regulation is just pretty much to put us back where we were before Brexit, because if it is, there might have been a way to avoid it in the first place.

[John Glen]

I very much appreciate the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and I welcome her to her place this afternoon. I will try to address three or four points that she made about this regulation, and I will come on to the wider issue of equivalence and the broader Solvency 2 reform.

This statutory instrument just re-establishes the PRA’s power to exempt UK insurance groups from duplication. It affects 11 groups. If it were not done, that would mean an annual recurring cost of half a million pounds. The hon. Lady asked about the objectives and who would define them. The PRA has a statutory objective to take account of policyholder protections. That is part of its remit and something that it has an enduring and ongoing responsibility for.

The ongoing evaluation of prospective alternative countries is a matter for the PRA. The context here needs to be understood. We were completely aligned up till the end of the transition period. As a Government, we were very transparent about how we were approaching equivalence. Indeed, we made a number of determinations —I think 17 or 18 out of the 32—in November of last year. We complied fully with the EU and filled in 2,500 pages on equivalence. We also advanced a conversation around a regulatory dialogue and were ready for the memorandum of understanding to be signed. It is now a matter for the EU how it determines the way forward.

Both Opposition spokespeople spoke about the broader Solvency 2 reform. That is being looked at by the PRA and the Treasury, which are looking at the risk margin and the matching adjustment. We are looking at that closely with industry to determine the best way forward. That is completely distinct from this statutory instrument, but there is encouraging progress there.

This is not, though, a deregulatory move on the part of the UK. I think the whole Committee will understand that financial services is a dynamic industry where changes of regulation occur all the time, both on the EU side and here. This SI does not mean lower prudential standards. The PRA cannot issue waivers if by doing so it so adversely impacts the advancement of its objectives, which, as I said, are statutory ones of policyholder protection. The SI simply prevents a cliff edge that would otherwise happen on 1 April 2022. The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked whether the SI takes us back to the pre-Brexit position. The answer is no, it just restores the mechanism by which we can continue to grant equivalence.

I do not think there is too much else I can say to assist, but what we doing is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial. It will ensure that the UK’s equivalence decisions, which assess that the insurance group supervision regime in another country is equivalent to the UK—

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I thank him for the answers that he has provided to almost all of the questions I raised. I do not think he has yet covered the possible issue of UK insurance companies whose parent companies are headquartered outside the equivalent regulatory countries. Is that a significant issue? Is he aware of any UK companies that will still have to face duplicate regulation because their parent company is regulated somewhere else?

[John Glen]

Offhand, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of countries, but I am happy to look into matter and write to him if I can say something edifying. I do not want to complicate this anymore than I already may have done by my responses.

The instrument simply reduces the regulatory compliance cost for those affected insurance groups and reduces that supervisory cost for the PRA and equivalent third country supervisory authorities. There is nothing that I am trying to do here that represents a significant policy deviation, and I hope that my response has been sufficiently helpful to the Committee to allow the SI to be passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Commons Chamber

The scope of these clauses is limited to the operation of VAT in very specific circumstances. However, VAT more widely has a significant impact on people’s lives, so I end by repeating our call on the Chancellor to cut VAT to zero for domestic energy bills to help people through the tough winter months of low temperatures and high prices ahead.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am not planning to take up all the allotted time until 8.52 pm, although I did warn my colleagues in the SNP group that I was going to take until half-past 8 and then go to a Division, which did not make me flavour of the month.

The Minister can put a bold face on the wonderful gift the Government are giving to the people of Northern Ireland, and to car dealers in Northern Ireland in particular, under clauses 68, 69 and 70, but this is just another sticking plaster over the botched job that Brexit has been, especially in relation to Northern Ireland. That is because nothing that is delivered to businesses or customers in Northern Ireland is any better than the deal they already had before they were dragged out of the European Union against, let us not forget, the express wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland at the referendum in 2016.

The question is: how many more of these patch-up jobs do we need? I have lost count of the number of times that I have spoken in Bill Committees or in Delegated Legislation Committees pointing out that the only reason more and more legislation is needed is to fill gaps in previous legislation that had been put there to correct mistakes in even earlier legislation, rushed through by a Government who went into Brexit with no idea of what it meant and who ever since then have been trying to prevent us from understanding, and trying to conceal from the general population, just how much of a mess it continues to be. Anyone who says that Brexit has been got done either does not understand the truth or cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

In relation to clause 93 and schedule 14, the Committee will be aware that the approach that has been taken to free zones in Scotland is very different—or at least it would be very different if the Government were not so determined to force their lack of concern for workers’ rights and for the environment on to the proposals of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government had a proposal that should have been acceptable to the UK Government but for two problems: it demanded net zero freeports or free zones and it demanded enhanced workers’ rights. What problem can the Government have with that? Why do the Government not want the Scottish Government to undertake action on green ports or freeports that delivers our net zero commitments? What do the Government have in mind for future legislation on workers’ rights if they were not prepared to allow the Scottish Government to build that into legislation around green ports in Scotland?

The Scottish Government had a productive dialogue with the Treasury. They were ready to launch a joint applicant prospectus for green ports in March, but it never happened. In September, the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that Scotland’s proposal was not acceptable to the Government. I do not know whether this is technically within the scope of what we are discussing just now, so it may not be appropriate for the Minister to explain it, but I, my colleagues on the SNP Benches, a lot of colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and a lot of businesses in Scotland really want to know why the Government are refusing to allow the Scottish Government to legislate for green ports to meet the needs of Scotland and meet the demands and values of the Parliament that the Scottish people have elected.

I will not be seeking to divide the Committee on any of these clauses. Quite clearly, they are all necessary. As my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are any number of parts of the Bill that we would have liked to divide the Committee on, but we cannot because of the crazy way that this place does Budgets, where effectively most of the big decisions are taken before there is any proper debate on them. That is not a sensible way to set Budgets that will impact the lives of every single person and every single business in these islands. I hope that for once the Government will listen to these representations and come back next year with a method of setting Budgets that is more inclusive, more in tune with what happens in modern democratic Parliaments across the rest of Europe and elsewhere, and will almost certainly deliver a better Budget and a better Finance Bill than the one we have just now.

[Lucy Frazer]

I will be brief. I am pleased that these measures have cross-party support. We can tell that because both Front-Bench spokesmen took the opportunity to talk about other measures that are not in the Bill. To touch briefly on what they said, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) will know that we do not support reducing VAT on energy bills because it will not protect specifically those on the lowest incomes, but just give a tax break to those on high incomes. We are therefore bringing in specified measures to protect those on low pay.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) talked about the Scottish green ports. We would like to ensure that the whole UK can benefit, and we remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as soon as possible. We are confident that our model embraces the highest employment and environmental standards, and they will be national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce. For all the reasons that I have set out, I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 69 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill (Clauses 4, 6 to 8, schedule 1, clause 12, clauses 27 and 28, clauses 53 to 66, clauses 68 to 71, clauses 84 to 92, schedules 12 and 13, clause 93 and schedule 14, and certain new clauses and new schedules), as amended, to lie upon the Table.