European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

I did indeed see that. Think of all the distorting arrangements that will pop up.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leslie]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make some progress, because I have to talk about new clause 4, which relates to the divorce bill—the payment or the settlement. The Prime Minister said that the amount would be somewhere between £35 billion and £39 billion. When the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham, was on “Question Time”, she said that that was absolute nonsense and would never happen, but it turns out that £39 billion equates to over £700 for every adult in the UK. That is how much we are talking about. That is £700 a head for all the men and women in her constituency who voted for her and all those who did not vote. Strangely, that did not feature on the side of the red bus, and the notion of £350 million a week for the NHS has disappeared into thin air. We do not want to catch that particular bus ever again.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who chairs the Treasury Committee, has written to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office to ask him to examine the reasonableness of the sum. The phase 1 agreement said that a methodology had been agreed between the two sides to calculate the sum, but that has not been made available as far as I can see. I hope that the NAO will have that methodology, and that it will go through the agreement with a fine-toothed comb to find the exact figure that our constituents will end up paying.

Amendment 39 seeks to tease out what is happening on the question of transition, for which there are all sorts of metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) talked about there being no safe harbour, but the metaphor I like to give is that, if we have a cliff edge, transition is about our having a plank going a few feet out from the cliff edge: it would perhaps give us a bit of extra time, but it would not obviate the precipitousness of the fall that could affect the country—it simply defers when that will happen. The European Union side is absolutely clear that if we are going to have a transition, it will need to be on exactly the same arrangements that we have now, minus having Britain around the table with a say on the rules. That was why I tabled amendment 39. The Government have to get on with securing a transition, and the Chancellor was right to talk about it as a diminishing asset.

The arrangements had better be visible and available for businesses to see by the time we get to Easter and the March European Council meeting, because they need to know what will happen. Otherwise, quite naturally, they are going to have to make contingency plans to protect their business thereafter. I was talking to the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, which has come up with the sort of transition deal that it believes that many of its firms that work and invest here, employing many of our constituents, want to see. It thinks that a transition needs to have two distinct aspects. First, there needs to be a bridging period during which we can settle all the rules, finish all the negotiations, and establish the treaties and procedure. That will definitely take more than 21 months, and I saw that the chief executive of the EEF was completely scathing yesterday about how little could be achieved in the period currently envisaged. Secondly, there needs to be an adaptation period—a phasing in of the new rules. We need to start getting into exactly what the transition will involve, and that was why I tabled amendment 39.

My final point is about new clause 6, on which I will seek the views of the House if I get the opportunity. It relates to what will happen if unforeseen circumstances arise in the process. What will right hon. and hon. Members do if the Government come back with an unacceptable deal? We need to know what our options are. We have asked the Prime Minister on many occasions about the article 50 process. It is a notification process, and she sent the letter in, but when we ask whether the process can be extended, altered or revoked, she says that that is not the Government’s policy. That, of course, is not the question we are asking. We are asking whether the process can be extended. What is the legal advice? The Government have obviously taken legal advice, and I suspect that it says that the UK, if it so chose and the circumstances arose, could unilaterally revoke article 50. We would of course have to do that before exit day, because if we chose to do so after exit day, we would be looking to apply to rejoin the EU under article 49, which would mean our losing many of the benefits in our current deal. We in the House of Commons need to know the options available to us.

Productivity

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There is indeed a problem in the shift away from the added-value, higher-skilled economy that we must have to maintain our place in, and indeed win, that famous global race. If we think that we can do it simply by chasing lower-wage, lower-skilled markets, we will never ultimately succeed relative to other countries.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

This might be a shock to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not sure where he was at the time, but there was a global banking crisis—[Interruption.] I know it is a shock to Conservative Members, because in their script it has been expunged from the record, as if it never happened.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he agree that the culture of long working hours can often be the enemy of productivity? The textbook example is Volkswagen 10 or 20 years ago: when the working week was cut from 35 to 28 hours, productivity went up. When workers feel that they do not have all day to do the job, they get on with that job and productivity rises.

[Chris Leslie]

I think there is a case to be made for ensuring that we focus on the morale of those in employment. There is an optimal point from which morale can dip and fall. We have to focus on what creates the optimal circumstances for those in work to produce the amounts that our economy needs. That is all part of this complicated picture.

When we have managed to get the Chancellor to talk about productivity in the past, he has referred to a “productivity puzzle”. If we are looking for clues to the solution to that puzzle, looking more closely at the nature of our economic recovery is important. It still feels a bit stressed, quite fraught and fragile. Reflecting on that is part of the solution.

On skills, just a few weeks ago, the Office for National Statistics published its analysis showing that the share of high-skilled jobs in the economy is falling relative to the share of low-skilled work, which is of course taking its place. The Bank of England’s last inflation report stated that since mid-2013 employment growth had been more concentrated in lower-skilled occupations, concluding that this shift in the composition of the labour force could have dragged down aggregate productivity growth over the past two years.

That is not something that we should simply accept. I do not believe that we are just at the mercy of events and unable to influence our economic productivity. On this side, we believe that it does not have to be that way. History shows that Britain can do better. By contrast with the traditional Conservative approach, which is to step back and hope that productivity magically springs from the market out of thin air, we take a very different view. We believe that decent infrastructure and decent public services can support business growth. Motorways that flow freely and trains that commuters can get on; tax offices that answer business queries efficiently rather than keeping their company staff always on hold; swift treatment of sick employees in a decent NHS: all that is part of the productivity story, as is an education system that supports a workforce with high-quality skills. So many aspects of our public services are crucial for our future economic productivity. Each of those depends on the Chancellor making the right fiscal choices for this Parliament. This should have been at the top of the Chancellor’s agenda throughout the last Parliament; for him not even to mention it in the last Budget speech was a grievous error.

Future Government Spending

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

Give him both barrels!

Banking

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I am not quite sure what planet the hon. Gentleman is living on, but we have been consistently tabling amendments to financial services legislation to encourage more competition and to have an inquiry into retail banking competition. At every stage, the Government have refused to go down that route.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the respected Nobel prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz said in his book, “The Price of Inequality” that one of the ways forward is to

“curb the bonuses that encourage excessive risk-taking and short-sighted behaviour.”

The hon. Gentleman will see that we are back on that trajectory. We are heading for another crash and another period of excess in banking, as the monopolists’ rent-seeking behaviour continues in the City.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This morning the Chancellor gave his rationale for disagreeing with the European banker bonus cap. It is a shame that he did not take a lead in trying to construct something of his own to rein in this culture. After all, we would have had a repeat of the banker bonus tax. The Chancellor’s argument is, “Oh well, this is just going to move it all on to pay and on to ordinary salaries.” Surely one of the lessons of the banking crisis is that the excessive, short-termist risk and reward bonus culture was driving dysfunctional behaviour that got us into the mess in the first place. Frankly, I am sure those bankers will try to find all sorts of little dodges and weaves to get around the rules, but we have to make the system more transparent and we need to move towards a remuneration arrangement that is much more about sustainability, stability, professionalism and serving the customers. It would be foolish for the Government to try to sue Brussels on this point and hold out against public opinion, which has had enough of this excessive behaviour.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Scottish Government can find the ways and means to fund their pensions, they should be free from penalties from the Treasury at Westminster?

[Chris Leslie]

That comes down to how the legislation is drafted. There are different financial consequences for local government pension schemes than for other public service pension schemes. That is why we need clarity in the legislation. I am conscious that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have argued that there is no need for a legislative consent motion to cover the matter because, in theory, the UK Parliament always had primary legislative power over the local government pension scheme in Scotland but has hitherto chosen not to use it. The Government in Scotland have been quick to accept the UK’s proposals, which is unusual, because they normally argue that more power should sit with Holyrood. The movement of the regulation-making powers means that the Scottish Government will not need to grapple with difficult decisions on the reform of certain pensions, but the Opposition feel it would be better for Members of the Scottish Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the application of the legislation to the local government pension scheme in Scotland. Amendment 11 to clause 3 would mean that the Bill would not apply to the local government pension scheme in Scotland unless that is explicitly approved by the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and others have tabled parallel amendments—I gather they are in the third group, so we will probably return to this debate later.

Amendment 12, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), relates to another key Government promise made to public service workers. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation another Government promise made to public service workers—the Government promised that their final salary schemes would be replaced with career-average revalued earnings schemes. That would ensure that public service workers continue to receive a defined benefit pension.

The Bill does not explicitly honour that promise, and clause 7 provides that schemes created under the Bill can be defined benefit or defined contribution schemes, or any scheme of any other description. That is fundamental to the arguments on the Bill, but it is also fundamental to the arguments that Hutton made and the agreements that were reached. All schemes were supposed to be succeeded by career-average defined benefit schemes. In some cases, the Government might like to continue small defined contribution schemes, but the amendment would not affect those; it would apply only to final salary schemes and ensure that they are replaced with another defined benefit arrangement. The amendment therefore simply seeks to put the Government’s promise to public service workers on a statutory footing.

A similar amendment was opposed in Committee, but the reasons given by the Minister were concerning. He claimed that the Government intended to replace the final salary schemes with career-average schemes, but that “the flexibility embedded in” the Bill

“could be helpful to scheme members in future.”

He added that

“it would not be appropriate for this Government to tie the hands of future generations and pension scheme members who might decide that, subject to the protection offered by the enhanced consultation and reporting obligations of clause 20, defined benefit schemes were no longer the most appropriate for public service workers.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 291-92.]

That is not the first time we have heard the Minister’s bizarre argument that legislation could bind the hands of future Governments. No Government can bind the hands of their successors in that way. Unless the Minister has an insight into changes in the democratic process of which we are unaware, that remains absolutely the case.

Therefore, the argument that clause 7 provides welcome flexibility to scheme members now or in future is, in the Opposition’s view, potentially misleading. In the rare circumstances that a defined contribution scheme is better than the defined benefit one, and scheme members and the Government wish to change schemes to defined contributions schemes, clauses 19 and 20 allow that to happen. Clause 7 provides no flexibility that does not exist in clauses 19 and 20. If we do not make the amendment, we allow the Government to go back on their promises. We seek to keep them to their word on those arrangements.

I know that many hon. Members wish to speak to proposals in this large group, so I shall make my final point on the question of closing local government pension schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), among others, have had extensive experience of local government schemes. In Committee, there was anxiety that the Bill mentions closing existing LGP schemes and beginning new ones. The problem with closing schemes is that there can be unintended and adverse consequences. We heard in Committee about triggering debts which might need to be crystallised on closure. Of course, not just big local authorities but small academies, charities and others are members of such schemes. They might find that they suddenly need to shell out one great lump of money simply because an existing scheme closes and the deficit needs to be dealt with there and then.

The Minister assured us that regulatory provisions did not require such crystallisation, and that there could be protections. The Opposition are not massively happy with that, but even if we accept the Minister’s word that closure does not mean closure, thousands of employers in the local government pension fund have individual admission agreements governing the terms of their participation—the agreements are not necessarily in a standard form, meaning that there could be thousands of different admissions contracts for the schemes. It is likely that at least some of the agreements will set out various powers for local authorities in the event of closure, including the power to collect a debt from the employer equal to its share of the scheme’s deficit. That would put a massive strain on participating employers and could put some of them out of business.

The Minister gave assurances on some of those points in Committee, but he missed the problem that the Bill allows local authorities to close their funds. The Government cannot prevent them from doing so under the Bill. The problem of triggering debts therefore remains substantive. There is also the question of whether closure means closure or continuing a scheme. The Opposition believe that a different approach is needed and that the Bill needs better drafting, which is why we have tabled amendments 20 to 28. We are not trying to add costs to the public purse and are keeping the Government’s proposals, but we are saying that it would be better to amend an existing scheme rather than to close and reopen it. They are in some ways technical proposals, but it would be better to err on the side of caution and provide that new regulations can amend scheme rules to ensure that all future benefits are accrued according to the provisions of the Bill and negotiated arrangements.

Those are essentially my comments on the Opposition’s proposals. My hon. Friends and others have tabled amendments in this group, but I shall let them make the case for them.

Connecting Europe Facility

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Chris Leslie

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.

I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s proposals might mean for crofters in the highlands and islands of Scotland.