Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Danny Alexander

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I shall deal with the good reasons why further reform is needed later in my speech.

Lord Hutton’s conclusions of March 2011 set out a clear and compelling case for further reform. He found that the status quo was not tenable, that there had been an unfair sharing of costs between the employer, the employee and the taxpayer, and that previous reforms had not fully addressed the underlying issues of sustainability and fairness. His recommendations were equally compelling, and those for the future design of schemes fall into three broad categories, the first of which is safeguards to ensure that the long-term costs of pensions are sustainable. That is achieved through a link between the state pension age and normal pension ages in the majority of schemes, and a cost-cap mechanism to protect the taxpayer in the event of other unforeseen costs.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will deal with this subject in detail later in my speech, but I shall turn to it briefly. In respect of the pension schemes that are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Government—their Finance Minister, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), is in the Chamber—and the Welsh Government, those Administrations are free to negotiate within the parameters in the Bill and the cost ceiling that has been set out. I understand that such negotiations are ongoing. Should Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers wish to offer more financially generous terms, they are entirely within their rights to do so, but the additional costs will have to be met from their budgets. They have complete freedom to do that and I know that they will want to consider it.

[Mr Anderson]

The Chief Secretary said that there was a fairness imbalance between employers, employees and the taxpayer. What was fair about a public body such as Royal Mail taking a 13-year pension contribution holiday when the members of the scheme had to carry on paying?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Royal Mail is a public corporation, and therefore not within the scope—

[Danny Alexander]

Let me respond to one intervention before I take another. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen for me to clarify one of my points—I am sure that I will be able to do so—but let me respond to the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). As part of our measures to support Royal Mail, we recently took its pension scheme on to the Government’s balance sheet. Many schemes took holidays during the previous Government’s time in office—

[Mr Anderson]

And the one before them.

[Danny Alexander]

Indeed. Perhaps schemes took holidays even under the Government before that one. In many cases, members regretted such action in retrospect. The Bill is about public service pension schemes—by and large unfunded, with the exception of the local government scheme—that desperately need reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I would say that we have handled this process in a balanced and sensitive way throughout, in recognition of the fact that the changes affect millions of public service workers. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which was raised a number of times in the talks, I would say that none of us wants to see increased opt-outs from pensions, for the reasons that have been mentioned on both sides of the House. We have put in place a process for reviewing the next stage of the contribution increase in the light of opt-out data from the first year. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that there is no evidence of increased opting out in response to this year’s increase in contributions. However, we will review the matter again next year before proceeding with the third phase of the increases, so he makes a serious and important point.

The reforms treat not only the symptoms of delayed reform but the underlying problem. Therefore, they are forecast to reduce the cost of providing public service pensions by around 40% over the next 50 years, returning costs to their historic long-term average. Clause 9 deals with the principal risk that needs to be managed if pensions are to be affordable and sustainable: longevity. Longevity has improved significantly over recent decades, which is a very good thing. As a result, the state pension age has increased. The Government are therefore asking public service workers in due course also to retire later. In a society where we are all living longer and where fellow citizens in the private sector are expected to retire later, it is both fair and right that the public sector retirement age should rise with the state pension age. As Lord Hutton says, improvements have continuously been underestimated in the past, which has led to the cost of providing pensions rising significantly over recent decades. As such, clause 9 provides that in future the normal retirement age in the public schemes will be set at the state pension age. As Lord Hutton identified, this change will move the proportion of adult life in retirement for public service pension scheme members back to where it was in the 1980s. More important, by linking the scheme retirement age to the state retirement age, we will ensure that further improvements in longevity are tracked. That is the main way in which the Bill will ensure that the cost of public service pensions cannot again spiral out of control, but will remain affordable and sustainable long into the future.

[Mr Anderson]

The Chief Secretary talks about longevity, but what does he think the proposals will mean for the longevity of a mental health nurse who is 67 and a half years old, goes to work every day and ends up literally fighting with patients?

[Danny Alexander]

We will conduct a regular review, as Lord Hutton suggested, which will enable issues such as those the hon. Gentleman has raised to be taken into account. They were raised and discussed in the scheme talks. In the end, employee and employer representatives both agreed that the modelling we are using—which is similar to that used in the deal struck under his Government—is the right, fair and balanced way to take such matters forward across the whole work force.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Anderson and Danny Alexander

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I would certainly remind them of that, and of the fact that the need to maintain the credibility of this country’s fiscal position should override any such considerations.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In the assessment the Chief Secretary is undertaking, will he let us know about the extent of the income tax and national insurance losses that will result from the sacking of between 7,000 and 10,000 public servants? Does he expect the benefit bill to go up, and if so, by how much?

[Danny Alexander]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had to make some very difficult decisions in order to deal with the enormous Budget deficit left to this country by Labour. If his party had not left a mess, we would not have to clean it up.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between David Anderson and Danny Alexander

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I will press on, if hon. Members do not mind.

At the weekend, President Obama praised the action that we have taken, describing it as necessary and courageous. Yesterday’s G20 communiqué made the situation clear when it said:

“Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”,

and no major country has more serious fiscal challenges than those that the previous Government left Britain. Her Majesty’s Opposition seem to have adopted the strategy of Fabio Capello: they blame everyone else and deploy the same formation of arguments, leaving a gaping hole in their own defence. They refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, let alone apologise.

This Budget stands for three things: responsibility—taking action to eliminate our structural deficit; freedom—helping the businesses that we rely on to rebuild our broken economy; and fairness—protecting the most vulnerable while ensuring the contribution of all. Failure to deal with the deficit is the greatest threat to growth. Failure to act now would mean higher interest rates hitting businesses, hitting families and hitting the cost of repaying the Government’s enormous debt, losing jobs and losing growth too. This Budget takes action now to restore confidence in our economy—the confidence that is needed to underpin the recovery that we all want to see. This Budget’s forward-looking fiscal mandate will eliminate the deficit in five years and puts us on track to get debt falling by 2015-16. The Office for Budget responsibility, in fact, forecasts that the measures in our Budget will lead us to meet that challenge a year early.

Before I outline our plan, let me remind the House of the previous Government’s commitments. They were planning £50 billon of cuts, about which they had nothing of substance to say. Some of their leadership contenders—I do not see any of them here—are rowing back even on that plan. Our emergency Budget sets out the path of public spending for the next five years with the following additional measures: an extra £17 billion comes from reductions in departmental spending, £11 billion from reductions in welfare spending, £3 billion from lower debt interest payments and £8 billion from net tax increases.

As has been observed by all sides in this debate, we know that this will be painful, but it is absolutely necessary to secure the growth and prosperity that this country needs in the future. The last Government’s spending plans implied a reduction in departmental budgets of 20%. We are committed to real increases in NHS spending and to protecting international aid, and this Budget implies, as the Chancellor said, that other Departments will face an average real cut of 25%. We will set out the details of those cuts in the spending review, and we will consult widely to inform those plans. In fact, we launched our consultation on Friday, and we have already had more than 20,000 substantive responses from public sector workers, setting out ideas for areas where they know savings can be found. If only we had had a single serious suggestion from the Labour party.

We have taken the tough decision to increase VAT by 2.5%. With a structural deficit some £12 billion larger than the previous Government told us, we had a difficult choice to make: whether to fill that hole by making yet more spending cuts or to increase taxes. Further spending cuts would, I believe, have made it impossible to protect the most essential services in the spending review, so the VAT rise was unavoidable.

[Mr Anderson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his colleague, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said, only on 15 June:

“I hope we don’t get a VAT rise because it is the most regressive form of tax”?

[Danny Alexander]

No party went into the election promising to increase VAT, but the hon. Gentleman should make no mistake: the rise in VAT is a result of the public finances that we inherited from his Front-Bench colleagues. One could say that it is a Labour inheritance tax.