Pensions Bill

Debate between Gregg McClymont and John McDonnell

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I wholeheartedly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I think that there are injustices in the Bill that need to be addressed, and my amendment 35 seeks to do that as well.

The amendment returns us to the issue of the commitments that were given to people on privatisation. The Minister seemed to use a “divide and rule” tactic when he asked why I was taking the issue up purely on behalf of railway workers, as opposed to workers overall. There is a railway estate in my constituency, and I have taken an interest in the industry for nearly 40 years. I know what a sense of grievance exists among railway workers. The promises that they were given on privatisation are now being torn up by the Government. I do not like that “divide and rule” tactic—I want the same protection for all workers—but we can deal with the issue of railway workers tonight if the Government are so willing.

This is what John MacGregor, the then Secretary of State, promised in 1993. He said:

“Existing employee rights will be protected by statutory orders made under the Railways Bill.”

He described those rights as “indefeasible”. He went on to say:

“There will in addition be specific safeguards, in franchise contracts, to cover the transfer of pension funds when a franchise changes hands…Orders for setting up new schemes, transferring funds and protection of existing employees will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.

He gave that assurance to members of all parties in the House. He continued:

“Orders relating to schemes and funds will be the subject of statutory consultation with the trustees.”—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 255, c. 235-6W.]

That commitment was given, in the House, to all Members of Parliament, to all members of the pension fund and to all workers in the industry, but clause 24 will tear it up. The clause will allow employers who sponsor the railway pension scheme and the Transport for London pension fund to amend the rules to increase member contributions, reduce member benefits or both, and those who will be affected are the people whom we have described as protected persons. Employers will be able to do that without the consent of trustees or scheme members, and without taking any cognisance of the views of the House. That is unacceptable.

A promise was given by Conservative Ministers to those workers and members of the pension fund, and to future members of the fund, and that promise was accepted throughout the House. It was understood that changes in circumstances might require changes to be made in pension schemes, but the promise of that added protection reassured people. John MacGregor was right to say that such additional protection was needed. He said that trustees would be consulted, that the House would then take a view and, through an affirmative resolution, would be able to reach a decision, and that the trustees’ views would be laid before the House. However, the clause enables employers to tear up schemes, increase contributions, and reduce benefits.

It is also significant that there are 106 different employers in this sector now. If one changes the scheme, what happens when franchises are taken over? What happens when employees seek to change their employment from one company to another? We are introducing immense complexity into the overall industry, which I think will undermine the pensions protections that this House gave assurances on in 1993. This is a matter of morality and honour. To introduce this measure flies in the face of every undertaking made to these workers. My amendment would at least ensure that the trustees are involved in any decisions about the future of pensions in their sector. To be frank, I do not think it is much to ask for this House to ensure, and enforce, that Governments abide by their promises.

[Gregg McClymont]

I want to speak in particular to our new clause 8 and amendment 37. We are now discussing the provisions in this Bill that relate specifically to state pensions rather than private pensions, and it might be of some significance that the issue of protected persons and protected pension schemes is emerging in this context.

We have listened to the very powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and one cannot but feel that there is a specific set of circumstances around the privatisation of nationalised industries. My hon. Friend has eloquently focused on the railways, but amendment 37 deals with the issue of former nationalised industries in the round, and there are also energy schemes and some coal schemes.

We are in a curious situation. The Minister is giving himself the power to keep the promise made to the members of those schemes, but he has not yet said whether he will use that power to honour that promise. This is a Pensions Bill and there are 50,000 or so remaining members of these pension schemes, so it is curious that he has not yet said what he intends to do. Will he do so in his reply?

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Gregg McClymont and John McDonnell

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The fact that there was just one cosmetic change shows that the consultation was ignored.

In support of my amendments, it is worth putting on record exactly what the consultation proposed. It found that the majority view was that no one should be asked to exchange their employment rights for shares. The Employee Ownership Association forged an alliance with the Fawcett Society, Family Lives, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Family and Parenting Institute and Working Families. They described the consultation response as anti-democratic, rushed and poor quality, even containing a series of factual errors.

The Office for Budget Responsibility found that the Government proposal is more likely to be a cost for the Exchequer than a gain for the overall economy. The OBR said it will cost £1 billion by 2017-18. Others have described it as not particularly welcome. Businesses have certainly not welcomed it. Out of 184 responses to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, only two individuals and one organisation voiced support, saying they may take it up. There is hardly a clamour for these measures, therefore.

In none of the evidence submitted in the consultation did anyone describe the giving up of employment rights in this way as being likely to remove barriers to significant increases in employment. The Government’s reform flies in the face of the Nuttall review, too. We thought that there was to be a lengthy period of negotiation and discussion, and the Government would then come forward with proposals for the extension of employee share ownership, which would, in fact, probably receive cross-party support.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend mentions the astonishing fact that the OBR says this reform will cost money at a time when, as the Government keep telling us, money is so very tight. Is my hon. Friend surprised that this bonkers reform will cost money? The reform is based on the work of Mr Beecroft, who admitted under examination that there was no evidence whatever to support his proposals, and that they were mainly based on anecdotes and personal experiences.