National Minimum Wage

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The rise to £20,000 is a fourfold increase. However, the big difference is in applying that fine per worker rather than per company. That is a considerable escalation of the penalties. I hope that we will have the support of Opposition Members in voting that through.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Is not the difference between this country and the countries cited by the right hon. Gentleman that they still have vibrant trade union rights and are not condemned annually by the International Labour Organisation, as this country is, for undermining trade union rights?

[Vince Cable]

Those countries have had a variety of Governments, both left-wing and right-wing. I was simply making the point that it is possible to have a perfectly viable system without a national minimum wage. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in practice what is needed is either a strong system of trade union rights or a national minimum wage. We have now all accepted that the national minimum wage is the best system. I think all the minority parties accept that, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me use the last few minutes of the debate to identify some cases, as my comrades have done. We have been asked to name and shame, so let us do that. We have been campaigning in the maritime sector for a national minimum wage for a long time. To be frank, people were disappointed at developments under the last Government, but we did secure a working party between the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Nautilus and the Department, which produced a redefinition of the national minimum wage qualifications for seafarers. It was done on the basis of the individual’s connection with the country and so forth, and we felt that it was a breakthrough, but it is not being enforced.

Let me provide an example. The most notable exception that we found involved the lifeline passenger freight ferry routes from Portsmouth, Poole and Weymouth to the Channel Islands. They are operated by Condor Ferries, which employs seafarers from outside the European economic area who are paid £2.35 an hour. Despite frequent protests against the pay discrimination by the RMT, the HMRC enforcement team has taken no action, and is not enforcing the Government’s own policy. I agree with the Public and Commercial Services Union that that is because there are so few staff and they are not given enough powers or resources. That firm is a disgrace. We have raised the issue time and again, but we have been completely ignored, and enforcement action is now necessary.

In 2012, we pointed out that Streamline Shipping was operating a freight service from Aberdeen to the Shetland Islands and exploiting the Government’s lax national minimum wage and Equality Act 2010 regulations to employ Filipino workers and pay them half the minimum wage. We want all workers, whatever their nationality, to be paid a decent wage.

Another scam has been referred to by my hon. Friends. The cost of accommodation is now being deducted from seafarers’ wages. The sum deducted is currently £4.91 per day, or £34.73 per week. On most ships that sail from our ports, seamen work two weeks on, two weeks off, so that amounts to a deduction of some £70. That is extraordinary. Do the seamen clock off and go home on their own boats? Are dinghies attached to the boats? It is ridiculous, and it is yet another way of undermining pay in the sector.

Finally, let me take up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) about apprentices’ pay. Along with the UK Chamber of Shipping, the employers and the unions—the RMT and Nautilus—we have embarked on a drive to get young people back on to British ships as ratings. They can train with a grant, and subsequently rise to officer level. We are trying to encourage people to learn the skills of British seafaring so that we can maintain the industry itself. Our efforts are not helped by some recruitment practices, but at least we have a campaign going. Paying people £2.68 an hour, even when they are apprentices, is not acceptable. In the last few years, the apprenticeship rate has gone up by 18p. That is a derisory amount, and I do not think that it can serve as an incentive for our young people.

We want the national minimum wage regulations to be reviewed again. Following a campaign by us, they were reviewed, and we were told that the minimum wage would apply in British waters, but the Government then redefined the concept of British waters, which became a narrow channel consisting basically of the Norfolk Broads. That was about it. As a result, employers were able to pay below the minimum wage, and also to avoid some elements of the Equality Act. That is unacceptable in this day and age. I urge the Government at least to consider enforcement against that company, so that we can use it as an example to make clear to other shipowners that we will not tolerate any more poverty pay on British ships.

Autumn Statement

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I want to return the compliment that my hon. Friend has paid me. He has been an outstanding Member of Parliament. His jobs clubs have helped many young people and his offer of work experience is helping people to get on the jobs ladder. The rail measures that we have announced today will help his constituents in Watford. He is right that for Watford, a Labour Government would mean higher unemployment, higher mortgage rates, more borrowing and more debt. That would put Watford and the rest of the country back into the economic mess we are taking them out of.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Whatever one’s view of the past, there are worrying signs that the bonus culture is returning to the City, with large payouts, share distributions and high dividend payments disguising what were formerly bonuses. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it clear that the Government stand ready to introduce further measures to control the bonus culture? I believe that they would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

Public Service Pensions Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am very comfortable that the Government are doing the right thing by resisting the amendments. As the debate progresses, I hope that more hon. Members will be persuaded that we have taken the right approach to this complex issue. I shall explain further as the debate progresses.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain the nature of the offer? I just want to know what the process will involve, following consultation. Will it require primary legislation, or will it be dealt with through delegated legislation? How will it be implemented? What sort of time scale is he considering?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions for all the right reasons. I still have a few more minutes in which to set out the Government’s case, and I hope that I shall answer them in the process. If anything remains unclear, however, I hope that he will come back to me. I will be happy to add to the information that I am giving the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. When I referred to the unintended consequences, I was not expecting a detailed exposé of what one of them would be.

With some reluctance, I am taking the Minister at his word about the unintended consequences, and I urge the House to do the same. I take on board everything that Lord Hutton has said subsequently about his not being aware of the issue. Trusting the Minister, I think that our MOD firefighters and police officers could conceivably end up better off. I repeat my basic point, however, because the MOD needs to move quickly to reassure the nation about our military depots and nuclear installations. I have seen Faslane at first hand, and we do not want a Dad’s Army—people my age—defending our nuclear installations or trying to put out fires in military establishments.

[John McDonnell]

I welcome the new enthusiasm on both sides of the House for negotiating with trade unions. We have seen 18 months of industrial action followed by the imposition of a pensions settlement on a large number of civil service workers. I therefore welcome this enthusiasm for negotiating the issue out.

The Government’s policy on pensions was twofold: they wanted to bring together a consistent retirement age across the services, while, as part of public service reform, ensuring a process of modernisation, with retirement schemes reflecting the requirements of service delivery. From what we have received today, I think we are reintroducing an element of chaos into the retirement age. Far from ensuring consistency, we seem to be building anomaly upon anomaly. Far from pragmatically reflecting the reality of delivering a service, we are about to undermine another service.

On delivery, we should learn the lessons of 2007. I did not support the increase in the retirement age for firefighters in 2007, just as I have not supported this legislation. The lesson that the Fire Brigades Union taught us was that once we increase the retirement age in such a physically demanding job, apart from having a physical effect on those workers and their lives—and on their families, too—we do not save money, because people take ill-health retirement, as others have said. At the end of the day, this is not part of a modernisation process; it is a step backwards.

The other issue raised was consistency—this argument that there will be consistency across the uniformed services. However, that was never the case anyway, because we argued for the Prison Service and uniformed services in the health service to be included, but they were excluded. The issue of consistency is drawn even more sharply by the exclusion of the group of staff we are discussing in this debate, who are clearly part of a uniformed service. They are being discriminated against purely on the basis of who employs them. Firefighters who are employed by local government via a fire authority are within the scheme at age 60, whereas those employed by these other bodies are not. That is not just policy making on the hoof; to be frank, it is incompetent policy making.

As for the disbenefits, when a general agreement is taken into legislation in this way there is always the facility for the employer and others to adjust contribution rates, albeit as part of a negotiated settlement, but we usually legislate and then iron out the detail of the contribution rates, with the matter usually being resolved through an adjustment of the employer’s contribution.

Let me turn finally to the process. The Minister helpfully tried to respond, but there was insufficient detail. If there is to be negotiation on this issue, we need at least a commitment about the time scale. There has to be a limited time scale, over the next three months, in which we can resolve these anomalies and give this group of workers some security, because the current insecurity is causing concern.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is spot on. We need that time frame, but do we not also need a commitment from the Minister today that the age of 60—this is the equality issue—is, at the very least, a possibility that is on the table? So far we have not had that.

[John McDonnell]

Today we have at least set out the parameters of what the negotiations will be. The age of 60 has to be No. 1 on the agenda, followed by ironing out other anomalies. The second issue is the point I raised in an intervention on the Minister. We have to have a clear definition of the legislative process by which the negotiated settlement will be speedily agreed through the House. Will it be tacked on to other primary legislation or might there be a speedy regulation change that enables us to implement the process?

[Simon Hughes]

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done. I share his view that it would be helpful if the Minister indicated in the winding-up speech that there will be a fixed timetable for concluding the process and that the age change from 65 to 60 would be on the agenda. If he can do that, I think that realistically, given that we are at the beginning of this financial year, that would be acceptable. I have not cleared that with the unions, but we need something that gives some parameters and the Minister would carry us with him if he set them.

[John McDonnell]

To go back a bit, I would also like some clarity about the legislative process. The time scale for negotiations can be set and the agenda for those negotiations clarified; my anxiety is that if we do not have a commitment on the time scale for legislation, the issue could be kicked into the long grass or even further. That would be seen by the workers as an act of bad faith unless a clear timetable was also given for the legislative process.

[Simon Hughes]

I have one quick thought—I am trying to be helpful. In every year there is inevitably a Finance Bill. This is a Treasury matter and could therefore be covered in the new Session by the Finance Bill.

[John McDonnell]

That is all I am asking for: clarity of process and time scale. It would be extremely helpful, as an act of good will and good faith, for the Minister to take back a reference to this matter in the Queen’s Speech. That would indicate to those involved that the Government attach a priority to ironing out what has been accepted as an anomaly. It is one that might affect only a relatively small number, but it does so critically and in a critical service, as others have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Sajid Javid]

I give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon.

[Sajid Javid]

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[John McDonnell]

I did not make a mistake: I opposed the lot.

--- Later in debate ---

The MOD has already fired the starting gun for those discussions, and has written to the members of the forces the legislation might affect. I am glad that process has started.

[John McDonnell]

When the legislation leaves this House and goes back to the other place, could the Minister write to us explicitly about the generality of the Bill—about its being a framework Bill? It seems curious that a framework Bill lists a number of categories of worker whose retirement age will be at 60. That is why many people felt they needed to be included in that list if they were to be protected. It seems odd that the Minister is now saying, “Don’t worry because it is a general framework Bill.”

[Sajid Javid]

The Government have been very clear that one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with increasing life expectancy and longevity. That is why retirement ages are increasing for almost all public sector workers, and there is a link to the state pension age. The Government must address the issue; it was something the previous Government ducked, but it is vital for making the public finances more secure. That situation has not changed. What I am outlining today, with regard to the issue relating to MOD firefighters and police officers, is that there is flexibility within the MOD scheme for it to come up with a different arrangement. The MOD has agreed to look into that. It has not made any decisions, but I am sure that it will look very carefully indeed at the issue.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The “double reasonableness” test was the one we came to after the lengthy process following the Aaronson review. We believe that it focuses attention on aggressive, abusive tax avoidance. Let me be clear: this is an additional tool that HMRC can use; it does not necessarily mean that for those outside the GAAR, everything is fine. I want to make it explicitly clear that that is not what we are saying. There is avoidance that will not fall within the GAAR, but which HMRC would none the less take action against.

The panel will be broad-based, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever in its having commercial expertise to provide reassurance and ensure that the GAAR will not be abused in the way that some Members have expressed concern about this evening, with too much power being placed in the hands of a part of the Executive. It will be broad-based, in just the way the interim panel has been.

The GAAR does not override UK tax treaties. Given the lack of time, I will not go into further detail, but it acts in much the same way as GAARs do for other countries that respect OECD and UN model tax treaties.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will, because the hon. Gentleman has been here for much of the debate.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister said that there will be a review of the penalties. When, and will it look at criminal activity as well?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me deal with that in the context of amendment 8, which looks at the general issue of post-implementation evaluation and seeks to establish a review within two years of Royal Assent. We and HMRC have made it clear that we will manage and monitor the GAAR’s operation centrally, so that all cases and potential cases will be scrutinised and recorded. The deterrent effect, which we will see immediately, will be important, but we must also remember the issues of getting the tax returns in and being able to make a full assessment of the implications. We believe that a two-year period would not be practical for a general evaluation. It will take longer properly to evaluate how the GAAR is working, just because of how our tax system operates, so I will not accept amendment 8.

Amendments 3, 6 and 7, which deal with tax avoidance by multinationals and the impact on developing countries, raise a number of important points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) wanted me to set out the Government’s objectives for the G8. I am sorry that I am not in a position to do that this evening; it will be left to the Prime Minister, who will make the UK Government’s position very clear.

The point about transparency is important and the Government have a good record of encouraging transparency in a number of areas, particularly among extractive industries through the extractive industries transparency initiative. We play a leading role internationally through the global forum. We ensure that jurisdictions comply with the international standard on tax transparency and work with the G20 to maintain pressure on non-co-operative jurisdictions. We have been making a lot of progress in the Crown dependencies, particularly as regards the exchange of information, and in ensuring that the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, arrangements on the exchange of information become the international norm. I can assure the Committee that that will continue to be a key part of what we do and part of our G8 agenda.

Amendment 6 asks the Government to require UK companies to report their use of tax-avoidance schemes that affect developing countries and for HMRC to notify those countries and assist them in recovering the tax owed. Amendment 7 asks the Government to carry out an impact assessment on the effect of the changes to the controlled foreign companies, or CFC, rules on developing countries’ tax revenues. The answer to both points is that as a matter of practicality it is difficult for HMRC to perform the roles required by the amendments as they require assessments not of our tax rules but of the tax rules of developing countries. That takes us outside what HMRC can realistically do. The point was raised that amendment 7 largely repeats the debate we had during last year’s Finance Bill, when a similar, if not identical, amendment was tabled. I refer hon. Members to the speech I gave a year or so ago, in which I stated that simply as a matter of practicality that is not something that HMRC can do.

On amendments 11 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, I do not believe that a de minimis rule would be appropriate as regards the general anti-abuse rule as it would miss the point. We do not want anyone involved in abusive schemes to make use of them, and even if only £100,000 was at stake as a de minimis, that could have a significant effect on a number of people. We believe that that would be unfair.

As I said at the outset, I believe that the general anti-abuse rule is a major new development. It sends a message to those who persist with abusive avoidance schemes that even if they try to dance around the tax law, they will face the tough but plain question, “Is it reasonable?” That is a question that we all understand. Those who think about using the schemes will all understand it and, I hope, those who create the schemes will come to understand it. The GAAR will ensure that the time for their clever games, paid at the expense of the tax-paying public, is at an end. I therefore recommend that clauses 203 to 212 and schedule 41 stand part of the Bill.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that mean that I have an hour and a half?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

You should be so lucky.

[John McDonnell]

I most probably will not even take 10 minutes.

I am very pleased that the plane of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) did come in, because he always makes complex issues simple and entertaining. There is a consensus in the House around regulation as the approach to take towards resolving the banking crisis and ensuring that, if we do not prevent a future crisis, we at least stave it off for, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, possibly another 70 years. The degree of positioning is around Glass-Steagall-type full separation, a ring fence, and then, as he said, the novelty of an electrified ring fence. There must be different power levels of electricity on this ring fence, as well.

I stand outside that debate, because I do not think that regulation will work. I was the first Member to raise the issue of Northern Rock in this House. At that time, I completely underestimated what Northern Rock was up to. I thought that it was all about an offshore tax scam that was part of its link with the organisation that it called Granite; I had no idea of the scale of the problem that would be unravelled. I can remember the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I think, leaving the Chamber after I had talked about Northern Rock, to obtain a briefing about what I was talking about. I realised that what I was talking about was a crisis that was being created in the City by greed, primarily, and by speculation and casino banking. I remember being at the Labour party conference in the 1980s, around the time of big bang, and organising the launch of a book called “Big bang: the launch of a casino economy”, authored by the then Member for Hackney and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), which predicted some of the outrageous potential that there was for speculation as a result of big bang.

When I raised Northern Rock, I completely underestimated the levels of casino banking and the corruption that was taking place. In the previous debate a few weeks ago, I described the City as a “cesspool of corruption”, which it was. However, what was also revealed was the absolute incompetence. It was like “The Wizard of Oz”—when the curtain was pulled back, there was not a wizard but someone scrambling with various levers. We discovered then that the hierarchy of British banking did not even understand the instruments with which they were working because they were so complex. Then it all started to unravel, and we discovered scales of greed, incompetence and corruption that none of us expected.

At that time, we were assured that the regulatory system was not at fault, but we soon discovered how inoperable it was. The result, as we all know, is that the then Government intervened to borrow and they used taxpayers’ money to bail out the system. At its peak, taxpayers’ exposure to the bank collapse was on the scale of £1.2 trillion. I understand that so far we have retrieved only £14 billion of that taxpayers’ money. The second wave was the austerity programme introduced to pay for the Government intervention to save the banking system. Mervyn King estimated the cost of that to be £1 trillion. Anthony Haldane, who is probably more accurate in his assessment, estimates that we have lost the equivalent of between one and five years’ GDP. Those absolutely staggering sums are the result of a crisis brought about by incompetence and greed. The majority of people are 7% poorer than in 2007, and their living standards have fallen, according to the latest estimate, by 13.2% since 2008. The median household income in 2015-16 will be the equivalent of that in 2002-03. These are the implications of what this wealth of greed brought about: mass unemployment, welfare benefit cuts, food banks, and parents missing meals so that children can eat. It is absolutely staggering.

I find it extremely difficult to come to terms with an issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). Since the crisis occurred—since I first stood up in this House and mentioned Northern Rock—and we went on to the nationalisation of banks, and then to quantitative easing on a scale that we had never seen before or could even comprehend, the scandalous practices have not gone away: they have continued. As my right hon. Friend said, the bonuses have continued, fraud has continued, LIBOR interest rate fixing has been investigated, and we have seen tax evasion and money laundering. This is happening even when the bankers are in full public sight. At a time when the eyes of the country are on them, they are still manipulating the system.

I find it astounding—I have raised this in the House three times, and 10 days ago I received a letter from the Minister about it—that when quantitative easing was introduced, we discovered through press reports that bankers even then sought to profiteer from it. The letter from the Minister confirmed that at one point the Bank of England had to intervene and withdraw from the market because there were suspicions of price fixing and manipulation of the market during quantitative easing.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am very interested in and admire what my hon. Friend is saying. There is a suggestion that the recent surge in share prices is simply the effect of quantitative easing and that it bears no relation to what is happening in the real economy.

[John McDonnell]

Exactly. I accept that point, but the relatively simple point that I am trying to make is that a group of people who have, in effect, been caught with their hands in the till are trying to use the money that has been used to bail them out to profiteer at the taxpayers’ expense. That is staggering and it says to me that regulation will not work with these institutions. Even when they are absolutely shamed, subject to public opprobrium and under the acute gaze of the public eye, they still try to profiteer.

[Steve Baker]

This is the point that I have been trying to make. Every time the state sets up these dreadful institutions, people are able to profiteer. If we tell people that we are creating new money out of nothing and giving it to them in exchange for Government bonds, of course they will seek to make a profit. The thing to do is to make sure that they have institutions within which they can make a profit justly.

[John McDonnell]

There is another route and I will come on to it. The hon. Gentleman and I agree about the problem, but there is another solution. As he has said, regulation does not work with these institutions or the motivation to profiteer. I do not think that the new regulatory system—whether it be subject to a ring fence, an electrified ring fence or leverage ratios—will work. The reality is that as long as the banks are in private hands and have profit as their motive, they will aim to get around a regulatory system. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned how they will dig under and go around the fence. Like a chicken finding its way into the coop, they will always find a way. The regulatory regime proposed by the Bill is complex and, to be frank, virtually unenforceable. I think it will be almost impossible to execute the attempt to impose a firewall, as the Good Banking Forum concluded recently.

I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that we need to revisit the question of what role banks should play and what people want. I think that people and society want and need banks in which they can safely deposit their money and savings and which lend responsibly and provide credit to finance investment growth across the country. That is not what this Bill will secure and it is certainly not what is happening at the moment. The larger banks have an estimated £6 trillion at their disposal, but just £200 billion —3% of the overall total—is used to fund investment in this country’s industry. I do not think that a system of honest, responsible banking or long-term investment is deep in the culture. That may well have occurred at the earliest stages of capitalism but, many crises of capitalism later, we should have learned the lesson that this system is not working.

I believe that the only way to secure probity and to ensure that people’s funds are safe and secure and that we can invest in our economy in the long-term to create jobs is through a publicly owned and democratically controlled banking system. Of course, we own banks at the moment—we nationalised them. After Northern Rock, I remember standing up in the House to urge the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), to nationalise the banks. The next day he said that he had nationalised three of them. I told him that I had been right and he said, “Well, you were bound to be right at least once in 30 years.” We nationalised those banks, but we have no control over them. They are not democratically accountable to Government, workers, investors or the wider community. That is why they are not investing and why people cannot secure loans.

We should take full ownership of the larger banks. We already own Northern Rock, RBS and Bradford & Bingley and a large part of Lloyds. We should take public ownership and control of the UK-based operations of Santander, Barclays and HSBC, and we should create a unitary industry. That would enable us to control investment, secure savings, stop the paying out of large bonuses and ensure that any surpluses are returned to the public by investing in the public good. That is secure and safe banking, which is what I thought was the House’s objective.

What would full nationalisation cost? An excellent piece of work for the Fire Brigades Union by Michael Roberts and Mick Brooks, which was published and launched in this House only a week ago, estimates that it would cost £55 billion at current market rates. That is 3% of GDP. We could ensure that there would be no need for any cash exchanges and could simply swap shares for bonds, thereby saving the public purse a large amount of money. The Co-operative bank and mutuals would continue to operate as alternatives, as would credit unions, because we have confidence in them as safe and secure banks. We could also—we called on the previous Government to do this—remutualise those banks that transformed themselves from mutuals into limited companies.

In that way, we could achieve the stated objectives of the Bill not through regulation, but through public ownership and control. I do not believe that regulation will work. The system has gone too far and the profit motive has overridden any sense of value or judgment in the City. Unless we take action now, we will be back in a limited number of years to deal with another banking crisis. To be frank, we have not even talked tonight about the shadow banking process, the scale of the transactions that take place within it or how we should deal with it. That is beyond all our controls at the moment.

I will finish by saying who we are taking action for. We are doing it for my constituents, some of whom are threatened with evictions or job losses or are having their welfare benefits or their services cut, all because of an economic crisis that they had nothing to do with. They did not cause it and did not contribute to it. It was caused deep in the financial sector of this country and across the world. My constituents deserve not reform of the banking sector in this country, but an absolute transformation of it, based on public ownership and democratic control.

Financial Services

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

There are a number of reasons why I think it is achievable. The first is the contribution that regulation can make. As Members have said, it is important to have a more exacting set of regulatory standards that are intolerant of the kinds of abuses that have taken place. Secondly, it is in the commercial and strategic interests of banks to restore the reputation that they used to have for trust. Financial services depend on trust. If people do not trust the banks, they will not do business with them. I think the penny has dropped across the City, and most of the new generation of chief executives understand the connection between their future profitability and performance, and the need to provide decent services to their customers.

The third reason is a matter being investigated by the Treasury Committee and concerns a failure or subversion of the culture of banking. Banking was always associated with high standards of probity; it was a vocation for people who were thought to be of a rather conservative disposition and inclined not to take excessive risks. That was subverted by exposure to some of the practices of recent years, and because that was inadequately regulated it distorted what should be the right culture in the industry. We need to make changes to all three of those areas, and that is precisely what we have done and what we have embarked on for the rest of the Parliament.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), let me urge the Minister that there can be no drawing a line in the sand and no amnesty given until corruption is rooted out. My constituents now look on the City of London as a fetid swamp of corruption. They see only people forgoing bonuses but no one being imprisoned for the swindles that have taken place. There can be no amnesties at all. Will there be any investigation into allegations—I have raised this point previously—of attempts to manipulate the auctions associated with the quantitative easing exercise undertaken by the previous and current Governments?

[Greg Clark]

I am not aware of those allegations but I will look into them. Any criminal activity in any part of the financial services industry ought to be prosecuted and pursued with the same degree of vigour as in any other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman overstates the case in his reflection of the City. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the City and do a decent job working hard for their clients and businesses up and down the country. They are as outraged as any of us in this House about the damage done to the City’s reputation. The future for us and for our interests is to see that reputation restored and root out the corrupt individuals—corrupt is the word in this case—who have done disproportionate damage to the reputation of a set of institutions that should be one of the prides of this country.

HM Revenue and Customs

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful for hon. Members’ attendance this morning at this debate about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its capacity and resources. Over the past decade or so, tax debates in Westminster Hall have usually been attended by the usual public administration anoraks—a club that I am a member of—or failed accountants who have been elected to the House of Commons, which is even worse. Not any more, however: the recession means that we all take an interest in public expenditure and look at every element of public income. A tax justice campaign is being waged as a result of the recession, and I pay tribute to tax justice campaigners John Christensen and Richard Murphy for their work over the years, as well as to UK Uncut, whose direct action campaign brought the issue to the attention of the public. It is concerned about the scandal of unpaid and uncollected tax. The debate reveals that our system does not work effectively.

There is another scandal associated with our taxation system: not just how much taxation is avoided or evaded, but how badly our tax collection and administration is managed overall—and, to be frank, how it has been mismanaged by politicians over the past few decades. At times, there has been almost catastrophic short-sightedness and incompetence. The genesis of the debate was a lobby by the Public and Commercial Services Union that happened in the past six months, and meetings with members. I chair the PCS parliamentary group, and the union represents 55,000 staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There have been many meetings with Members, and meetings in constituencies, to express the overwhelming sense of frustration, which has at times verged on anger that, as professionals, staff have been held back from fulfilling their role of ensuring that taxes are collected efficiently.

There is a particular sense of frustration because during the recession HMRC could, through tax collection, make a significant contribution to tackling the economic crisis and, indeed, the overall deficit. Staff feel that they are being held back professionally, and undermined by cuts: staffing cuts, office closures, deteriorating work conditions resulting in low morale, and the lack of appropriate professional and legislative tools to do the job. Time and again the view has been expressed that more and more policy changes load responsibilities on to them—more work for an overstretched and overburdened work force. The expression used by many of the staff is that they have been set up to fail—in some instances so that their jobs can be privatised. I want to explore the current situation in HMRC and consider the remedies that are needed. The Government need to stand back at this point, and consider staffing resources and the challenges that staff face.

What is the job? It dates back to the time of Chaucer, the earliest famous tax collector—a putative PCS shop steward. It is simply to collect taxes. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales circulated an excellent brief before the debate, and summed it up. HMRC simply makes the tax system work: that is what it is meant to do, but the reality is that it struggles to do so. We know that from the evidence that is available to us. If the main role of HMRC is to collect the taxes, it is clear from the recent evidence that it has not the resources and legislative tools to do so. That is clear from the evidence of the tax gap—we have debated the tax gap at length in this Chamber and I appreciate that there are disputes about using it as an overall assessment of performance, and about the overall level of the tax gap itself, but we know that the range is anything from the £70 billion to £120 billion estimated by Tax Research UK, under Richard Murphy, and the HMRC’s and the Minister’s estimate of between £30 billion and £40 billion a year. In other words, even on the Government’s own assessment, half the current deficit is not being collected in taxes, because of tax avoidance and evasion.

The scale of tax avoidance and evasion has caused anger throughout our communities. It is not only the tax justice campaigns and the media that have been railing against them—so have the Government. In December the Chancellor said that people are “right to be angry” about companies not paying their fair share of the tax, and I fully agree with him. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said in November that it was “completely unacceptable” that companies could get away with what he described as gaming the system, to avoid tax, and referred to “appalling stories of abuse” within the tax system.

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee, which has been consistently complimented on its excellent role, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), tore aside the veil that covered the operation, mainly in secret, of the major accountancy companies of devising, and ruthlessly implementing, large-scale—massive—avoidance schemes described by some as obscene. It is worth repeating the scale of what we have seen, in example after example: Starbucks paying only £8.5 million in corporation tax since it was launched here in 1998, despite £3 billion of sales; Google paying £6 million in tax last year on a turnover of £395 million; Apple paying £14.5 million in tax on £1 billion of sales. Numerous other examples have been highlighted by the PAC and others in the investigations of the past year.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has listed a range of selective statistics, but he is well aware that tax is paid on profits, not turnover. Part and parcel of sales is VAT, so taxes other than corporation tax are involved. Does he think that a big danger in the debate is the intermingling of the sense of tax evasion, which is absolutely illegal, with tax avoidance? Not only is tax avoidance legal, but it is bizarre for politicians in government to rail about it, as they have it within their power to change the law to remove loopholes.

[John McDonnell]

That is an excellent point, which goes to the heart of the debate, because I agree with the Prime Minister that much of what is happening is morally repugnant, but the onus is on us to ensure that the system works effectively in relation to tax evasion and avoidance, and other matters, so that we serve the community that elected us well and so that HMRC does its basic job of collecting taxes. That means giving it sufficient staff and the right resources, so that they can do the job.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. Does he agree that a simpler form of tax collection is needed, in relation to administration? I understand that the UK is second to India for paperwork. Does he also agree that HMRC needs to make a radical change to its approach to tax collection in Northern Ireland? We have a major problem with fuel smuggling. More than £200 million should be going to the Exchequer and is not.

[John McDonnell]

That excellent point about simplification of our taxation system, and focusing on priorities, is made time and again, and I fully agree. We shall return to it, and perhaps new measures that the Government are presenting this year will help. However, there is no use in our introducing measures or making policy demands without the staffing resources and professionals to implement them.

Last week’s PAC interrogation of the big four accountancy firms revealed the scale of the resources that they plough into advising their clients—the big corporations, and the wealthy—on how to avoid tax. Private sector accountancy firms, including many of the banks—it is not just the big four, but some banks and other financial advisers—have a long history of devising ingenious tax avoidance schemes on what I believe the Minister once described, with reference to a scheme that Barclays Bank once operated, as an industrial scale. Schemes to enable companies to avoid tax have been operated on such a scale. It has been going on for at least the past two decades.

Although the big accountancy firms, along with banks and financial advisers, have been investing in staff recruitment and training on a scale that has produced this massive base of tax avoidance opportunities for companies, there have been massive staff cuts in HMRC and the department feels, therefore, that it has one hand tied behind its back when trying to confront the issue.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The greater part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech is obviously about the collection service and HMRC’s resources, but as he has talked about some of the bigger companies and the accountancy firms, does he agree that it is right to consider whether each company should state on the front of its annual accounts its turnover, surplus, calculated profit, and tax paid other than on staff wages and national insurance? That would bring things out in the open, and directors might ask themselves, “Is this justifiable?” let alone lawful.

[John McDonnell]

That is an excellent proposal. The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head regarding transparency and openness. It is not only the directors; the shareholders have a responsibility as well. The veil of secrecy over tax avoidance, and the advice given on it, undermines the opportunity for shareholders to hold directors and companies to account. Many shareholders are institutional ones, and they have a commitment to their companies behaving morally as well as legally.

It is not just avoidance though. On January 7, I read —in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true:

“Tax fraud has reached its highest level since the onset of the financial crisis, as VAT evasion has exploded, costing Britain more than £3bn a year…The size of the so-called ‘VAT gap’ due to fraud, the difference between the amount of tax HMRC expects to receive and what it actually collects, is reckoned to have reached £3.3bn, or enough to fund a 1p reduction in the tax of every UK taxpayer.”

So it is not just evasion and avoidance; it is VAT fraud as well. It is no wonder there are problems. I again quote from The Daily Telegraph—I am going to have to give up reading it:

“taxman embroiled in 20,000 tribunal cases”.

According to the article, HMRC estimates that because of the lack of staff the backlog of cases will take “38 years to clear.” That is how bad it has got.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants briefing states simply that, in the view of independent accountants, the system is not working. Why not? One reason is the scale of the cuts. HMRC has been charged with finding a 25% reduction in expenditure. I accept that that was under the previous Government, but I was critical then also. Under this Government, it is expected to find another 15%. What does that mean? The Minister and I were involved in a discussion about this in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. That scale of reduction would be startling for any organisation. In 2005, HMRC employed 97,000; by 2015 it is planned that the total staff numbers will be 55,000—almost half the staff cut. Since this Government were elected, 7,000 HMRC jobs have gone. The objective in all this is to save what? Some £1 billion. That makes no economic sense when there is a tax gap—tax that remains uncollected—of, according to Government figures, £40 billion or, according to other people, potentially £120 billion.

To be frank, HMRC is woefully under-resourced to tackle the tax gap, and fraud and evasion, and the view of professionals in the field is that the staff cuts seriously hinder the department’s effectiveness. The Government have claimed that they have recently overseen a rise in staff levels, and that is true. There have been some additional staff, and I congratulate the Minister on that. Overall, however, staff numbers have dropped by 7,000 since the Government were elected.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just about the numbers of staff but about their morale? Has he read the repeated surveys, over a number of years, that demonstrate that HMRC staff are the most demoralised anywhere in Government?

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to that in due course. The expression that has been used by non-HMRC staff—observers—is that staff morale is “at rock bottom.” That was demonstrated by a recent internal Government survey, which reported that fewer than one in five staff thought that HMRC was well managed. That is how bad it has got.

I want to get back to the important issue of staff numbers. The Minister claimed in a previous debate that there had been an increase in the numbers of tax inspectors, with 100 new ones having been or being recruited, but that fails to appreciate the role of other front-line staff in dealing with tax inquiries and chasing up payments. Those essential back-room staff, who are not respected in the role they play, seem to be the ones who are vulnerable to losing their jobs. The Government have partially recognised some of the staff resource issues, providing £900 million to secure an extra £7 billion in tax revenue, and announcing a further £77 million in December to expand HMRC’s anti-avoidance and evasion activities, which they predict will secure another £2 billion. That small investment over the coming years will secure a total of £22 billion of additional taxation, demonstrating that investing in the staff and the professionals will have an economic success in tackling the tax collection problems.

Although limited, the additional funding is welcome, but it fails to appreciate the impact of previous job cuts and the threat to staff of another 10,000 jobs going between now and 2015. It is not just PCS members who urge the Government to think again about the cuts; accountants, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants, have expressed their concern in public. One of them described the cuts as happening “wildly”, with little planning, resulting in the loss of highly skilled professional staff.

I urge Members to read the Commons Library briefing note, which cites a number of independent accountants who have gone public with their worries about the impact of staffing cuts on HMRC, including Ken Frost, the accountant blogger, and Mike Warburton. The running theme is that the cuts are causing difficulties and leading to lost experience, and that staff are overwhelmed at a time when more demands are being placed upon them. According to the briefing by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the recent child benefit changes are predicted to bring an extra 500,000 taxpayers into self-assessment, stretching the already overstretched system.

HMRC staff have expressed their concerns that under-resourcing is leading to mistakes. In an article in the Institute of Chartered Accountants journal, one staff member states:

“The pressure we’re under to hit targets and get post turned round leads to errors because we’re having to do it that fast…The emphasis is placed on getting rid of the stuff whether it’s right or wrong.”

It cannot be right that that is happening in our system. To deal with the work load with fewer staff, HMRC management has introduced a working system based on what have been described as manufacturing principles. The pacesetter system is a rigid, time-limited process with specific targets, which leaves little room for professional judgments, resulting in further errors and failures to resolve problems.

It is not just accountants and other professionals who are complaining about the impact of cuts on services; members of the public, individual taxpayers and small businesses are complaining about the often nightmare problems of accessing HMRC services. The closure of local offices has meant that virtually all contact for some taxpayers is now by telephone.

The National Audit Office reported in December that, in 2011-12, HMRC answered 74% of phone calls. The NAO acknowledges that, despite exceeding an interim target of 58%, the level of service is low. For example, 20 million calls, including calls where customers rang back because they did not get through the first time, were not answered. Customers who got through to HMRC in 2011-12 had to wait on average 282 seconds to speak to an adviser. Between April and September 2011, 6.5 million customers waited more than 10 minutes to have their call answered. Depending on the tariff they pay their phone company, customers are charged from when their call is connected, even if they are held in a queue. The NAO estimates that being in a queue cost customers £33 million in call charges; the estimated value of customers’ time while they were in a queue is £103 million, which cannot be right.

I am pleased that the Government have announced that, from the end of the summer, people who phone for advice will no longer use the costly 0845 number. They are also setting a new target from April for 80% of people to wait no longer than five minutes to speak to a real person, including recorded messages. I am grateful to the Government, because there have been improvements and HMRC has hired an extra 2,500 staff. Those staff, however, are employed only on temporary contracts, and the union and others feel that the Government need to allow HMRC to employ properly trained, permanent staff who will benefit the organisation, rather than the reactive, quick-fix recruitment policy that many people feel will not bring about sustained improvement in service delivery.

There is anxiety about over-reliance on phone services. The reason for high caller demand and over-reliance on caller services is because 200 local HMRC offices have closed over the past six years, and there are more to follow.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right that there are more closures to follow. In my constituency, Weardale house is due to close, and in the neighbouring constituency of Sunderland Central, the closure of Shackleton and Gilbridge houses is under consultation. That is three offices and a number of staff in just one city, and in Sunderland unemployment is 7.5%. Does he agree that that is not only bad for HMRC services but devastating for the local area?

[John McDonnell]

I will use the example of Sunderland, because my hon. Friend has hit on a wider issue than just the impact on staff. HMRC plans to close Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, which are in the centre of Sunderland, and Weardale house next to the Washington Galleries. Some 300 staff from Sunderland and 200 staff from Washington could be moved to Waterside house, which is on an enterprise park outside the centre of town.

PCS asked staff at Gilbridge and Shackleton houses to keep track of their city centre expenditure for two weeks as a sample. They spent more than £22,000 across more than 100 businesses in that particular area. I have details of a survey that I would like to hand to the Minister after the debate, because it demonstrates the financial impact on a town centre of removing that number of staff. To a previous question on the union’s assessment that £600,000 would be lost each year, the Minister’s response was that that will be made up for when the buildings are let. Well, those buildings are not being let; the offices are being closed and not being replaced by firms that recruit and employ the same number of staff with the same spending power in a town centre.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that closing offices is a false and unfair economy, because it limits the opportunity for face-to-face discussion in settling complex tax matters, which now have to be decided by either calling a call centre, going online or writing?

[John McDonnell]

That is both frustrating for the person who is trying to identify what they should properly pay and counter-productive given the lost revenue to the HMRC.

[John Mann]

Has my hon. Friend considered the disproportionate impact of tax office closures on traditional market towns such as Retford? Where a significant number of staff are moved out and the offices are not re-let, the consequence is that other small businesses, newsagents, cafés and so on get into difficulties because part of their core lunch-time business disappears.

[John McDonnell]

It flies in the face of all the statements by this Government and previous Governments about moving staff out of London into the regions to boost regional economies. We now have a hokey-cokey, with staff being brought in as other staff are taken out. The result is not only instability but, through overall cuts in staff numbers, a depressing effect on local economies, as evidenced across the country where there have been closures.

The offices set to close by 2014-15 are: City Gate house in Leicester, where there are 124 staff; Pentland house, Livingston, with 220 staff; Crownhill court, Plymouth, with 76 staff; Wingfield house, Portsmouth, with 510 staff; Merrywalks house, Stroud, with 53 staff; Gilbridge and Shackleton houses, Sunderland, with 213 and 103 staff respectively; Truro with 49 staff; Weardale house, Washington, with 181 staff; Valiant house, Wembley, with 40 staff; and Lingate house, Wigan, with 69 staff. Those are enormous figures within a particular local economy. HMRC has also confirmed plans to shut nine offices in 2013-14 that were threatened with closure in September 2011, including one in Wick in northern Scotland that won a reprieve after a previous union campaign. Those offices are: Norfolk house, Bristol, with 213 staff; Norwich with 72 staff; St John’s house, Poole, with 67 staff; Somerset house, London, with 265 staff; Slough with 101 staff; Stockport with 415 staff; Twickenham with 51 staff; Quorum contact centre, Newcastle, with 647 staff; and Government buildings, Wick, with 17 staff.

More than 100 staff in Stockport have recently been offered voluntary redundancy as the office prepares to close, which means the loss of many staff with many years’ experience of administering the system and delivering customer services. We are losing staff with years of knowledge and experience. That is local knowledge of local tax collection policies and of where the local tax gap may be addressed.

I will not delay the Chamber too long, but I have an example of the contradictory nature of the whole affair, which is the closure of the Wick office. All 15 staff based at the office work in local compliance, or local tax collection. The total cost of commercial rent and staff comes to £494,475—I will offer the Minister my detailed brief afterwards if he so wishes. The total tax yield for the same period is £14 million. Each member of staff is responsible for bringing in close to £1 million in one tax year. The office, which we think has a realistic target of £20 million a year, is to close. To save £500,000, therefore, we lose £20 million as a result of the staff cuts. The Wick staff are all experienced and have used that experience gained over the years to be successful in their work. The loss of 15 jobs in Wick is equivalent, per head of population, to the loss of 17,000 jobs in London. There is a significant impact on the local economy, and that is repeated in area after area. The problem is that local office closures will mean new demands on call centres.

The transition to universal credit will bring added problems. The Government expect 80% of universal credit claimants to use online services, but it is likely that many of those people will not have internet access. In the absence of local offices, the next port of call will be the telephone service, on which the cost burden will fall ever more greatly as people are called on to fill out more detailed information in order to access benefits such as tax credits and employment and support allowance. That demonstrates the digital divide in our country and the divide between those who can access a local office and those who cannot. That is worrying.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned staff morale. Any manager would say that an organisation that deals with the general public, provides a public service and works in such a complex field needs committed, dedicated, well-trained and professional staff, which HMRC has built up over the years, and which both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise had before HMRC was formed from their merger. I still believe that HMRC staff want to work in an organisation that values them for that.

I warn the Minister and others here that staff morale in the organisation, as the media have described, is at rock bottom. Recent evidence in documents leaked from the department has confirmed that, and I have mentioned the recent survey in which only 18%—fewer than one in five—of staff felt that the organisation was well managed. Any manager in such an organisation will tell you that there are problems if staff morale is that low.

Industrial action has taken place in HMRC in recent years; in some areas, for the first time in the history of tax collection and administration arrangements in this country. Staff morale is low because of the continuing threat to jobs and terms and conditions, and of privatisation. It is wearing people down and undermining morale. Insecurity is ever present. Staff have suffered a pay freeze, pension cuts, job cuts and office closures, and now, as a result of Cabinet Office procedures, the department is reviewing all terms and conditions, including hours of work, leave, parental and special leave, child care, job sharing, flexitime and part-time working, all of which affect HMRC staff, many of whom are women with caring responsibilities whose arrangements are being destabilised as a result of the review.

The handling of the HMRC nursery closures was brutal and incompetent. HMRC announced on 23 August 2012 that it was to close eight workplace nurseries by November. The nurseries were in Blackburn, Cardiff, East Kilbride, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Salford and Wolverhampton. Parents were given just 12 weeks’ notice, and the decision was taken without any consultation with the trade unions. PCS led a campaign with the support of numerous Members, whom I thank, and one of my hon. Friends secured an Adjournment debate on the topic. HMRC agreed to keep the two biggest nurseries open until October 2015 and provide financial compensation for the carers and parents affected.

HMRC’s rationale for closing the nurseries was that it would be fairer to everyone to have the same level of child care provision, so it introduced a child care voucher scheme, taking no account of the financial or personal impact of the decision on staff. It raised serious concerns among staff about HMRC’s commitment to family-friendly policies. The organisation’s management have admitted that it was not their finest hour. It has certainly hit morale badly within the department.

The threat of privatisation is ongoing. All jobs are up for sale. What is most galling to HMRC staff and to us is that contracts are being handed out to corporations involved in large-scale tax avoidance. It is extraordinary. I raised the issue in the House some weeks ago, but I will run through the examples. Capgemini and Accenture, two IT companies with HMRC contracts, were both identified recently as having avoided paying tax. Capgemini, the lead contractor on the £8 billion Aspire contract, paid only £308,000—or less than 1%—in corporation tax last year on £38 million in profits. There is no justification for that happening in the first place, and certainly no justification for us feeding a tax avoider with Government contracts. Accenture, which has a £9.6 million contract with HMRC to supply technical support, managed to reduce its tax bill to 3.5%, paying only £2.8 million in tax on nearly £82 million in profits in Britain last year, yet we awarded it another contract.

To be fair, the last Government were to blame as well, and under them I raised the issue of the selling-off of the HMRC estate to Mapeley. HMRC now leases the buildings back. In 2010, NAO findings showed that if Mapeley, which is now part of the US offshore group Fortress Management Services, were based in Britain, the Treasury could expect to receive around £184 million in tax revenues. In fact, the company is expected to pay only £14 million on its lucrative HMRC contract. We have to learn some lessons. If nothing else, we must ensure that we do not provide tax avoiders with incentives by giving them Government contracts.

Many staff members and independent advisers have expressed the view that the general tax avoidance mechanisms that the Government are introducing will not give them the tools that they need to tackle tax avoidance. That needs a much wider debate than we have had so far in the House and elsewhere about the parameters, role and remit of the tax avoidance measures that the Government are introducing. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, that also includes simplification of the system.

Cut after cut has been made. Staffing cuts are undermining professionalism, reducing the number of local offices and creating low morale among staff. It all points to a key department labouring under intense pressure without the resources to cope. HMRC has been on the edge of a crisis for some time. I believe that Ministers have begun to become aware of it in recent months, but there are public fears about tax justice, and the Ministers responsible for HMRC must recognise that the department needs to be re-resourced. Staffing levels must be brought back up. A new sense of purpose and a new direction must be injected into the department. Staff must be re-motivated, and the threats of privatisation must end, as well as the cutbacks to terms and conditions that are impeding staff in undertaking their professional work.

All staff want is the chance to make their contribution by collecting taxes, enforcing legislation and advising us how to create a system that is fair, efficient and effective. They are professionals, and they should be treated as such. I hope that as a result of this debate, the Government will open a wider dialogue, particularly through the trade unions, especially PCS, about how HMRC will go forward, working with the grain of its staff’s professionalism and with their good will to turn the department around so that it can implement a fair and effective tax collection system.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it. He has taken a close interest in HMRC funding over a number of years. Although I did not agree with everything he said, I commend him for his consistency and the non-partisan way in which he has pursued this issue over many years with a willingness to criticise Governments of both descriptions.

Time may be short, but before addressing the points raised today, it will be helpful to set out some context by discussing the history of the resources available to HMRC over recent years and the results that it has managed to achieve with those resources.

As hon. Members will know, HMRC was formed a little under eight years ago by the merger of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. At that time, it was made up of around 100,000 staff. The previous Government sought efficiencies and, as a result, staff numbers fell by around 25,000 between 2005 and 2010. As part of that process, the number of staff engaged in compliance work also fell each year, and by 2010, about 10,000 staff had been lost in those important revenue-raising areas.

In 2010, as part of this Government’s first spending review, it was crucial that we recognised the dual role that HMRC would play in contributing to deficit reduction, through both cost reductions and, more significantly, collecting additional revenue by tackling tax avoidance and evasion—a point that several hon. Members raised this morning. Our priority was to ensure that HMRC delivered a service that would provide the best possible value for money to taxpayers. Consequently, we required HMRC to make 25% efficiencies to reduce its costs. We then agreed to reinvest a proportion of those efficiencies to tackle avoidance and evasion. The result was a net impact of overall savings over the spending review period of about 16% and a net reduction in overall staff numbers of about 10,000. I say “net” because in that figure is an actual increase of about 2,500 in the number of staff HMRC deployed on its compliance activities over the period.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister mentioned the impact. One of the points made by PCS, ARC and the ICAEW is that the impact assessments religiously fail properly to assess not only the implications for staff, but the cost to business and taxpayers overall. Will the Minister look at, and perhaps consult on, how such impact assessments are undertaken and how they can be improved?

[Mr Gauke]

I will indeed. I understand that the NAO will publish a report tomorrow on cost savings in HMRC and the way in which HMRC has proceeded. Time prevents me from running through in detail all the areas in which there have been savings, but it is worth pointing out that there have been significant savings of £74 million in the price paid for IT equipment and services, and savings in estate costs through vacating buildings. It is important that HMRC seeks savings, but it is also important that we raise the revenue. A number of hon. Members mentioned the tax gap.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) set the scene exceptionally well and went through all the points that have been reiterated by others.

I want to take up one point. I chair the cross- party parliamentary group of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents 50,000 of the 54,000 members of staff in HMRC—in other words, tax inspectors. I echo the simple point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon): if we want to collect the taxes, we need the staff to do it. If HMRC is to do that efficiently, it also needs those staff to have the appropriate skills and resources. I have raised that matter consistently on behalf of the PCS parliamentary group over the past decade, and particularly over the past seven years, as have other Members.

When HMRC was created by the merger of Customs and Excise and the Revenue, we had a debate in the House for which I think there were little more than half a dozen Members in the Chamber. However, there were staff cuts of 3,000 overnight, and a further 12,000 within six months. A process called the lean system was introduced, producing the first industrial action in the Inland Revenue’s existence, so there was an element of demoralisation.

In 2005 there were 97,000 staff in HMRC, and by 2015 there will be 55,000. The Government have recognised that further investment is needed, for which I am grateful. They have provided £900 million for reinvesting in tax collection and recently pledged another £77 million over the next two years on top of that, but that does not make up for the £3 billion of cuts in the October 2010 statement. That means that there will be another 10,000 jobs cut from HMRC by 2015, which is ludicrous and completely counter-productive.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton made the point about how much each tax inspector brings in in proportion to their salary. The cuts and tax office closures seem to be undermining the very system that we want to make effective in delivering the tax that we need and tackling the scandals that have occurred. There is also real anxiety about the use of private companies in the tax collection system, which the Government have developed. I urge the Government to rethink the whole process of investment in HMRC for the long-term future. It has lost staff and is losing skills, which is undermining its ability to undertake the work that we ask it to do.

The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned the awarding of contracts to companies that we then discover avoid their taxes. I raised that matter under the previous Government. I found it bizarre when the private finance initiative scheme was introduced and the Inland Revenue offices were sold off to Mapeley, and then leased back from that company, only for us to discover that it was using a tax haven and not paying tax itself.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Capgemini. Let us get on the record what has happened in that case. Capgemini and Accenture are the two IT companies with which HMRC has contracts, and both were recently identified as avoiding tax themselves. Capgemini, the lead contractor on the £8 billion Aspire contract, paid only £308,000 of corporation tax last year on £38 million of profits—less than 1%. That company is employed by HMRC but avoids the tax that HMRC seeks to use it to collect. It is extraordinary. Accenture, which has a £9.6 million contract with HMRC to supply technical support, managed to reduce its tax bill to 3.5%, paying only £2.8 million in tax on nearly £82 million of profits in Britain last year. It was employed by HMRC and awarded a massive contract, and then used those resources to avoid paying tax. You couldn’t make it up, but it is happening regularly. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government should introduce some principle to ensure that when we award contracts to such companies, we are at least confident that they are not in the tax avoidance business.

We need to ensure that the staff of HMRC have the tools to collect tax effectively. As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) said, we cannot criticise others if the House itself does not fulfil its own responsibility of ensuring that we have effective legislation that the staff can use to collect tax. That is why we should listen to the experts—the HMRC tax inspectors—when they advise that the Government’s proposed general anti-abuse rule will not be effective and instead advise support for the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton to introduce a general anti-avoidance principle. Their view is that we need to return at least partly to the Ramsay principle, which was a decision of the Lords in 1982, overturned in 2001, that at least led to some commitment to the anti-avoidance principle in law. It laid a duty upon directors to abide by that principle.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said that we should not drag this into being a moral issue, but it is a moral issue. When my constituents pay their taxes in the pay-as-you-earn system, they expect others to make their fair contribution as well, yet the Public Accounts Committee has effectively exposed scandal after scandal. I understand why UK Uncut is occupying premises and taking direct action. That is the only way to publicise what companies are doing.

We have been at this for a number of years in the House. I hosted what I think was the first meeting in the House with Richard Murphy and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network, when the issue was not particularly popular. It became popular and had resonance when UK Uncut took direct action. We have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure that the balance is redressed, by providing resources for HMRC and putting in place appropriate legislation so that it becomes effective as a tax collector once again.

Public Service Pensions Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Part of the concern and need to write such provisions into the Bill comes from the fact that no one predicted clause 3. It has been described as a Henry VIII clause, as it gives sweeping powers to Ministers to legislate on schemes through statutory instruments or even retrospectively.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I fear that we are straying slightly from new clause 3 and the group of amendments, but I believe that the Government’s economic strategy is right. It is a judgment call, but one that I believe has been proven right by the fact that the Government’s borrowing cost for 10-year bonds, as they seek to fund the deficit, which has been reduced by a quarter over the last two and a half years, is 1.8%. That is a tribute to the difficult judgments Treasury Ministers have made, and they should be given credit for their achievements. As a consequence, however, there have had to be increases in the contribution rates of active members of public service pension schemes. In addition, Lord Hutton believes that even if there was not a deficit, major reform of public service pensions would still be needed, if they are to be sustainable in the long run.

The Government’s commitment to sustainable public finances is of more concrete value than a proposal from a party with a track record of undermining the public finances. Ultimately, in a pay-as-you-go public service pension scheme, the quality and assurance that members want will depend on the ability of the Government to maintain stable public finances.

[John McDonnell]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: amendments 4, 7 and 8.

Throughout the progress of the Bill, I have tabled a series of amendments with a central thrust—the same one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—which is about trust. The amendments would ensure that at each stage and for each grouping, there would be full consultation with and the full involvement of representatives of employees and scheme members. I apologise: I should have declared an interest as a member of the local government pension scheme. Nevertheless, each amendment would address the issue of confidence and secure a recognition, as promised by the Government, that employees will be fully consulted and represented and kept fully informed of changes to their pension schemes, which has not been the case up to now.

It is worth remembering that the pension deal was not a deal for a large number of unions; for more than 1 million workers, it was imposed. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, the National Union of Teachers, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Prison Officers Association, the University and College Union and Unite did not agree to the deal or the heads of agreement; instead, the deal was imposed upon them. There is deep scepticism amongst workers, and if Government Members do not recognise that, they are not living in the real world, or encountering the same constituents I am, or receiving the letters I get from police officers, teachers and local government workers across the piece.

Even organisations that signed up to the heads of the deal are now expressing concerns. The British Medical Association, whose briefing Members will have received, thought it had signed up to an assurance from the Government, which I remember being made, that there would be a 25-year guarantee of no change around a number of protected issues. The Government said:

“This means that no changes to scheme design, benefits or contribution rates should be necessary for 25 years outside of the processes agreed for the cost cap. To give substance to this, the Government intends to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming Public Service Pensions Bill to ensure a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will also give a commitment to Parliament of no more reform for 25 years.”

Yet clause 3, described in briefings by the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and others as a Henry VIII clause, gives extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State to return to these issues, introduce further reforms and make fairly significant changes through statutory instruments, not primary legislation to be debated in the House. Consequently, there is a lack of confidence in the words of Ministers, particularly given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said, those words are contradictory, not just across Government, but within the same Department. It is extraordinary.

Others also signed the deal. The RCN wrote to us explaining its concerns:

“Clause 3(3) is a Henry VIII clause which enables the Government to amend the Act at a later date through the use of secondary legislation. The RCN is concerned that, as a result, the Bill gives powers to the UK Government to amend and make retrospective provisions to any other related legislation without sufficient member consultation or scrutiny by Parliament.”

I also received a letter from Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which also signed up to the deal. She wrote:

“As you may know, the ATL accepted the Government’s proposed final agreement on changes to the teachers pension scheme as the best that could be achieved through negotiations. We now find the Bill contains additional elements that go beyond what was agreed in March 2012 and believe that the proposed changes could adversely and unfairly affect the quality of education that the nation’s children receive in our schools.”

[Andy Sawford]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern among police officers, highlighted last week in an excellent Westminster Hall debate led by our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)? Many police officers feel that the arrangements they have made for their later life and approach to retirement—for doing things such as helping their children to get into housing or paying their university fees—have been completely undermined by changes that have pulled the rug from under them right at the end of their working life, after they have made an incredible contribution to keeping our communities safe. It is those kinds of people we must think about today as we make these changes. As my hon. Friend says, we must give them much greater confidence and assurance.

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur with my hon. Friend. I received—perhaps he did too—an e-mail from Inspector Nick Smart, who wrote:

“I am a serving police inspector in West Yorkshire of 17 years. I am about to see my life plans thrown into chaos with the proposed pension changes, with my retirement age extended by at least two years plus a 20% cut in my lump sum—about £40,000—and a significantly worse annual pension.”

It is no wonder that people are demoralised and do not trust the Government. They thought there was at least a 25-year guarantee, but we now know that that is not the case, because the Government are giving themselves the power to change schemes at will in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, will be aware of the indication that teachers will be asked to pay 50% of their contributions up until 2015, and they are not even safeguarded beyond 2015. Does he agree that, if the Government are not careful, they will create a breeding ground for discontent among teachers?

[John McDonnell]

Exactly, but I think it is across the piece. Whether or not we agreed with the last negotiations, or whether they were imposed or signed up to, at least some people felt there was some security for the future. People are becoming demoralised, which is why it is important that we insert in the Bill provisions for full consultation and agreement with organisations representing employees and for full openness and transparency. That is why new clause 3, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, is critical. As has been said, at least in the private sector there is full display and transparency in what people sign up to, but there is no display or transparency in the public sector, particularly now that the Government have given themselves these powers.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given the comments about the police pension scheme, I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands the wish of the Scottish Police Federation that police pensions be controlled independently in Scotland. For England and Wales, however, does he feel that in future Governments should act more morally in relation to the terms of agreements that were made years before and under which police officers expect to retire, while also understanding, of course, that in Scotland they want clear of the system?

[John McDonnell]

I can fully understand the feelings of police officers in Scotland, as I can those of officers across England and Wales. People now just want safety and security in their pensions, which are theirs—they have paid for them and contributed to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench, they are nothing more than deferred wages.

[Richard Fuller]

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is absolutely right that firefighters, prison workers, doctors and nurses contribute to their pensions, but so do taxpayers. Indeed, a considerable amount of most public pensions is paid for by the taxpayer. If he wishes to push the point about certainty, does he agree that the Government should have considered a fully funded pension scheme, rather than rely on future taxpayers to pay for future pensions, with all the uncertainty about whether they will be able to afford it? Should the Government not have grasped the nettle and gone for a fully funded pension scheme now?

[John McDonnell]

The local government scheme is fully funded, yet the Government seek to interfere with that, too. If we are to open up the debate, let us do so; however, the Government seem to be making piecemeal reforms for their own economic objectives and then not even standing by them. The problem is the uncertainty.

Let me turn to the detail of amendment 4. As those of us who have been involved in pension negotiations will know, one of the most important elements is ensuring that the valuation process is right, because that is what determines not just the future payouts from the scheme, but its future security; there are also probity issues. I am concerned that the legislation as drafted would give no role to employees or their representatives in the revaluation system. My amendment 4 is a mild-mannered amendment to provide that the valuation report should be sent not just to the scheme manager and the employer, but to the employees’ representatives. That would promote at least some openness and transparency, which might reassure participants in the scheme.

Few pension decisions are more important to employees than the contribution levels, which stem from the valuation process. We have seen a unilateral change in contribution rates, which I think, to be frank, will deter many people from participating in those schemes and may throw the long-term future of those schemes into jeopardy. If there has been a valuation, the report should be sent to the employees’ representatives. It should be open and transparent, and it should then be possible to have a discussion about the valuation. That is what amendment 4 seeks to do. It simply says that the report should be sent not just to the scheme manager, but to the employee representatives, and that the terms of the revaluation should be mutually agreed. It is simply about participation.

[Richard Fuller]

Would the hon. Gentleman, like me, put this issue in the same area as transparency and giving information to people in pension schemes, which will help people to make better judgments? Just as we heard when new clause 2 was being moved, the provision of information about what is in their pension or how that is assessed helps people to make rational decisions.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. There has to be openness and transparency. The point has already been made, but some of us will now have to go out there and campaign to keep people in these schemes. The way to do that is by having openness and transparency about what they are paying in, the benefits being made and, I agree, the overall contribution made by taxpayers.

I fear for the future. We have seen the Fire Brigades Union survey of what would happen if there were increases in pension contributions to those workers’ scheme and also a reduction in benefits. Some 30% told the survey that they would question whether they wished to continue in the scheme. A 30% withdrawal rate would undermine some of those schemes. That is why openness and transparency are important. One of the key areas for openness and transparency is in the valuation process, with the terminology and methodology agreed with the employee representatives, so that they have confidence that the process is being conducted fairly, openly and, to be frank, professionally. In addition, once the revaluation is done, the report should be provided to the employee representatives. I can see nothing in that with which the Government could disagree.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us might well have to campaign to ensure that people invest in and stick with these schemes, but even if we get valuation and transparency right, is there not a “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza” syndrome with these Henry VIII powers? People will say, “You can say all that, but you can’t promise that it will be so when I reach pension age.”

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. What concerns me is that the Henry VIII powers in clause 3 are retrospective. This is another reason why the valuation process is so critical: if there is not full openness, transparency and consultation, in particular with employee representatives, the Government could in future use the valuation process to withdraw some of the benefits of the scheme or increase the contributions retrospectively. People can sign up to a scheme and pay into it for 20 years, but then be told that the benefits are different—although I think that will be tested in law, because I believe that legally we are talking about accrued rights that are protected under European legislation. The Government do not accept that argument, but it is a critical point. That is why I have tabled my amendments. The Government underestimate the anxiety and fears out there—particularly among trade unions, but also in other organisations—which arise from the lack of confidence in the future management of the schemes in the best interests of employees and members.

Let me turn to my amendments 7 and 8. The Government’s reform was meant to change the nature of the schemes, so that they would be based on career averages, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench. However, that is for a defined benefit scheme, not a defined contribution scheme, yet the Government have not committed themselves to that in the legislation. That is why I have tabled amendments 7 and 8, so that where a scheme is rearranged or staff are transferred into a new scheme, they must be defined benefit schemes, because that is what was promised in the negotiations with the trade unions. It is argued that we are binding future Governments, but all legislation is meant to bind future Governments, and any future Government could revisit this matter. At the same time, we need to try to give at least some security and ensure that the promises given by the present Government are adhered to. That is not much to ask, and it is all my amendments are designed to do.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on the issue: insecurity for future pensioners. That, combined with ever-growing inequality in our society and the economic multipliers that we might see operating, means that people who are now living quite comfortably might be facing penury in their old age, due to the root insecurity at the base of this Bill, which he is doing a good job of exposing.

[John McDonnell]

In part, this is linked to other reforms that the Government are introducing—my hon. Friend the shadow Minister touched on this. Where changes have been made to the delivery of public services—some of this relates to outsourcing, reorganising government or delivering direct services through new Government agencies or public bodies—people understood that there would be a commitment from the Government that they would be transferred into the same scheme they are in now, which would be a defined benefit scheme. That is not in this Bill, which is why I have tabled my amendments.

The amendments put the onus on whatever bodies are established—non-departmental public bodies or whatever—to ensure that they offer a defined benefit scheme. If they do not, they are breaking the commitment that the Government gave. In addition, it will create a disincentive. When staff transfer, they transfer into the new scheme that will be established. Many people now in a defined benefit scheme—whatever its nature, whether final or average salary, although we are moving towards average salary—fear that if at some stage they move, they will be offered only a defined contribution scheme. That is why I want more certainty in the legislation. The amendments propose that whatever happens in the future, whatever restructuring the Government bring in and whatever new schemes are established, the Government will adhere to their promise that there must be a defined benefit scheme. I do not want to be cataclysmic about this, but if that does not happen, the legislation could undermine the whole provision of public service pensions. People could start to withdraw from the schemes because they did not have the certainty that they thought they had when they entered them.

The amendments might seem relatively minor, but they are absolutely key. If we do not bring the employees with us, if we do not consult their representatives, if we do not involve them in the valuation process and if we do not stand by the guarantee of a defined benefit scheme that they have been given, we will break down people’s confidence in the public sector pensions system overall, and we will certainly break down their confidence in this Government’s ability to adhere to their promises. This is not the 25-year guarantee of no further reform that we were given from the Dispatch Box only a matter of weeks ago.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He and I have been circling around issues of local government finance and pensions for—

[John McDonnell]

For more years than I can remember.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I have not seen all that correspondence, but to my knowledge the Scottish Government have not asked for any such amendments.

On amendment 12, I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the defined benefit structure of the new schemes. I would hate to think that the hon. Member for Nottingham East is unaware of the 85,000 or so public service workers who are already members of the current career average schemes. His amendment, which he says is designed to reassure public service workers about the nature of their pensions, refers only to final salary schemes. I can reassure all public sector workers, including those currently in career average schemes, that the Government are fully committed to implementing the defined benefit schemes that have been negotiated. I assure the House, just as I assured the Committee, that the Government have no intention of replacing these defined benefit schemes with different types of scheme designs.

There is no secret plot here. We have spent a long time in discussions with trade unions and member representatives to get where we are today. It would be foolhardy to throw away 18 months of work and do something entirely different. We do not intend to move away from defined benefit schemes in public services. Defined contribution schemes would not be the right kind of pension provision for many public servants.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister therefore meet with the War Graves Commission, because that looks as if it is planning to move from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme?

[Sajid Javid]

If the commission would like to have a meeting with me, I would be happy to do so.

However, we must not vilify defined contribution schemes either. There might be a small group of individuals who consider that their needs are better served by defined contribution schemes—for example, those spending a short time in public service roles who would prefer to use their employer contributions to maintain their existing defined contribution schemes. Approximately 7,000 people are already in that type of scheme by choice. There is nothing wrong with giving people such a choice. The Government believe that clause 7 already provides the right powers to allow the new defined benefit schemes to be set up while allowing alternatives types of scheme for those who want them.

I turn to amendments 19 to 28 to clause 16. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East and others in Committee and this afternoon. We have provided reassurances on some of those concerns in correspondence. I hope that all hon. Members are now assured that the effect of the clause will not be to crystallise liabilities or to wind up any of the funded schemes. The amendments highlight those issues over which there are lingering doubts. As the hon. Gentleman set out, those relate to the extent and effect of the closure of the current schemes and the dates on which the changeover will take place.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and hope that I can provide further such reassurance on the clause this afternoon.

Amendments 19 to 21 seek to provide that the reforms are made by replacing the existing regulations. The scheme regulations made under the Bill would therefore have to provide for both accrued rights and new service, which we do not believe is sensible. The hon. Member for Nottingham East has expressed concerns that the Bill, as drafted, could create two separate schemes and that that could create extra costs. The Local Government Association has further clarified its outstanding concern that members of existing schemes are treated as deferred members of the existing schemes when the new schemes are introduced. That is not our intention. We will look closely at that, with the Local Government Association and others, to see whether any changes are desirable or needed to put that beyond doubt.

With regard to amendments 22 to 28, the purpose of clause 16 is to prevent benefits from being provided under existing terms in respect of a member’s service after the schemes are reformed. It closes the existing schemes, but only by closing them to future accrual. Clauses 4 and 5 already provide for existing and new arrangements for each work force to be managed and administered together. The old and new schemes will be administered by the same scheme manager, who will be assisted by the same pension board. From a member’s perspective, the transition between their old and new pension rights and the administration of their pensions will be seamless.

The dates proposed in amendments 21 and 22 do not fit with the dates agreed for the reform of the schemes: 1 April 2014 for the local government schemes in England and Wales and 1 April 2015 for the other public service pension schemes. I appreciate that the date set out in clause 16(4)(b) might also look a little odd. It allows schemes that want to reform at the start of the public sector’s financial year—1 April—to do so while leaving the option open to make reforms at the start of the tax year instead.

Although I remain convinced that the Bill will deliver what we want, I am aware that others believe that the dates are confusing. It is a concern that I will continue to consider. I regret to say that we cannot accept these amendments, because I am afraid that they would not work. However, they are clearly well intentioned and we can see what they are trying to achieve. As I said in Committee, we will continue to work through the outstanding concerns. I will reflect further on the amendments and we might return to the matter in the other place.

I turn now to amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and others. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment; its purpose is clear but the practical effects would be fraught with problems. First, in England and Wales the appointed person will be reviewing the valuation and employer contribution rates of 89 separate pension funds. The appointed person will not know who the employee representatives are for each of those funds. The clause already requires the appointed person’s report to be published. That is the appropriate course of action. We envisage that the appointed person will publish a single report covering each and every one of the local authority funds. The Bill rightly requires that a copy is sent to the relevant authority and to the scheme managers, because those persons might need to take action as a result of the report.

If the appointed person identifies a problem in a pension fund, under the Bill the scheme manager would be required to take remedial action. The Bill also allows the relevant authority to intervene if necessary. However, members and their representatives will not need to take any action. The management of local authority pension funds needs to be more transparent, and the clause achieves that. The information will be published and members, local authority residents, Parliament and others will be able to see and consider it. The amendment would add no value, but it would create unnecessary costs and burdens.

I will now speak to amendments 7 and 8. I have already reassured the House that the Government have no intention of replacing the current defined benefit schemes with different scheme designs. Clause 7 allows the necessary flexibility for future Parliaments and pension scheme members to decide on the most appropriate pension scheme design for future generations of public service workers in the largest schemes. Clause 28 allows the same flexibility for the smaller public body schemes made under clause 28(7) or other powers. The Government expect that in most cases employees of the bodies listed in schedule 10 will join the reformed civil service pension scheme and have the same choice that civil servants have now: whether to join a defined benefit or a defined contribution scheme. The amendments would deny the employees of the other public bodies listed in schedule 10 that choice.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister, as ever, is being generous with his time. On amendments 7 and 8, his response will have a chilling effect for trade unions representing members across the piece, because the Government are not adhering to the direction of travel indicated in their assurances on the 25-year guarantee—that we were moving to defined benefit, not defined contribution schemes. Will the Government at least monitor the process and report back to the House, because I do not think that it is their will—it is certainly not the will they have displayed up to now—that there should be a flourishing of defined contribution schemes which would undermine defined benefit schemes?

[Sajid Javid]

I hope that I have made the Government’s commitment to defined benefit schemes very clear; I do not think I can make it any clearer than I have already from the Dispatch Box today. That commitment clearly has not changed.

Finally, on amendment 32, I am confident that the Scottish Government can achieve the 2015 timetable. Even more importantly, I have no reason to believe that the Scottish Government share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). The Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, Mr John Swinney, has not requested that the Bill be amended to allow for a delay for implementation in Scotland. Indeed, such a delay would disadvantage lower and middle-income public service workers, who often benefit from a move to career average schemes. Furthermore, a delay in implementing the reforms would result in additional liabilities being built up in those schemes. These additional costs, running to hundreds of millions of pounds, would have to be paid for through the Scottish budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Let me follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has just said, which relates to the previous debate. The running theme is trust. Every one of the trade union organisations that signed up to the deal or had it imposed upon them in the pensions dispute has expressed reservations about clause 3. That is why amendment 10 from our Front-Bench team seeks to address that matter.

The logic is fairly straightforward, but let us get it on the record again. The Government promised a 25-year deal—a once-in-a-generation commitment that there would be no further reform of public sector pensions and that this would be guaranteed in legislation. However, clause 3—we had a discussion earlier about Henry VIII clauses—gives the Government extremely wide-ranging discretion, through the use of statutory instruments and all forms of delegated legislation, which, more importantly, includes the discretion to act retrospectively on what are clearly accrued pension rights over a long period. The saving grace, as presented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was that the same protection would be written into this Bill as is in the Superannuation Act 1972—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said—which is that no changes would be made without the consent of the employees’ representatives. Again, that provision, which was promised, is not in the Bill.

What we now have in the Bill is the exercise of discretion, which breaks the commitment of the 25-year guarantee and does not even go as far as past legislative protection. The argument is that in future the Government will need the flexibility to introduce minor changes in legislation, without being impeded from making minor reforms or tidying things up. However, minor reforms or measures to tidy up the legislation—to reflect changed circumstances or change minor details of a scheme or pension arrangements—should be introduced by consent. Unions have never withheld that consent in past discussions about minor changes in pension provision. That has been the nature of the relationship between the Government and employee representatives up until now. This Bill breaks all that and undermines confidence not just in the Government’s commitments to date, but in their good will on this matter for the long term.

My amendments 3, 5 and 34 relate to exactly the same issue of trust. I am trying in some way to establish further transparency and openness in the management of the future pension schemes that will be established. Amendment 3 relates to valuations, which we discussed in the previous batch of amendments. As I have said, valuations are critical to all those involved in a pension scheme, and certainly to employees who have contributed over the years. They will want to ensure that the valuation is done effectively, on professional terms and with their agreement. That is why my amendment 3 would amend subsection (3)(c) of clause 10, which deals with valuations. As set out in subsections (3)(a) to (3)(f), the Treasury directions under which valuations will take place will include

“how and when a valuation is to be carried out”

and

“the time in relation to which a valuation is to be carried out”

but more importantly,

“the data, methodology and assumptions to be used in a valuation”.

If we are to have real employee participation in a scheme, which involves the management of their money—their deferred pay—it is critical that they are fully involved in the valuation process and therefore that they are consulted and agree to the data, methodology and assumptions to be used. Otherwise, we will yet again undermine members’ confidence in the process of evaluating their own schemes. I do not understand why that is not in the legislation throughout. I hope that the Minister can assure us either that I have missed the mention of full employee involvement in the Bill or that he is willing to amend it accordingly.

Let me turn to my amendments 5 and 34. Again, I just do not understand the drafting of the Bill. These proposals refer to the consultations that will be undertaken before scheme regulations are made. Again, this might seem like an esoteric point, but the scheme regulations are critical because they will determine the nature of the scheme under which the funds will be managed, contributions will be made and benefits will be paid. It is therefore critical that the regulations should be made following full consultation.

In legislation of this kind, when consultations take place and schemes are drafted that are likely to affect their members, the form of words that is normally used includes

“with a view to reaching agreement”.

That intention is always set out in the legislation. Indeed, those exact words are used in clauses 20 and 22 of this Bill. Clause 20(2) states:

“The responsible authority must…consult the persons specified in subsection (3) with a view to reaching agreement with them”.

My amendment 5 would simply put that form of words into clause 19, so that when consultation took place, it would be done with the intent of reaching agreement. I do not understand why it was deleted from that clause in the first place. This is just another way of seeking to reassure the employees, the members of the pension schemes, that they will be fully involved in the process, and that the aim, in introducing any changes to the scheme, is to reach agreement and secure their consent whenever possible. This is not a contentious matter.

I have also tabled amendment 34. An assurance has been given that there will be no further changes for a generation, or 25 years, that new schemes will come into force and that the vast bulk of them will, we hope, be defined benefit schemes, but the whole process involves the security of the elements of the schemes that the Government have guaranteed not to change. Those arrangements must be secured by agreement in the future. If those protected areas of the schemes, which the Government have until now guaranteed, are to change, there should not just be consultation with the employee representatives; there should be consultation with a view to reaching agreement. That consultation should have to secure that agreement. That would give the employees, the members of the pension scheme, the protection that they need, and the reassurance that nothing would be done to those protected areas of their pension without their agreement. Those areas include contributions and benefits.

The whole ethos of the Bill fails to recognise that pensions are not solely in the ownership of the Government or the employing organisation, and that they are paid for by the employees over the years. Those who have paid into the schemes should therefore have a role in managing them. It is interesting that the Bill does not mention the representation of employees on the pension boards that are to be established. We should at least have a proper consultation process, and that process should involve some security that any changes, particularly to those guaranteed areas, should be achieved by agreement.

I do not know of any other walk of life in which people contribute towards the funding of an organisation or a benefit without having a role to play in the management of it, or at least in the direction of policy. The Government are saying in the Bill that those who have paid vast sums into their pensions should have no say, no role and no entitlement to have their views sought or to have agreement reached. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the amendments and send out a message to the trade unions that represent the members of the pension schemes that yes, they do recognise their rights and they do want them to be fully involved. That full involvement would reassure those members of the Government’s good will and willingness to adhere to their commitment to a 25-year guarantee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

If the shadow Minister will allow me to continue my comments on this important issue, I shall, I hope, be able to give him some reassurance, but first I want to explain the reasons for the Government’s approach.

Since the courts could set aside unlawful scheme regulations, responsible authorities have strong reasons to respect pension protection rights.

There is a third reason for our approach. In order to provide the statutory protections that underpin our commitment on accrued rights, the Bill establishes a common set of member consent and consultation requirements. In the case of the new schemes set up under the Bill, any change in scheme regulations will require a prior, statutory consultation with all who are likely to be affected, or with their representatives.

Clause 20 provides that if any changes are made that could have “significant adverse effects” on members, consultation must be conducted with a view to the reaching of an agreement, and preceded by a report to Parliament or the relevant legislature. Any such changes will require explicit approval by that legislature under the affirmative procedure. They cannot simply be nodded through under the nose of Parliament. Taken together, the rule of law and the specific provisions in the Bill should give members the strong reassurance that there is already a very high hurdle against unlawful interference with pension benefits that have been built up.

As I have said, this is an important issue, and we must get it right. We are adamant that the application of universal consent locks is not an avenue that we intend to investigate. As a matter of principle, we do not believe that members, employers or anyone else should be given a ticket unreasonably to hold each other, or the Government, to ransom and to inhibit changes that are for the greater good. The Government feel strongly that it is right to prevent that scenario from occurring in the future, and that is why we cannot support the amendment.

Most retrospective changes in accrued rights are either minor and technical, or in the interests of the vast majority of scheme members. As I have said, however, it is vital that we strike the appropriate balance between member protections and the efficient operation of public service schemes. Although I firmly believe that the provisions in the Bill achieve that balance, I can tell the House that the Government do not have a closed mind on this serious issue, which has been raised thoughtfully by Members on both sides of the House, both today and in Committee. I can only reiterate that we are listening and do not have a closed mind. I am sure that the issue will be discussed in the other place, and we shall listen carefully then as well. I hope that, in the light of the reassurances that I have tried to give, the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Amendment 3 would place a statutory requirement on the Government to seek the agreement of employee representatives when the data, methodology and assumptions to be used in pension scheme valuations is set. I agree that we must get those elements of the valuations right. We must be sure that a valuation accurately calculates the scheme’s costs. I understand that Members want to be certain that the Government will honour their commitment to ensure that stakeholders are involved in the process, and I can tell the House that they will be so involved.

I believe that the amendment is both unnecessary and unworkable. It is unnecessary because we have already made it clear that the Government will engage with stakeholders over the directions on valuations. Transparency and consultation are extremely important principles, and it is important for everyone to have a say in how the valuation process works, but that does not mean that we will allow the whole process to be stymied by a very small group of people. That would hardly be democratic, let alone a rational way in which to proceed, and it would mean that the employer contributions would not be set at the correct rate. I am sure that that was not the intention of Members when they tabled these amendments, but we think it right for discussions about the valuation process to take place within the normal scheme governance procedures. I am also sure that in the normal course of events the vast majority of the discussions will prove to be sensible and constructive, resulting in broad consensus between all parties. I hope Opposition Members recognise that if the worst happens and the talks break down without a full meeting of minds, it is important that, where necessary, the Government can make the final decisions.

On amendment 5, I understand why Opposition Members want to ensure there is meaningful consultation with scheme members before scheme regulations are made, and clause 19 requires precisely that. All scheme consultations on regulations will be conducted in line with the Government’s consultation principles, as set out by the Cabinet Office. As they make clear, the Government are committed to consulting on our proposals and to ensuring consultations are carried out proportionately. Clause 19 as currently drafted provides for a good and comprehensive consultation standard. It also recognises the genuine interests of the members and employers in how their scheme is run.

The clause ensures that whenever a change is proposed to the scheme regulations, the responsible authority must consult everyone whom the authority considers to be affected. Since this will be a statutory consultation, the authority must set out clearly on each occasion the matters on which it is consulting. It must provide enough information and time to allow for considered responses. The authority also needs to keep an open mind until the consultation has closed, and must give fair and proper consideration to those responses before making its final decision. It is worth setting all of that out in detail in order to reassure those who might feel clause 19 does not provide for meaningful consultation; on the contrary, it does precisely that.

Moreover, there are many reasons why the Government may wish to consult scheme members and other stakeholders when making scheme regulations. In many cases the Government will consult with a view to reaching an agreement for proposed changes. Clause 19 as drafted does not prevent that. As the Government have made clear, the enhanced consultation standard should apply to some elements of the scheme, and they are specified in clause 20. It is not necessary to extend this provision to cover every other possible element of scheme design.

[John McDonnell]

I am not trying to be obstreperous, but in a former life I drafted this stuff, so I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary clarified why the phrase

“with a view to reaching agreement”

is in clause 20 but not in clause 19, because I consider the scheme regulations and the aspects addressed in clause 20 to be of equal importance?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman has approached this issue in a very thoughtful way. We consider that the high hurdle of

“with a view to reaching agreement”

should not apply to every scheme change that might need to be made. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a different view about when it should apply, but I think I have made the Government’s case clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I have great sympathy with many of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made. He has tabled a series of amendments and has highlighted a couple of appropriate points. He seeks to pin down what happens in respect of changes that affect data, methodology, assumptions and valuations. Those are the long-grass details that many people often put in the box marked, “Too difficult to handle”. However, it is really important that people realise that a tweak here or a change there to the way in which some pension metrics are defined can seriously affect the retirement incomes of hard-working public sector employees, so he is right to shine a bit of a spotlight on those areas. I am not necessarily sure about his drafting, but he has brought an important proposition to the House’s attention. Similarly, he raised some issues we debated in Committee, such as why certain parts of the Bill talk about consultation being done in the way that many of our constituents have become used to—as a cynical box-ticking exercise. There is consultation, but most people have, sadly, grown used to the notion that consultation in that context means a form being sent out that they can send back if they want to, which Ministers will just ignore when it comes back.

Ministers then say that they will have a special enhanced consultation process, which means that it is done with a view to reaching agreement. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed out, even in an enhanced consultation process there is no guarantee that agreement will be reached. It is difficult to know how anybody participating in that consultation would enforce the process, but that consultation is the so-called protection in the protected elements of the Bill. In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is debunking a lot of the differentiation between consultation and enhanced consultation.

[John McDonnell]

I have not seen this before, but we now have two types of consultation. The first is, “We’re consulting you because we hope you agree with us,” and the other is, “ We’re consulting you but we couldn’t care what you say to us.” Amendment 34 is simply trying to protect the Government, so that they can demonstrate that they are adhering to their promised level of consultation.

[Chris Leslie]

I suppose it is a case of diet consultation—or consultation-lite—versus full-fat consultation, which I know that my hon. Friend would be far more keen to see. I think he has done the House a service by casting some light on those issues, but I hope he will forgive me if I focus mostly on amendment 10 and the issue of retrospectivity, which is, ultimately, to me one of the worst aspects of the Bill.

I am glad that the Minister said that the Government have an open mind on retrospectivity—at least, he said that they do not have a closed mind, which is a similar thing. We hope for great things in the other place when the question is considered. He gave a set of reasons: a court might come along and set aside scheme regulations or there might be technical reasons for raiding people’s accrued savings and pension benefits retrospectively. I must say to the Minister, however, that when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—for it was he—promised “No ifs, no buts” and said that he did not want that retrospectivity, not to have put that particular provision clearly and explicitly in the Bill is a major failing that will leave many employees with a sour taste in their mouths. They want some pretty basic protections to stop the notion of clawback and the ability of Ministers to sequester savings that they thought were safe—the deferred wages they have set aside for their long-term well-being.

We need to ensure that we focus on the confidence of employees in the scheme, as this is their property too, as my hon. Friend pointed out. It is not just the preserve of the Government; they are not simply giving out a pension as though it were a state pension scheme or however they wish to characterise it. These pensions are a joint endeavour between employees and employers and that is why we have said that the Superannuation Act 1972 protections need to be transposed into the Bill. The provision, derived from that Act, states:

“Scheme regulations shall not make any provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity, insofar as that amount is directly or indirectly referable to rights which have accrued”.

The protection we need is very straightforward and we wanted to put it into our amendment. The Minister needs to go back and think about this again, as it is a signal issue that is at the core of the trust we need to have in the scheme. We want the scheme to work and we want members to stick with it and not opt out, but they need to know that their money and their savings are safe. That is why I would like to test the opinion of the House on amendment 10 by pressing it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Other Members want to contribute to the debate, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He might have an opportunity to speak later.

If we are to change the retirement age for the careers in question, we must undertake those physical tests as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who is of a similar age to me, has said that he is going to do the police test, and I have agreed that I will do the firefighter test. I reiterate his challenge to the shadow Minister and to the Minister, both of whom are at least a decade younger than us, to sign up to do those tests if we are to proceed with the Bill at the end of Third Reading. I would be very grateful to hear them accept that challenge, and indeed to hear the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), do so.

[John McDonnell]

I wish to speak in support of amendments 1, 2 and 9. Amendment 2 is straightforward: it seeks to ensure that people are not forced to retire beyond the age of 65, as most of our work force have planned to retire then. On the argument that the amendment is unaffordable, let me remind hon. Members of what Hutton said about the 2007-08 changes. He said that they are likely to reduce costs to taxpayers of the pension schemes by £67 billion over 50 years, with costs stabilising at around 1% of GDP or 2% of public expenditure.

The other issue involved here is what our priorities are. The last figure I had for how much the unfunded public sector pension schemes were costing us was for 2009-10, when it was less than £4 billion. Some 60% of gross tax relief on pensions goes to higher rate taxpayers—that is £22 billion. The cost of providing tax relief to the 1% of our population who earn more than £150,000 was double the amount we are funding with regard to the public sector unfunded pensions—that is £8 billion. So the fact that we are willing to subsidise the higher paid—the rich—while forcing others to work longer and cutting their pensions at the same time reflects our priorities. That is why I have tabled the amendment: I do not accept the settlement or the Government’s rationale for these proposals.

Amendment 1 was eloquently discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I must declare an interest at this point: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. One point that the POA made, which we made on Second Reading, is that if we increase the pension age for prison officers, we lose money because more of them will become injured and more will go off sick, and more cost will be incurred in compensation. The actuarial figures are there almost to prove it, so it is anomalous not to include prison officers. The point about psychiatric nurses is the role they play, particularly in institutions such as Broadmoor, where they are dealing with the most difficult cases—physical challenges—within the NHS. I find it bizarre that we are expecting police officers to retire “early” at 60—I hope we do not go to that—because of the physical nature of their jobs in dealing with criminals, yet when those criminals go into prison it appears that they no longer provide a physical challenge to the officers dealing with them then. The situation is anomalous, which is why I support the amendment to include psychiatric nurses.

I also tabled amendment 9, and this is specifically for the Fire Brigades Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has said from the Front Bench, the Government have set up, in agreement with the unions, the working longer review in the NHS and the physical assessment in respect of the fire service. Evidence is piling in to those reviews—independent academic evidence, and details of physical tests that have been undertaken—to demonstrate that it is tough to do the job at 55, let alone at 60. I have seen some of the evidence put forward in the fire service review. When the previous Government increased the retirement age to 55 it was on the basis that there would be more firefighters doing preventive work and people could be redeployed into that work. This year, only 15 posts nationally have been available for redeployment, so redeployment is not an option. These people are still out there doing that physical job, and it is unacceptable to push the retirement age to 60. That is why amendment 9 would ensure that the pension schemes would be able to take into account the reviews currently taking place and that we would be able to adhere to a lower retirement age, particularly for firefighters and others as they are justified.

I am interested to hear what the Government’s responses will be, so I shall finish on this next point. Overall we seek to ensure that there is justice in the Bill, and that is certainly not the case at the moment. I reiterate that the Bill is increasing the contributions and increasing the length of time that people will be working. Given the life expectancy in my constituency, a large number of my constituents will not reach retirement age. Already, a third of all members across the schemes retire within three years of when they should normally do so because they cannot physically continue in the job. They therefore live on reduced pensions and in some poverty. My constituents will contribute more, work longer, most probably have a reduced pension at the end of it and have to retire early. That is an unjust deal when we are subsidising the wealthy through tax relief on their pensions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I want to address a couple of issues and reinforce some of the points made in Committee. It is not good enough to say that the normal retirement age does not matter because people can retire early if they need to, as they will retire on much lower pensions—that is what actuarial reduction means. Those with many chronic conditions might have several years of suffering with the condition that has made them retire. That is not good enough.

The way in which the Bill is formulated fixes the retirement age in a way that makes it very difficult to introduce the flexibility that might be required by some scheme reviews. There will be a battle every time a review shows that there should be a lower retirement age, as the Government will be able to point to the Bill and say that that age cannot be moved as that is what Parliament voted for. However, amendment 16, for example, would allow the degree of flexibility required. Many people already do not work in the years running up to the normal retirement ages, not just across the public sector but in the private sector, too. As many are living on reduced incomes and having to dip into any savings they might have put aside for retirement, they are much more likely to become dependent on other state support in older age.

We have the big issue of longevity, but underneath that lies the fact that a substantial proportion of the population cannot even work until the normal retirement age, particularly men between 60 and 65 in many private sector jobs. Those people are already living on reduced incomes, so if we keep increasing the retirement age more and more people will be in that position.

Public Service Pensions Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

I am interested in the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, and I might get more information about it from him later.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is worth putting on record that under the deal negotiated by the Labour Government, if there were increased costs with regards to longevity, there would be a cap on the employer’s contribution and the additional cost would be borne by the contributors—the scheme’s participants. The issue of longevity was therefore dealt with by agreement with the unions.

[Katy Clark]

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and I can say to him that while there needs to be a review of the local government scheme, I understand that the current position is that it is perfectly viable. This proposal has been made because Government Members take the view that public sector schemes are too generous and form too large a part of the employment package in the public sector. We actually need to use the public sector schemes as a model to ensure that pensions are a much greater part of everybody’s employment package. If we do not do so, we will simply end up paying in other ways, whether that is because people opt out, or because people will rely on the state as they are living in such poor circumstances. We should have a debate about how we can move towards a situation whereby, collectively, we save more for retirement, so that people have decent pensions that they can afford to live on and do not need to rely on the state in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of a local government pension scheme.

Let me put it clearly on the record that the Bill does a number of simple things: it means that civil servants—teachers, firefighters, hospital workers and council workers—will work longer, pay more and get less. That is the reality. It was said that this has been agreed by the trade unions, but it has been rejected by the Public and Commercial Services Union, the National Union of Teachers, the Prison Officers Association, the Fire Brigades Union and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents the royal auxiliary workers. Not a single union has supported the Bill or expressed satisfaction with it, and that includes all those in negotiations, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association. Why? For me, the Bill embodies the Government’s policy and prime objective that the economic crisis will be paid for by public sector workers rather than those who caused the crisis in the first place. It typifies the Government’s approach.

[Richard Fuller]

One issue is the fact that the cost that will fall not during this Parliament but on future taxpayers—our children and grandchildren. Does not the Bill do something to relieve some of the burden on future taxpayers? As the Intergenerational Foundation has said, that is a fair way to proceed.

[John McDonnell]

Let me quote the Treasury, which has said that the cost of the unfunded public sector schemes—I am particularly interested in the civil service one—as

“a share of GDP was 1% in 2007-08 and was projected to rise to only 1.2% in 2057.”

Only 18 months ago, the National Audit Office produced the report, “The cost of public service pensions”, and showed that

“when projections of liability are based on earnings, the total annual payments from the civil service pension scheme will be largely stable over the next 50 years.”

So no, I do not accept that analysis, and neither did the Treasury at the time.

I oppose the Bill. Members of my Front-Bench team will abstain tonight, I believe, because they hope they can amend the Bill. The Bill is unamendable to make it acceptable to me. Therefore I oppose it and I wish to have the opportunity to vote on the Bill if I can. If that means walking through the Lobby on my own, I will. I will find a teller somewhere, I hope.

The Bill is extremely damaging to the well-being and living standards of ordinary working-class people. We know that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) quoted the definitive piece of work, an independent analysis from the Pensions Policy Institute, which is a charity funded by the Nuffield Foundation to undertake the research. It confirmed that the Bill means that pension benefits will be cut by a third. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) referred to the shift from RPI to CPI, which was a further 11% cut. What the cuts in pension benefits mean is exactly as others have said—a reduction in participation that will ultimately threaten the viability of the schemes. Perhaps that is what the Bill is about—the degradation of the schemes so that they will eventually be replaced by the private sector.

Let me deal with the issue of private sector pensions, which is dragged out on every occasion. It is a rewriting of history. Let us go back to the 1980s and 1990s. The state pension was undermined by the Thatcher Government when they broke the link between earnings and pensions. That also undermined the earnings-related element of the state pension. They encouraged people to enter private sector schemes but, as we heard, they allowed many employers to take pension holidays, not for one or two years but for long periods. Eventually that undermined the schemes and a number of them in my constituency were wound up almost overnight.

Individuals were urged to enter into their own arrangements, which they did, only to be fleeced on their endowment policies and other mechanisms. Previous Governments, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, destroyed private sector pensions and now this Government are moving on to destroy public sector pensions in the same way.

[Mark Reckless]

I do not want to let this point go—the hon. Gentleman’s claim that somehow Baroness Thatcher broke the link with earnings. Between 1974 and 1979 Labour claimed to link earnings and pensions, but for much of that time wages went up by less than prices, and for five months of the highest inflation in that period they were not linked at all, giving pensioners a very bad deal.

[John McDonnell]

Under legislation promoted by Thatcher, the House in 1981 broke the link. That undermined in the long term the value of the state pension—it is irrefutable—and then undermined the earnings-related portion of it.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to refute that? For the first two years of the Thatcher period, there was a link. The only other period in which there was purported to be a link was under the previous Labour Government. For much of the Thatcher period there was no link and wages went up by less than prices.

[John McDonnell]

There was always a link with earnings or inflation, and pensions went up accordingly. Why did the previous Government not replace it? I sought on every Budget to enable that to happen and I wish we had done so.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

Let me press on with the points that I am making.

What the Government are now doing is exactly the same as they did to private pensions, but we were told by the Chief Secretary that this is a settlement for a generation—that it will restore stability and predictability to public sector pensions for the next 25 years. No, it does not. As has been said before, the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill not only have the potential to undermine future benefits but are retrospective. I urge Members to look at the BMA’s legal advice on clause 3 and the vast remit that that gives future Governments to undermine future protections. Under clauses 3 and 21 and other clauses, public sector pensions do not even get the protection afforded in the private sector. In the private sector, if an alternative benefit is proposed, it must be actuarially evaluated as a viable alternative and one that does not undermine an equivalent benefit.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—we all agree on this—that pensions are deferred earnings, something people invest in and, therefore, something they should have some say in, but the Bill will take away all participatory control by the members who contribute. As he said, the Treasury will now control the design of the schemes, the revaluations and how they are undertaken, and the cost cap and what is included within it. There is a lack of commitment in the Bill, contrary to all that Hutton said, to ensuring that any future changes or reforms are made on the basis of agreement or at least joint engagement.

I am now secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group and wish to circulate the evidence the FBU provided to Ministers on the physical work firefighters now do. Under the new pension scheme the retirement age in the fire services has been lifted to 60. The previous Government argued that there would be preventive measures to enable firefighters who could no longer undertake the physical rigour of the job to undertake lighter duties, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said. This year, 16 posts in the whole the country have been offered for redeployment alone, so that is unreal. Frankly, I do not believe that a 60-year-old firefighter can cope with the rigours of the job, no matter what improvements there have been in technology.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned the briefing from the Prison Officers Association. There are five physical tests that every prison officer has to undertake in order to be able to continue doing the job. If they fail in any one, they cannot do the job. The POA therefore predicts, quite rightly, that the cost of medical retirements will outweigh any savings gained as a result of the increased pension age. The same information came from the Royal College of Nursing with regard to nurses and paramedics and from the National Union of Teachers with regard to teachers teaching at 68.

The Government said that they would set up the longer life review. Its first meeting was held in September and the results will not be out for at least another six months, yet this Bill allows no flexibility. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne was right: even if the money is there and the employer agrees with it, the Bill provides no flexibility in any of the proposed schemes. It is lunacy to bind the hands of negotiators in that way.

There is no legal requirement on the pension boards to consult or negotiate, contrary to what Hutton recommended, and we can see no representation from the work force. There should at least be some assurance in the Bill that there will be an element of representation on the boards. With regard to the closure of the existing schemes, some protections are being put forward, but there is none on ill health or redundancy. I find clause 23 almost sinister. It will enable employers to offer benefits as an alternative outside the schemes, which is another way of using private sector schemes to undermine the public sector overall.

I am worried about this Bill, which is why I want to vote against it. I think we will look back on today as the day when public sector pensions started on a downward slope, with the erosion of benefits and increasing contributions leading eventually to the undermining of the schemes and their closure. I think it will result in many people being impoverished and greater inequality being created in our society. That is why I will oppose the Bill tonight.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate, but I need to raise an important matter. It will be recorded in tomorrow’s Hansard that the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), told Members that the Government’s commitment to introducing a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses was confirmed by the fact that such a commitment was made by Her Majesty in the Queen’s Speech to Parliament. You will, I know, agree that that is a powerful riposte to those of us who had dared to doubt the Government’s good faith on this issue. However, a subsequent inspection of the two most recent Queen’s Speeches of this Parliament finds no mention whatever of such a commitment. Is it in order for any Minister to pray in aid of his argument a part of Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech that turns out to be wholly fictitious? Has the Minister in question contacted you or Mr Speaker to schedule an apology to the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not been notified that any Minister wishes to make a statement on this matter or any other matter from the Dispatch Box this evening. As for whether the Minister was in order to give the response that he did, Ministers and, indeed, all right hon. and hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches.

[John McDonnell]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a serious matter such as this where a Minister has inadvertently misled the House, it is the norm for him to be asked to return to the House as soon as possible to correct the record and explain his position. May we now express the view on the Floor of the House that the Minister has time now to come back to the Chamber to explain the situation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have heard. Should a request be made to make a statement or to raise a point of order, the Chair will be notified and I will make sure that the House is informed in the usual way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. If I remember correctly, she said in her speech that she was taken aback by the support for the public sector that she observed among Conservative Members. Well, she had better get used to it. My father was a bus driver. He was a proud trade union member, and he was the first person from whom I learned about the importance of our trade unions, and I will never forget that. That is why, in putting this important piece of legislation together, we have been working with trade unions to win their support, and I am pleased we have got it.

I think the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that not a single trade union supported our approach. A majority of trade unions have accepted the deal. Unions representing approximately two thirds of members have accepted our proposed schemes.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister must listen to debates. What I said was that not a single trade union supports this Bill in its current form.

[Sajid Javid]

As I said, unions representing two thirds of union members have accepted our proposed schemes, and the vast majority of unions have taken a very constructive view.