Fiscal Responsibility and Fairness
Bob Russell Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) must resume his seat.
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Bob, I do not think I require a lecture from you upon the matter of good order. Calm yourself, man; it will be better for your health.
Autumn Statement
Bob Russell Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Frankly, the hon. Lady is not being fair to the Government or to those territories and dependencies. There had been no progress at all when we came into office. They have all now committed to the automatic exchange of information; they all attended the conference in Berlin where they made the international commitment to do that; and they are all consulting, right now, on the creation of these registries. They are doing that because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put this issue centre stage on the G8 agenda in Lough Erne.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Chancellor said that the end of our operations in Afghanistan will allow this country to save an additional £200 million this year from the special military reserve. There is also the sale of surplus Ministry of Defence radio frequencies, which he did not mention. Will he agree to ring-fence both sums to pay to modernise the family homes of the brave men and women of our armed services, whom he says he salutes?
Mr Osborne
We do have a programme, which we have extended, to renovate the accommodation of service families. We are all aware of the challenges that many families face with that accommodation. The special military reserve was created to fund overseas military operations—that is what it exists for. When we came into office, this country was spending £4 billion a year on operations in Afghanistan. The special military reserve is now down to about £1 billion; I have been able to reduce it a little today. Despite what the reserve is for, I am always willing to consider specific requests for support. I did not have time in my speech to set out the very many military good causes that we are supporting with the LIBOR money.
Income Tax
Bob Russell Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House believes it is a mistake to reduce the top rate of income tax at a time when working people, who are on average £1,600 a year worse off since 2010, are not feeling the recovery and while the deficit also remains high; notes that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that, by next year, households will be on average £974 a year worse off because of tax and benefit changes since 2010; believes that a fair plan to balance the books would reverse the cut in the top rate of income tax, which is worth £3 billion a year for the top one per cent of earners, for the next Parliament, and introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax; and calls on the Government to rule out a further reduction in the top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 a year.
Four and a half years into this Government, the squeeze on lower and middle earners is as bad as ever. Wages are still failing to keep pace with prices, and the typical working person is £1,600 worse off. This is the longest suppression of living standards since the 1870s, and my Labour colleagues know that this gap is getting wider and wider. This Government are presiding over one of the worst records on income growth of any European country—only Portugal, Cyprus and Greece have seen wages erode more severely than we have. For most people, there is no economic recovery at all.
When the Chancellor was asked, however, in a recent ITV news interview why there was no feel-good factor, his answer was, “Well, I simply don’t accept that.” Of course, in the world the Chancellor and the Prime Minister inhabit life is sweet. Someone lucky enough to be in the richest 1% of society has seen their share of the nation’s income grow considerably. Over the past year, the share of the national post-tax income of the top 1% of taxpayers—just 300,000 people—has risen from 8.2% to 9.8%, whereas the bottom 90%, a total of 27 million taxpayers, have seen their share fall from 71.3% to 70.4%. Those are Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ own statistics. That most privileged 1% elite have not just seen their fortunes grow by chance while others have fallen behind; they have been actively helped along by a cut in income tax for those earning more than £150,000. The shrinking share of national wealth held by the vast majority when compared with the growing share held by the richest does not represent a recovery for the many rather than the few.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the coalition Government, thanks to the input of the Liberal Democrats, have raised millions of people out of paying any income tax? Will he give an assurance that should there be a Labour Government they will match the pledge to raise to £12,500 the level before which income tax is levied?
Chris Leslie
There are a number of facets to the hon. Gentleman’s question. Let us just remember that it was the Liberal Democrats who voted to cut that top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bob Russell Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vaizey
Broadband is going extremely well in the UK, mainly because we are better together. We are working with Scotland and Wales to roll out broadband and 4G coverage. The hon. Gentleman should not be so modest: we have outstripped a lot of the Scandinavian countries. We have just laid 400 km of undersea cable to the highlands and islands. That could not have been done without the UK Government working with the devolved Government to bring broadband to our rural areas. We are better together.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Tourism is a major economic generator in Colchester. Does the Minister agree that the best way to support tourism is by reducing VAT on tourism to 5%? Will he have a chat with the Chancellor, please?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
As my hon. Friend knows, VAT is a matter for the Chancellor. We keep all taxes under review, but there is no plan to reduce tax for the tourism sector.
Autumn Statement
Bob Russell Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I am delighted that the Chancellor took notice of my speech last week that called for the abolition of business rates on small shops. Now that there is flexibility in the defence budget, is it not time the Government reinstated the modernisation programme for the houses of our brave soldiers and their families?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right that the help for the high street announced today is significant—£1,000 off for shops, pubs, restaurants and cafés. For many shops that will be a lot better than a freeze and will wipe out their rates bill for a couple of years and help them in this difficult time. I know my hon. Friend has campaigned passionately on forces’ houses, and a lot of money is now going to military charities from the LIBOR fines. I know some of the bids being considered specifically involve forces’ housing, so that is one route through which we can ensure they get a better deal.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bob Russell Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Some 90% of businesses are on real-time information. Of course, the transition to any new system is a challenge, but the new system will be much easier for small businesses, and all businesses, to keep an accurate account of their tax payments, and that will help them. We have phased it in so that small businesses, in particular, have time to prepare. This is a real improvement on a tax system that was many decades old and had not kept up with modern technology.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the Chancellor consider abolishing business rates for small retail establishments, and to make that fiscally neutral by putting a levy on out-of-town car parks?
Mr Osborne
I am not sure about the out-of-town car park part of the question, because I want to encourage retail and employment wherever they happen. We are aware of the challenge on our high streets, particularly for small retailers. The Government have, in previous Budgets and autumn statements, extended relief from business rates for small businesses, which has meant that many of the smallest firms do not pay business rates. I will take the suggestion as a good submission for a future fiscal statement.
Spending Review
Bob Russell Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen if at all possible to accommodate all remaining colleagues, but also to start the next business, the Second Reading of the Bill, by 2.30 pm. There is therefore a premium on brevity.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Previous defence cuts mean that our Army is heading towards being smaller than it was at the battle of Waterloo, so that is hardly a triumph. Will the Chancellor confirm that there is now no need, based on his statement, for any cuts to any Army bands and will he also make a statement on why the family housing lived in by our brave soldiers is not being modernised?
Mr Osborne
We did win the battle of Waterloo with that Army, so we were not doing that badly. We are trying to make the choice to have a modern, deployable Army, fully equipped with the latest technology. To address the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, no reduction is required to the uniformed services. I would assume that that would include military bands, but that is for the Defence Secretary to set out. On housing, the Defence Secretary has set out a multi-billion pound plan to improve the housing stock for our brave soldiers and their families.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bob Russell Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The A14 Cambridge toll road is strategically vital for the golden economic triangle that is Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich—
Mr Ruffley
And indeed Colchester. Can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that he will have that at the forefront of his mind when the Treasury makes its capital allocations?
Mr Osborne
First, the timetable is one that John Vickers and his commission themselves proposed. Secondly, it is not for me to make individual decisions about individual banks; that is for the boards of those banks and, of course, the regulator. But the whole purpose is to insulate the retail bank from things that go wrong in the investment bank and, above all, to make it possible for the person doing my job to be able to resolve the retail bank and keep the retail operations going without having to bail out the investment banking arm. Indeed, that whole problem of “too big to fail” is something we need to deal with.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
It is the Government’s policy that, to cover cutting the Army to its smallest size since the battle of Waterloo, people should be encouraged to join the reserves. Leading by example, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how many members of his staff have joined the Territorial Army since January this year?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is none. He is passionate about the issue, which he has raised before. I can also confirm that the Treasury implements the policy of the Government—to make sure that all reservists who request a 10-day special leave on a paid basis get it.
Economic Growth
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
I am not going to write our Budget for 2015 two years ahead. That would be the wrong thing to do. Right now, if the Chancellor had done what I recommended a year ago, borrowing would be coming down. At the moment, however, it is absolutely flat.
What have we learnt in the last seven days? What have we learnt from today’s Tory amendment about the priority of the Conservative party? What are Conservative Members demanding in their amendment? What are they rebelling on? Accelerated bank reform? Energy market reform? Housing investment? Infrastructure investment? Tough welfare reform through a compulsory jobs guarantee? If they want all that, they can vote for our amendment today. But no, according to the Tory amendment, the No. 1 priority that is so vital that Conservative Members are planning to vote against their own Government’s Queen’s Speech involves enabling legislation to allow Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to try to take Britain out of the European Union.
The Tory amendment states that those Members
“regret that an EU referendum bill was not included in the Gracious Speech.”
Let me tell the House what they should be regretting. They should regret the fact that, after three years of pursuing a failing economic plan, the Chancellor is still ploughing on regardless, even when the IMF is telling him to change course. They should regret the fact that, when calculations based on Institute for Fiscal Studies figures show that families are, on average, £891 worse off this year, the Government have cut taxes for the highest earners, giving a £100,000 tax cut to 13,000 millionaires. They should regret the fact that the Government have refused to use the Queen’s Speech to put in place the long-term reforms necessary for our economic future—reforms that I fear will not be in the spending review, either. The Chancellor and the House should regret, too, the fact that the Conservative party seems to have been hijacked by those within its ranks, including within the Cabinet, who are determined to lead Britain out of the EU regardless of the impact on investment and jobs.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the shadow Chancellor confirm that the number of Labour Members who have signed this Tory amendment on the EU referendum is now in double figures?
Ed Balls
I have not seen the figures, but I would be happy to study them—it is when it spreads to the Cabinet that there is a real problem. The hon. Gentleman should regret the 15% rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency, which was confirmed today. I have to say that this coalition was really not worth his support.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Successive Governments have spoken of localism and sustainable communities, but the reality has not matched the rhetoric in many respects. That is particularly true with regard to the loss of post offices and neighbourhood and village shops, whereby Government policies over the past 30 years have hastened their decline, rather than helped sustain them to the overall benefit of society and the communities that lose them.
Nowhere is Government failure more obvious than in the closure of thousands of neighbourhood and village public houses—the traditional English “local”—and the rise of mega-drinking establishments with wall-to-wall boozing and round-the-clock easy availability of alcohol, aligned with below-cost-price special offers in supermarkets, which has fuelled an explosion in alcohol-related incidents in town and city centres, making many people wary of going to them in the evenings and putting serious extra pressure on our emergency services, including clogging hospital accident and emergency departments.
There is also worrying evidence from health professionals of an increase in drink-related conditions and that this self-inflicted rise in alcohol-induced illnesses is occurring in increasing numbers of young people. All this adds yet further burdens on the national health service and it also, of course, leads to devastation for the individuals concerned and their families. It is therefore a huge disappointment that we have not been presented with a Bill to address the failure of the past 30 years.
Early-day motion 57 supports a campaign group—a coalition of organisations—known as Fair Deal for Your Local, which is calling, as its name suggests, for a fair deal for local public houses. The group comprises the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Campaign for Real Ale, Fair Pint, Licensees Supporting Licensees, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite, the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Pubs Advisory Service. That is a worthy list of organisations whose views both the coalition and the Opposition should listen to.
The campaign’s emphasis is on a much-needed reform of the tied model operated by large public owning companies, or pubcos as they are commonly called. Pubcos take more than is fair or sustainable from the sales of drinks, which makes it difficult or impossible for many licensees to make a living. This results in the failure, on a huge scale, of pubs up and down the country, with a closure rate of 20 or more a week and the pubcos selling them as though they were asset-stripping property developers rather than custodians of our nation’s rich social heritage.
The following statement could easily be adapted as a Bill:
“The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign believes that the way to ensure a fair deal for pubs—and to deliver the Government’s clear commitment—is to include in the statutory code an option for tied publicans to only pay a fair, independently assessed market rent to the pub owning company—a ‘market rent only’ option.”
It is estimated that this would bring down the cost of a pint in pubco-owned pubs—around a third of all British public houses—allowing many pubs to survive and thrive. It would also lead to fairer access to public houses for small brewers, which would boost their businesses and increase choice at the bar. I would have thought that the coalition welcomed such measures. It must be stressed that all family brewers would be excluded, because the code would apply only to companies that own more than 500 pubs. This relates to pubco public houses, but legislative help would also benefit other neighbourhood public houses.
In commending the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, I congratulate the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who tabled early-day motion 57. I also remind the House of what I have said on this subject in previous debates. In November I said:
“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs that we continue to witness in the sector.
Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded, not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]
I returned to this theme in the Budget debate in March, when I observed that
“there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the health of the nation.”
I described the confusion caused by having a debate on whether there should be minimum unit pricing alcohol when the Chancellor was knocking 1p off the price of a pint of beer, and added:
“We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable communities legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1362.]
Time prevents me from mentioning other Bills that I would have liked to be included, such as one on building council houses. The lack of council house building over the past 30 years under the policies of the Tory Governments led by Thatcher, Major and Blair has led to a housing crisis.
Unlike some, I will loyally support the Queen’s Speech this evening.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not debate at length the quality or timing of an EU referendum, although I think that those who voted for UKIP and are likely to do so in next year’s European elections will not be impressed unless we make every effort to hold a referendum as soon as possible, rather than when it suits the three main political parties for whatever reasons we have to continue putting it off.
I wanted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South that I have the figures from the House of Commons Library, and our total earnings from abroad constitute 44% of our GDP. We are a global trading nation and trade a higher proportion of our GDP than any other major European state. Trade with the EU comprises 19% of GDP, and 25% with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is the growing proportion; the EU is the declining proportion. Manufacturing is the only part that would be excluded, by virtue of the tariffs that were mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend, and manufacturing exports to the EU comprise 10% of GDP, and 10% to the rest of the world—a substantial and important part of our economic activity.
The point is that there is no evidence that we would not continue to trade that proportion of our manufactures with the European Union—incidentally, the figures are inflated by what we know as the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect because a lot of what we export to the EU is instantly exported to the rest of the world. We are regulating our entire economy and burdening our taxpayers with the costs of the contribution—rising to £19 billion gross—with our membership of the European Union. One hundred per cent. of our economic activity is burdened with those regulatory costs for the sake of less than 10% of our overall GDP.
Sir Bob Russell
May I ask my neighbour and parliamentary colleague whether anything he has just said could not have been said by a member of UKIP?
Mr Jenkin
I totally agree. The irony of this debate is that a lot of people in UKIP are saying things that are similar to what is felt by a lot of people who would like to vote Conservative at the next election. There is a majority in this country, and I think the Prime Minister was right to say that he wants a different relationship—a new relationship with our European partners.
This entire debate is conducted on the premise that membership of the single market is indispensable to our national interest, is it not? Those who say we must remain in the EU come what may believe that the single market is indispensable to our national interest, but here are the facts. I have already mentioned how little of our GDP that we export in goods would be subject to tariffs were we not to have a free trade arrangement with the EU—probably around 8.7% of GDP. The idea that 3 million jobs are dependent on exports to the EU and that we would lose them if we left is a myth. There is no substantial evidence that we would lose any jobs. On the contrary, if we had a freer and less regulated economy, we would probably create more jobs by trading more easily with the rest of the world.
The EU is in long-term structural decline and our non-EU markets are expanding. The UK enjoys a trading surplus with the rest of the world—with which we trade much more effectively—and we have a £70 billion trade deficit with the EU. The rest of the EU would therefore not want a trade war with the UK; it would not be in its interest. The idea that Ireland, or even Germany, would enter a trade war with the UK is absolutely ridiculous.
By the Commission’s own admission, EU red tape costs 4% of the EU’s GDP. The single market does not reduce the costs of doing business in the EU; it is a regulatory burden on trading in the EU.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Bob Russell Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 78B but proposes amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
I begin by thanking Opposition Members for their constructive engagement on the treatment of Ministry of Defence police and fire workers’ normal pension age under the Bill. Important issues were explored during our debate on Monday, when views were put forward passionately by Members on both sides of the House. The Government have acknowledged the strength of feeling. In the other place, my colleague Lord Newby has explained that the Government fully accept the spirit of the Lords amendment we are considering today.
We are willing to include a review of defence fire and rescue service and MOD police members’ NPA in the Bill and formalise the approach that I announced we were intending to take. The review will ensure that the issue can be discussed formally by the appropriate parties to consider the best way forward. However, although the Government agree with the amendment, it requires some small changes to ensure that it works as intended. I urge hon. Members to agree to the tweaks put forward in our amendment.
I will explain briefly why the wording of the Government’s amendment differs slightly from that proposed in the other place. First, we have made a small change to the nature of what must be reported on in order to make it more precise and legally certain. Secondly, the names of the work forces were incorrect. The reference to the “Defence Fire and Rescue Service” has been adjusted to make it consistent with the terms of other legislation that describes the same work force.
Thirdly, the amendment passed to us from the other place seems to confer a double role on the Secretary of State for Defence, as he would be included by both references. My right hon. Friend is a very busy man. It cannot be right to require him both to prepare and to lay a report in conjunction with himself—that would defy the laws of physics. I assume that was unintentional, and it is easily rectified by Government amendment (a).
Finally, and most importantly, it is unclear when the amendment is to come into force. The Opposition in the other place have called for the review to be completed within six months. I am keen to address the House on that point, because I believe that there has been some confusion about whether that means six months from the date of Royal Assent, or six months after section 9 comes into effect. The Opposition’s amendment would require a review within six months of the Act coming into force. However, the Act will be brought into force in stages and some sections might not be commenced for more than a year. We do not intend section 9 to be one of those stages.
The Government’s amendment proposes that the review period should be six months from when clause 9, which relates to the state pension age link, comes into force. That provision alters the normal pension ages for those work forces, so that is where the focus should be. It is our intention that the clause should be commenced as early as possible. Standard Government rules require that provisions in a Bill are not commenced until two months after Royal Assent unless the Bill itself provides for earlier commencement, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) will be aware from his time in government.
We should all remember that the key effect of the review is likely to be felt in 2015, which is when the new schemes are brought in, but the important point is that there will be no delay. The Government have every incentive to resolve the terms and conditions of the MOD police and the defence fire and rescue service as soon as possible, since they will be needed to design and implement the new scheme, which will cater for them in time for April 2015.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Minister will recall that on Monday I was very critical of the absence of the Ministry of Defence from the debate. Has there been any involvement with it in the past 48 hours?
Sajid Javid
Yes, absolutely. It is of course a full Government position; it represents the views of not only the Treasury, but the MOD. In fact, I discussed the matter only yesterday with the Secretary of State for Defence.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I join in the thanks to the Minister and our noble friend Lord Newby for their work during all the stages of this end-of-term attempt at reconciliation, which has at last been achieved. I also thank colleagues on the Labour Benches and those on our Back Benches and on the Cross Benches in the Lords who made sure that the remaining issue in this huge Bill could be resolved amicably. The Lords’ proposal and the Minister’s amendment mean that this is not a closed book and I hope that this hugely important Bill to reform public sector pensions will be put on to the statute book this week. There is now a fixed time frame in which to address further the anomaly that was not spotted by the previous Government or by Lord Hutton, but that has since been brought to our attention.
I also join in the thanks to Mr Kirby and his colleagues for their efforts in making sure that we understood their concerns. Their request is not unfair. They are asking to be put in a position similar to those who do similar jobs—they are not identical jobs—in the civilian services. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made the obvious point about the logic of that position when he said earlier this week that the argument in favour of Ministry of Defence firefighters and police and rescue people retiring at 60, as is the case in the civilian services, is, bluntly, that they do dangerous jobs that require them to be particularly fit. The argument that they can be expected to do their job properly and protect themselves and others after they reach 60 has not been made. We are all in favour of more flexible ages of retirement. I buy the argument that the retirement age has to go up, both in general and in relation to public servants, and I support the Government’s proposals, but we have to accept that the time when people are not fit enough to do certain jobs will come earlier than others.
I have a few questions. The Bill’s provisions will commence when it is enacted, but that does not apply to those in clause 9—the pension age provisions—which will be subject to an announcement by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister at a later date. That is a perfectly normal procedure. Will the Minister explain in his response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) when he expects that announcement to be made? That will be of wider interest, because it is a hugely important issue.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to accept that some of the facts and figures that he has used, which I think have also been used by the Government in the other place, are not accepted as facts and may be misinformed. I am not accusing the Minister of doing that wilfully. For example, he has made the fairly strong argument that an 8% increase in contributions would be required from these firefighers, rescue workers and police to fund a pension age of 60. The workers say that it would be a very small figure of about 2%.
That ties in to my third question. It is important that we take into account what this change would cost the Treasury and the taxpayer. The Government have in both Houses given the estimate of £10 million a year. The people who have come to see me have argued that the sum will be much smaller and may be in the order of £2 million a year. I do not pretend to be an expert on these issues, but I am sure that the Minister will say when he winds up that the Government will not go into this process with a closed view. It is a negotiation, so the arguments will be heard and I hope that the true facts will be accepted.
It has been accepted already in the conversations with the Ministry of Defence that the pension age for fire and rescue workers and police in the services can be held at 65 and not rise in line with the provisions of the Bill, which take account of increasing life expectancy. I want to reinforce the point that the people who will be affected argue not that their pension age should held at 65, but that it should be 60, in line with similar civilian workers. If that age is later renegotiated across the piece for firefighters, rescue workers and police, that is fine. I think the Minister understands that, but I wanted to put it on the record that that is where the workers want to start from. That is a reasonable expectation.
I am grateful to the Minister and am pleased that we have been able to carry out this bicameral activity again in a spirit of determined resolution, which I hope will mean that this important Bill becomes an Act on the statute book this week.
Sir Bob Russell
I am delighted that the trust and confidence that I placed in the Minister on the public record on Monday has been justified. I thank him, those around him and those in the other place for bringing matters to a resolution that, although a compromise, is one that I hope we can all live with. In that spirit of concord, I thank Opposition Front Benchers for their contribution. We should praise the representatives of the Ministry of Defence police and fire and rescue service, because without their sterling endeavours, we might have ended up with a right mess.
I remain critical of the Ministry of Defence, because if it had been involved at an earlier stage, we would not have got to the stage where a resolution was needed. I am still concerned that we are looking at this matter the wrong way around. It is the fitness of the people to do these very dangerous jobs that should be paramount, not the retirement age or the pension. They defend and provide security and fire services for nuclear installations. I urge the Ministry of Defence, notwithstanding the resolution of this particular matter, to look calmly at the security and fire protection that its police and fire and rescue services provide in the national interest to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Nobody doubts the courage and commitment of the individuals concerned. However, as I said on Monday, do we really want our nuclear installations to be looked after by people of my age?
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to make this amendment. My constituents who work as police officers and firefighters at Faslane and Coulport will be pleased that the Government have listened to their case and tabled this amendment.
The report will look at the impact of the Bill on the health and well-being of defence police and firefighters, and at the ability of those over 60 to meet the strict fitness requirements that are necessary for the important and dangerous job that they do. The report will also consider the consequences of early retirement for the workers who are forced to retire early on health grounds because they cannot meet the stringent fitness requirements in their 60s, as well as the cost to the taxpayer.
The Government inherited this anomaly and it was missed by Lord Hutton in preparing his report. The Government have been faithful to the Hutton report in the Bill. I am pleased that they have listened to the concerns of defence police and firefighters, and have agreed to table this amendment.
After Monday’s debate, defence police and firefighters in my constituency expressed concerns to me about the size of the abatement of their pay that it was suggested might be necessary to reduce their retirement age to 60. I hope that all the calculations on the abatement of pay will be transparent in the report. Calculating pension contributions is an enormously complex process. Following a review by the Government Actuary’s Department, the abatement on pay rates for MOD firefighters has been reduced retrospectively from 9% to 7.8% from 1 April last year. The fact that that calculation has been made only recently and has been backdated is an indication of how complicated a subject this is. It is important that during the review, all the calculations are transparent and independently verified, and that the workers are allowed to ask questions about them.
I am delighted that the Government have listened and brought forward the review. I am fairly confident that the review will find that it is not good for the workers or for the taxpayer for people doing these strenuous and dangerous jobs to work beyond 60. The calculations will show that if the retirement age is 65 or 68 and significant numbers of people are forced to retire early on health grounds, both the taxpayer and the worker will lose out. The worker will lose out because they will not get the full pension that they had expected. The taxpayer will lose out because the amount that has been paid into the pension pot will not cover the cost of the pension if it is paid out early.
It would not be right for these workers to work beyond 60. The right comparison is with civilian firefighters and police who work for local authority fire services or other police forces. I am fairly confident that the review will recommend a retirement age of 60. I congratulate the Government on listening to the legitimate concerns that have been put forward.