Draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016

Debate between Greg Hands and Seema Malhotra

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 General Committees

[Greg Hands]

Let me see whether I can respond to the large number of reasonable questions that the shadow Minister asked me. The first thing to say is that she is right that this matter was debated during the passage of the 2013 Act, and it was pointed out that CPI could go negative in exceptional circumstances. Negative inflation is certainly not totally without precedent. It was useful that that debate was had and that Parliament approved the Act and many of the measures, including those that are now in the order. It approved the idea that if there were to be a negative revaluation, it would have to be brought to the House under the exceptional procedure, recognising that it would be an exceptional event.

[Seema Malhotra]

The words that were used were that it would also allow for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Minister has introduced the order without any impact assessment. What extra information will he provide?

[Greg Hands]

It is clear that today’s debate allows for parliamentary scrutiny, but the hon. Lady asks about an impact assessment. The impact will be fairly clear, and I will give some more examples.

To illustrate the amounts that we are talking about, let us compare workers in two different schemes, the local government scheme and the NHS scheme, both earning £26,000 a year. The local government worker will have earned about £40 more in their annual pension than the NHS worker, because of the trade-off between the revaluation and accrual rates. Because the revaluation rate will lead to a less favourable calculation for the local government worker but a more favourable one for the NHS worker, the local government worker’s pot will be reduced by 50p next year, whereas the NHS worker will get £7 more. Someone in the teachers’ scheme who is on £26,000 will also get about £7 per annum based on the revaluation. On the question of pensions in payment, there is a statutory link, so public sector pensions in payment will be frozen for the year without the need for new legislation or a further order.

The hon. Lady asked about the three months of negative CPI. I come back to the five main reasons why we have chosen to use the September CPI figure. First, we should set a precedent of using the CPI month that is most frequently used across Government. Secondly, in terms of the risk sharing, not only should scheme members benefit from the upside risk of revaluation but they should not be shielded from the downside risk. The third reason is consistency. Choosing a figure that is different from the September CPI figure would introduce the idea of significant policy discretion, going back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, which would open up scope for lobbying and negotiations in an area where one wants a long-term degree of certainty. I think that would be a very unhelpful and unfavourable development.

The fourth reason is that this figure honours the pension settlement. Many of the schemes reached agreement through negotiations with the unions on the basis of CPI-linked revaluation. Choosing the correct CPI figure helps to deliver on that settlement. The final point is about fairness across the schemes. Schemes that choose faster revaluation instead of a better revaluation rate should not be able to benefit from both fast accrual and a more generous revaluation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is right. For all kinds of good reasons the Government made the decision to move this whole sector of public pensions and benefits from RPI to CPI. I think he is right that at that time RPI had gone negative.

If I could answer the final couple of points from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

Shall I deal with these two and come back to the hon. Lady if I have not answered satisfactorily?

[Greg Hands]

Thank you. All scheme members will receive annual benefit statements setting out the revaluation amount. I am confident that members will understand that, where the unions and Government agreed the terms of the scheme, this agreement must be upheld.

In terms of the savings accrued by Government Departments, if I understood the question correctly, no savings have been assumed, as is consistent with the scheme rules, whatever the prices are. The majority of these pensions will not come into payment, of course, for many years. This is about consistency with the proposed final agreement so that they are fair to workforces, schemes and the taxpayers. I will give way and, if I have not answered all the hon. Lady’s questions, I will come back.

[Seema Malhotra]

I want to probe the Minister further on a few points that he missed or on which I am not completely clear. I understand that pensions in payment are frozen but may I check that in the particular circumstance of those who retire in-year in any month from April onwards, they will not be subject to a reduction? The implications are clear, because that means that any pension paid to members who had retired in-year would be reduced effectively and may have resulted in an overpayment—an unauthorised payment, with tax implications. In this particular circumstance, which may be a slight anomaly, can the Minister provide an absolute guarantee that no legislative change is required and that those who have retired in-year will not be adversely affected? Have any of those who have retired taken any lump sum payments and, if so, are they potential overpayments or not subject to such overpayment under the current law? When will the Government send out statements? Will it be possible to respond to queries that will inevitably be sent to the mailboxes of Opposition Members and to the Minister and others about statements that appear to show that members’ accrued pension rights have gone down? Where will those queries be answered? Who will constituents call, and will there be capacity to respond?

[Greg Hands]

Let me try to answer those further questions. The annual benefits statements will be sent out in the usual way. I am confident that members of schemes will understand what has happened and they will be told about the September CPI figure. I am confident that such inquiries will be dealt with in the usual way. In terms of pensions in payment, I am prepared to reassure hon. Members that we will deal with this complex matter. It is a slightly anomalous matter, which may require a legislative amendment or a small change to the schemes, but I assure the Committee that members will not be adversely affected in the particular case of an in-year withdrawal from the scheme.

Detailed impact assessments were prepared for the new scheme designs and were published by each Department. They will have taken into account prices impacts. The order implements the prices elements of those schemes designs and therefore there is no need to conduct a separate impact assessment for the technical implementation of what has already been decided and laid out.

To revalue using the September CPI figure, which is the subject of the order, is a very important step for the Government to take to be consistent and to set a consistent precedent that will be easily understood. It was for the Government to choose a measure of prices for the purposes of revaluing the prices element of the new career-average public sector pension schemes. The Government have chosen the measure that was agreed with the schemes after negotiation with the unions, following the precedent set by last year’s revaluation of the local government pension scheme and also the measure used for indexation of public services pension in payment. I should also re-emphasise that it maintains the real value of these pensions, ensures that there is an appropriate sharing of risk between members and Government and, importantly, that it sets the right precedent for the future. I therefore urge the Committee to support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016.

Draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Initial Capital Contribution) Order 2015

Debate between Greg Hands and Seema Malhotra

Monday 19th October 2015 General Committees

[Greg Hands]

I thank colleagues for their questions. In response to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and her questions on how we ensure that investments are in the interests of the citizens of the recipient countries, and that we avoid exploitation, I say two things. First, we are debating today the capital contribution that the UK is making. There will be a separate opportunity in the House precisely to debate the function of the AIIB. However, the UK being there from the beginning, or near the beginning—we were the first European country in the bank—and with significant presence, will make it more likely that we will be of influence.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister talked about the functioning of the AIIB being subject to a separate debate. Will he clarify that that will include governance, role, transparency and accountability, and a voice in the governance of projects as well as of the bank?

[Greg Hands]

Everything the hon. Lady mentions is laid out in the Act. There will be two other orders to debate. Today’s is purely about the capital contribution. It would be beyond me to say precisely what will or will not be debated under the other two statutory instruments, which are coming through other Departments.

The hon. Lady mentioned the increase in the UK national debt, but, importantly, not the deficit. It is important to recognise that we are purchasing an asset—shares in a bank—and to date no multilateral bank has ever called in a contingent liability from the UK, so that is unlikely to happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked a question that was also asked by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, which was whether the contribution could be classed as ODA. We are awaiting a pronouncement from the OECD, which monitors the ODA rules. We expect that pronouncement by May 2016 and it would be retrospective as to whether something was ODA.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister is right on the low risk of contingent liabilities being called in, but will he clarify whether the Government have a process for the circumstances in which that might occur? Has he thought through what could happen in such circumstances?

[Greg Hands]

The Government have in place a number of procedures. Such contingent liabilities have been around for some decades. For example, the UK has been a contributor to the International Monetary Fund since the 1950s, and an interesting question might be whether the Opposition’s position is to continue being a contributor to the IMF, given that they voted against that in the previous Parliament. I will not dwell on that, however.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked why the World Bank is dealt with by the Secretary of State for International Development and the AIIB is dealt with by the Chancellor. That is a divide across various international financial institutions. The Treasury deals with the IMF, the European Investment Bank and others that focus on the market, whereas DFID concentrates on the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and so on. The purpose of the AIIB is to support economic growth, which is clearly within the Chancellor’s remit, bearing in mind that we are talking about infrastructure.

My hon. Friend also asked about climate finance. The president-designate of the AIIB, Mr Jin, has made it clear that his vision is for a “lean, clean and green” bank; and the UK is at the table helping to make those decisions, by being an early contributory member. My hon. Friend’s point about the parliamentary network of the 57 countries was interesting, and we will reflect on whether there should be a parliamentary network in a similar way to what can happen for other multilateral institutions. I will perhaps write to him about that.

The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether there should be primary legislation, but the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the orders result from their own Act—the International Development Act 2002—and at the same time question why there is no primary legislation. Perhaps they should get their position in order first.