Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

Those are points that I shall touch on in my remarks, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will do so as well. By way of response to the hon. Lady, I make the point that there have been efforts over a number of years. When I chaired the Assembly’s Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we conducted an inquiry into credit unions in Northern Ireland, which have a very large membership base and a very strong savings base, far beyond those of credit unions here, which by comparison are merely developing.

The fact is that credit unions in Northern Ireland have been precluded from having as broad a range of services to offer their members, unlike credit unions here, and the key to broadening the range of services, of course, was to have credit unions in Northern Ireland regulated by the Financial Services Authority—subsequently the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

However, while credit unions in Northern Ireland will be regulated from London institutions for those financial services, they still come under a devolved legislative window. That goes back to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which deliberately ousted credit unions from the reserved power in relation to financial services through specific mention of the fact that devolution would include the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Credit unions are therefore in a sort of dual-control legislative and regulatory environment; they are registered under devolved legislation but regulated under financial services legislation of this Parliament, and rightly so.

However, that leads to some quirks and bumps in interpretation. A credit union Bill that would address some of those issues seems to be held up somewhere in the Assembly processes. In those circumstances credit unions are particularly concerned that they might become unintended casualties of some of the restrictions and exceptions that are rightly being introduced with the devolution of corporate tax by the Government and with the agreement of the parties in the Assembly.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman—indeed my hon. Friend—accept that in addition to that being grossly unfair to credit unions, mutuals such as the Progressive building society, which employs almost 200 people and operates solely in Northern Ireland, in fact its back office applies only to Northern Ireland, could end up being penalised by this legislation?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I have to be honest that the slightly left-handed amendment I tabled in Committee could have introduced its own difficulties, as the Minister pointed out at the time. This less left-handed—I apologise to any cuiteogs in the House—amendment addresses the salient point in respect of credit unions and also takes in for the first time a point that I had overlooked in Committee: the position of a mutual building society based wholly and solely in Northern Ireland, such as the Progressive. This wider amendment, which thankfully has been seconded by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is therefore designed to cater to both circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Does that not really take the biscuit when the Progressive is told by the Treasury that only 5% of its back office will apply for an exemption? Its staff are scratching their heads, wondering what part of their work does not apply to Northern Ireland and to activity solely related to Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Exactly. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is no known rational basis for it. In circumstances in which we are talking about arrangements aimed at preventing any artifice on the part of companies, just coming up with such an arbitrary figure does not particularly help. In circumstances in which we see that larger firms can be advised and assured that their existing operations of large and hopefully growing scope will be covered by the new devolved tax rate and will not be caught in the exclusion of financial services, it seems strange that the financial services entities that are not for profit, which are not taking money out of Northern Ireland but recirculating it into the local economy, would be penalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I would like to associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the quality of our debate thus far on the Bill. We have had a thorough discussion. It has been shorter than originally anticipated, but that is because the Bill has wide-ranging support across the House, and it is a pleasure to rise, once again, to support the measures in it.

We are committed, as are Members across the House, to supporting measures to increase inward investment into Northern Ireland and support the much-needed rebalancing of its economy. We have all recognised that Northern Ireland has lagged behind the rest of the UK on productivity and prosperity. Over the years, measures have been implemented to boost the Northern Ireland economy, including through increased levels of investment and job creation programmes, but few have met with long-term success. It is important to consider a measure that would put a rocket-booster under the approaches taken so far to rebalancing and strengthening Northern Ireland’s economy. In that spirit, we have supported the Bill.

As I noted in Committee, the Bill is both straightforward and complicated. It is short in respect of the number of clauses, but those clauses include a huge amount of detail, some of which has still to be worked out. The Minister alluded to that in his comments. It is important to recognise that we are at the start-point rather than the end stage of the process.

Let me draw out a couple of issues that will be the subject of live discussions between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Before I do so, however, let me reinforce a point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—that it would be a mistake to think that corporation tax devolution will, in and of itself, do what is needed to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy. It has to be part of a much wider picture that includes other policy drivers to help make this measure a success. That is certainly the experience of the Republic of Ireland, whose extremely low corporation tax does not sit alone; it is supported by other policy measures, particularly on skills and infrastructure. If this Bill is to be a success in Northern Ireland, it will be important for all parties to work together to ensure that the rest of the policy framework is in place to allow the rebalancing that we all want to happen.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments, but does she accept that much of this is about perception and the business-friendly nature of our economy, which will allow it to grow? It is about offering investors incentives to come in by providing good profit returns for their hard-earned labour. If we continue to build up and push that perception, does she agree that opportunities will flow from it and that this Bill now offers the best way forward in the current economic climate?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the perception of business is really important, but he will recognise, I think, a point that businesses often make to Members of all parties—that headline rates of corporation tax are extremely important for decisions about where to locate businesses, but that they are not the only factor that businesses take into account. I recognise the importance of this Bill for Northern Ireland, given the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself. As I say, it is putting a rocket-booster under the approach taken so far to try to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, but it will not succeed on its own—it has to be part of a wider policy framework. Despite recognition of the importance of a wider policy framework, we have not yet heard a huge amount of detail about what it will look like on the ground in Northern Ireland. These are matters largely for the Northern Ireland Executive, but they need to know and to hear that the Opposition support them in having a wider framework of policy measures around skills and infrastructure that will help to make all this a success, which we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate on corporation tax. Today is a red-letter day for Northern Ireland. The Bill certainly gives the lie to those who suggest that nothing ever changes in politics or that devolution does not actually do anything. It sends out the powerful signal that, after much diligent hard work, the constant dripping has eventually worn away the stone and we have achieved something positive for Northern Ireland: we have ensured that we can at last set our own rate of corporation tax.

This is what devolution is supposed to be about. It is supposed to allow the economies that make up the United Kingdom to compete according to their strengths, to set their own pace of change and to be agile. Many of us have argued for this change for a long time, and we at last see the legislation in print. We now see it moving forward on a very positive footing. So those who oppose devolution and say that nothing really changes can eat their words today, and I hope they choke on the Bill—

[Lady Hermon]

So to speak.

[Ian Paisley]

Indeed.

Some Members have suggested that the devolution of corporation tax is not a silver bullet, but I do not think I ever heard anyone say that it was going to be a once-in-a-lifetime, miracle-working, stand-alone solution. No one ever thought of it like that. It is one of the arrows in the quiver, to be fired at the right target at the right time.

The important thing about the corporation tax measure is that it will change people’s perceptions about our economy. We have a go-forward, low-tax, incentivised economy. Indeed, that seems to be part of the Government’s own economic plan. They have tried to reduce taxes time and again, and I welcome that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who has often contributed to debates in the House by demanding that we have even lower taxes across the whole of the United Kingdom. Would it not be a far better day today if the Bill were introducing a reduction in corporation tax for the whole of the United Kingdom? That is what we should really be debating, and I hope that one day Government Members will follow our lead and reduce their corporation tax to the new levels that Northern Ireland has ambitions to achieve.

The Government’s plan to reduce tax is welcome. When we look at the history of the economy of the Republic of Ireland, we see that it was not corporation tax reductions alone that supported the country’s boom years. There were other unique selling points that it is important to consider. The Republic sold the fact that it had a great, well-educated and advantaged youth population who made the country cheaper, as an offshore part of Europe, to invest in. Northern Ireland competes on exactly the same footing as that, and I believe that we can do it even better. After all, we are British. We are an offshore part of Britain: we are Britain offshore. If we can use that to our advantage as a unique selling point, we should do so, and I welcome those who will join us. As other Members have said, this change will affect 34,000-plus local companies, 26,500 of which—the small and medium-sized enterprises—form the backbone of our economy. I know that many of them welcome this measure, and I look forward to the opportunities that the legislation will create.

I welcome the fact that those on the Front Benches have changed their minds on this matter. For a long time, certain Members were like John the Baptist, in that they were preaching in the wilderness. Eventually, however, they have managed to convert; I think that those on both Front Benches recognised that they needed to do so. That is a good thing. There has been a lot of thought on this issue on both sides of the House and I welcome the change of heart, particularly on the Labour Front Bench. I remember the former Prime Minister telling us in 2007 that he could not do this. He gave us the Varney review and told us that we could tamper with this, that and the other. Indeed, the then Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said at the time that corporation tax reduction for Northern Ireland

“does not offer the best way forward”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 74WS.]

I am glad that we have recognition today that it is the best way forward, and I hope that we will have unanimity on the matter in the House.

As I have said, this is not going to be a one-night wonder; it will not change things overnight. It will probably take at least a decade before we reap the benefit of the change, but anyone who knows that Northern Ireland’s economy also has a strong agricultural sector will appreciate what I am about to say. Before we can reap the benefit of the changes, we have to sow, and today we have very good seed that I believe we are going to be putting into very good ground. I look forward to seeing the game-changing strategy that is being put in place today reaping a wonderful economic harvest for Northern Ireland over the next 15 to 20 years. I believe that anything the Republic of Ireland has been able to offer as a result of its corporation tax reduction, Northern Ireland will be able to do on steroids. We will do it better. After all, we are part of a G20 nation, and the benefits of that stability should be recognisable to all.

In 2011, the Select Committee, under the watchful eye of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), indicated that this measure was going to be a game-changer. The Select Committee is to be congratulated on pursuing this matter and encouraging the Government to look afresh at it. At that point, it had been dropped from the agenda and people thought that it was all over, and the Chairman of the Committee should be singled out today and congratulated on pushing the matter forward.

Over the past five years, the Northern Ireland Executive have demonstrated their ability to look at other good competitive economic measures that we should be embracing.

[Mr Dodds]

Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that, in addition to some people here giving up on devolving the power to set corporation tax rates, there were parties and politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly who had also given up on it? Our party did not give up on it, however, and we are glad to be seeing the fruits of our labour today.

[Ian Paisley]

I have to say that I am shocked. My right hon. Friend wants me to start electioneering in the House. He wants me to say that it was us that won it. Well, it was! We know that and the electorate know it; we will prove that on 7 May.

[Mr Dodds]

Look at the record.

[Ian Paisley]

I know that the record is a powerful one. We did not give up on this; we pushed for it. I think the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will confirm that it was our party that pushed the Select Committee to press the issue and to hold not just a desktop inquiry but a solid investigation. That investigation took us overseas, to the Republic of Ireland and to the United States. We looked at the issue, we pushed it solidly, and today we are reaping the benefits of that. Some of the foot-draggers did not want to see this day, but I am glad that those of us who were swift of foot have now reached the finish line.

Northern Ireland offers a unique brand for people to invest in. Obviously, we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, so we have to demonstrate additional economic stimuli to get our economy going. The Bill will allow us to do that. A recent Ernst and Young survey on global cities of the future found that Belfast was one of the most business-friendly medium-sized cities in the world to invest in. That shows that what Northern Ireland is offering, to foreign indirect investment in particular, is an agile and capable economy with workers who want to see their economy change and grow.

We export the best buses; they come from my constituency to this city. Northern Ireland also exports the best pavements. I think that they come from the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), and they are used to pave London. We also export some of the best drink to ply the workers with, from Bushmills, and all our existing exports represent a continuing opportunity to grow the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Ireland is a good place to invest in. Indeed, 75% of investors reinvest after having been in Northern Ireland. Not only do they go there to make their initial investment but the lion’s share of them go back and reinvest because they see it as the place where their pounds can grow.

[Lady Hermon]

The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Minister made the valid point earlier that the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive was contingent on the implementation of the Stormont House talks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking loudly for the Democratic Unionist party, would like to confirm that his party is absolutely wedded to the full implementation of all the commitments and recommendations that resulted from those talks.

[Ian Paisley]

This is not the place to debate all of the Stormont House agreement, but given that we were instrumental in helping to achieve it, we will, of course, be pursuing every line, every jot and every tittle to ensure that we get the best deal for Northern Ireland in all of that arrangement.

Between 2013 and 2014 we had a record year of investment in Northern Ireland. Nearly 11,000 new jobs were promoted and 23 first-time investors were welcomed into Northern Ireland. If we can do that in one year in advance of the corporation tax Bill, what can we not do if we can now go out around the world and start to market Northern Ireland as the place with what I hope will be the lowest level of corporation tax on these islands? If we can do that, we really will have the opportunity to see Northern Ireland attracting even more companies. Our attracting 23 new, high-calibre investors in the past year, in the hard economic climate we have been coming out of, is a signal that things they are a-changing.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as part of lowering the level of corporation tax in Northern Ireland there is a need not only to rebalance the economy, but to ensure that a balanced regional development approach is taken to the location of foreign direct investment and other investment, to ensure that all citizens benefit from this lowering of corporation tax?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—it is key. This tax is not just about investment in Belfast, Londonderry or key cities; it is about investment in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister recently stated that he wanted to make the United Kingdom the “factory of Europe” and attract more jobs into the UK, and I hope he was speaking for every part of the UK. I hope he wanted to see those investments coming across not just to London and the south, but to all of the UK, because that is what we really need—we need more investment. I know that the hon. Lady wants to see investment in her constituency. My constituency is carrying what is going to be the single largest job loss in Northern Ireland in several years, with the closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in 2017. I want to see those jobs filled. I want to see opportunity created whereby more investment will be happening in my constituency and more factories will be brought there. If the current Government are returned, I hope that they will add meat to the bones of that call to turn the UK into the factory of Europe by bringing jobs, not only to the hon. Lady’s constituency, but to mine and, indeed, to all our constituencies. I hope we see a balance in the investment that is going to be made.

In an earlier intervention, the hon. Lady also called for a reduction in VAT, especially on our tourism trade, and I fully support that. Tourism is one of the key areas where we are trying to grow our economy and attract new business investment, with new hoteliers and new companies. If we can reduce VAT in that sector, we will see it grow. Again, we compete with the Republic of Ireland in that sector, but it has a lower tax rate and that damages us. We really need to try to make progress on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful in sticking to the narrow confines of the Third Reading of this Bill. I appreciate that the points he is making are tangentially attached to the Bill, but I am sure that, in concluding, he will be referring entirely to the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for that prompt, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was actually at the point of conclusion, and I thank you for reminding me that I do have to conclude. I know that hon. Members are captivated by my oratory today and want me to continue, but I must desist and so I shall leave those points with the House.

Equitable Life

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.

In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party discouraged candidates from signing any pledges, with one or two notable exceptions, the most notable being that of seeking justice for Equitable Life policyholders. Having done some research, I was very proud and pleased to sign that pledge. After I was successfully elected, I was immediately elevated to become co-chairman of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders. I am pleased to be able to report that we now have more than 200 members. That demonstrates what an important issue this is for people in this House and beyond.

It is important that we look at what is different about Equitable Life policyholders compared with those in other such schemes. With the advent of private pensions and the encouragement of individuals to save for their future retirement, Equitable Life developed an almost Ponzi-like scheme whereby its representatives went out and sold policies for which they promised bonuses and pensions that were beyond belief, and people were convinced to sign up for them. When that was reported to the regulator and the Treasury, they took no action whatsoever. This was all very well while money was coming into the pot, but eventually the amount coming in would be less than that going out, and therefore the scheme would collapse. The scheme therefore became too big to fail, because had it failed, the Government of the day, of whichever party, would have had to pick up the full cost of compensation to the policyholders.

The whole scandal was covered up during the scheme’s entire period of 20 years. A position was reached of a cosy relationship between the company, the regulator and the Government whereby they would not unveil the situation. The Equitable Members Action Group had to drag the Government through the courts. Eventually, in 2004, we had the publication of the Penrose report, which made recommendations about the position of Equitable Life. That was not good enough, because it did not do anything to compensate the people who had suffered. Then the parliamentary ombudsman made clear recommendations that the policyholders needed to be moved from the position where they had suffered a relative loss back to the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred. That was very important. Equally, the ombudsman accepted that it would be appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation.

I am delighted that almost the first legislative step by the coalition Government was to put in place a scheme to compensate the individuals who had suffered a relative loss. We had argued in this Chamber for justice for those policyholders. There are various types of policyholders who have received different types of compensation. The first—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is listening, but she will clearly not announce the Budget measures today. After this debate, however, I will seek a clear commitment from the political parties about what they will do if elected to government on 7 May. Although it would be welcome if the Chancellor stood up at the Dispatch Box and agreed a full compensation package, the key issue is that if he cannot do so in this Budget, Members and people outside the House will want to know what the political parties would do to compensate those who have suffered.

[Ian Paisley]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting this matter on to the Floor of the House. He is in danger of being canonised by the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are watching this debate closely because of how unfairly they have been affected. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening to the points that Members have raised.

There have been announcements this week about the bonuses to be paid to bankers in banks controlled by the public purse, and some bankers have taken the personal decision to refuse bonuses if they so wish. At least they have the choice. The people who have suffered under Equitable Life have not got a choice. I hope that Treasury Ministers are listening, and recognise that if they want the future support of Opposition Members, they should address this issue before the end of this term.

[Bob Blackman]

I will call the hon. Gentleman my honourable Friend because he has been stalwart in defending the rights of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered in this scheme.

The key point is that, according to the published figures, the Treasury had a surplus of £8.8 billion in January, which was remarkable given that we were expecting £6.5 billion. Some proportion of the additional £2 billion surplus could be put towards compensation for policyholders who have suffered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that his constituency will benefit. It has already benefited from the growth deals, and it is benefiting from investment in energy infrastructure, which is a particular interest there. It is also benefiting from the transport investment, and as we take forward this agenda to improve the economy in the north of England, we will ensure that every part of the north of England, including his constituency, benefits from that process.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Was the Chief Secretary as alarmed as I was by this morning’s comments by the Northern Ireland Attorney-General that the Royal Bank of Scotland has been involved in “criminal fraud” with regard to its banking treatment of those who fell behind in their mortgages? If that is the case, will he make a statement to the House, telling us how he intends to deal with the matter so that we can bring back certainty to customers?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

This Government take very seriously any accusations of wrongdoing by the banks. We will be looking at this case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those comments have been strongly denied by RBS, and we will certainly be taking advice on the matter and looking into it carefully and taking appropriate action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I take on board what my hon. Friend says. We have to look after all our football clubs. Financial issues are critical and the football authorities have made significant changes in recent years, introducing an early-warning system for tax debts, salary caps and, as I mentioned, the financial fair play rules. Those changes are helping clubs across the piece to stay on a stronger financial footing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I know the Minister and the whole House will want to take the opportunity to wish Ballymena United all the very best on Saturday in the Irish cup. Does the Minister plan to visit Northern Ireland and meet the Irish Football Association to see what assistance, development and help she can give to the IFA in the development of the beautiful game in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Grant]

That is an offer I would find very difficult to refuse. I wish Ballymena United well in their cup match and I will certainly look at my diary to see whether we can work in a visit to the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful constituency.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) from the Scottish National party, and I hope that, in the words of Bill Clinton, he will feel our pain in Scotland. This is the level of debate that we have to put up with day in, day out in the separation campaign. It is full of bluster, assertion and very little detail.

In the short time available, I want to pose the argument in the language that the ordinary man and woman on the street understand. We face the biggest decision we will ever make on 18 September 2014, and I had high hopes that the debate would deal with all the big issues. A business man—a friend of mine in my constituency—told me about a meeting that he had with the SNP treasurer in charge of finances for the campaigning. He asked the SNP treasurer how he would deal with the big issues such as currency, and he replied that they would make lots of promises, spend money before the campaign and that hopefully that would get them through. I did not believe that statement, but I do now, because I have read the Scottish Government White Paper. It contains no facts and no detail and threatens the future of my country.

We should also realise that the people who support a separate Scotland are largely cultural nationalists who believe that, irrespective of the economic damage that separation would do, Scotland must be a separate nation. I do not have a gripe with people who believe in that particular brand of nationalism, but the rest of the people are Jerry Maguire individuals—if I can use that term—when it comes to the debate, because they want someone to show them the money. They want someone to say they will be better off if Scotland separates and is not part of the UK.

After last week’s debate about the future of the UK, I would put the debate into three different boxes: first, things that we know will not change; secondly, things that we know will change; and thirdly, things that we will have to negotiate on. The SNP is trying to put as many issues as possible out of the negotiation box and into the “will not change” box. That is why we will keep the Queen, although MSP Christine Grahame wants Annie Lennox to be the Head of State in Scotland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The unintended consequences that the hon. Gentleman raised were touched upon last week in a speech by the leader of Sinn Fein when he said that the United Kingdom hangs by a string. Is that not a very worrying statement that shows how important the referendum is for everyone in the United Kingdom?

[Mr McCann]

Absolutely. We have been in this Union for 307 years. It has served us well, and I want to make sure that it continues after 18 September 2014. We have loads of statements about what will not change and all the contradictions: we have the Queen and we have NATO; we want to be a member of NATO, but we do not want nuclear weapons. We had the fiasco over Europe: we will waltz in—presumably a Vienna waltz—and we will keep our rebate, and be delighted when everyone welcomes us in as a member of the European Union.

Scotch Whisky Excise Duty

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Donohoe]

On a bottle of whisky that costs £12.70, more than £10 is tax, including VAT. That is the level of taxation placed on our best industry in Scotland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donohoe]

I will take interventions towards the end of my speech, if I may. I will give everybody who has made a representation to me an opportunity to speak. I also have an eye for the chair of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and spirits.

As I said, this is the year of separation, so it is important to have this debate as we move towards the Budget on 19 March. I fully support the “UK okay” campaign. One of the areas of vulnerability is the current disproportionate tax on Scottish whisky compared with English beer or cider. Whisky is taxed at 48% more than the same amount of alcohol served as beer. That is the difference in terms of the taxation on whisky and spirits. The beer duty escalator was abolished last year, but the spirits escalator continues at 2% above inflation. That should be addressed and I will come to the reasons why.

Excise duty on Scottish whisky is now 44% higher than in 2008. The escalator in 2014 will mean an increase in duty of 4.8%, or, in terms that I understand, 38p per bottle. That is what the escalator will bring. As I said, taxation as it stands now is more than £10 a bottle. Scotch whisky exports are growing, but the home market remains important, and the UK is the third largest market for Scotch whisky by volume.

However, volumes in the UK have declined by some 12% in the UK since the escalator was introduced—as a result of it, I would argue, and I am sure some of my colleagues would, too. The UK tax on spirits, which of course includes Scotch whisky, is the fourth highest in Europe. When we compare that with Sweden, Finland and Ireland, which have particular reasons for having high taxation, we can see the unfairness of the tax for the spirits industry.

The Scotch Whisky Association, which helped the all-party group, has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in the 2014 Budget and to scrap the escalator. It should be scrapped because UK consumption has declined since it was introduced, and we want to see the UK market expand. Ernst and Young research shows that scrapping the escalator in 2014 would boost the drinks industry contribution to public finance by some £230 million in 2014 alone.

Consumers should be treated fairly across the range of alcohol products, but Scotch whisky drinkers are being heavily penalised. The sales of Scotch whisky form a significant part of the pub trade. Scrapping the escalator would boost UK sales, and therefore UK jobs in the industry. The industry is good not only for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom, because it accounts for more than 25% of all UK food exports. That is a significant figure that should not and must not be lost on the Treasury. It is good to see the Minister in her position this afternoon.

In 2012, the industry generated £4.27 billion for the UK balance of trade and 35,000 jobs. I can see there are Members present from the remote areas of Scotland; the industry has been the main employer in many small towns and villages in their constituencies. It has always been a major contributor to the support of the infrastructure within such communities, and I do not think that that has been taken into account by the Government.

Some 10,000 of those jobs are directly within the industry. Most of them, if not all of them, are in areas of most need, and they have supported the towns and communities for many years. The jobs are in rural and urban areas, and the industry is the sole employer in some of the smaller areas in Scotland.

The Scotch Whisky Association has called on the Chancellor to freeze duty on Scotch whisky in 2014—I am sure the Minister has seen that request—and also to scrap the escalator. The Chancellor took the decision last year on the basis that he would cancel the escalator for beer and cider, but not for spirits. I think that that is unfair and it does not really stack up when one considers that the reasoning was to safeguard the jobs in the pub industry. In fact, 40% of the pub industry is down to the sale of spirits, so the matter of unfairness between the pint and the wee dram needs to be looked at.

Taking action on Scotch whisky would show that the Government support that major industry both at home and abroad—that they support the jobs it creates and do not disproportionately penalise Scotland’s national drink.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. The issue affects not only Scotland; it equally affects his English constituency.

[Ian Paisley]

I am not the representative of Irish whiskey, but I do have the Bushmills distillery in my constituency. It employs 102 people, but it also supports a vital tourist industry; there are more than 140,000 visitors each year to the distillery. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tax impacts on jobs not only in Scotland, but in my part of the United Kingdom? Indeed, 90% of what is manufactured in my constituency’s distillery is exported globally, but if the Government continue with the escalator, we are going to have high taxation on products that are exported. That is a bad signal to send to an industry.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Please make interventions brief. There are a lot of Members in this room. If everyone has interventions of that length, Mr Donohoe will run out of time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that Governments must live within their means. It is because the previous Labour Government did not do so that we have had to make so many difficult decisions to get this country back on the right track, which is what we are doing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Her Majesty’s Exchequer and the Republic of Ireland’s Revenue services lose hundreds of millions of pounds every year as a result of fuel fraud. When will the Government, in partnership with the Republic of Ireland, implement a new fuel marker to frustrate the criminals engaged in that theft?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been working hard on that. I recently visited Northern Ireland to see for myself the impact that a new fuel marker would have on the illicit trade. The rebate of fuel marker group has completed its analysis and made its recommendations, and the respective revenue authorities expect to make an announcement shortly. I shall ensure that he is kept up to date.

Cost of Living

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for whom I have great respect. Unfortunately, he can sometimes be a little dour and sees a glass of water as half empty rather than half full. I would rather talk about a glass of water being half full than half empty, so my speech might have a more positive tone than his.

The Government have made huge strides to clean up the economic mess created in 2010. As the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said on Wednesday 13 November:

“Inflation is now as low as it has been since 2009. Jobs are being created at a rate of 60,000 per month. The economy is growing at its fastest pace in 6 years. For the first time in a long time you don’t have to be an optimist to see the glass as half full.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Newmark]

No.

“The recovery”,

the Governor of the Bank of England says,

“has finally taken hold.”

If I may, I would like to begin by highlighting some of the economic achievements of this Government since 2010. The Government have cut the budget deficit by a third. The Government have helped the private sector create 1.4 million new jobs, offsetting any jobs lost in the public sector by 3:1. The Government have ensured that borrowing costs have fallen to record lows, saving money for taxpayers, businesses and families alike. The Government have helped bring inflation down to 2.2% as of October 2013. That is important because of the damaging effect that rising prices can have on the cost of living. The Government have helped bring back growth to the UK economy, with growth now projected to be 2.9% by year end 2014. The Government have ensured that the UK has more men and more women in work than ever before. The Government have seen the number of people claiming unemployment benefit fall at the fastest rate since 1997. Indeed, in my constituency of Braintree, both unemployment and youth unemployment are down 20% in the past year alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Newmark]

Furthermore, British manufacturing recently reported the strongest growth on record, exceeding that in every quarter since 1989, and Reuters recently reported that growth in UK services is the strongest in 16 years. The Government have indeed achieved much to rebalance our economy.

Finally on economic performance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) just mentioned, according to the OECD the UK has the fastest growth in the developed world, beating the US, Germany and Japan. So by almost every benchmark, the UK has made huge strides in turning around the UK economy, and the Chancellor and his team at the Treasury should be congratulated on sticking with plan A and ensuring that the UK is on the path to recovery.

The Government also have much to be proud of on the cost of living. The 2013 Budget raised the personal tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014. That ensured a tax cut for 25 million people, with individuals paying an average of £705 less in income tax than they did in 2010. Indeed, 2.7 million people have been taken out of tax altogether, thereby reducing the cost of living.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Mr Newmark]

The Government have already reduced energy bills by £193 by removing the green levies imposed by the Leader of the Opposition and are ensuring that energy companies offer the lowest tariffs to customers, thereby reducing the cost of living.

The Government have frozen fuel duty for the longest period in more than 20 years, with pump prices 13p per litre lower than when Labour was in power. Indeed, the average motorist will save at least £170, the average van driver will save £340 and the average haulier will save £5,200 each year as a result, thereby reducing the cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have mentioned my specific proposal and not the Mickey Mouse, cartoon version offered by the Daily Mirror. [Interruption.] I am not sure which rag it was, but I will not return to that point.

The cost of living debate cannot be conducted without reference to the actual economic conditions or the economic legacy of the previous Government. It is a sleight of hand—I admire Labour’s political skill in that regard—and dishonest not to recognise that the cost of living debate cannot be conducted without reference to the economy. It is also not very open handed or reasonable to suggest that the previous Government’s legacy and appalling record have nothing to do with the difficulties that families up and down this country face.

[Ian Paisley]

On the cost of living, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the further north we travel in this great nation of ours, the bigger the burden of debt and cost on individuals in society? Over the past four years in Northern Ireland, everything—from utility bills to transport costs—is up 30% and more for the average household. That is a dire burden on the community.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

People in this country understand that any Government who came in after the 2010 election, amid the appalling wreckage of the economy bequeathed to us by the previous Government, would face a difficult proposition and have a difficult time. In fact, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), outlined a plan—the newspapers dubbed it the Darling plan—that advocated spending cuts and a 22% rate of VAT. As Members will know, I advocated a much lower rate. The Darling plan was an adult, mature recognition of the appalling legacies that his Government had given us. It recognised that we needed to reduce spending and that what was then dubbed austerity was absolutely necessary for this country’s financial future.

Despite Labour’s worst predictions, the Government’s plan is now beginning to work. We have not heard anything about plan B for several months. We have not heard anyone say, “Too far, too fast.” One esteemed Labour economist said that unemployment would hit 5 million, but none of those dire predictions actually happened. Labour persists, however, in peddling the socialist, never-never land idea that borrowing more money will somehow reduce the deficit. That is absolutely insane. I understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is banging her head as a symbol of her frustration, because some of her colleagues’ ideas are remarkably foolish.

Air Passenger Duty

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keeping a very fresh pair of eyes on all areas of my Treasury brief. I look forward to meeting him and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to discuss the issue further. We will certainly keep it under review.

As I have said, we must continue to work hard to reduce the deficit, so if we were to abolish APD, an alternative source for the revenue would need to be found. We never seem to hear any suggestions, but if we hear any today my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will respond to them in his winding-up speech.

Some have argued that, in the case of APD, no such off-setting measures would be necessary and that abolishing the tax would pay for itself by increasing economic activity overall and thus receipts from other taxes. The motion cites the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers arguing exactly that. I will turn to the report shortly, but first let me address the general question of the impact of the tax system on the UK economy and the UK’s international competitiveness.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her new post.

May I suggest that one way in which the Government could make money out of this and increase productivity would be to incentivise the 50,000 Australians who visit Northern Ireland every year to fly through Heathrow and use that as their hub, instead of flying to Dublin before travelling up to Northern Ireland and then leaving via Dublin and spending their money there?

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and I will certainly think about it. My earlier remarks hinted at the existence of the Airports Commission, which will look at all the UK’s airports, the role they play for travellers and how we deal with those who come here by whichever means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a huge honour to follow the lumberjack from Strangford.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) led the charge in putting this important case. He presented a compelling argument to the House. Indeed, he got us so far out in front of the Government that I do not think we will need to have a vote tonight. I congratulate him on the way he presented his case.

I cannot believe that this Government—a Government with whom I have a lot of sympathy in many areas—want to tax people more than any other Government in the world when it comes to air travel. That is astounding. It is sad to see my friends on the Government Benches trying to defend the indefensible. This is a pernicious, nasty little tax that affects transport, ordinary people and jobs, prevents UK businesses from exporting and expanding, and harms growth by stopping inbound tourism.

The tax affects ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom. If mum and dad in Northern Ireland want to take little Billy and Sarah to their nation’s capital, they will go on the internet and look at the cheap flights that they could take from Aldergrove airport or George Best Belfast City airport with easyJet, Aer Lingus, British Airways or any of the other airlines that operate out of Northern Ireland. If they book in advance, they will get tickets for the whole family for less than £100. Unfortunately, they would then have to write a cheque for £104 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the privilege of flying from one part of the United Kingdom to their nation’s capital. That is wrong. It is ridiculous. As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) argued, it is grossly unfair to the citizens of the United Kingdom. The Government have an opportunity to stop it and they should stop it.

Our competitors recognise that the tax is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said in an early intervention, in 2009 the Netherlands followed Belgium in abolishing its equivalent of APD because although it raised the equivalent of £266 million in a year, the loss to the wider economy as a result of taxes from which the country did not benefit was almost £1 billion per year. The German Government have said that they will freeze their equivalent tax and the Minister of Transport has stated publicly that they want to abolish it. I believe that they will do so before the next German election.

I draw Members’ attention to the words of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Howard Hastings, and a speech that he made in London on Monday evening. He is not known for being outspoken or as abrasive as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, but he said:

“It is daft at any level that there is a lower level of APD between Dublin and GB when compared to Belfast and GB”.

He also said it was daft—doubly daft—to create a system in which thousands of visitors who come to Northern Ireland each year are

“financially incentivised to come through Dublin, rather than through Heathrow—”

or Gatwick, and our nation’s capital. He went on:

“Our two airports are fighting to attract new routes, particularly from Continental Europe. Air passenger duty is a major stumbling block. Recently published evidence shows that the cross channel air capacity for Winter 2013 is 2.4% up on a year ago. But drill down a layer, and we see that the increase in capacity to the Republic is up 13,000 seats…or 10%”

per year.

If ever there was a compelling argument to remove something that is doubly daft from our tax system it is the argument that airport passenger duty must be scrapped, and it must be scrapped sooner rather than later.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Lord Newby said in the House of Lords debate that these amendments would

“fundamentally alter the status of these individuals and that should not be carried out lightly.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 571, c. 743.]

How does the Minister respond to those points and will he say what those alterations would be?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that the general pension reforms in this Bill should not be carried out lightly. As I progress and we have this debate, I hope he will be reassured that the Government have taken this issue seriously and will set out their case carefully.

The issue at hand is the appropriate treatment of those work forces’ pensions. The amendments would actively reduce the normal pension age for individuals joining them. It would not be a minor reduction, but a reduction of five years from the pension age put in place for those work forces by the Labour Government in 2007. It would also be a reduction of seven years from the pension age that they would otherwise see when the new scheme comes into force in 2015. That approach would run counter to the need to control the risks associated with increased longevity, which all parties agree must be addressed. I believe that all parties in this House support the aim of controlling those risks. The amendments would make those work forces unique in the public sector, with their pension age falling at a time when everyone else’s is rising.

In response to the issue being highlighted, the Government have taken measured and appropriate action. Rather than making a knee-jerk response to fit with the legislative time scale of the Public Service Pensions Bill, the Ministry of Defence has written to the forces. Its letter states that the MOD is willing to consider how the current pension age of 65 might be maintained for those individuals when the new pension schemes are introduced in 2015. I believe that is a reasonable offer by the Government, and we will of course stand by it. It is our duty as parliamentarians to look at the whole picture. Pensions are only one part of the remuneration and employment package of those work forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

We all know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and that he reviews all legislation carefully. I thank him for making that point. He will no doubt have looked at these matters closely at the time, and I welcome his looking at the legislation today.

[Ian Paisley]

The party political spat is incredibly interesting to observers—and the employees are the people who count most here. Will the Minister set out for me—he has been able to travel some way in his contributions to date—where the terms and conditions of employment set for Ministry of Defence personnel are materially and significantly different from those of ordinary Home Office fire services and police officers across the rest of the UK? If he set that out clearly, it might help me to come over to his side on this issue.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman may already know that MOD fire workers and police are classed as part of the civil service and, as such, are part of the principal civil service pension scheme. That is why the changes I referred to, which were made by the then Government back in 2007, affected those employees. As I plough on through my speech, I hope I will be able to answer some of his concerns.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. It is the material condition of their work that counts. What is significantly different between an officer who dons a hat with an MOD badge putting out a fire and one who does so but dons a hat with his regional service cap? I simply do not get it, and I think that many Members do not get it either, while those who do not get it the most are the fire service men.

[Sajid Javid]

Clearly, there is some difference in the roles they carry out, but I readily accept that the physical attributes required and the difficulty of the job are similar in each case. That is why I said at the outset that there is no point in trying to debate the difficulties, for example, of one job in the civil fire service in comparison with those in the MOD fire service, but significant differences have developed over time between the pay and conditions, including the pensions, of the civil and the MOD work forces. The hon. Gentleman will see, as I have outlined, that the MOD has committed to consider the issue. My main point is that this Bill deals with approximately 12 million employees and their pensions in the public sector, and that this is not the right occasion for looking at individual terms and conditions in each scheme for each particular work force. There is a time and a place for that—but it is not the debate on this Bill. I do not believe that it is the job of Members here or in the other place to look at the individual terms of each scheme. Rather, we should ensure that the Bill we pass has sufficient flexibilities to ensure that if the NPAs—normal pension ages—or other terms and conditions in the pensions for particular work forces need to be changed at some point in the future, that can be accommodated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I have given way enough to Conservative Members and I want to make some progress because it is important to bottom out these specious arguments that the Minister can barely grasp.

Lord Hutton said that the reasons for giving uniformed forces a lower normal pension age is the

“simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them. ”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 520.]

In his report he recommended that the Government set a new normal pension age of 60 across the “uniformed services”. That was the phrase that he used. He did not refer to the type of pension they were in; instead he referred to “uniformed services”, and argued that they deserved to be singled out because of the nature of their work. The spirit of Lord Hutton’s recommendation clearly applies to MOD firefighters and police officers. Lord Hutton said:

“The nature of the work the uniformed services perform is unique and this needs to be reflected in their Normal Pension Ages. The modernised firefighters scheme has struck a balance between recognising these changes in life expectancy, but also recognising the unique nature of the service provided by scheme members. The Commission’s view is that the Normal Pension Age in this scheme, 60, should be seen as setting a benchmark for the uniformed services as a whole.”

We agree with Lord Hutton’s reasoning that the amendment was merely intended to correct an oversight that has occurred in drawing up the Bill. He supports the amendment and the reform is based on his idea. He said that

“if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MOD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report…Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so it did not make any specific recommendations about the MOD firefighters or the MOD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

It is important to mention this. We are towards the end of the Bill’s passage and we have not had much opportunity to debate it. This has been brought to my attention during the course of turning the pages on the detail of this pension legislation. The Opposition say the same as Lord Hutton. This is just one of those anomalies that we should be big enough to admit was wrongly overlooked in previous reforms.

It is true that the last Government raised the normal pension age for the civil service to 65 for post-2007 entrants, and that included Ministry of Defence staff. However, I am now convinced that had we known then about the small group of firefighters and police officers who are technically on the civil service payroll rather than employed by police or fire authorities, we would have taken account of these groups, and an exception could have been carved out. There should be no embarrassment inside the Treasury in admitting that this was an oversight. Regarding this previous change, even the Defence Police Federation said that the

“Council of Civil Service Unions did not consult the DPF, and we did not have the opportunity to make the above points about the physical demands of being an MDP officer”.

The issue was not raised or considered when it should have been. Those staff should not be punished because of that particular oversight. If Lord Hutton is able to admit the oversight and if Opposition Members in this Chamber are able to admit the oversight, the Economic Secretary should be big enough now to do the same. Rather than just read out the brief provided to him, he should engage his brain, use his own judgment and discretion, and do the right thing. If he engaged the brain of the Chief Secretary, who is sitting alongside him, that might go some way towards a solution.

There is the cost to the public purse argument, but as I understand it, only 56 people have joined the Ministry of Defence police, and fewer than 300 have joined the defence fire and rescue service since 2007. So the anomaly could be easily corrected by bringing a small minority of pensioners back into line with the pre-2007 entrants’ normal pension age of 60. We are not talking about a large number of firefighters or police officers here. Sadly, we have had to get to the Floor of the House of Commons to put the pressure on the Government. What the Government have tried to present as a cost is in reality a reduction in the predicted saving from this overall package of changes. They overestimated the savings to be made by overlooking the existence of this particular group of fire and police officers and failed to include them in the definition of uniformed services.

The Minister might put up various arguments, but the question of physical burden cannot be overlooked. A worker for the Ministry of Defence police may be required to wear 11 stone-worth of kit, and a normal shift will involve wearing 5 or 6 stone-worth of equipment for up to 11 hours. Workers in the Ministry of Defence fire service carry out the already difficult and dangerous job of firefighters, but do so in war zones and other extremely hazardous conditions around the world.

The fact that these workers are labelled civil servants should not blind us to the reality of what their jobs entail. Along with the police and the armed forces, they are the only public service workers who have to undergo regular fitness tests. In fact, the majority retire before 60 because they are unable to meet the high demands their jobs entail. They are also recognised as uniformed forces in the civil service pension scheme, and there is a small reflection of that already. Unlike civilian police forces, there is no option in the MOD police for officers to move to unarmed work if they struggle to cope physically. Even when mainstream police officers are armed, they are not expected routinely to carry guns around beyond the age of 55.

Another point that has been brought to my attention today—I imagine that this is something none of us is massively familiar with—is that many MOD firefighters have to work alongside colleagues who will qualify for retirement at 60. Royal Air Force firefighters—I think that they are called Trade Group 8—will often be on similar operations with service colleagues, working in the field together. One colleague will retire at 60, whereas another standing next to him will be required to work to 65, 66, 67 or beyond. The same applies to Royal Navy firefighters, who are regarded in their classification as armed forces. This is riddled with anomalies, and it would be very simple for Ministers to overcome them. They really ought not to have allowed this to become such a large point of debate.

[Ian Paisley]

It should also be pointed out that many of those personnel also serve in war zones, are deployed overseas and have been decorated for their service, which I think sets them apart, with regard to the changes that the Government are refusing to make.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Sadly, there is also an argument that the Government, by holding out in this way, are letting down those serving in our armed forces. They are giving the impression that they think they can sweep the issue under the carpet and let it ride. There are already concerns that they might be increasing the risk to national security by cutting the number of MOD police officers—from 3,600 to 2,400 by April 2016—and in many ways a feeling of betrayal is starting to accumulate.

This matter might be an irritant for the Minister, whom we know is looking for a pat on the head from his betters higher up the food chain, but it would be nice if he, rather than trying to deliver a neat and perfect Bill with no loose ends by resisting any issues that annoyingly come up in the course of debate, used his position to take account of the important questions that come up. I have encountered a number of such issues in my time at the Opposition Dispatch Box and as a Minister, and it is quite plain that at some point in the next few weeks Ministers will have to put their hands up and admit that they will back down. It would be far neater and quicker, and to the Minister’s credit, if he said so now.

This matter needs to be resolved. Telling MOD firefighters and police officers to stop rocking the boat and to accept a half-baked assurance that the Government might enter into some negotiations on whether the pension age should be 65 gives them no way to protect their situation beyond the short duration of the Minister’s tenure in office. We need to correct that glaring error in the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 78 and 79 and urge the House not to disagree with them.