Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford]

I am going to make some progress, because the hon. Gentleman spoke extensively on these provisions in Committee and made us more, not less, concerned.

Amendment 15 seeks to delete the astonishing new subsection I mentioned, to extend the time that the authority has to respond to evidence of a breach of the code to 28 days from 14, and, crucially, to require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing his conclusions, having considered the response from the authority. That seems to us to be a very reasonable amendment that enshrines an evidential basis for taking any action in relation to the code. Amendment 16 seeks to delete the whole of proposed new section 4B, as we feel it is overly proactive meddling from the Secretary of State. We will seek to press amendment 15 to a vote. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider it reasonable that if the Government must press ahead with these powers, there is at least a requirement for the process to be evidence-led, for councils to have the right to make representations and for the Secretary of State to publish his findings before any action is taken.

I end by asking the Minister, one more time, to try to persuade us that this approach is necessary by saying how he thinks that the Opposition, the cross-party, Conservative-led Local Government Association, Liberal Democrat-run and Tory-run councils all around the country, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Union of Journalists and my constituents in east Northamptonshire, who are so upset about the end of the Nene Valley News, are all wrong and he is right. Even if he still thinks he is right, can he explain, as someone who purports to be a localist, why it is right to impose central Government’s will? This clause is worthy of a crackpot dictatorship.

[John McDonnell]

This is barmy. It is absolutely crackers that we are spending parliamentary time on this matter. I receive Hillingdon People from my Conservative-controlled local authority. On virtually every page, there is a picture of a smiling Conservative councillor pointing at something, standing on something or expressing some view. Interspersed with the smiling photographs is genuine information about what is happening in the local community. People tell me that the newspaper is an ideal size for lining a hamster cage, so it serves some useful purpose in the local area.

Today, the Government have announced the commission report on the expansion of aviation, which includes the threat to my constituency from the third runway. I have been assured that there will be cross-party opposition on my council to the Government’s proposals. We will use Hillingdon People to explain the proposals that have been introduced. We have used it in the past to explain the proposals of all political parties. Undoubtedly, views will be expressed by councillors on a cross-party basis condemning the commission’s proposals and, almost certainly, the Government’s approach. Does that mean that we will then be hauled before the Secretary of State to be advised on the words that we can use about this matter and on the way in which Hillingdon People will be used?

The one good thing about local newspapers is that they reflect local opinion. There might be an overbalance of photographs of a certain party, but for all that they are a useful tool in mobilising local opinion around a local issue, and they are campaigning tools for a local authority in genuinely reflecting the views of the local populace who elected them.

My local council has certainly consulted local people and supported local meetings to ensure that people can express their views on the extension of Heathrow. It has then reflected those views in Hillingdon People, and launched campaigns on the basis of what local people have said. At my last public meeting on this matter, a campaign called “Back Heathrow” was spuriously launched by the aviation industry to support Heathrow airport expansion. It was completely funded by Heathrow airport and run by its public relations agency. People then said to me that Hillingdon People should be used to put out accurate information, rather than the spurious propaganda that the airport was putting out. I am anxious that my local authority, which will go on the stump on this issue, may be debarred from using Hillingdon People to explain what its views are and to campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport.

I would be grateful to the Minister if we heard his views. By the looks of it, he will now be the editor-in-chief of Hillingdon People, so I would welcome his views now before we put a foot wrong. Is it in order, under this Bill, for Hillingdon council to use Hillingdon People to campaign against Heathrow expansion and to disseminate information that will be opposed to the commission’s views and what seems to be the emerging view about a third runway at Heathrow?

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been a lively debate on an important Bill and it is a pleasure to follow the contributions of many hon. and right hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke with experience of local government, and it may not surprise him that I want to start on a note of consensus with him and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) by saying that I for one recognise that the Audit Commission went beyond its remit. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made clear at the outset that we do not seek the restoration of the Audit Commission, and we understand that, to be frank, no one will lament its passing.

However, even though the Bill has been three years in the making, it is full of holes. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said that the Bill is a dog’s breakfast. He made a strong speech in which he talked about the important functions of the Audit Commission, such as auditing and providing value for money in an independent way. Although we might not lament the Audit Commission’s passing, we should be concerned about those vital functions.

We must explore critical issues in Committee that are currently unclear, such as the arrangements for the future management of audit contracts and the transfer of Audit Commission functions. We do not know, for example, who will maintain the vital value-for-money tools. As a result of pressure in the Lords, not least from my hon. Friends, we have been promised improvements, such as amendments on opting into centralised arrangements for audit procurement. We can only hope that when the details are forthcoming in Committee, they meet the aspirations of their lordships and of the many organisations, including the LGA, that have pressed for those sensible amendments. It was good to hear the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) pressing the Government on that point. I hope that she will take forward the good work of her colleague, the noble Lord Tope, in Committee.

There is doubt about the amount that the proposals will save. When the Minister responds, I expect that he will make claims about the level of savings, as did the Secretary of State in opening the debate. However, it would do Ministers much more credit if they stopped double-counting and deliberately inflating the estimated savings. We all know that most of the savings have already been banked with the axing of the Audit Commission’s inspection work and with most of the audit work outsourced.

It is disappointing that the Government ignored the advice of the draft Local Audit Bill ad hoc Committee, which, after receiving conflicting evidence on the savings, recommended that a new financial impact assessment be made. The Committee believed that only modest savings were likely and was concerned about whether a real market would develop. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, in the last financial year, only seven firms were appointed for the nearly 800 councils, health bodies and fire and rescue authorities that were audited by private firms, and 90% of those bodies were audited by only five firms.

The Audit Commission has raised fears that some local authorities might find it hard to attract a suitable auditor:

“In a free market, we believe there is a risk that some local authorities may find it hard to attract an auditor with the necessary skills and experience, at a reasonable price.”

It continues:

“We are aware that the firms are already considering which audits they would look to drop under the new arrangements.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, the LGA and the National Association of Local Councils have said, that will be a particular concern for smaller authorities.

On new entrants to the market, I share the scepticism of the draft Local Audit Bill ad hoc Committee, which said:

“We heard evidence to suggest that it is not realistic for smaller firms and organisations such as mutuals and co-operatives to bid successfully for one-off audits without an inevitable impact on quality, consistency or cost.”

The Local Government Information Unit, whose evidence and advice should always be considered—I should declare an interest as its former chief executive—points out that a 10% increase in audit fees would wipe out any predicted savings. Grant Thornton said that

“it is likely that fees will increase, not decrease, as a result of the draft Bill”.

[John McDonnell]

One simple measure to expand the market might be to prevent an audit firm from being the auditor for a local authority if it already has contracts with that authority.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend made a very interesting speech and I hope that he will follow the passage of the Bill closely. I will have to give further thought to the implications of his suggestion, but if the arrangements proposed by the Government are to work, there must be an open market and a wide range of audit firms must provide audit services. We would also want that to be reviewed regularly by the audit panel. The points that the hon. Member for Meon Valley made about the dismissal of auditors were important.

Steve Parkinson of the Society of Local Council Clerks said:

“When we get to the 2017 tender exercise, I cannot imagine those fees going down, and especially for the smallest, I can see them needing to go up.”

That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North about what lies ahead. What assurance can the Minister give that the new audit arrangements will not lead to rising costs, rather than savings, for some councils?

On savings, it is welcome that, after Labour pressure in the Lords, the Government undertook to look sympathetically at a proposal for an optional joint procurement body. We welcome the assurances that the Secretary of State has given today and we look forward to seeing those proposals. Central procurement could save more than £205 million of public money over five years. That figure does not come just from the Audit Commission, but is supported by the LGA. Will the Minister assure us that he will bring forward detailed proposals on joint procurement as soon as possible? We hope to have them by this Thursday evening so that we can give them full and constructive consideration in Committee.

Joint procurement arrangements might address some of the concerns about the practicalities of requiring all councils to have auditor panels with independent members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, the Secretary of State considers himself to be a revolutionary, so he must be disappointed to be associated with arrangements that everyone but him sees as overly bureaucratic.

We will table amendments in Committee on the overlap between the new audit panels and the audit committees that most councils already have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested that all councils should be required to have an audit committee. Most councils have one already, but we should consider his suggestion further in Committee. We will also raise the practicalities of recruiting sufficient independent and appropriately qualified members for the audit committees, which were referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. What evidence does the Minister have that there are people who are willing and able to take on that important role?

In Committee, we will also explore the removal of auditors and the purposes for which data matching can be used. As the Bill stands, those purposes do not include the prevention and detection of maladministration and error, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out. We want to see that included in the Bill. We also want auditors to be covered by the Freedom of Information Act and will table amendments to that effect.

Does the Minister understand the concern that whistleblowers might feel uncomfortable approaching a private auditor that is employed by a local body or council? That is why we will propose that the audit committee should be named as a prescribed person in the Bill. I do not understand why the Government have resisted that. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington highlighted concerns about corruption. I have read the important report that he mentioned. It is important that the new audit arrangements maintain independence, encourage probity, make appropriate provision for whistleblowers and ensure that it is possible to compare the relative performance of different authorities. He made wider points that we should explore further, including on the openness of council meetings, the use of commercial confidentiality and the role of scrutiny.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment with the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, is that the proposed audit arrangements do not provide for the changing way in which public services are being managed and provided. The proposed arrangements require each local authority and other local bodies and public sector bodies to conduct separate audits. However, shared services, community budgets and combined authorities all demonstrate that there is a shift towards much stronger partnership working by local authorities, including with Government Departments. It is therefore a missed opportunity that the Bill focuses too narrowly on individual local authorities, rather than on arrangements that would enable auditors to follow the public pound through the system.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the provisions on local authority publicity. We support the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity and believe that it is broadly sensible. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, there is no evidence to suggest that there are widespread breaches. No hon. Member has provided clear evidence of that today. The Government have taken no action to date under the code. Why not?

Clause 38 will allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction regardless of whether or not he thinks the authority is complying with the code. That is an extraordinary power grab that is worthy of the worst form of authoritarian government. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst revealed the true purpose of it. In seeking to support the Government, he listed a range of council publications, but gave no examples of where they had breached the code. The only common factor between the publications was that they were all from Labour-led councils. I know that in his heart he is a localist, as am I. Does he not agree that the way to deal with the problem is to fight the elections in those areas a little harder and to seek a Conservative majority, because it is clearly their political control that offends him, rather than the content of the magazines?

As for the wider controls on council publications, the Government suggest that local authority publications undermine the local press, but there is no evidence to prove that. Local papers are struggling for a variety of reasons. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, sometimes there is a welcome synergy between local newspapers and council papers. The Conservative-led LGA has complained, rightly, that the proposals are ill considered and not based on evidence or proper consultation—points echoed in the House of Lords by the Conservative peer Baroness Eaton, and the Liberal Democrat Lord Tope.

In my area, I have received many representations from residents in the smaller towns and villages of east Northamptonshire for whom the Nene Valley News—published, despite my best efforts, by the true blue local council—is a communications lifeline. Some residents of those villages feel so strongly about the issue that they tell me they will consider voting for me and my party for the first time because of the impact the measures will have on general well-being in those villages. That is surely not what the Secretary of State thought would follow from his nonsense claims about pocket Pravdas, which he cannot substantiate. We hope the Government will see sense when we consider the Bill in Committee, and I hope we will have the support of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole because, as she rightly said, this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

When the Minister responds, will he say whether he accepts the comments made by his colleague, Baroness Eaton, a former leader of Bradford council, that the Bill centralises powers to the Secretary of State? Will he say how many local authorities in England publish magazines more than six times a year, and will he inform the House how many times the code of practice on local authority publicity has been breached? We are concerned that the third major area of the Bill on council tax referendums adds further uncertainty to council finances at a time when—as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said—councils face incredible challenges, and that that could lead to further reductions in essential local services.

Clause 39 means that councils may have to hold a referendum on council tax increases because of increases in levies due to agreements made in previous years or over which they have no control. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said, we are deeply concerned about the retrospective nature of those changes—a point pressed on the Minister by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole in another sensible intervention.

A year ago the Government signed city deals to improve transport infrastructure and boost local growth by allowing specific transport authorities to raise money for specific schemes. A year on, that agreement is being torn up. That undermines confidence in the whole city deal process across government, and harms the certainty on which sound financial planning and private investment relies. In short, it is damaging for our cities and our economy. As the LGA said:

“There is a risk of perverse outcomes that will put growth generating investment at risk”.

That is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister will address that issue and think again.

There are other complications. Authorities have no powers to reject levies, yet they are obliged to hold referendums because of large levy rises imposed on them by other bodies. The actions of levying bodies could lead to council tax referendums in some authorities, but not in neighbouring authorities because some levying bodies cross local authority boundaries. I hope the Government recognise the serious problems with those proposals.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy stated:

“The entire burden of any referendum is actually placed on major preceptors and billing authorities despite the fact that they have no ability either to directly influence the amount of individual levies or require a body to reduce its levy as a result of a referendum.”

Does the Minister accept that including levies in the amount used to trigger a council tax referendum will jeopardise the city deals his own Government have approved? If a council tax referendum is lost and the levying body refuses to reduce its levy, what does he expect a local authority to do?

Despite serious problems with the Bill, I will end on a positive note. The Government propose to introduce two new elements to the Bill: on parish polls and transparency of council meetings. As the Minister would expect, the Government will have to answer the justifiable criticism—not least from our friends in the other place—that those proposals are being introduced rather late in the day and have not had the scrutiny given to the rest of the Bill. However, we support the intentions behind the proposals, and stand ready to play catch-up and assist with detailed scrutiny of those proposals in Committee. I sincerely welcome assurances that the Government will address the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central about combined authority boundaries. I hope we can do that through the Bill, but we welcome the assurance that another way will also be sought.

Finally, I thank the Minister for the helpful dialogue we have had since my appointment, particularly over the instruction to extend the scope of the Bill, and for the way he has facilitated contact with officials at his Department involved with the Bill. I hope that he is under no illusions about the many holes in the Bill, but also that he is in no doubt that the Opposition will approach Committee stage constructively.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Consensus seems to be emerging among Members across the Committee, with the exception of Government Ministers. We want legislation that reflects, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, the reality of the lobbying industry as it operates at the moment.

Amendment 2, which was tabled by Labour spokespeople, amendments 48 and 49, which were tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amendment 161, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), all seek to achieve some understanding in government that the Bill should reflect the real world. On Second Reading, one of the best speeches was by the hon. Member for St Albans, who talked about her personal experience of what lobbying does in a particular constituency and the impact that it can have on one’s constituents. We want legislation that protects the individual Member of Parliament as well as his or her constituents.

I raised the example in my own constituency of the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow and what has happened over the past three decades, but more intensively over the past decade. The homes of some 10,000 people are at risk; 50,000 people, and perhaps more, are at risk of the atmosphere being poisoned in such a way that air pollution far exceeds European limits; 2 million people will experience increased noise across London. There was lobbying from the aviation industry, particularly BAA, formerly the British Airports Authority. A lobbying firm was employed, but its activities were largely a smokescreen for the real lobbying by BAA employees. As I said on Second Reading, many of them had passes to enter the Department for Transport and meet officials. The Bill does not catch that aspect of lobbying, as we have heard in every interpretation by Members on both sides of the Committee.

Amendment 48, however, is rather inadequate, as its definition of lobbying relates to the lobbying of Ministers and permanent secretaries, and does not relate in any way to the real world of lobbying. In the BAA lobby on the third runway there was, as I said, wining and dining of Ministers and senior civil servants, but that was a smokescreen for the intensive lobbying of fairly junior civil servants who undertook the assessments of traffic growth, air pollution impacts, noise impacts and the logistical arrangements around the airport. By the time that the reports that they prepared landed on the desks of the permanent secretary and of Ministers the decision had virtually been made.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend illustrates the complexity of the situation. The staff of BAA would have been accompanied by planning consultants, highways consultants and lawyers, who also would have been on the payroll to lobby for the third runway and therefore should be included in our consideration if we want a proper Bill.

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely valid point. In the real world of lobbying, I have experience of that constituency issue, with BAA employees employed virtually full-time—yes, with a range of experts—intensively lobbying relatively junior staff in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, building up a head of steam around a particular demand from BAA that eventually shapes the decision made by Ministers. My understanding of the debate so far is that such lobbying would not be covered by the Bill and BAA in its new form, as Heathrow airport, would not be caught by it.

Things have moved on. Governments are increasingly outsourcing the preparation of the material that will eventually enable Ministers to take decisions. That outsourcing relies upon the commissioning of external experts—not within Government, but often academics and others—and in addition to that, the setting up of various commissions. The Howard Davies commission is consulting various organisations on behalf of Government about the expansion of aviation in London and the south-east, especially the issues surrounding the expansion of Heathrow. My understanding of the Bill is that the lobbying of the external advisers and members of such commissions is also not caught by the legislation.

Members may have experienced that process, but let me explain. An intensive lobbying exercise is being undertaken by the aviation industry across the country. Businesses that own individual airports are intensively lobbying Howard Davies’s commission, and they are lobbying external experts commissioned to undertake pieces of work, because obviously they are looking to expand their particular airport. I do not believe, and I am happy if the Minister wants to advise me differently, that any of that lobbying will be caught by the Bill.

The plea from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford, for St Albans and for Foyle—right across the piece—was that, if we are going to legislate, we must legislate in the real world, and we are not doing so. We are going through an exercise that people will think is a waste of time, and many will find it disingenuous. Some may think that, when we have ticked the box, we have sorted out lobbying, but the real-world lobbying will go on as before.

As the Prime Minister rightly said, lobbying is open to the potential for scandal. There have been scandals. What causes me anxiety is that I am prevented from protecting my constituents from a heavily resourced and effective internal lobbying machine within an organisation that could destroy parts of my community and the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people in west London. The Bill does not meet the purpose. It does not rise to the challenge that the Prime Minister set us, which is to ensure that we have a transparent lobbying process. That transparency can, we hope, enable us to have some element of probity within the system of lobbying overall.

I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said. The criticism has come from all parts of the Committee. There must be some recognition from Government that these legislative proposals do not stack up. I know that by way of a taunt to the Leader of the House what happened in the case of the NHS legislation was mentioned earlier, but I think the idea of a short pause while we try to get some consensus discussions going is the most constructive way forward. In that way we can learn the lessons from the lobbying industry itself. Members of this House across the parties have had years of experience of lobbying, so we can get some decent legislation in place, otherwise we will bring ourselves into potential disrepute. Members of the public who expect us to represent and protect them will think we are not doing our jobs effectively.

I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers as much as to those on the Opposition Benches who have no axe to grind. Let us see whether we can have some cross-party discussions over the next week or two. We should not allow the Bill to leave this House and expect the House of Lords to sort it out, as usual. That is a derogation of our duty. We must do the work here and send the best Bill we possibly can to the other place, because that is what we are paid for.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I want to make four simple, brief points. The first is about share ownership. I tabled amendments when the Bill was debated in this House to try to extend share ownership without connecting that with the loss of rights. It is noticeable that the Government opposed those amendments. As people look to reconstruct the economy and learn the lessons from what has happened in this economic crisis, there is a genuine willingness to look at greater involvement by the work force in the management of companies. Part of that is about extending share ownership to workers. That is a development that we have welcomed in both Houses. The problem is that linking the two things in this way will not act as an incentive for companies to recruit the best; in fact, it will act as a deterrent. If someone faces the choice of going to a company that offers them share ownership without the loss of rights, they will go to that company. If they have the opportunity of going to a company where they will have to sell some of their rights, that will obviously act as a deterrent.

[Andy Sawford]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about workers in that situation, but we should also challenge the account that is being given about how attractive this measure will be to small businesses. I have run a small business. The idea that I would have to work out the tax and other implications of this measure with my work force when I had far more important things to do—building a good, strong work force and running a business—does not stack up to me.

[John McDonnell]

I was going to make that point. There is an element of complexity in this scheme which will lead to small businesses coming to us in about six months’ time and saying that it is part of the overburdening of regulation.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I shall provide a brief background to amendment 3 and to the other amendments tabled in my name.

I am chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group. We meet that union, which represents the workers in the baking and confectionary industry, on a regular basis. We have had a long campaign over a number of years to express our concerns about below-cost selling in the baking and confectionary sector. The concern relates to the Bill’s general provisions, but because I raised it on Second Reading, I shall not delay us further except to explain that the same pressure suppliers have felt from supermarkets has had its effect on the baking industry, as it has on farming and elsewhere.

The pressure to cut overall costs has reduced the quality of the product. Concerns have also been expressed over the years about the safety of ingredients. Some consumer organisations have pointed out the deterioration of the quality of bread as a result of the amount of water introduced into bread production, which has undermined the nutritional benefits from eating bread and has had an impact on the population’s health.

The anxiety is that the same sort of pressure has been applied to the baking industry. The result for members of the bakers’ union has been reductions in wages and job cuts, and the reduction in overall pay means that this sector has significant levels of low pay; in fact, it is one of the most low-paid sectors in our industry at the moment. Another impact of that pressure is deteriorating working conditions and terms of employment. Bakers have expressed the concern that skills within the sector have been undermined, too. With people’s potential to be upskilled undermined, it means further pressure on wages.

These are vulnerable workers, therefore, and they are fearful of raising their concerns about what is happening in this sector. That is why the bakers’ union has combined with employers and others to welcome this Bill. It feels that it gives its members protection when they blow the whistle on some of the supermarket practices that lead to deteriorating conditions in the industry. That, then, is the background to the amendment.

The bakers’ union welcomes clause 13, which enables the adjudicator to recommend to the Office of Fair Trading changes to the code as issues arise over time. It is important, however, that this process is seen to be open and transparent. That is what amendment 3 is designed to achieve. It would simply ensure that the Office of Fair Trading is required to publish its response to the recommendations in the groceries code adjudicator’s review. The response should explain whether the OFT has acted on those recommendations. The amendment would introduce a process of openness and transparency that will lead to accountability. It would place a statutory duty on the OFT to make its functions patently open to scrutiny from the general public and the industry itself.

I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will speak about amendments 34 and 35, which relate to the wider concern that we now feel about the nutritional content of some of the consumer goods that are placed before us. My amendment responds to some elements of that concern by proposing that recommendations whose implementation would improve the nutrition of our country and the operation of a particular food sector are in fact implemented, or reasons are given for the fact that they are not being implemented.

[Andy Sawford]

When Labour Members tried in Committee to strengthen the relationship between the adjudicator and the Office of Fair Trading, we were given very unsatisfactory reassurances. We were told, for example, that the adjudicator could use the publicly available telephone line to contact the OFT. Any measures that strengthen that relationship must surely be welcome.

[John McDonnell]

I followed the dialogue that took place in Committee and read the reports of it. That has been one of the joys of my life over the last couple of months. The Minister said that an amendment such as mine was unnecessary, and would not give the Bill any additional force. She suggested that if the OFT repeatedly failed to act on the adjudicator’s recommendations, two routes would be available. Select Committees, she said, would have “a role to play”, and it would also be possible for any supplier to conduct a judicial review of the OFT, in particular to establish whether it was behaving reasonably or in relation to its duties under the Enterprise Act 2002.

I shall not comment on the hotline issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), because I thought it too bizarre, to say the least. I took it to be just part of the knockabout of Committee stages in which Members engage just to keep themselves awake. I shall, however, deal with the issue of the judicial review. Of course it is open to any supplier to initiate such a review, but it is virtually impossible that it would succeed on reasonableness grounds, especially in the context of the OFT’s powers and the broad range of the adjudicator’s role. I do not think that it would be a constructive process. Moreover, the time required for it would not deal with the immediacy of some of the adjudicator’s recommendations.

As for Select Committees, of course they have a role, but they have no directional force. They can recommend, but their recommendations are often ignored, or there is a long gestation period between the initiation of a review and the acceptance and implementation of recommendations in the subsequent report.

I understand the reason for the Minister’s responses in Committee. I realise that she does not want to over-bureaucratise the process. However, I think that the world has changed and moved on since the Committee stage. There has been, for instance, the issue of public concern about the content of consumer goods following the horsemeat scandal. People expect the Government to be decisive, as well as open and transparent, in tidying up the current mess, but in the long term they expect a system that will monitor the operations of the supermarkets and other parts of the grocery supply chain. It is necessary to ensure that when we have a structure in place it operates openly, transparently and effectively, and that is what my amendment seeks to do.

If we cannot give the OFT a duty to report on whether or not it has acted on a recommendation from the groceries code adjudicator or has taken it into account, that demonstrates the weakness of the Bill. The amendment does not even require a detailed report giving reasons for the OFT’s decision, although there will probably be a public clamour for such a requirement following the rejection of a recommendation. This is a simple, minor amendment, which I think the House would be expected to support in the current climate. For that reason I intend, if time permits, to press it to a Division.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Andy Sawford

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.