Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I do agree. The seed enterprise investment scheme has succeeded in getting money into start-up businesses and we currently have the fastest rate of business creation in our history. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done, going around the country promoting the scheme.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
If everything is going so well in the jobs market, why is the number of people on the dole long term the highest for 15 years? Why has the number of young people in Rotherham out of work for more than 12 months tripled over the past year? When is the Chancellor finally going to act to give people real help with jobs?
Mr Osborne
Of course, we are clearing up the mess that Labour left behind. As we do that, the private sector has created over a million new jobs, unemployment has been falling, employment is at a record high, and female employment is at a record high. I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that, rather than talking it down.
Public Service Pensions Bill
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
The situation now is different because of the level of trust on which public service employees feel tested when looking at significant changes by the Government. Employee contributions were unilaterally increased by 3% without consultation or discussion—that was simply imposed, even though Lord Hutton was putting measures through. The evaluation arrangement was unilaterally changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. A typical public service employee must have said, “Hold on a minute. Are we supposed to just take this on faith? We are glad that the Government are in negotiations, but as we know, Ministers are here today and gone tomorrow.” In no way do I cast aspersion on the Economic Secretary who I am sure will remain on the Front Bench in days to come. However, we cannot simply rely on statements from particular Ministers at a particular point in time.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about trust, which is critical following the experience of many public service workers and Government decisions on pensions. Does he not underplay the importance of the fair deal? He described it as a positive development in the negotiations, but for many public service workers and their unions it was not just a positive development but a deal maker that allowed them to accept a package which, as he said, was detrimental in other areas. It was important that people took that provision as a clear guarantee, but doubt has now been cast on it, which underlines the importance of including it in the Bill and therefore the importance of new clause 3.
Chris Leslie
My right hon. Friend is correct. When we get a sense of the Government pulling the odd thread here or there or watering down elements of the provision—if I may mix my metaphors—it is no wonder that people start to question whether the words of Ministers at a particular point in time will carry through into what should be a 25-year commitment as set out in legislation. The provision was part of those negotiations but it has not found its way into the Bill.
Even more worryingly, the Economic Secretary made some peculiar statements in Committee about something that we thought was a done deal. He said:
“it is important that we consider in full the views of all stakeholders, including of course those who will be affected, through further consultation before making a final decision on the issue. It would therefore be inappropriate to include the fair deal policy in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 459.]
It is as though negotiations had not been completed or decisions reached. Indeed, it sounded very much as if the Government were reneging on their commitment.
The Government need to lay to rest any suggestion that they are going back on their promise, and the only way to do that is to accept new clause 3. Failure to do so risks reopening debates and potential disputes with public service workers who will—justifiably—feel they have been misled.
Chris Leslie
Indeed; we will debate some of the worst aspects of clause 3 later. It feels as though when writing the Bill Ministers did not consider it as enshrining an arrangement involving give and take on both sides. They have included certain things to the advantage of the employer, but there are scant—if any—safeguards of sufficiency and longevity for the employee, and that is causing anxiety.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is making an important argument in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It is not just that the Bill includes certain things that advantage employers; the measures are principally to the advantage of the Treasury, which is given the whip hand and ultimate say over schemes that should be run by their members and managers accountable to them.
My hon. Friend quoted the Economic Secretary in Committee. When the Minister rises to his feet, is it not important that he explain the discrepancy between what he said in Committee and what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said to this House in December last year? He said:
“Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]
There is a big difference between those two statements and the Economic Secretary needs to explain himself on that point.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) replies, let me say that although I have indulged the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on this occasion I hope he will not repeat such a long intervention. I do not want him to induce the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) into following bad habits. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs.
Mr Gibb
Alas, I no longer speak on behalf of the Government, but that is a commitment given by Ministers of this coalition Government. The hon. Gentleman is trying to create a division between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats in our approach to public service pension reform, and there is no such division. There is no such difference in attitude between the two parties on public service reform.
John Healey
I rise to support the hon. Gentleman. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, the House and the public have a right to take at face value the words of a Chief Secretary—a Chief Secretary is a Chief Secretary is a Chief Secretary. That is a statement of Government policy and of coalition Government intent. Therefore, I think the onus is not on the hon. Gentleman, but on the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to explain why his statement is different from the Chief Secretary’s statement.
Mr Gibb
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and to the Chief Secretary and I did not find any difference. My hon. Friend was addressing whether particular matters should be in primary legislation; the Chief Secretary was setting out the case for the policy.
On teachers’ pensions, there was anxiety that the current arrangements, under which teachers in the independent sector can be members of the teachers’ pension scheme if their employer signs up to the scheme, might be put in jeopardy by the words of Lord Hutton’s interim report, so the Chief Secretary’s statement was welcome news to teachers. Paragraph 8 of the proposed final agreement states:
“the Government agrees to retain Fair Deal provision and extend access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. This means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from maintained schools (including academies)…under TUPE…will…be able to retain membership of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme when transferred.”
That is welcome news. The agreement goes on to state:
“The Government’s decision on Fair deal means that…independent schools which already have access to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme will continue to do so (for existing and new teachers); and new teachers and independent schools will continue to be able to join the scheme under the existing qualifying criteria.”
When we debated the issue in Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham East conceded that the new fair deal
“is an improvement on the current fair deal arrangements”,
but, as he has just now, he complained that
“the promise does not appear in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Public Services Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 458.]
He will be aware, however, that the fair deal arrangements were non-statutory when they were introduced in 1999, and that they remained non-statutory when they were revised in 2004. Notwithstanding the fact that the new fair deal arrangements are an improvement on the old ones, if it is good enough for a Labour Government for the policy to be non-statutory, it ought to be good enough for the hon. Gentleman. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in Committee, the recently published Government response to the fair deal consultation included draft guidance setting out how the new policy would work in practice. Given all the public statements by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and the published guidance and consultation documents, the hon. Gentleman should be assured by the commitments given.
Robert Neill
I have worked it out; it must be well over 30 years in chambers of one kind or another around London. We do not always come to the same conclusions, but I take on board the expertise that he brings to this topic. I agree with his point that it is important, when dealing with the schemes that he and I have been involved with, to give the members of the schemes an assurance that they will have a secure pension in future.
I have spent most of my life dealing with the local government pension scheme, and I am going to talk about that today. Indeed, I should declare an interest as a member of that scheme. I recognise that change often raises concern and creates a measure of insecurity, and it is the job of those of us who have governance of these schemes, locally and nationally, to deal with that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) pointed out, however, the biggest cause of insecurity and the biggest risk to scheme members would be the lack of a secure financial basis for the future of the scheme. That is why the Government’s reforms are necessary; that is the most important reassurance that we can give to people.
There are other important points that we can take on board in the context of the amendments, and I want to talk about the local government schemes in particular. It has already been recognised in the House that they fall into a different category because of their substantially funded nature, which places them in a different position, and because of the considerable diversity within the sector. There are a number of schemes involved, and they generally have a good management track record and a system of management that creates transparency and democratic accountability. I hope that we can ensure that the regulations that will finally embody the schemes will recognise those differences.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that we should take at face value the assurances given by those on the Treasury Bench, and I have no hesitation in doing so. I put it as gently as possible when I say that there has been a degree of needless raising of concern among scheme members, perhaps—dare I say it?—for partisan reasons. That is unhelpful.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is urging us to take at face value the statements from those on his Front Bench. Let me tell him what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in Committee about the concerns over the fair deal. He said that
“it is important that we consider in full the views of all stakeholders, including of course those who will be affected, through further consultation before making a final decision on the issue.”––[Official Report, Public Services Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 459.]
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, taken at face value, that suggests that the final decision has not yet been taken, contrary to the agreements reached with the trade unions on pensions reform.
Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman will know, as a former local government Minister, that there has already been considerable consultation and discussion on the shape of the local government schemes. In any event, there is to be a formal consultation as well. I do not read the same connotations into the Minister’s words as the right hon. Gentleman does. That is not my reading of the discussions to which I was party when I was a Minister. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should be as transparent and upfront as possible in our discussions with scheme members.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way to my hon. Friend at the moment because I want to make some short remarks in this part of the debate, and save my fuller comments for later.
The Scottish Government also require explicit consent from the Treasury for any cost-sensitive changes to the NHS or teachers schemes.
Will the Minister accept my amendment and recognise how tight the time scales are, given the complex range of responsibilities—varying responsibilities relating to different schemes—and how tough the negotiations are? Not all partners to the negotiations even accept the need for this set of reforms. In 28 months’ time, when the provisions would otherwise commence, the Scottish Government would have had not only to complete the negotiations and prepare and pass legislation, but ensure that the employers and scheme administrators could prepare their systems and processes before the 2015 deadline.
This is a very technical amendment in some respects, but it is a very important one. I hope that the Minister will have listened carefully and will be pragmatic in his response to it later.
John Healey
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in the amendments he has tabled. Each and every one of them is important. Given that we are having a reflective debate on Report, I hope we will get a reflective response from the Economic Secretary at the end of our debate on this group.
Let me start where it seems to me that there has been a strong measure of agreement across the House—on the importance of having good, regular and accurate pensions information for scheme members. I think we could all agree that what should underpin our pension schemes—this relates to new clause 2—are higher standards of governance, openness and administration. Such underpinning, then, should be provided in this Bill’s provisions for those public service pension schemes in the future. There is bound to be greater confidence and trust in the schemes, along with better understanding of them, if members are given more information.
Andy Sawford
One of my worries about the pension scheme changes relates to the different impacts that they will have on different communities. Sadly, as my right hon. Friend may know, Corby has one of the 10 lowest life expectancy rates in the country. As we review the schemes, and, in particular, as we seek to give people information about the future benefits that they may expect, we should recognise that there are huge regional variations in life expectancy, and that it is important for people and their families to be able to plan for their future.
John Healey
My hon. Friend’s constituency is in Northamptonshire and mine is in south Yorkshire, but we share an industrial heritage and a strong tradition of steel-making, and I entirely understand the point that he has made. It is as relevant to Corby and to east Northamptonshire as it is to Wentworth and Dearne and parts of Rotherham and Barnsley.
New clause 3 is simply intended to ensure that the undertaking given to the House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and given to the unions that have been negotiating about pension schemes changes on behalf of their members, is guaranteed, and that Ministers will not be able to change their minds and change the schemes in the future. This must be legislation for a 25-year deal, which is what the Government originally promised us.
The question of access to public service pension schemes for public service workers who may face compulsory transfer to non-public service employers and organisations is critical. As has already been pointed out, the Government’s commitment to an extension was a deal-maker for many unions and for many of their members, particularly on the local government side. It would have been a deal-breaker for those unions and members if the guarantee had not been in place, or if what the Economic Secretary said in Committee—which I have quoted—had been on the table instead. We had a clear and principled commitment. That commitment ought to be included in the Bill, and then, as is appropriate in the case of enabling legislation of this sort, the details of the mechanism for how it is to be implemented can be provided in further regulation or scheme rules.
I must say to the Economic Secretary—as some of my hon. Friends have already said—that trust is a problem for the Government in the public services, particularly when it comes to public service pensions. That should come as no surprise to them. After all, they commissioned Hutton to produce the report, and before the publication of the final version, they hit public service workers with a 3% tax surcharge on their pension payments, and with not just a temporary but a permanent switching of the link with pensions from the retail to the consumer prices index. A commitment in the Bill will serve as a confirmation and a reassurance for public service workers that the Government do indeed mean what they say in this regard.
Let me say something about amendments 19 and 20, and about the Bill’s use of the concept of “closure”. During this debate and in Committee, the terms “closure” and “winding up” have been used almost synonymously, but they are not, of course, synonymous. The winding-up provisions in the Pensions Act 1995 apply principally to occupational pension schemes. Those schemes are different from local government pension schemes, which are funded and have the quasi-constitutional backing of local government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East pointed out, the Economic Secretary has said that that it is not the intention to close local government pension schemes. If, as the Government seem to be arguing, closure does not mean closure and there is no intention to legislate for closure of any of the funds, this change should be straightforward. It is evidently needed, especially given that the concern of employers, scheme members, trustees, and unions representing many of the members has been consistent and clear. Why risk uncertainty, why risk a legal challenge, why risk financial jeopardy for some funds, by allowing debts to be triggered in the particular circumstances of a funded scheme for local government?
It may not be the Government’s intention at present to reduce people’s benefits that they have already accrued. It may not be their intention to end any flexibility in the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. It may not be their intention to make further and sweeping radical changes or cuts in people’s pension provision. As it stands, however, the Bill allows all those things to happen. That is why the new clauses and amendments are so important. They will reassure pension scheme members, now and in the future, that this is a settlement for the long term, that the Government mean what they say, and that the Government can, in the longer run, be trusted with public service pensions. Scheme members have seen little evidence since 2010 that that is really the case.
Mike Freer
Members have discussed the technical definition of “closure”, and I ask the Economic Secretary to make it clear in his response that closure does not mean closure, but instead means the scheme is frozen while a new scheme is run alongside and in parallel. Members have talked about the effects of closing a scheme and the crystallisation of outstanding liabilities. In respect of the local government pension scheme, the council tax payer would then be forced to meet those liabilities in one fell swoop. That runs contrary to all the other efforts the Treasury is making to keep council taxes down, so if closure is, indeed, what is intended, there would appear to be a lack of joined-up thinking in the Treasury.
John Healey
I support the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I hope the Economic Secretary will, too. For clarity’s sake, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this does not only affect local councils, as schools that are academies, charities and a number of non-government organisations also use the local government pension scheme?
Mike Freer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Having chaired the London borough of Barnet pension fund committee for several years, I know that while the council is by far the largest fund, there are also many admitted bodies for which it administers funds, such as Middlesex university, academies and various charities. The crystallisation of debt that may arise if there is any vagueness in the legislation could therefore have massive impacts not only on councils, which could, perhaps, withstand the financial shock by using reserves and spreading the effects over many years, but on smaller admitted bodies, who certainly could not do that.
As we have seen in respect of Equitable Life, once a fund closes and becomes a zombie fund, all the good fund managers flee. No decent fund manager worth their salt wants to manage a zombie fund. Therefore, because of the performance of the zombie fund, the liability grows still further. The implications of crystallisation of liabilities in this context must be taken into account. I urge the Economic Secretary to explain precisely what he means when referring to closing a fund. I believe he means that one fund would remain but would have no new contributions and no new members, and a new fund would run in parallel. I urge him to make that clear.
On the issues addressed in new clause 2, I urge the Government to go further, because best practice in the public sector in respect of providing information is not enough. It is my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary’s birthday tomorrow; I think he will turn 43 years of age. I calculate that by the time he reaches the normal pensionable age of the parliamentary scheme he will have contributed some 24 years of accrued service, presuming that he is in a one fortieth, one fiftieth or one sixtieth scheme with the various contribution rates that attach to them. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a man of finance and has a head for figures, so I have no doubt that he understands the pension choices he has made, but I spend a surprisingly large amount of my time explaining to teachers and others—on Saturday I spoke to a police officer—exactly how their pension works, because they do not know and do not understand.
Further requirements in terms of transparency and quantity of information are needed, therefore, because people need to make rational decisions. If we want to defuse the pension time bomb, people have to make a rational decision based on information, not supposition. A constituent of mine who is a doctor has been trying for six months to get information from the NHS about his pension contributions and likely benefits. That is simply not good enough. The Government must go further in this regard.
Sheila Gilmore
At least with regard to new clause 2 and the need for good communication and good information, it appears that there is a fair degree of cross-House agreement. Members may have different motives for wanting such information to be given, and may hold different views about what behavioural change that might drive. Some Members might also hint that they want this information to be given so that public sector workers are properly and humbly grateful for retaining better pensions than the absolutely dreadful pensions of many in the private sector. I hope the Economic Secretary will respond positively, however, and agree that this is an important step. It will be deeply ironic if better and more thorough information is given to people with private sector pensions than to those with public sector pensions.
We all want to avoid too much information being given, of course, with people receiving many pages of information, much of it hard to understand. We do not want to over-egg that pudding. There is a parallel debate happening in the world of private sector pensions on giving good, accurate but still efficient information, so that people can look at a single page of information—that is preferable—and understand what their likely pensions are going to be. On that matter I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate in Committee and again today, will be happy to make some changes to the provisions. I cannot see why new clause 2 should not be in the Bill, as it deals with such a major issue.
I wish briefly to discuss new clause 3, which deals with the issue of a fair deal. Again, there would appear to be a substantial degree of agreement across the House on the substance of the issue. Nobody is saying, “We don’t think these should be the provisions.” The question that has been raised is whether they should be in the Bill. Some Government Members have suggested that accepting what the clearly stated view of Ministers has been at various points should be good enough, because it is on the record and we should be confident that that is sufficient. However, as far as I am aware, it is not possible to litigate on the basis of what people simply said, rather than what is in legislation. People have attempted to say in the past, “But that was the intention”, even doing so in respect of debates in this House. However, legal disputes about rights or obligations turn on the much narrower construction of what is written in the Bill.
I am not suggesting, in any way, that those who have spoken during our consideration of the Bill do not intend what they have said, but many public sector workers are genuinely concerned. As I said in my earlier intervention, the matter becomes a great deal more important if the Government continue, as they presumably will, over the next two years to do what they say they want to do: outsource more of what we would regard, or have traditionally regarded, as public sector activities. That has already happened to some extent. Some people have explained how this could be very positive, with employee mutuals and all kinds of social enterprises springing up to provide public services. If the Government are genuinely serious about wanting current public sector employees not just to have to do this, but to be enthusiastic about doing it, these safeguards have to be in place. If this is the road that is to be pursued, it is even more important to have these provisions than it may have been in the past. Saying, “You didn’t do it before so we don’t need to do it now” is not a particularly good argument; some of us might disagree about what had been done previously. Even if we do not, the argument is still not particularly good, as we have also to learn from experience. I hope that the Government will seriously consider legislation on this matter, because if they genuinely have no intention of departing from the promised arrangement I cannot see what the problem is. When people begin to say there is a problem, that is when those paying into these schemes—the employees likely to be affected—begin to smell a rat. There may be no rat there, but why not make things absolutely clear?
That is also true of what we are trying to achieve in amendment 12, which deals with an apparent possibility arising from clause 7. Again we were given assurances in Committee that we should not be reading into this something that the Government do not intend. Clause 7 says:
“Scheme regulations may establish a scheme…as
(a) a defined benefits scheme”.
It then goes on to talk about
“a scheme of any other description”.
It is not at all clear what is actually meant. We were told that one or two specialist defined contribution schemes are in existence, but people are clear that the promise that was made as part of this negotiation is that the defined benefits schemes would remain in place. They will, however, be changed, and during the negotiation employees in various parts of the public sector accepted substantial changes in the kind of pension because they accepted the imperatives. In moving from final salary pension schemes to career average schemes, changes are being made in accrual rates. All sorts of changes have been made—for example, the forthcoming changes to pension age—but they were made on the basis that the scheme will remain as a defined benefit scheme.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and sounding a clear warning. She mentions that clause 7(1) refers to
“a defined contributions scheme, or
( c) a scheme of any other description.”
Would she like to point out to the House that this potential change in clause 7 could in theory, under subsection (5), be brought in by way of a negative resolution—by a statutory instrument that would not allow a debate in this Chamber or even a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs?
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is an important point. If the rest of the clause did not give rise to the possibility of substantial changes, that provision might be acceptable. However, where we are talking about much greater changes, it is particularly important that the full debate takes place.
Again, there appears to be a difference between giving an assurance and a reluctance to see that assurance embedded in the Bill. Various people have mentioned that the whole debate we have had, particularly since 2010, has eroded some of the public sector workers’ trust. I do not generally seek to be overly alarmist in these matters, but even in Committee—I am pleased to say that this has not happened today—there were points when we could see exactly why many public sector workers are apprehensive, There were those, admittedly not at ministerial level but on the Government Back Benches, who clearly still feel that public sector pensions are too generous. The underlying thinking is that at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, further attempts will be made in that regard.
I fully accept that even with the changes that come through this Bill and through other negotiations that have taken place, public sector pensions remain far better than private sector pensions. However, we always have to remember that the comparator we now have is absolutely dreadful private sector pensions, regardless of where we place the blame and how that has happened. One thing that politicians should be doing in the next few months and years is trying to improve private sector pensions.
Finally, I wish to discuss amendment 11, which relates to the local government scheme in Scotland. Generally, the arrangements for many public sector schemes in Scotland have been that Scottish Ministers could make regulations, but that they were subject to Treasury approval. For the most part, whether because of that need for Treasury approval or because until relatively recently there has been no reason to depart from the UK-wide arrangements as doing so might create various anomalies that would not always be helpful, the regulations for schemes—all those that are not funded, at least—have lain with Scottish Ministers but have been made in the same way.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is making another powerful point about amendment 11. She is right that the Scottish Government are not normally backward in coming forward to demand new powers and for decisions to be taken in Scotland for Scotland. Would she care to speculate about why they have not chosen to apply for a legislative consent motion that would allow them to make these decisions in Scotland? Could it be that they are looking to allow the broad shoulders of the Economic Secretary to take the blame and responsibility for the changes to the local government pension scheme in Scotland?
Sheila Gilmore
I was going to come to that point, because I am surprised that that opportunity has not been taken, given the context. As my right hon. Friend will know, this is a difficult and sensitive subject, but—this point might well be speculative and I am sure that people will wish to deny that it is the case—it is no secret that we are in a particular stage of politics in Scotland, and it would—
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I hope that he is also reassured by the commitment I have just given.
I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for their input on this issue in Committee.
John Healey
I welcome that commitment. The Minister said that the information should be provided “to some scheme members”. May I urge him to take a maximalist approach and make sure that the maximum reasonable number of members get the most regular and at least annual information that will allow them to understand the scheme better and to plan for retirement and manage it better as well?
Sajid Javid
I agree. All scheme members, one way or the other, should receive annual information. That is the type of amendment we will table in the other place. However, there are different types of members of schemes, such as deferred members and active members. That needs to be taken into account when they receive that information.
Public Service Pensions Bill
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The Chief Secretary lays great stress on the Hutton report, so why did not the Chancellor wait until Hutton reported before hitting public service workers with a 3% surcharge on their pension payments?
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.
John Healey
The Chief Secretary will be aware that there is a working longer review in the NHS that is looking into the question of working longer in particular disciplines in the health service. Will the provisions in the Bill allow flexibility in the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age, depending on the conclusions of that review?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born, and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions. We have set out in the Bill certain elements of the scheme, particularly the pension age link, and the fact that the schemes need to be CARE schemes and certainly cannot be final salary schemes in future. The provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in fact more limited than those in the 1972 Act. It is appropriate that we continue in broadly the same way, because that has stood the test of time. I hope that, by setting out the Government’s intentions here and in Committee and by undertaking detailed negotiations with work forces, we will have ensured that people know precisely how we intend to use these powers. I think it is clause 23—I might have got that number wrong—that refers directly to the 25-year guarantee that I mentioned earlier. I hope that that will give people some assurance that our scheme designs will stand the test of time.
John Healey
With respect, intentions are one thing but the terms of the legislation are another. Is my reading of it wrong? As I understand it, the provisions will not allow flexibility for some groups of NHS workers in the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. Clause 9(3) states:
“The deferred pension age of a person under a scheme under section 1”—
including NHS workers—
“must be…the same as the person’s state pension age”.
That suggests that there will be no flexibility. Am I right or wrong?
Danny Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the link between the state pension age and the normal pension age is fixed in the legislation. That is a matter that was discussed in the negotiations, including the detailed negotiations with health service unions. The point I was seeking to make was that, as Lord Hutton recommended, we have agreed to review how that link operates at each stage at which the state pension age is increased, to enable those issues to be debated.
Danny Alexander
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
The second and third tests of Lord Hutton were fairness to public servants and fairness to taxpayers. The Government have worked hard to ensure that the reformed pensions are fair and continue to provide a generous level of retirement income for public servants as a fair reward for a career spent serving the public. The Government made a commitment that these schemes would be at least as generous at retirement for those on low and middle-income earnings. We have delivered that commitment in a number of ways.
First, clause 16 allows transitional protection to be provided for those who have already had a long career in public service and are approaching retirement. I said in November last year that the offer provided that those within 10 years of their normal pension age on 1 April this year would not see any changes to their pension, nor the date at which they can draw it. The Bill ensures that the current final salary schemes will remain open to people who are covered by the transitional protection criteria in those schemes. Most of the proposed final scheme designs include the transitional offer as we set it out; however, the local government scheme in England and Wales has chosen alternative arrangements as sought by their trade unions and employers.
Secondly, we have honoured our commitment to retain the final salary link for people who have already built up some service in final salary schemes, as the provisions in schedule 7 make clear. Although these people will move on to CARE schemes by 6 April 2015 at the latest, their accrued years of final salary benefits will be calculated and paid at their final retirement salary—not their 2015 salary.
Most importantly for low and middle-income earners, we are putting the fairness back into public service pensions. Clause 7 provides that the new default for public schemes will be based on career average earnings, rather than on final salary. Final salary schemes are unfair to the majority of the work force as they disproportionately reward those who progress to senior roles compared with the majority of staff who have more consistent career paths. These outmoded schemes provide lower effective benefit rates to the people that carry out the core front-line work in our public services—the nurses, police officers and our armed forces whose work is so valuable to everyone here.
Career average schemes are fairer to the members and to taxpayers alike. Under final salary schemes, it is the taxpayer that picks up the cost of those high flyers who attain high salaries by the time they leave public service. Such members can receive twice as much in benefits per £1 of contributions that they have paid towards their pension. This is clearly unfair, which is why this Bill will not allow final salary schemes to continue after 2015. For members, pension benefits will be based on the amount that they earn over their career. That means their pension benefits will directly reflect the contributions that they and their employer make over their career.
The Bill ensures that these pensions remain among the very best available—and rightly so, if we are to continue to be able to recruit and retain the right people to undertake these crucially important roles. A key objective of the reforms is to ensure a fair balance of risks between scheme members and the taxpayer. To achieve this, Lord Hutton recommended that the Government establish a mechanism to control the future costs of pensions.
Clauses 10 and 11 establish an employer cost cap in the public service schemes. This will provide backstop protection to the taxpayer to ensure that any unexpected risks associated with pension provision are shared between employers and scheme members. With foreseeable longevity risk controlled through the pension age link, this really is a backstop, which under normal circumstances should not need to be used. Everyone in a public service pension scheme will see their pensions reformed along the same lines. I do not believe in special cases at a time when we are reforming the pension arrangements of those who provide essential services to the public.
John Healey
I promise not to intervene on the Chief Secretary again, but I want to ask about the employer cost cap in clause 11. On the front of the Bill, the Chancellor has signed a declaration that the provisions of the Bill
“are compatible with the Convention”.
It is clear from clause 11(7), however, that the Bill allows schemes to provide for reduction of accrued benefits as part of the employer cost cap. This would be a fundamental breach of scheme members’ rights under article 1 of protocol 1 of the convention, so how can the Chancellor’s statement on the front of the Bill be true?
Danny Alexander
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in this instance. In fact, had the “cap and share” arrangements introduced by the last Government been allowed to operate, they could have manifested themselves—[Interruption.] No, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. They could have manifested themselves in both a reduction in benefits and an increase in costs to members. The right hon. Gentleman is free to explore the matter in Committee, and I am sure that he will.
I should add that I have some further information relating to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention. The working longer review is acknowledged in the proposed final agreement on the NHS pension scheme, which specifically states that early retirement factors allowing retirement before the state pension may be considered should the review suggest that that is necessary.
As we have established, public body pension schemes and public service schemes operated by the devolved Administrations are required to make equivalent changes to their schemes as swiftly as possible. In the case of public body schemes, it has not been possible in all cases to complete the reform process according to the same timetable. As I said in a written ministerial statement on 16 July, reform is definitely on the cards for these organisations, and the Government aim to complete the work by 2018.
Speaking of special cases, the House should note that the Bill will also close the generous and outdated “great offices of state” pension schemes. They have outlived their usefulness in the modern world. I am glad that the Bill will close them to new office holders and will ensure that people in such roles are given the same pensions as Ministers. As I am sure Members are aware, the Prime Minister waived his entitlement to such a pension when he took office. The current Lord Chancellor is making arrangements to do likewise, as did his predecessor. Mr Speaker announced on the day that we published this Bill that he would retain the pension, but would take it only when he reached the age of 65 rather than drawing it as soon as he left office.
Lord Hutton’s fourth key test related to governance and transparency. The reformed schemes should be widely understood, both by scheme members and by taxpayers. People understand what is in their pay packet each month, and it should be just as easy to understand how their pension works. Under the Bill, the schemes will have robust and transparent management arrangements.
Clause 5 provides for each scheme to have a pension board which will work to ensure that the scheme is administered effectively and efficiently. There will be local pension boards in the case of the locally administered police, fire and local authority schemes. The boards will consist of member representatives, employer representatives and officials. They will operate in a similar way to boards of trustees, holding scheme administrators to account and providing scheme members and the public with more information about the pensions. The board members will be identified publicly, and their duties will be made clear to scheme members. I welcome the greater transparency that the Bill will bring to this area of public pension administration.
Clause 15 and schedule 4 provide for an extension of the role of the pensions regulator, who will improve and police the management and administration of all the new schemes. The regulator is independent of Government, and will be able to utilise its full range of powers to ensure that the public schemes are managed properly and to consistently high standards. Clauses 12 and 13 will ensure that all schemes collate and publish information to improve transparency and enable comparisons to be made between them.
Since the Bill was published, I have received a number of questions about its design. It establishes a common framework of delegated powers which enable schemes to be made in respect of the public service work forces. The common framework constrains the use of those powers on core parts of pension scheme design, such as the link between state pension age and normal pension age, the career average pension structure, and the abolition of the final salary link. Those core elements are fixed in this legislation in order to create fairness and an even degree of cost control across the work forces.
At the same time, the Bill allows flexibility when that is appropriate, enabling the secondary detail of the pension schemes to be adjusted in recognition of the differences between different areas of public service work. Members will know that the final scheme designs agreed vary significantly from work force to work force, properly reflecting differing priorities and concerns within the cost ceilings that I established. The approach builds on that taken in the Superannuation Act 1972, which set out a framework of delegated powers some 40 years ago.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who made a very balanced speech. He is right that reform is required. That is accepted and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I start from a simple principle: pensions are pay deferred. They are part of people’s terms and conditions, often part of their contract of employment, and, in the public sector, part of the deal for public service workers who often give a lifetime’s commitment to the service in which they work. Two things follow from that: first, pensions are principally the property of the scheme members, who defer their pay and put that pay in the hands of managers and trustees; and, secondly, changes to people’s pension terms should involve those members—those whose money it is—through consultation, negotiation and agreement.
That is what the Labour party did with the far-reaching reforms we put in place in government. We agreed and established changes to reflect the increasing age of the population, to manage the changes effectively, to control the costs to taxpayers and to increase contributions overall from scheme members. We did that with the armed forces in 2005, the police, firefighters and local government workers in 2006, and teachers, the NHS and civil servants in 2007. Across all areas, we introduced increases in the pension age, changes to the contribution rates from members—especially the higher paid—and a “cap and share” arrangement that limited absolutely the liability of taxpayers to future increases in costs. As a local government Minister, I was responsible for the local government pension scheme, which we radically reformed not just for new members but for existing members. Furthermore, we did so without closing the scheme, and there is no need to accept what is provided for in clause 16 and do that this time around either.
The reforms recognised the pressures of cost, population and life expectancy. They also recognised that pensions were deferred pay, that changes to contribution rates and benefits should be consulted on and agreed, that most public sector workers were low-paid and that their pensions were far from gold-plated. The average pension for NHS workers last year was a little over £7,500, while the average for a local government worker this year is just £4,406. After our changes, in 2010 the National Audit Office concluded:
“As a result of the changes, which are on course to deliver substantial savings, long-term costs are projected to stabilise around their current levels as a proportion of GDP. The changes are also set to manage one of the most significant risks to those costs, by transferring from taxpayers to employees additional costs arising if pensioners live longer than is currently projected.”
The Government have failed to build on those reforms. They did not even wait until the Hutton review, which they commissioned, had fully reported before in October 2010 the Chancellor hit public service workers with a 3p in the pound surcharge—a public service pensions tax that had nothing to do with long-term pension reform and everything to do with a short-term cash grab to try to deal with the deficit; and this from a set of workers that, at the same time, was being squeezed by a public sector pay freeze, hit by a VAT increase, subject to rising energy bills and suffering from deep cuts in tax credits. That is where the Government lost the moral authority to claim we were all in it together and to be a one-nation party. Furthermore, changes such as the switch from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index were imposed without warning, consultation or agreement.
The Government are legislating after losing the trust of public service workers, who simply do not trust them with their pensions or with this pensions legislation. It might not be the Government’s intention to reduce benefits already accrued, to prevent the flexibility to link the normal pension age with the state pension age, or to make further sweeping and radical changes or reforms without proper scrutiny or consultation, but the legislation, as it stands, can be used in that way, whatever the intention of Ministers. That is why it is important to get this legislation right. It is even more important because this is a broad, sweeping framework Bill in which many of the detailed changes will lie in the regulations and scheme rules.
As both a former local government Minister, like the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and a former Treasury Minister, let me say that my main concern is about the local government pension scheme. The Treasury has never really recognised the difference between the local government pension scheme and other public service pension schemes. Unlike other main schemes, the local government scheme is a funded scheme. It has £150 billion in assets, it raises an annual income significantly greater than its expenditure each year and it has seen its investment income cover at least a third of its expenditure on benefits in each of the last few years. Unlike all the other main schemes, employer contributions in the local government pension scheme are set locally by 89 separate funds, each with its own investment strategies, its own member demographics and its own range of employers—in other words, the flexibility to match the responsibilities and pressures that those funds face.
Unlike in other main schemes, the governance of the local government pension scheme reflects local municipal roots, while the respective roles and responsibilities of those managing and overseeing the scheme are different from those for the national schemes. Finally, unlike in all the other main schemes, simply meeting the liabilities is not the only concern of those managers. Stability is a vital element, as is the participation rate. The reforms that we put in place—those now being negotiated—reflect those concerns. This is a broad-brush Bill, and the same centralised powers, controls and restrictions over the unfunded schemes do not fit well with the local government pension scheme. As the shadow Chief Secretary said, some significant debates and amendments are required in Committee.
There are some serious flaws in the Bill. I will offer the Minister four for starters. First, the Chief Secretary confirmed in response to interventions from me and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that clauses 3 and 11 allow scheme regulations to make retrospective changes to the benefits that people have already worked for and paid for. As such, they threaten one of the central tenets of pension saving: that what one has accrued is safe and that the terms on which it was accrued will be honoured, which is as true for the private sector as it should be for the public sector. Secondly, a running theme throughout all 38 clauses is a Treasury power grab—the centralisation of control over all elements of schemes, from valuations to scheme regulations, with no requirement to consult even the scheme members, who are most directly affected.
Thirdly, there is a legislative lock in clause 9 between the normal pension age and the state pension age for all but firefighters, the police and the armed forces. Therefore, even if there is a strong case, which is now being looked at, for that link to be made flexible for some workers in the NHS, the legislation does not permit it. Fourthly, last December the Chief Secretary made an important commitment to the House on behalf of the Government on the retention of current protections for public sector workers who are outsourced and the extension of fair-deal provisions for all staff transferring employers. Schedule 9 enables that to occur in the civil service, but it does not ensure that it will occur, and it must.
Finally, let me say this to the Treasury Minister and his colleagues. There are many excellent minds among the civil servants in the Treasury, but frankly they do not know everything. They sometimes make mistakes and sometimes others know more than they do. I shall give a couple of examples. The dates for the so-called closure of the local government scheme in clause 13 are wrong, as is the date for ensuring that transitional protection, as promised, is in place. As the Minister prepares for the debates and the amendments in Committee, I hope he will take seriously the points and concerns raised tonight. I hope he will be ready to make amendments where there is a good case for doing so, because in the end that is how we get a public pensions system that is fair to taxpayers for the long term, but remains fair to those public service workers who give so much of their time—their whole lives—to support others.
Richard Graham
I have no idea whether the word “guarantee” is in the Bill. In life, only two things are guaranteed as far as I know: taxation and death. We are talking about not guarantees as such, but a defined-benefit scheme in which the entire risk is taken by the taxpayer and the certainty that gives people the chance to budget in their retirement is with the scheme’s beneficiary. In fact, it is even better than that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he has studied these things carefully, the advantage of a career average defined-benefit scheme is that it benefits precisely those workers whom I would have imagined he would be most in favour of protecting.
The Pensions Policy Institute, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, says:
“The Coalition’s proposed reforms will remove the different outcomes for high-flyers and low-flyers which exist in final salary schemes.”
It goes on to estimate that, under the current scheme, a high flyer
“would have had a pension benefit of 29% of salary, compared to 11% of salary for the low-flyer.”
Under the reforms proposed by this Government, both high and low flyers will have
“the average value of the pension offered being worth 15% of salary”.
That is a significant improvement for the low flyers. I would be astonished if all Members of the House were not in favour of that reform.
The hon. Member for Leeds West recognised that something had to be done, but tellingly, she made no reference at all to three of Lord Hutton’s four tests—affordability, fairness to the taxpayer and governance and transparency. Did she not think they mattered? Should they not be at the heart of what any Government do? That was a disappointing series of omissions.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the total risk of the schemes was borne by the taxpayer. Does he not realise that he is making the same mistake as Ministers in not recognising that the local government pension scheme is a funded scheme? The income from its investments last year topped £3 billion, and there is also a strong contribution from employees alongside that of employers. That makes it a case apart from his general argument.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman makes half a good point. I know local government pension schemes very well, as many of them are my former clients. The reality is that they have never been as separate from the public sector balance sheet as he might be implying. One of his predecessors as Economic Secretary, Ruth Kelly, tried to amalgamate the whole lot, recognising their fragility. As the National Audit Office has revealed, the schemes are significantly underfunded, and I think I am right in saying that 20% of all money paid in council tax now goes towards paying the pensions of scheme members. He is right to say that local government schemes are different from others, but they are not quite as different as he suggests.
The hon. Member for Leeds West mentioned the fear that public sector workers would opt out of schemes altogether, because they might become unaffordable, and thereby become a burden on the state in a different way. I think it is fair to say that she did not recognise that opt-out rates have not altered. There is good reason for that, because although contributions are higher than they were, the value of a defined-benefit scheme is still considerable. In case her concern becomes real and there are large numbers of opt-outs, the Government have built into the Bill a provision for regular reviews to address the situation if and when it arises.
Several Opposition Members have expressed the concern that the Government are trying to set the private sector against the public sector. I have already totally rejected that point. All Government Members are as committed as anyone to helping every worker get some form of pension as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) missed the crucial point that the Government are trying not only to make defined-benefit schemes sustainable for the public sector, but to get millions of workers in the business sector to have a pension at all through the auto-enrolment scheme. It is disappointing to me, and I think to others, that she did not understand that.
Several Members have claimed that the real scandal is the lack of pension provision in the private sector, but it is a curious fact that one legacy of the previous Government is that 13.5 million workers in the private sector have no pension at all. Some Ministers in the Labour Government did good work, including the late Member for Croydon North, to whom I pay tribute for his work in the pensions sector. However, as with so many things, it has fallen to the current Government to seek an agreement and to implement reforms that will give people without pensions the chance to have something to retire on for the first time in their lives.
Today’s debate has covered many aspects of the Bill. As I said, it is a good thing that its Second Reading will not be opposed today, but I can see that there will be many arguments ahead in Committee.
Let me leave with hon. Members the points that I make to everyone in my constituency who is employed in the public sector and is in a defined-benefit scheme, whether they are teachers, nurses or other workers. First, the defined-benefit pension has fabulous benefits for all those involved, especially lower-paid workers; secondly, the increase in accrual rates means an improvement of some 8% for public sector workers; thirdly, anyone within 10 years of retirement is completely protected; and finally, I hope that the Opposition will drop their instinctively tribal approach, and recognise that the Bill tries to reform public sector pensions in a way that will, above all, be sustainable. Should our children and grandchildren work in the public sector, they will receive a career average defined-benefit pension, as will today’s workers, should the Bill go through successfully.
Sajid Javid
I was expecting a lot more than that from the hon. Lady. I am proud that this Government have already cut the deficit her Government left behind by a quarter. That is a significant achievement. The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds West, said she was unable to commit to keeping the CPI change we have introduced to public sector pensions beyond the term of this Parliament. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, that would leave a black hole in the public finances of up to £250 billion in current GDP terms over the next 50 years. I look forward to hearing how the Opposition plan to fill that black hole.
John Healey
The Minister spoke warmly about his father and trade unions. Which trade unions support this Bill as it currently stands? Can he name even one?
Sajid Javid
Since we received the first interim report from Lord Hutton, we have been in negotiations with trade union representatives from almost all the major trade unions. I am pleased to say that most of them have taken a very constructive approach. As I said, trade unions that represent two thirds of trade union members have accepted the schemes we have put forward.
These reforms are not easy, but they are the right thing to do for the long term because they are in everybody’s interests. We must stop the cost of these pensions spiralling out of control. I shall now turn to some of the issues raised today.
Several Members, including the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), mentioned the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. The reality is that we are all living longer and enjoying healthier lives in retirement. The average 60-year-old is now expected to live 10 years longer than in the 1970s. Pension ages of 60 and 65 were set in times when people spent only a few years in retirement, but that is no longer the case. Some fortunate people spend more years drawing their pension than earning their salary. If everyone is living longer, it is only fair that people work a bit longer, too; otherwise we will be asking those in the private sector to work longer and pay more so that those in the public sector can retire earlier having paid less. We cannot ask those people to pay twice over—once for their own pensions and once for those of public servants.
Let me be clear, however: this Government are not forcing anybody to work for longer. As now, it will remain possible to retire earlier than the normal pension age and draw a reduced pension, subject to any minimum age rules that exist. Of course, any benefits from the current schemes can be assessed in full and reduced at the current pension age for those schemes.
Secondly, I must remind the House that the Government have honoured their commitment to protect the rights of those closest to retirement. The Chief Secretary has made it clear that people who were 10 years or less from their normal pension age on 1 April 2012 will see no change in their pension. The Bill delivers that in clause 16.
Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
What will be next year’s budget for consultants to support the work of Infrastructure UK in carrying out that due diligence and giving advice to Ministers?
Sajid Javid
I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that there is no way I can tell him that. I cannot predict the future; he may be able to do so, but I am not. I can tell him that there have already been expressions of interest from more than 50 project sponsors and that the Government have entered into negotiations with a number of them, but no final decisions have yet been made. He will also know that, in the national infrastructure plan published last year, the Government identified numerous key projects worth more than £200 billion, so there could be a substantial number of projects.
John Healey
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the point that he was good enough to respond to earlier. He said that there would be charges as part of the project costs and that, therefore, there would be no net cost for consultants to advise the Treasury’s Infrastructure UK team. Does that also apply to consultants who may be required to advise other Departments as part of this due diligence process? Will there be a net cost to those Departments for such advice?
Sajid Javid
Because of the charges that the Government will make for the guarantees, we anticipate that there will be no net cost. Of course, that cannot be absolutely guaranteed, because our current projected cost profile may change, but it is anticipated that the income will cover most of the costs.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 12 and new clause 3, which are both in my name. Both relate to the reports that the Government propose in clause 3 should be annually produced, and to the transparency of the companies involved in this support for infrastructure, which I welcome.
Both the amendment and the new clause follow discussions that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who is now in his place on the Front Bench with his new ministerial colleague, whom I also welcome. The amendment and new clause are prompted by the fact that we often do not know the identities of the beneficial owners of the companies with which the Government do business. Companies often have shares owned by trusts or other companies based in countries that do not require disclosure of ownership, and I shall give a few examples.
The M6 toll road is owned by Midland Expressway Ltd, which is owned in turn by the Macquarie Motorways Group Ltd, which is in turn owned by Macquarie Atlas Roads International Ltd of Bermuda. It is controlled by Macquarie Infrastructure Group, but the identity of its investors and therefore of the owners of MEL remains unknown and undisclosed. In 2006, however, they paid themselves a £392 million exceptional dividend, and over six years made a return on their investment of more than 150% a year. This sort of profit at the public’s expense by we know not whom is not an acceptable arrangement, and I want the Government to be warned against it and to ensure that all owners are in the public domain.
Arqiva, as a private sector monopoly, is regulated by Ofcom. It runs all the transmission services for all UK terrestrial television broadcasters and for BBC Radio and most commercial radio services, owns two of the four digital multiplexes, supplies the Government with mobile and wireless communications and supplies three quarters of all police forces. It receives annual revenues of about £1 billion and makes annual losses of about £250 million. The ultimate owners of the company appear to be based in Bermuda, although we do not know who they are, and Arqiva has paid no corporation tax for four years.
Thames Water, the UK’s largest water supplier and a monopoly private sector company providing a public service with which the public therefore has no option but to deal was bought by Macquarie European Infrastructure Fund in 2006. The long-term debt held by the company was £3.4 billion and is now £7.7 billion. When the company was bought, Thames Water took on all the debt taken out by its owners to buy the company, which was more than £3 billion. To do that, it set up a company in the Cayman islands, Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Ltd, which is registered at an address at which are registered 18,000 other companies.
Over the past four years, Thames Water has made profits after tax of £314 million, £331 million, £225 million and £247 million, and has paid dividends of £398 million, £291 million, £271 million and £480 million, but in the last tax year paid no tax. In the previous year, it paid £500,000 in tax, and the year before that £16 million, yet it has a stable operating profit of about £600 million a year. I could go on. There are health care companies, and the company currently negotiating with the London fire brigade over the water to buy the old fire brigade headquarters looks as if it is based in the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man.
Simon Hughes
I shall make one short point and then give way.
The other really important thing—this is the purpose of new clause 3—is that we should require due diligence to be carried out in the same way as we require it for money-laundering prevention. The trouble is that it is not done properly and is not effective.
Simon Hughes
I give way to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against predatory capitalism and tax avoidance that ought to commend itself to the Treasury Front-Bench team. If they will not accept his argument and amendments, will he press them to a vote?
Simon Hughes
I am conscious that the first of my amendments is technically deficient—which was my fault, not anybody else’s—but I hope that Ministers will accept the point and amend the Bill in the other place. I will press them hard—I know that I have support from colleagues in both other parties in this place—to try to get the change made. I am hopeful that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, has heard the proposition and will be able to respond.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I am more than happy to discuss this in further detail with him at a later stage.
John Healey
The Minister was boasting before the last interventions about near-record-low interest rates of 1.9%. What does he think about the judgment of that by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who was trusted and appointed by the Chancellor to be his party’s member of the LIBOR investigation committee? He said:
“The reason we have a low interest rate is because the economy is absolutely screwed.”
Sajid Javid
We have low interest rates because, for once, we have a Government who actually understand public finances. Less than an hour ago, the shadow Financial Secretary, in introducing his latest amendment, said that he was concerned about the use of taxpayers’ money—I had to have a little chuckle to myself, because what happened to that during 13 years of Labour government? Our national debt tripled. He also talked about clawbacks, and there is one clawback I would be interested to learn about. When the previous Government sold off our precious gold reserves, did they negotiate a clawback at that point? I do not think so.
Chris Leslie
If the Minister were talking on the basis of having made some progress or having reached some level of achievement as regards housing policy, perhaps he would have the right to start throwing accusations about. Of course, far more could and should have been done in the past, but after two and a half years under his party’s Administration, where are we going on housing construction? According to the Construction Products Association, it is going through the floor; “free-fall” is the phrase linked to the CPA in this morning’s Financial Times.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In particular, social housing construction, which was the subject of the Minister’s intervention, has plummeted by 25% in the past year. That is the direction it is going in under this Government.
Chris Leslie
Exactly; my right hon. Friend is right. Official data show that construction output is down by 11.6% on the year before, and the Construction Products Association predicts a 13% fall in infrastructure investment this year. When one starts to look at what is actually happening in the real economy and the real world today, it is clearly not about the announcements that Ministers bring to the Chamber as though they represent reality. The Bill may well go on to the statute book after this debate, but if the Government are relying on it alone, we remain concerned that the infrastructure schemes for housing, schools, child care, transport and so forth which should be proceeding will not move forward as effectively as they should.
There are other concerns that the Minister has not addressed, perhaps because the Government do not have an implementation plan that they can allude to. For example, they have not talked about state aid clearance. The Bill says that financial assistance can be given to particular industries and private sector ventures in operations, in maintenance and in repairs, but perhaps to the exclusion of other companies. What is the Government’s approach to state aid clearance from the European Union? If they hit such a barrier in the EU, will they simply say, “Well, another month, another quarter, another year has gone by and we didn’t get state aid clearance”? How are they approaching those barriers, and when will they report to Parliament about how they are going to tackle these issues? Those are more obstacles that they do not appear to have addressed in any way.
John Healey
I had not planned to speak on Third Reading, but I have been moved to do so by how seriously the Committee stage was curtailed this afternoon. For the entire Committee stage on the Floor of the House, we have had less time than a single sitting of a Public Bill Committee. I put it to the Economic Secretary that proper scrutiny would have done a great service to the objectives of a Bill as important as this, on which the Government are rightly looking to build a consensus in the House and beyond. I say that not least because those with an interest, who will have to finance, plan, deliver and make decisions about the big infrastructure projects that our country needs, could have had the chance to give evidence to the Public Bill Committee. That would not have held the Government up for long, but it would have made the Bill and the debate on it a great deal better.
We did not reach some amendments and new clauses today, but I hope that the Economic Secretary and his colleagues in another place will seriously consider amendment 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), about the frequency of reports; amendment 12 and new clause 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), on transparency, due diligence and the tracing of beneficial owners; and new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, on social and affordable housing. The Economic Secretary gave the House the impression that he cared about that matter, so I hope he will take that suggested provision seriously.
I do not just say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich did, that I can find little to object to in the Bill; I positively welcome the aims behind it, and I will welcome action should it follow from the Bill’s provisions. It makes sound sense to make the private sector balance sheet support the public sector balance sheet and bring the two together, especially at a time when public finances are limited and normal lending is constrained.
The principles and aims of the Bill are sound, but the question remains whether the Government can put schemes in place in a way that is simple enough and speedy enough to ensure that the necessary action follows. The Economic Secretary will have to forgive me if I have a certain amount of scepticism about that. After all, it is almost a year since the Prime Minister promised
“an all-out mission to unblock the system and get projects under way”,
and almost two years since the Government published their first national infrastructure plan. It is almost two and a half years since they set up the Infrastructure UK unit in the Treasury, which the Economic Secretary has mentioned today, with its remit to
“provide a stronger focus on the UK’s long-term infrastructure priorities and meet the challenge of facilitating significant private sector investment”.
It has been so long, and there has been so little action, that business, investors and industry are all understandably losing confidence in the Government’s ability to act. That was reflected in the CBI’s annual infrastructure survey published recently, which concluded:
“The message to Government is a wake-up call that businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet.”
It found that business and industry were less confident about the Government’s ability to drive investment into crucial transport, energy, water and waste projects than they were a year ago.
I hope that the Bill will be part of a proper rebalancing of the British economy, and that the Economic Secretary will recognise that investment is currently heavily skewed towards London and the south-east. I hope he will take seriously his own interest in seeing a cross-party consensus because, in the end, long-term infrastructure projects do not correspond to our political cycle—they require cross-party consistency, confidence and consensus. If the Bill can contribute to that, it will build a sound basis for that consensus for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I am glad that I was in my place to hear the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) make his first speech from the Government Back Benches. He was a very serious Minister and brought a very serious mind to his brief, as he has done in this afternoon’s debate.
I see borrowing guarantees to help fund investment in Britain’s infrastructure as a good, if overdue, use of the power of government. It is creative, innovative and active government, if it works. Using the strength of the public balance sheet to underwrite private investment makes sense, especially at a time when public funding is limited and private bank lending is constrained. It should improve the credit rating of, and attract investors to, infrastructure projects, and I see those as two key tests for the policy and the legislation before us.
I welcome the Bill and want it to work. The country needs it to work. However, I say to the Minister and to the Chief Secretary, who is no longer in his place, that there are two big questions behind the Bill that, even after his long speech this afternoon, remain unanswered. They are about urgency and clarity. The value of the legislation and the Government’s borrowing and funding commitment will be felt when the first project is chosen, the guarantees are in place and the work begins. When will that be? As always with a new policy, the devil is in the detail. We have no detail and we have no idea how the arrangements allowed for in the Bill will work. The Government have already asked for expressions of interest for funding and borrowing guarantees but have published no guidance. When will that be done?
Geraint Davies
You have many very good points, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the Building Schools for the Future programme was in place and ready to go before the Government cancelled it, it would be a good idea to reinstate it and get productivity through our children as well as through the construction industry?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that he gets a chance to make a speech. I will move on in a moment to some of the changes in policy and cuts since the general election that have made infrastructure projects and that sort of investment harder, not easier.
There are big causes for concern behind the two big questions I mentioned. First, there are questions and concerns about speed and how serious the Government are about getting infrastructure work going. It is almost a year since the Prime Minister promised
“an all-out mission to unblock the system and get projects underway”.
It is almost two years since the Government published their first national infrastructure plan and almost two and a half years since they set up Infrastructure UK in June 2010 in the Treasury. Most seriously, since the Government’s second infrastructure plan in November 2011 the economy has shrunk by nearly 1% and Britain has become one of only two G20 countries in a double-dip recession.
On the point of concern about clarity and simplicity, the Infrastructure Investor journal recently conducted a survey of 200 industry investors. Lack of finance, poor regulation and procurement weakness are all problems they face, but some 60% said that confusion and lack of clarity from the Government are a far greater disincentive. What matters most is confidence in the pipeline of projects, often based on clear Government policy decisions and commitments. The Government are failing that test over big projects and policies such as High Speed 2, aviation capacity and power generation. Their record on other policy decisions that at first sight have nothing to do with infrastructure is also making it harder to put in place the funding required. The abrupt change and then change again in the solar feed-in tariffs, the benefits reforms and cuts, the tripling of student tuition fees, creating “core and margin” university course places, and the rebanding of renewables obligation certificates have all changed the risks and the costs of long-term capital—so much so that a senior figure in the industry recently said to me: “Investors are now asking for the first time how you can price in public policy risk.” The guarantee scheme needs to be flexible and straightforward. The devil is in the detail, and Government revel in the detail. Is every Department going to introduce and run its own scheme with its own rules? Who in Government will be accountable for the programmes and the problems on the guarantees?
On housing, let me take issue with the hon. Member for Reigate, because the Chief Secretary and the Government are right and he is wrong. I welcome its definition as infrastructure. It is basic to people’s lives and to a good society, and central to wider economic growth and to productivity. Above all, it is a long-term good. We are still getting rent from Bevan’s post-war council housing a long time after the cost of the capital to build them has been paid.
I am looking to the Government for reassurances on four questions, especially in relation to housing. First, the Chief Secretary said that he did not want to prescribe and would not circumscribe the stages of projects that credit guarantees can support. The Treasury has said that guarantees can cover key project risks including construction, performance and revenue risk. Will that apply equally to housing as to the other categories set out in clause 1(2)? Secondly, some housing associations already have a presence in the capital markets and can raise finance in their own names, so will such organisations with significant project proposals be able to push ahead without the creation of any intermediary or aggregator?
Thirdly, the best housing developments are mixed and help to support mixed communities. The Government have said that the guarantees will support private and social housing. Will those building new homes be able to source guarantees for both sectors from the same fund scheme? Fourthly, I expect that security requirements will be part of the arrangements for the borrowing guarantees. Will developers building homes be able to provide the security on completion of those homes rather than in advance? If the Government want these guarantees to work, and to work rapidly, to boost housing, jobs and the economy, they need to provide answers and reassurance on all four points.
The Chief Secretary mentioned the 1932 Baldwin agreement, which emphasises that where financial liabilities that last beyond the term of one Government or one financial year are introduced, they should be backed by specific legislation. I believe very strongly that improved long-term infrastructure should be a shared endeavour of all parties, because infrastructure projects do not fit neatly within the political cycles and are damaged by the chopping and changing of Government policy.
Kelvin Hopkins
On my right hon. Friend’s point about infrastructure investment covering more than one Government and different parties, there was a time, when I was young, when Conservative and Labour Governments used to compete on the number of council houses they could build during their term of office. We should get back to that kind of arrangement.
John Healey
I do not think I have ever heard my hon. Friend advocate competition in any circumstance on any policy before, but I am happy to say that he is right, and I support him. I hope that we may get back to those days. Just before the election, when I introduced the local authority new-build scheme, which boosted and supported local council housing for the first time, we had very strong bids and very strong support from 73 councils, including many Conservative councils that wanted to build council homes but were not, until then, getting support from Government to do so. They are certainly not getting that support now.
Since the election, this Government have done too little for too long on new infrastructure. This Bill could make an important difference. It deserves all-party support, and the Government will get it if they get this right.
John Healey
Given the absence of Scottish and Welsh nationalists, may I ask the Minister whether decisions on projects in Scotland and Wales will be made in Scotland and Wales?
Sajid Javid
All decisions covered by the Bill will be made by the United Kingdom Government: by the UK Treasury, or by relevant Secretaries of State. However, when projects clearly relate to devolved regions, the Government will work very closely with the relevant Departments in those regions.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a thoughtful speech containing some very good points, but I must take issue with one of her closing comments. I believe she said that one of the problems with the Bill was that it placed restrictions on spending. It does place restrictions on spending, because this Government are very keen on restrictions on spending. The previous Government lost sight of that, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Sajid Javid
The purpose of the Bill is to establish a structure to provide guarantees for credit-worthy projects in the private sector. Of course the Government will work very closely, step by step, with the private-sector promoters of each of the projects, and if one of the companies feels that it has a viable project that the Government should consider, it will be encouraged to discuss it with the Treasury. A specific Treasury team called Infrastructure UK, which was set up a couple of years ago, is full of specialists who understand infrastructure and have a great deal of experience. It will be keen to look at every single project, and if the hon. Gentleman has one in mind he should please present it as soon as possible.
The two myths that I heard from the Opposition—
John Healey
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is answering the questions that come up. Will Infrastructure UK look at every project and proposal for these borrowing guarantees?
Sajid Javid
It will consider every project that comes its way, but that does not mean it will agree to support every one. However, it is willing to look at every project and to come back with an answer on each.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to say that transition status has benefited regions such as his—and, indeed, mine in the highlands and islands—during the current multiannual financial framework period. Our principal objective in relation to the budget negotiations is to bring down the total EU budget in recognition of what is going on around Europe, but we will happily discuss further with him his concerns about the issues that he has raised to ensure that we secure a fair deal for impoverished regions of this country as well.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Legislation for Government borrowing guarantees to help to fund infrastructure is due to be presented to the House next week. The Chancellor is right to try to use the power of government in this way, so why has it taken two and a half years, and nine months of double-dip recession, for him to decide to do it?
Draft European Union Budget
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the 2013 EU budget.
As Members will know, the economic climate in the EU has changed dramatically in recent years, and the situation remains fragile. The uncertainty in the euro area is the biggest challenge facing the EU economy, and there is a risk that it will affect growth and jobs in Britain. That is why we have pressed the euro area to address both the immediate challenges and the long-term systemic issues that it faces. In the midst of one of the biggest debt crises to hit Europe, this Government and Governments across the EU have made difficult decisions in order to consolidate their public finances and implement structural reforms.
The EU budget, funded by EU taxpayers, cannot be immune from the changes that are sweeping across Europe. An ever-increasing EU budget is not the way in which to fix Europe’s problems, and it is time for the EU to live within its means. That requires a strict reprioritisation and the targeting of areas that support growth and reduce the waste and inefficiency that has become characteristic of EU spending.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary mentioned supporting growth. As he will know, as part of the preparation for the EU’s next budget period there are proposals for “transition regions” status, which could benefit at least 11 regions in this country. We in south Yorkshire are aware of the benefits that it could bring by supporting local jobs, businesses and growth. Are the Government in favour of the concept of transition regions?
Mr Hoban
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, given that the amendment tabled by a member of his own Front Bench calls for a more restrained budget and given that one of the consequences of a cut in the budget would be a further constraint on spending. Our main priority is to deliver a freeze in the multi-annual financial framework, and we need to establish which measures in the budget are consistent with that. However, we do need to focus on jobs and growth, and the biggest challenges in that regard are often presented by the newer accession states when the gap between their economies and those of countries such as the UK, France and Germany is at its widest. We need to focus on spending in the areas where there is the greatest potential for those countries to yield real fruits in terms of economic growth and jobs.
John Healey
I am not entirely sure whether that was a yes, a no, a maybe, or an “I don’t like to say.” The Financial Secretary will know that the qualification for transition regions status is a GDP that is between 75% and 90% of the EU average. Some parts of our country require that extra help; they need more balanced growth, and support for jobs and businesses. Does the Financial Secretary support the concept—I am not asking about the quantum—of transition regions in the next EU budget period?
Mr Hoban
The negotiations on regional funding are a matter for my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am sure that they will respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Our overarching priority is to ensure that our spending in the EU gives us value for money, and the overall settlement for the next seven years and the multi-annual financial framework must reflect that. He may wish to participate in the debate on the preparations for the framework which will take place in European Standing Committee B when the House returns in September. That is one of the many opportunities for debate provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in his role as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We need to view expenditure issues in the context of the impact of our contribution and how it is linked with the rebate, but I do not want this to turn into a debate entirely about structural funds. There will be many other opportunities to discuss those.
VAT on Air Ambulance Fuel Payments
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for moving this debate, to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for ably supporting him and leading our campaign to support our Yorkshire air ambulance service, and to all Members, on both sides, who have spoken in support of their local air ambulance services. I pay particular tribute to Ken Sharpe, my hon. Friend’s constituent, who must hold the record for getting 100,000 names on an e-petition in the shortest possible time and who has helped provide the basis for this debate.
I say to the Minister that we are asking for a small contribution that will be a big boost to the efforts of those who support and keep our air ambulances flying across the country. The motion covers the interests of our 18 air ambulance services across England. All of them are sustained by the dedicated efforts of those who raise funds to help finance the costs and all are kept flying by the dedicated, skilled, professional staff who provide this vital emergency service. I am particularly pleased that the Yorkshire caucus is so strong in the House tonight, with not only my hon. Friend the Member for York Central leading the charge but the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), whom I am delighted to follow.
Like most other air ambulance services, ours is a charity. It is, so to speak, the airborne wing of the Prime Minister’s big society. It deserves the House’s support in deed, not just in word, and the sort of support that the motion is urging on the Government. It is funded by the public to provide a vital emergency service for the public across our county. Since the debate started, I reckon that our fundraisers in Yorkshire will have had to raise at least £300 as a contribution towards keeping our two helicopters and our service going. That is a total of more than £7,000 a day or £2.65 million a year. They do this because they understand, like we do, how vital this emergency service is and how essential it is in many parts of our county that patients requiring such help can be at their nearest hospital within 10 minutes. It flies more than 1,000 missions each year, which is a unique and essential service, of interest and concern to us all. As others have said, the fuel costs are about £10,000 a month and the VAT costs are something under £6,000 a year.
I say two things to the Minister in conclusion. We are not asking in today’s motion for the same sort of exclusion from VAT that the lifeboat service has. We are not asking today for the same sort of VAT rebate scheme that has been in place to support the cost of church repairs. We are asking simply for a review to look at the fairness of the situation and the case for making a small public contribution to the voluntary efforts of those who keep our air ambulances flying. I hope that, in responding to this debate, he will accept the terms of the motion and the review that is urged upon him. But I hope actually that he may stand up to tell us that the motion is not needed and the review is not needed because he will introduce that sort of compensation scheme to cover the costs of VAT on fuel and will do so on a similar basis to the one we have established with the precedent of helping with the VAT costs of church repairs.
Mr Hoban
I do not have that information available but I will ensure that either my colleagues in the Department of Health or I write to the hon. Lady with it.
The second review that is being undertaken looks at the tax position of health care charities. The Secretary of State for Health is required by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to lay a report before Parliament on matters that might affect the ability of providers of NHS services to carry out their activities. That report is expected to cover the full range of different providers, including charities, and will include taxation issues. Treasury officials will be actively involved in the review.
I therefore suggest that, rather than having a separate, Treasury-led review, the most efficient way forward is for the existing engagement to continue, and for the Department of Health and the Treasury to work collaboratively to consider the tax impacts of different funding models as part of the wider work already in hand.
John Healey
The Minister mentions the review under the 2012 Act, but it is a review of charities that carry out NHS services. The whole point about the air ambulance services is that they are not NHS services, although they play a great role in emergency health support. Therefore, they are unlikely to be covered by the second review. The Minister says that the review proposed in the motion is useful, but will he accept the motion and conduct the review it urges on him? I am still not clear about that.
Mr Hoban
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge—he is a former shadow Secretary of State for Health—but my point is that the Treasury is working with Department of Health officials to ensure that the matter is covered by the review. I can confirm that, if it is ultimately not covered, the Treasury will carry out its own review. However, rather than having three reviews into air ambulances, I believe that two are sufficient if the second covers the tax issue. We are working with the Department of Health to ensure that that is the case. I can confirm to hon. Members that there will be a review and that the Government will not vote against the motion. Indeed, we believe it raises valid issues.
It would be possible in principle to introduce a refund system for air ambulance charities’ non-business activities, although it is important to consider that in the context of broader public spending, as I am sure my hon. Friends appreciate.
To refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, it is important for us to consider carefully how air ambulance charities can provide a better service by improving efficiency, and not just through refunds and tax breaks. Effective co-ordination of services could bring cost reductions that far outweigh the scale of a VAT refund on fuel. I am sure the House will join me in applauding such innovation and agree that we should continue to do all we can to improve this excellent service further. As my hon. Friend said, the air ambulance based in his constituency delivers a co-ordinated approach to providing the service across Warwickshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Rutland. It has made significant cost savings and earned the transformational change award at the Orange national business awards last year.
I hope I have set out clearly my reasoning on why a change to the VAT law is impractical. I believe the best review on a level playing field for providers is being done by the Department of Health, but, as I have made clear, if that does not fully cover air ambulances, the Treasury will conduct its own, separate review.
Interest Rate Swap Products
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guto Bebb
That is a key point. Time and again, businesses have told me that their relationships with banks go back 15 or 20 years, and that they believed the banks had their best interests at heart. In some situations, however, they have clearly been sold products that they did not understand, but they trusted their bank manager because they had dealt with them for so long.
Having been persuaded by Mr Jones’s transcript to look into this issue, I started asking questions, and as a result I came across the Federation of Small Businesses working hard on this issue and the organisation Bully-Banks. We have identified literally thousands of businesses that have been affected, and debates such as this are necessary to show that the House understands and cares about the problem and wants to see a resolution.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his leadership of this debate. He is looking for evidence and examples, but has he come across Guardian Care Homes, a firm with two care homes in my constituency? Its problem was that the term of the swaps that it was sold far exceeded the term of the loans to which they were linked.
Guto Bebb
That is a key issue. In many cases, the term of the swap is longer than that of the loan, which the Financial Services Authority believes to be evidence of mis-selling.
Evidence about the background to interest rate swaps suggests that banks started to target small businesses from about 2006 onwards. The practice was probably curtailed in 2008-09, although there are a few examples of such products being sold after that. In a number of cases, banks have settled with businesses out of court. My concern is that banks have placed significant gagging orders on those businesses, which stops them explaining the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Existing regulations should have been taken into account when these products were sold. Swaps are financial derivatives covered by section 85 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. They are, therefore, a regulated product and any adviser who tries to sell them has a duty to understand the needs of their customer. That is a key point. A fair, clear and not misleading explanation of the product must be provided to the customer, yet in many of the cases I have seen the information provided was far from satisfactory.
Emma Reynolds
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would very much like to hear from the Minister today whether the Government have a grasp of the scale of the problem, as it is certainly significant.
John Healey
Like my hon. Friend, I have written to the head of Barclays, which was responsible for selling the two swaps that have cost Guardian Care Homes at least an extra £12 million so far. Does my hon. Friend agree with the point being made on both sides of the House that such small companies are often afraid to complain, for fear that their loans will be pulled? Does she also agree that a moratorium is needed following complaints, and that firms should be able to make collective challenges for redress?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my right hon. Friend for making those points, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them in due course, if not today.
There seems to be an extremely worrying level of coercion involved in the banks’ selling these products to small businesses without making sufficient information available. I have no doubt that what happened to the company in my own constituency has been replicated across the country. That is regrettable at a time of such difficult economic uncertainty when small businesses are the backbone of the British economy. We need to make sure that they are supported, not systematically exploited.
Financial Services Bill
John Healey Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Baker
I was not suggesting that it would create a barrier to entry. I was suggesting that it would put in place measurement and management. That may well appeal to some people, but if we want spontaneous order, mutual societies and bonds of friendship, we cannot get them by state direction. There is very little point in measuring the Financial Secretary’s performance when we want spontaneous order and the bonds of mutuality. I do not support the amendment, but like many other Government Members, I certainly support the thrust of the Government’s policy.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on tabling the amendment. He is doing the job that the coalition parties promised to do in the coalition agreement but are failing to do.
I shall remind the House of a quotation from the coalition agreement. That is the benchmark for the action that the Government have pledged to take, so the House and others can judge them on it. It states:
“We will bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.”
I applaud the aim of greater diversity and competition, but missing from that statement is the aim of greater confidence and trust in financial services. My hon. Friend’s amendment captures the aims of diversity, the promotion of mutuals and greater growth in mutuals. Crucially, it would also require an action plan from the Government within six months. We have not had one after two years. It would also require regular public reports and stock-takes of progress. I say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) that those reports would be about not the Minister’s progress but the growth of mutuals, the diversity of the industry and the growth of competition in the sector—all the aims that the Government set for reform.
Mutuals bring something quite special—a concern about values, not just valuation. That is the root of the consistently greater levels of confidence and trust demonstrated by those who deal with and borrow from building societies and mutuals compared with those who deal with their corporate competitors. Mutuals display a prudence born of concern for and knowledge of their members. If we look back over the past several years, we see that building societies and mutuals have not run the reckless risks that banks and other financial services have. They have not lost their core business purpose and their sense of what they are there to do and who they are there to serve, as many banks and other financial service companies have. Mutuals did not need a public bail-out and did not cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds to make up for their mistakes like others in the banking and financial services sector did.
Mr Thomas
Is not one of the unsung successes of the building society movement that it has sought to maintain an effective and broad-based branch network in the communities from which they grew, which sadly is not necessarily something that can be attributed to the major banks? There were wholesale bank branch closures in the last generation, and they are beginning again.
John Healey
My hon. Friend, who knows far more about this matter than me and many in the House, is absolutely right. At a time when a loss of trust and confidence in financial services is evident across the board, that local presence and face-to-face relationship counts for a great deal.
John Hemming
Amendment 72 is a permissive amendment, and yet clause 47(3)(f) mentions
“making provision that appears to the Treasury to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Act.”
What will the amendment enable the Government to do by order that is not already possible under that measure?
John Healey
I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, because he, too, has a strong track record on this matter, and that sort of nit-picking misses the point of the amendment. The point of the amendment is to hold the coalition parties in the Government to their coalition pledge, which he is unable to do. It is a way of making public two years of failure and saying, “Within six months, you must do better.”
John Hemming
The amendment does not make the Government do anything, because clause 47 states that the
“Treasury may by order amend the legislation”.
If the Treasury does not want to do so, it does not have to do so. The amendment does not hold the Government to account. No wonder you are failing as an Opposition; your amendments are badly drafted.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not failing as an opposition, so I do not think that is parliamentary.
John Healey
I have not seen the hon. Gentleman’s amendments to make the measure not permissive, but a requirement of the Government—Mr Speaker must not have selected it. Clearly, anything in statute would be a significant step forward, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, has argued. Those on both sides of the House who have an interest could use a permissive measure in future.
John Hemming
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we make a man any taller by measuring his height?
John Healey
No, but by measuring height, one makes a statement that height matters. The amendment makes a statement that the coalition pledge on mutuals, and on greater diversity and competition in financial services, matters. That is the purpose of the amendment and the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend presses it to a Division because it will expose the Government’s complacency in making promises and failing to live up to them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who seems to rest everything on clause 47(3)(f), on the basis that it could easily include what the amendment proposes. In the same vein, paragraph (f) could mean that there is no need for paragraphs (a) to (e) because it is all encompassing.
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has an eye for detail that I cannot match—it almost matches the eye of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming).
Geraint Davies
The amendment requires the Government to measure the number of mutuals and their share of the market. In so doing, it brings the Government to account. If there is no point to that, and if we want only what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) called “spontaneous order”, we would not have the Office for Budget Responsibility, and we might as well forget measuring and management. The amendment seeks to bring the Government to account, and should therefore be supported.
John Healey
There is a saying that what is measured matters, and if it matters, measure it. In many ways, that is the core of the argument being made by Opposition Members.
Sixteen per cent. of those who aspire to own their own home and who borrow to buy do so from building societies. Roughly one in six of us borrows our mortgage from a building society. That significant market share is gradually growing. That is why I have argued that building societies are the unsung success of British financial services. They are certainly unsung by a Government who promised to be their champion.
In my view, building societies are the quiet strength of British financial services, but it is time that that strength was properly supported by Government policy and action. Mutuals look at the coalition agreement and point to the words on the paper, but they cannot point to the action that followed. The amendment is designed to force the hand of the Minister, the Treasury and the Government. I am surprised that it finds any objection on the Government Benches, because it simply seeks to hold the Government to the promise they made
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have found this debate both curious and inconsequential in many respects. There has been a great deal of talk about the technicalities of achieving the objective, but not, as far as I can judge, a great deal about the reasons why mutual societies are so important. However, I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that the coalition agreement, of which I am not an uncritical observer, clearly stated that there should, in effect, be support for mutuals.
I declare an interest, because my family founded the Abbey National building society and the National Provident in the 1830s and later in the 19th century. The Abbey National is now Santander, and we need only look at what is happening in Spain to hope that there is some ring-fencing for its customers in the United Kingdom. The reason why mutuals are so important is the same reason why John Lewis is so important. It is the reason why the co-operative movement, which was founded in Rochdale—I do not apologise for also pointing out that that was where John Bright was born—is important. The Rochdale co-operative movement was the means whereby people could buy houses that they could not otherwise afford.
I have always been very much in favour of the right to buy, because having a property stake is important for individual responsibility. The great thing about the mutuals—and it still pertains, because they still exist, but need to be enhanced, improved, developed and encouraged—is that they enable people to come together in a proper and balanced relationship, with a sense of individual responsibility and, by co-operating together, to benefit each other and society as a whole in relation to the most fundamental aspects of property and insurance, without excessive profits, or indeed any real profits, for the people who put it together. That does not mean that I am against capitalism. Indeed, those who promoted mutual societies were invariably capitalists, and I count my own family in that number. William Cash founded the National Provident with the Lucas family, and the Cadburys were much involved in similar objectives. A raft of Quakers and other Dissenters were integral to the development of this incredibly important movement, which changed the face of society in the 19th century. We could do with that now.
Some five years ago, I wrote a letter to The Times, criticising aspects of the manner in which the banking system had given way to greed and self-indulgence. The Minister knows my views on the subject of the transfer of jurisdiction from the City to Brussels, including the point that legislation is no substitute for self-help. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) understands that better than anyone else. Indeed, Samuel Smiles, who wrote the famous book on self-help, was devoted to all these objectives because he knew that individual responsibility, operating within the framework of co-operatives and mutuals, would and should provide the kind of society that is worth living in. I put it as high as that, because to me this is a moral objective. We do not talk enough about morality. Law is no substitute for morality.