Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
John Hemming Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Byles
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Parliaments that last for five years are more likely to end with the defeat of the Government, he should be wholeheartedly embracing the coalition’s plans to make this Parliament last for five years.
If there is something so constitutionally or democratically wrong with five-year Parliaments, why on earth did we have to endure the previous Government from 2005 until 2010? If five-year Parliaments are wrong in principle, as several Labour Members seem to suggest, why did not the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—I apologise if I have not pronounced the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency correctly, but as I have heard him speak in the House so rarely, I am not sure how to pronounce it—do the entire country a favour and call an election in 2009? We then could have started clearing up the mess of the worst financial deficit that this country has faced since the second world war a year earlier.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Obviously there is a debate about whether the figure should be four years or five—although nobody has proposed a fixed-term Parliament of 3.7 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is not necessarily a massive difference between four years and five years, given the total and absolute mess that the country is in, having a term long enough to enable us to get out of that mess is a good idea?
Dan Byles
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. One problem sometimes cited in relation to a democratic system such as ours is the tendency for Governments to take the short-term approach to fixing problems. If five years became the norm, that would help to create slightly more stable government, because Governments could look to the longer term when considering some of the difficult decisions that they might have to make, and not always be worried that they were only a few years from a general election.
It seems that five-year Parliaments are not a problem for Labour Members when it is their party that is clinging to power in the dying days of a Government, as was the case in 2009 and 2010. True to form, their principles changed the moment they found themselves in opposition. Now, sadly, they stand as obstacles to reform.
May I conclude the point about whether the term should be four years or five, and move on with my speech?
Superannuation Bill
John Hemming Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
It is rather sad that, again, there are relatively few people in the Gallery when we are debating such an important issue. We need to value the work of people who work for society and all our public servants. Obviously the terms of the civil service compensation scheme do not affect those in the NHS or local authorities, who have varied schemes that are often much worse than even the proposed new terms of the civil service scheme.
This is an important matter, and I am pleased to support the Lords amendments. They make it very clear that we will be bound by good practice and enter into proper and meaningful consultations, with a view to coming to an agreement. Although one particular trade union may continue to try to veto the scheme, that does not mean that we should ignore the need to try to obtain an agreement using a reasonable approach. I am very pleased with the Government’s strategy of protecting people on lower incomes. That is an excellent thing to do, so I am pleased to support the Lords amendments.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Lords amendment 1 requires the Government to consult with the aim of seeking agreement, and provides for a report to Parliament in due course. Lords amendments 2 and 3 will bring the Bill into force two months after Royal Assent and I find it extraordinary that the Government see that as some form of concession, because the bulk of the staff who will be made redundant in the coming period will be made redundant under a scheme that is still to be imposed. The Government intend that that scheme will be introduced within the two months after Royal Assent, so there will be no report to Parliament, no commitment to consultation and no commitment to take steps to reach agreement, as is embedded in Lords amendment 1. The terms of the scheme, as they stand in the original proposals in the Bill, will be imposed. So although Lords amendment 1 proposes a system whereby there is at least some commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of the willingness and commitment of the Government to negotiate and seek an agreed settlement, Lords amendments 2 and 3 take away that commitment, because we know that the scheme will be amended within the two months to which Lords amendment 1 does not apply.
I cannot think of a better mechanism to incite industrial action. It could be construed as an act of contorted bad faith. Although there have been commitments in ministerial written statements, there has been no commitment to adhere to Lords amendment 1, because it would not otherwise be virtually vetoed by Lords amendments 2 and 3. In my view, that will not only result in industrial relations deteriorating but enhance the potential for legal challenges. It certainly will not enhance the legal protections for which the Government were hoping as a result of the amendments.
The amendments do not address the problematic core of the Bill, which is the imposition of caps and limits on the compensation scheme without the agreement of the unions representing the members affected. I have heard a lot about the four out of the six unions agreeing or recommending the scheme that is being imposed. I remind the House, however, that of the two main unions that represent the vast bulk—more than 75%—of the members affected, one, PCS, or the Public and Commercial Services Union, has not agreed the scheme and is recommending that its members reject it in the ballot; the executive of the other, the POA, has recommended that its members reject the scheme in the ballot, too.
I find it an absolute irony that in any future negotiations, which will, I suppose, probably be relatively minor because the Government will impose the bulk of the change in the next couple of months, the House will have some form of scrutiny of the negotiations as a result of Lords amendment 1, but it will not be able to exercise it in those two months. The reason for that is that if there was a full exposure of what went on in the negotiations, it would provoke even more anger among PCS and POA members.
This has been the worst example of industrial relations practice that we have seen in years. First, there was the use of a “blunt instrument”—I use the Government’s own words—of the threat of a Bill’s being brought forward to impose such severe caps that many would have lost more than two thirds of the redundancy payments that they had acquired as accrued rights over the years. There was then an extremely crude attempt to divide and rule the unions. I believe that the POA is seeking some form of legal redress against the Minister for the Cabinet Office for some of his statements. Those practices have now resulted in the virtual chaotic breakdown of the formal negotiating structures that have held good under past Governments throughout the decades.
If Lords amendment 1 comes into force, at least there will be some reflection of the negotiations that took place—and it might be more accurate. As the Minister has dwelt on the process of the negotiations, perhaps I might put on the record an alternative historical account of what occurred. Yes, the civil service unions—all six of them—sought to negotiate some form of agreed settlement throughout the summer. They did that in the light of the threat of the imposition of a Bill that would cut significantly their members’ redundancy payments.
In September, the Treasury intervened to insist on a cash cap on the new scheme, so there was no room to manoeuvre to improve the scheme beyond that cap. I believe that that significantly undermined the potential for a settlement. On 28 September, the Minister declared that he was pursuing agreement with five of the unions, excluding the PCS, and on 4 October a formal offer was submitted. On 11 October, PCS and the POA held a constructive meeting with the Minister, focusing on the cap on redundancy proposals and making proposals to redistribute from high earners to the vast majority of civil servants, enhancing the protection for the majority.
John Hemming
As someone who interests himself in procedural issues, perhaps I could think of the clause as being more like a supernova clause after which the sun will not rise again. Not being a Government Minister, I have the advantage of having no confidential knowledge whatever of the Government’s strategy. The interests of judicial review are relevant given that one would expect a judicial review when the order for the new scheme is laid, as it would be laid under the Bill relatively soon. In those circumstances, the Government will not want to take a completely new piece of legislation through the House because of a judicial review. It is possible to accelerate the proceedings of a judicial review, and the courts would probably look on such an approach favourably given the situation for the country and the importance of having legal certainty, but it is quite important to have the facility to deal with such a situation if it arises. However, I support the idea of having a supernova clause because there is a point at which the sun need not rise again.
Mr Byrne
I want to speak briefly about Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6, as well as amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). During proceedings on the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has consistently raised concerns about the arbitrary caps that the Government introduced at the start of this process, which now form the body of clause 2. I confess that we are still not clear about why the caps are still in the Bill given that clause 1, which was newly introduced on Report, effectively gives the Government the power to impose any settlement after the consultations that we discussed earlier have been completed. We heard, in the Minister’s helpful update to the House, that there is a degree of agreement with at least some of the trade unions, which the Government have declared will supersede the terms in the Bill. Why then do they not seek to introduce a sharp instrument containing the specific terms they have agreed with the trade unions, rather than the blunt instrument containing general powers that is the Bill before us?
We are pleased that the Minister has given a clear commitment, in a letter to right hon. and hon. Members, that it is his ambition to
“repeal the caps in clause 3 insofar as they could impact on the new civil service compensation scheme”.
His letter also says that if the caps were ever revived he
“would table an order…so as to increase the caps to such a level that would…reflect what would otherwise apply under the new scheme.”
Most of us will welcome that good progress.
In earlier debates, we raised concerns that the Bill would allow the revival of caps at any time in the future even after a negotiated settlement was in place. We fear that the relevant measure, which the Government call a sunrise clause, would put an undesirable amount of power in their hands during negotiations, as they could simply threaten to revive statutory powers whenever they ran into any dispute on any matter, not just issues of redundancy. Given that it would allow the Government to resurrect the terms of a long-dead provision, it is not so much a sunrise clause as a zombie clause, which would live on for ever. Whatever we call it, the measure is entirely without precedent in a Bill of this nature. Indeed, the only recorded precedent of such a measure is in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
We are pleased that there will be a limit of three years on the caps if they are revived, and that the Government cannot extend that period. Given what the Minister has said this afternoon, however, I do not see how he can argue that the correct balance of time and the correct limit to any revived power should be three years. The whole House will welcome what the Minister said this afternoon about his ambition that the revival of the caps should never be triggered. If that is true—and I am prepared to accept that it is—I do not see why he cannot accept the very sensible amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Although we are happy to accept amendments from the Lords, we shall support amendment (a).
Superannuation Bill
John Hemming Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
Absolutely and unequivocally, yes. I shall talk a little about the process we have been through and where we are in the negotiations. I say clearly to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that if it is at all possible to achieve a fully negotiated settlement that is affordable and fair to the taxpayer and that meets the concerns of all the unions, we will certainly try to achieve such an agreement with all six unions. I shall say a little more about that in a while, but the answer is definitively yes.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made some good points about individual exceptions in which even the terms proposed in the negotiations with the trade unions might be unfair to individuals who have been through particular hardship. Does the Minister agree that that can be resolved only through negotiation and that aiming to resolve it through legislation would be a mistake?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend is completely right: there has to be flexibility. That is why I have always said that the caps imposed by the Bill are not right for a permanent system because they do not provide that flexibility. The scheme that has been brokered between the negotiators for five of the unions would provide much greater flexibility and would, I think, meet the concerns that he raises.
John Hemming
Also in Committee, Dusty Amroliwala, the civil servant responsible for handling the scheme, said that he would have advised any Government to take that approach to break the legislative logjam. He also said that there had been no estimates of what the Bill would save because there was no expectation that what it proposed would be the end result. In that sense, does the Minister agree that this is part of the process of breaking the legislative logjam?
Mr Maude
Yes, indeed. If the result of the process that we have been through with the Bill is that it makes a negotiated settlement more likely, that will be extremely beneficial. I do not want the outcome of all this to be that the existing scheme remains in place with the crude caps that the Bill imports. What we want is a new, successor scheme, and there is now a serious prospect of that being achieved. If it can be achieved with the support and agreement of all six civil service unions, no one will be more delighted than I. However, if we have to go down the path of having a new scheme that is supported by fewer unions, that would still be better because it would mean that many of the concerns that have been raised would be met better than by the Bill. That would be infinitely better than the current scheme remaining in place, as it is simply unaffordable and unsustainable, as the previous Government openly accepted.
Tessa Jowell
Let me come back on that point. When I was responsible for the negotiations, they were long, as the Minister outlined, and involved a serious and concerted attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. New clause 1 is a necessary way of dealing with the unexpected outcome of the judicial review earlier this year. Had we been returned at the general election, we would no doubt have had to amend the 1972 Act in the light of that, but the critical difference is that we would not have introduced legislation simply to impose a settlement in the absence of a clear commitment in the Bill to negotiation in good faith in order to try to achieve a proper agreement. That is why I stand by my description of the powers, as drafted in the Government’s new clause, as unbridled.
We recognise the need for an amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972. The High Court judgment made a clear case for ensuring that the Government are able to compel a settlement and that no union should be able to veto changes. That is a position that we would support.
John Hemming
The right hon. Lady’s amendment (a) would mean that the unions would have to consult their members in accordance with the rules before any new scheme could come in. Does she agree that that would provide the opportunity for a trade union to veto any changes merely by refusing to negotiate or consult its members?
Tessa Jowell
If the hon. Gentleman reads the amendment carefully, it will be clear to him that it is intended not to give the trade unions a veto, but to require a report to Parliament on the progress of the negotiations where the power is intended to be used, giving the effect of the imposition of a settlement in the absence of the agreement of all six unions.
John Hemming
The amendment states that the Minister must lay
“a report of the consultations that have taken place with the workforce and their recognised representative trades unions with a view to agreement”
and that the report should contain
“a statement that the representative trades unions have consulted their members in accordance with their rules”.
The report cannot include such a statement unless that has happened. That, in essence, would revert to a veto for the trade unions. I should think amendment (a) should not be moved.
Tessa Jowell
The approach is intended to ensure that what appears in the Bill when it receives Royal Assent represents a right and proper balance between the responsibility of the Government to secure a settlement and the entitlement of the trade unions to be properly consulted. However, as the hon. Gentleman may not quite be aware, in Mr Speaker’s wisdom he did not select that amendment for debate.
I return to our clear view that no one union should be able to veto a change to the civil service compensation scheme that is the result of negotiated agreement with the majority of unions. The Government’s ability to compel a settlement should be the course of last resort, once it is clear that common agreement cannot be reached—
John Hemming
This has been a rather depressing debate, because the Opposition have demonstrated “oppositionism” at its worst. Everybody recognises that there is a problem and, basically, we cannot afford to pay six and two thirds years’ redundancy payments to some senior civil servants. The Government are trying to look after the low-paid, and our proposals are better than the Opposition’s. The Opposition’s amendment, which admittedly has not been selected, would have reinstated a veto for the trade unions on any proposals for change, something that the Opposition disagreed with when they were in government.
Tessa Jowell
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the proposals in the Bill provide a better deal for low-paid civil servants earning less than £20,000 a year than the proposals in the February 2010 package?
John Hemming
I accept the shadow Minister’s point that the Opposition’s proposals are the same as those in the negotiations, but the whole point of the Bill is that it is not supposed to be the end result. Civil servants have not made any estimate of the savings as a result of the Bill, because it is not supposed to be the end result. This legislation is what the civil service has advised us to undertake in order to break the legislative logjam that the previous Government created. It is about making progress.
On the issue of how we manage the civil service, I think that we should try to look after our employees and aim to minimise redundancies. In the absence of the Bill, however, that would become harder and harder. One thing that must be recognised is that reorganisation has essentially come to a halt, because we will not be able to save money if we have to pay six years’ redundancy to somebody. Paying six years’ redundancy will mean that we increase the deficit.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman keeps using the figure of six and two thirds, but will he concede that that is wholly inaccurate? Under the current terms, the maximum payment is three years. The six and two thirds figure to which he refers includes the enhanced pension that somebody would receive if they were over 50 years old. Will he therefore accept that his explanation is inaccurate?
John Hemming
The question is about what we add to the deficit—the actual cash costs. That is the key. The proposals that the previous Government tried to impose were struck down by a judicial review, so we have reverted to the original scheme.
In essence we are trying to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, and, if by making redundancies we increase borrowing, that will not get us anywhere at all. That is the reality of life. Underlying that, however, things can be done to reduce the full-time equivalent headcount without reducing staff—finding ways in which people can go part-time and so on. But, there is a legislative logjam that needs to be broken, and we need negotiations. Indeed, the 1972 Act requires them. The Public and Commercial Services Union argues in its briefing that there needs to be a trade union veto because there is no contract. However, those people who have contracts can find that their contracts are changed.
To be fair, I should take a very different view if there were any threat to pension rights. Pension rights are different, but an unaffordable redundancy scheme, in which we cannot reorganise organisations and save any money, is one that we cannot deal with in these circumstances—much that the priority has to be otherwise. To that extent, new clause 1 is the right way forward. I am surprised that the Opposition have taken the view that they would rather this were a money Bill than not, because their amendment would create the situation whereby it suddenly became a money Bill.
Tessa Jowell
We want the Bill to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.
John Hemming
I thank the shadow Minister for saying what her objectives are. In the past, the Opposition have often had objectives that they failed to achieve. Their objective was to remove the trade union veto, but the amendment would reinstate it. Their objective is for this not to be a money Bill, but by voting against new clause 1 they would, if successful, make it a money Bill. I accept that the shadow Minister has particular objectives, but what she does tends not to work; that is the reality of the situation.
We have to be effective in terms of running Government. We must do things that work—that achieve results. This Bill is about achieving results: it is about creating a situation whereby there can be negotiations with the trade unions in which we can deal with difficult cases where individuals are suffering particular hardship. In the Public Bill Committee, there was an attempt to negotiate through discussions with the trade unions. That was dreadful—it was almost impossible to get anywhere, and I find it rather sad that anyone tried. The reality is that negotiations have to work in a particular way; one cannot negotiate through a process of producing legislation. We need a blunt instrument that creates an environment in which a negotiated settlement can be arrived at. To that extent, I support new clause 1.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Following the final comments by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I fully agree that we have been trying to create an environment in which agreement can be reached. However, if I were a civil servant watching this debate, with the prospect of the large-scale redundancies that will happen after the comprehensive spending review, I would almost despair. It will be extremely difficult for all of them to come to terms with the loss of their jobs. As a manager in the public sector in a former life, I have always found that people are realistic as long as their views are respected and they are involved in the discussions and negotiations, which have been entered into in a spirit of good will. To achieve that, we need to create a climate of good will where people feel that their views are being heard.
Despite my having opposed every cut of every job in recent years under the previous Government, we were told in the Public Bill Committee that 80,000 jobs were lost but there were only 80 compulsory redundancies. The negotiations that took place on the basis of the protocols established with regard to redundancies and transfer between Departments resulted in a system whereby large-scale compulsory redundancies were avoided. The Minister referred to past practice under the previous Government. As I said, I did not support the cuts that went on, but I genuinely think that they were committed to a negotiated settlement. In my view, had it not been for the interference of No. 10 and the Treasury—this is almost like history repeating itself—we would have obtained a negotiated settlement that all unions would have accepted. However, the settlement was imposed, and I opposed that. The PCS took the then Government to court because it believed that the accrued rights of its members were being interfered with contrary to law because it was an imposed settlement, not an agreed one. It was proved right in the court of law, and we have to come to terms with the reality of that.
John McDonnell
I do. I will come to that in a few minutes.
The position of the unions in the Public Bill Committee represented an attempt to acknowledge their responsibilities to their members. The PCS was in a similar position whereby, if it had not taken the Government to court to assert its members’ rights to their accrued rights and to consultation and agreement, it could have been taken to court by any individual member for failing to undertake its duty to its members.
Under the previous Government, there was a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement. Under the current Government, I have found in my discussions with civil servants—not only PCS members but members of the other unions—that there is uncertainty among many of the people who may well be affected by the cuts to come as to whether the Government genuinely want a settlement, and anxiety that the Government are seeking to provoke a dispute. I listened to the Minister’s words, and I am grateful for them: they were positive and tried to create the climate in which a negotiated settlement can be achieved. However, the pattern of negotiations and ministerial statements in the past few months has not engendered an atmosphere in which a negotiated settlement can be brought about. That is why the Opposition have tabled their amendments. Every trade union representative at the Public Bill Committee made it clear to us that it was unprecedented for a Government, in the midst of negotiations, to introduce a Bill to impose a settlement in this way. It has never happened before in negotiations between a Government and the public sector.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman recall from the Committee that the senior civil servant responsible for the issue said that he would have advised any Government to take this sort of approach?
John McDonnell
That very civil servant’s advice landed the last Government in court, where they lost. I met him in the week before the general election and said to him: “You will lose in court because this is inaccurate advice on legal grounds, but in addition, it will not contribute to the conclusion of a negotiated settlement, and we’ll be back again within weeks”—and we were.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not ideologically driven but driven merely by the difficulties of our current circumstances?
John McDonnell
I do not believe that many civil servants who will be affected by job losses believe that the Government are seeking to resolve this matter by negotiation, and I am trying to reflect those views. We in this House, and the Government in particular, need to go the extra mile to get back to an atmosphere where there is confidence among the people who may well be threatened with the loss of their jobs, and we need to convince them that there is the opportunity of a genuine negotiated settlement. As I said in Committee, our responsibility is to seek to create a climate in which a just, negotiated settlement can be engendered.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that the Government are inserting a new clause that prevents this from being a money Bill is a sign of good faith from them?
John McDonnell
I will come to that.
There has been a litany of disasters during these negotiations. If we want to secure an agreement, we need to try to keep everyone on board. The puerile attempts to divide the unions have been completely counter-productive. The first attempt was to try to insinuate that the PCS negotiator had agreed the terms but had been overturned by the PCS executive. That was put to the PCS negotiator in the Public Bill Committee and it was denied, so it is not true. In fact, the PCS did what it always does as a democratic union—it takes the issues back to the executive. It is probably one of those unions that consults its members more than any other.
The second attempt to divide the unions was by the reference to five unions having agreed a settlement and only the PCS being excluded by refusing to do so. The Minister put out a press release that caused anger among the trade unions. The Prison Officers Association immediately issued a press release saying that letters written to the Minister, in confidence and without prejudice, were put in the public domain. The result is that this week the POA has rejected the deal.
It seems that four of the six unions were originally going to put the deal to their members, but the POA and PCS represent more than 90% of the people who will be affected. They are the unions that we have to convince if we want a negotiated settlement, and they are negotiating on behalf of their members based on what those members tell them through their executive.
John Hemming
In a sense, it is sad not to see massive press interest in an issue that is very important to many people in this country. I am pleased to hear the Minister express the same views as I have expressed on the need to minimise the number of redundancies, and, if there have to be any, to maximise the number who go voluntarily through agreement so that we absolutely minimise the number of compulsory redundancies. This is about the way we manage staff—I have managed staff for more than half of my lifetime—and I believe it is important to work in consultation with people and to tell them what is going on. Discussions and negotiations are crucial. I very much welcome the Government’s approach to that.
The reality is that this process was started in July 2009 by the previous Government. This is a continuation of a process that everyone recognises was necessary. The Opposition now think that none of this should be done and they want to oppose it all. It is their prerogative to change their minds, but the reality is that we have to get on with it all and manage a very difficult situation. To that extent, we support Third Reading.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
John Hemming Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is already doing it, so I am sure that there will be more opportunities for him and his colleagues to do so in Committee. I would like to point out a fact to him. The extension of this Session will last in practice for five months. It is a one-off, transitional arrangement to make sure that we have reliable annual Sessions from spring to spring, in keeping with the fixed-term Parliament provisions that we have introduced in the Bill.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
May I remind my right hon. Friend of the comments by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who said that the whole issue of whether we should have a Queen’s Speech every year or every two years—and in fact, whether we should divide Parliaments into segments—should be considered? The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has argued that we should not put that in the Bill, because it needs to be considered by the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is not in the Bill, but it is a consequence of it. If we have fixed-term Parliaments, we need to revisit the way in which Sessions are organised.
We must retain flexibility on an exceptional basis, allowing us to deal with unexpected crises or conditions that make it necessary to move the election—for example, a repeat of the foot and mouth crisis, which led to the postponement of elections in 2001. In such circumstances, the Prime Minister will, by affirmative order, be able to vary the date of Westminster elections by up to two months, either before or after the scheduled date. Such a move will require the consent of both Houses, thereby preventing this power from being abused in a partisan manner.
Superannuation Bill
John Hemming Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
No. The effect of the legislation will be identical on all civil servants. Under the Bill, the cap would apply uniformly to civil servants. I shall come in a moment to the negotiations that are going on in parallel, because that will deal exactly with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Obviously we do not want to make civil servants redundant. Does the Bill not make it less likely that lower-paid civil servants will lose their jobs, so in 10 years’ time they will still be employed within the civil service?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend is exactly right and puts his finger on an important point. Because it is so disproportionately expensive under the current scheme to make redundant long-serving and high-paid civil servants, instead of one civil servant who earns 10 times the average—there are some—losing their job, 10 or more lower-paid civil servants might lose their jobs to save the same amount of money. We are seeking to address exactly that issue.
Mr Maude
I am reluctant to start conducting those negotiations in public. It would be regarded by the unions, which I think are engaged in good faith in these discussions—certainly, all the indications are that they are engaged in good faith in these private discussions in order to achieve an agreed outcome—as bad faith were we to start to explore them here. All I would say at this stage is that we completely and genuinely understand the need for additional protection for lower-paid workers, of whom there are many in the civil service, and we will seek to achieve that.
John Hemming
Does the Minister agree that the difficulty is that the Government need to act and cannot allow one of six trade unions simply to veto all changes, and that if the Government are therefore to put something through, they need negotiating room to offer something better in the negotiations? Obviously, this Bill will not be as good as a final deal that could be agreed with the trade unions.
Mr Maude
That is completely right. My hon. Friend puts his finger precisely on the point. Our view is that one union cannot be allowed to prevent necessary reform of a scheme that is unsustainable and unaffordable—and, of course, that is precisely the view taken by the last Government. The order laid by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, which came into effect, I think, in April this year—before it was rapidly quashed by the judicial review sought by the Public and Commercial Services Union—was made on the basis that one union could not be allowed to hold up the necessary process of reform. However, I stress again that we seek genuinely to negotiate additional protection for the lower paid.
Tessa Jowell
There is all the difference in the world between a settlement that recognises reasonably the proper expectation of the lowest-paid, and the proposals in the Bill. That is the difference that the hon. Gentleman needs to understand.
Tessa Jowell
I am going to make a bit of progress.
In the current environment in which many civil servants are understandably concerned about their jobs, it is even more important for any reform package to be achieved in full consultation and, wherever possible, agreement with the work force. As a result of the Equality Act 2010, which formed such an important part of the last Government’s legislative programme, the Bill is subject to an equality impact assessment, which I took the time to study.
Against the commitments to full consultation and transparent negotiation, we might look at some of the evidence in the equality impact assessment. It asks:
“Does this policy affect the experiences of staff? How? What are their concerns?”
For staff, the following answer is given:
“Exit terms are set out in Civil Service Compensation Scheme, to be capped at levels set out in the Bill.”
That is a perfectly fair statement of fact. The impact assessment then asks whether the policy affects the experiences of staff networks and associations. The answer given is: “As above”—for staff—but also:
“(no consultation due to urgent need for affordable provisions).”
The answer for trade unions is the same:
“As above (but no consultation due to urgent need for affordable provisions).”
When the equality impact assessment looks at the impact on voluntary organisations, the conclusion is that that is “N/A”—not applicable. The impact on race is also deemed not applicable, as are the impacts on faith, disability rights, gender, sexual orientation and age. The impact assessment also asks:
“What were the main findings of the engagement exercise and what weight should they carry?”
That, too, is said to be not applicable.
“Does this policy have the potential to cause unlawful direct or indirect discrimination? Does this policy have the potential to exclude certain groups of people from obtaining services, or limit their participation in any aspect of public life?”
That is not applicable as well.
“How does the policy promote equality of opportunity?”
That is not applicable also. I could go on.
That is not by any stretch of the imagination a proper assessment of the impact of the proposals on the work force, taking account of the obligations that sit on the coalition Government to recognise equality of opportunity.
Tessa Jowell
The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but it is his responsibility to test that. However, because compared with the existing situation these proposals in effect levy the greatest penalty on the longest-serving, and almost inevitably the oldest, civil servants, there is at least a prima facie case for considering whether they are age discriminatory. I draw no conclusions, but I say to the House that I consider that the equality impact assessment has not taken full account of the impact of the proposed measures across the work force. The Opposition consider the terms put forward to be both unfair and punitive.
John Hemming
The right hon. Lady often uses the word “unfair”. I assume that she employs her own staff in her parliamentary office and that they are subject to the statutory scheme, with a maximum of 30 weeks’ pay. How does she argue that that, which was set by Parliament, is fair compared with the scheme the Government proposed in February this year?
Tessa Jowell
For the very simple reason that, in order to meet the terms of the judicial review, the proposals in the Bill are removing entitlements, expectations and accrued rights from staff who have a reasonable expectation of receiving them. That is why they are unfair.
Tessa Jowell
No, I am going to make progress because many Members wish to speak in the debate.
We argue that no adequate protection is offered to the lowest-paid, with a junior official in a job centre receiving no more protection than a permanent secretary of a Government Department. In introducing the Bill, the Government have insufficiently consulted their employees. The scant information in the equality statement makes that very clear.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman came to the House at the last election, so he may not know that I was probably not the most vociferous supporter of the economic policies of the previous Government. I was a critic, and if he looks at the alternative Budgets that I provided annually—which this House rejected, but never mind—he will see that there would have been no deficit if I had implemented them. There would have been a redistribution of wealth and an increase in taxation, which would have enabled us to afford the public expenditure that our society requires.
I am not a Keynesian; I am a Marxist—[Laughter.] Well, it is interesting how true some of the predictions in “Das Kapital” are coming. Even if one takes a Keynesian position, the last thing one would do at this point in time is reduce aggregate demand and cut jobs, wages and conditions of service. It flies in the face of reality to lay off large numbers of civil servants, and then cut the income and compensation arrangements that they receive. Anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker would rule us out of order if we went into another economic diatribe.
John Hemming
The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing, relatively coherently, for no change whatever to the terms and conditions of public servants. Is that what he is arguing, or is he arguing that some change is reasonable? If so, what change would be reasonable?
John McDonnell
I recognise that a range of negotiations need to take place. In the last set of negotiations with the previous Government, there were various issues to do with changes tackling age discrimination in particular. My view—we have to come on to the reality of the negotiations that will have to take place—is that we can create a climate of opinion in this House and elsewhere that will enable those negotiations to come to fruition, and that we should protect the lowest paid, in particular, as best we can. That has been the commonly voiced demand in the Chamber today.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to protect the low paid is to protect them from redundancy?
John McDonnell
Yes, and that is why I have consistently put forward alternative economic policies and strategies.
Let me press on, if I may. This is a serious debate, and I am trying to get across the feelings expressed to me through the PCS parliamentary group. As I say, I have met PCS members, I have attended meetings of the executive, I have been on picket lines, and I have been at various meetings around the country. There is anger about the proposals in the Bill—I shall come on to that—but also about the way in which the issue has been handled by Ministers.
In interview after interview, and even in the Chamber today, Ministers and Government Members have focused, in their descriptions of the compensation scheme, on payments to the highest-paid civil servants; it has almost been a portrayal of “Yes Minister”-type permanent secretaries, retiring to their Whitehall clubs on large-scale pay-offs. There are some individual examples of that, and they have been quoted today, but PCS is one of the leading unions that has pointed out that issues around high pay within the civil service have undermined the equitable distribution of rewards in the public sector.
Time and again, including today, we have had repeated the example of some civil servants receiving up to six years’ wages as a redundancy settlement. Let us get this point on the record as best we can: if I may refer Members to the Library note, of 500,000 civil servants, only 4,400 are in the senior civil service. The maximum compensation for most is capped at three years’ pay under the compulsory scheme, and two years’ pay under the flexible, voluntary scheme. For a small number of people who joined the service before 1987 with reserved rights regarding severance payments, payments are higher.
Ministers were asked by the Public Accounts Committee and, I believe, in parliamentary questions on the Chamber Floor, for information on the number of individuals currently getting a package worth six years’ salary. We were told that the information was unavailable because it could be provided only—there is a sense of irony here—at disproportionate cost. The six-year allegation is consistently used, even today. I would welcome some facts on how many people we are talking about and what the costs are.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I am 50 years old and have employed people for about half my life. My company was quite lucky relatively recently; we consulted with staff and were able to agree a deal under which there were no redundancies. However, I had to make redundancies in the early 2000s, and it is not a nice thing to go through, although obviously it is a lot worse to be made redundant.
We need to be aware that at the end of this process some people will lose their jobs. The challenge in politics is the national cake, and to some extent the political process can affect how that is divided. Our difficulty now is that we have to get a time machine and borrow from our children some slices that will be baked in future so that we can put them towards the national cake today. The real challenge is how we get, over a period of time, to the stage at which the amount of cake baked every year is the amount consumed every year.
How do we do that in a just manner? The Opposition have argued that our attempt unilaterally to challenge the contract with the civil service is unfair, whereas their attempt unilaterally to challenge the contract with the civil service was fair. They have argued with our proposals, but those are far more generous than the conditions for the staff of Members of Parliament, for instance. Those staff are all hard-working, but they are subject to the statutory redundancy scheme. Birmingham city council also operates the scheme. My wife works for British Waterways, a public body that also operates that scheme.
Basically, the Bill creates a negotiating position that means that the trade unions cannot veto any agreement. That is the normal situation for employers. Employers can present their staff with a new contract, and the staff have either to take it or leave it. That is what has happened in all the pay and grading reviews in local government across the country. Pretty well all local government employees have gone through the process of being presented with a new contract. What is happening now is that a new contract is being presented. We have said that we are aiming to protect the lower-paid. The most important thing to try to do is protect people against unnecessary redundancies. That is the critical thing.
If six years’ redundancy has to be paid to somebody, how can things be reorganised in a cost-effective manner? They cannot. Even paying three years’ redundancy creates a major problem because it costs more that year to make somebody redundant than to continue to employ them. That means that those not covered by the redundancy schemes are the ones to whom people go to find the savings. That does not seem fair.
Chris Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should indulge in a race to the bottom—it is about the lowest common denominator.
John Hemming
I do not think we should indulge in a race to the bottom. It needs to be recognised that this is the Government’s opening position. People who argue that we should propose the final solution here in Parliament are obviously no good at playing poker; one does not reveal one’s hand. We cannot expect the Minister to say, “We’ll settle for X.” The Government need to have a negotiating position, and the trade unions cannot be in a position whereby they can veto it—that would be absurd.
We need to think about our employees. I have always been concerned about the people whom I employ personally, and in the same way we should be concerned about those whom we employ collectively through UK plc. Options that may not cost the Government much money could be looked at to improve the situation. For example, constituents of mine who are civil servants have raised the issue of two civil servants living in the same household who are both under the threat of redundancy. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be possible for one such civil servant to nominate the other, so that if one of them were made redundant the other would be protected against redundancy. Then at least the household would not lose both incomes, but only one. That would be an example of flexibility. It would not necessarily cost the Government any money, but it would protect people from the worst aspects of this process.
Similarly, in certain circumstances people might like to move towards a job share if the Government were willing to pay them a sum of money for that reorganisation, which might cost less than voluntary or compulsory redundancy. That would reduce the wages bill and the deficit without necessarily putting people in a very difficult personal position. We need to work with employees to try to minimise the effect on people.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
As a former PCS worker and someone who until April this year was earning £15,300—I worked in the Child Support Agency for 18 months—I find some of the things you are saying quite offensive. Every worker has a right to work—surely you do not make decisions about whether a husband or wife, or a partner in the household, has that right.
Furthermore, if the Bill is rejected tonight, proper consultation might be re-entered into. I took industrial action against our former Government. I voted for that action having been consulted by the union and following the procedure that the Government started with us in 2009. I e-mailed the then Minister and went through all that process. What you are saying is contradictory. You are saying that people should be consulted, but only after a decision has been made. Do you not think—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Address the Chair, and briefly, please.
John Hemming
I am suggesting that the Government could try to ensure that there are not two redundancies in the same household, whatever circumstances we are in. We all accept that redundancies are going to occur in the public sector, so why cannot we try to minimise the effect on households by ensuring that both partners need not be made redundant?
Similarly, there are opportunities whereby people can transfer to the private sector. Obviously the objective is to help people to find jobs in the private sector. A severance fee, equivalent to voluntary redundancy in some senses, paid when people find a job in the private sector could be a way of reducing costs to the public sector but doing so in a way that does not make public servants suffer. At the end of the day, we should be thinking about the effect on the public servants who work hard for this country. We need to recognise that and work in partnership with them.
There are all sorts of opportunities within my own company. I have had people take sabbaticals in the past. In certain circumstances the employer will say, “We can plan for that person to go away for a year and then come back.” It suits them to do that, it has reduced the cost to the public purse, and it is in the interests of the employee. Possibilities can be considered, in partnership with the work force, that improve the situation so that everybody wins.
As a consequence of the reduction in the national cake—gross domestic product or however one wishes to see it—we face a very difficult situation that has to be dealt with. The Labour party has proposed its own version of a unilateral contract change and we have a different version, but something needs to happen. I will support the Government tonight, because I agree with the exact proposals put forward in the Bill. We need a negotiating position so that the trade unions cannot veto any changes, and I have responded clearly to my constituents by saying that I do not think the trade unions should have a veto on contractual changes. The time has hit 20 minutes past, so I shall finish by saying that I shall support Second Reading.
Political and Constitutional Reform
John Hemming Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for a referendum that would allow people to have their say on the electoral system. I believe, none the less, that the boundary changes that we are proposing are perhaps more modest than he and other Labour Members fear. [Interruption.] Well, it is a cut of 7.7% in the number of Members of this House. It brings the size of this House much more into line with existing legislation on what it should be, it starts to bring the size of this Chamber into line with those in other parts of the democratic world, and—this is perhaps part of the answer that I should have given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—it does not impede the ability of this House to hold Ministers, however many or few of them there are, to account. That package, combined with the additional powers of Dissolution, provides fairness in the votes that are cast and provides more power to this House.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has, like me, noticed how the Labour party has mutated from a party that believes in political reform to one that would quite like it, but not now, and not this particular reform. Given Labour Members’ opposition, as with the 1832 Reform Act, to their rotten boroughs being removed, does he see that they have now given up on the idea of one person, one vote of equal value?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree. It is quite remarkable for a party that was once proud of its credentials as a movement of political reform now to act with barely disguised paranoia about a perfectly logical approach to redrawing our boundaries and with churlishness at the opportunity finally to have a referendum that would usher in AV, which is a proposal that the Labour party used to make—a party, remember, which back in 1997 fought the election campaign on a manifesto commitment to giving people the right to have their say about how people are elected to this House. This is, yet again, a commitment to political reform that the Labour party has failed to deliver and that we are now delivering for them.
Constitution and Home Affairs
John Hemming Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I was rather amused by the right hon. Gentleman’s reference— [Hon. Members: “Yes or no!”] I was rather amused by his reference to the fact that, as an incoming Home Secretary, I was inheriting the best legacy that had been left. I have to say to him that, of course, figures produced by the House of Commons Library have shown that it is wrong to say that violent crime has gone down. It has not. It has gone up. The Home Secretary who left a good legacy to his successor was in fact the former Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe, the right hon. Michael Howard, under whom crime did indeed go down.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Identity Documents Bill. As I am sure every Member of the House is aware, the new Government have made a commitment—
Mrs May
I am going to make a little progress, if I may. [Interruption.] I am going to make a little progress.
The new Government have made a commitment to abolish the costly and unnecessary national ID cards. They are typical of the Labour Government’s blatant disregard for public opinion and common sense, and we aim to abolish this pet Labour project before the summer recess.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is one of those who mentioned ID cards, that we were always clear in opposition that we would abolish ID cards. The Liberal Democrat party was also clear in its opposition to ID cards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said on a number of occasions, anybody buying an ID card was effectively buying a souvenir. That Bill has already been introduced. We will cancel identity cards and we will cancel the national identity register.
I note the passionate speech made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about ID cards and CCTV, but what she said about CCTV, and what the shadow Home Secretary said, betrayed Labour’s approach to these matters: either all in favour of something or all against. We are talking about not abolishing CCTV, but ensuring that it is properly regulated.
I have touched on the delicate balance between the protection and freedom of our citizens, but part of maintaining that balance involves enabling people to take responsibility for themselves. To build a free and fair society—the big society—we all need to work together. That is why the Government will be introducing the police reform and social responsibility Bill. That legislation is emblematic of the guiding principles of this Government. We will make police officers more accountable to the public they serve and in so doing replace the bureaucratic, centralised control of recent years with local, democratic accountability.
I say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that I made that point absolutely clear in the speech that I gave recently to the Police Federation. Directly elected individuals will in no way interfere with the operational independence of the police. I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who, from the point of view of a member of a police authority, supported our proposals on directly elected individuals.
It was a great pity in the early stages of the debate that, on the issue of constitutional reform and the dissolution of Parliament, there seemed to be at best a misunderstanding of the Government’s position among a number of hon. Members, and at worst a wilful misrepresentation of it. Of course, the powers for the House to pass a vote of no confidence in the Government, on the basis of a simple majority, will continue to exist. They will be reinforced by powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament.
Regarding the Opposition amendment, I thought that the past 13 years had almost never happened. Endorse their record on crime, they say. After 50 criminal justice Acts—