Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I can absolutely confirm that to my right hon. Friend. We are blessed with talent throughout our country. Wherever we look, we have talent. Our country is oozing with talent, and that, of course, includes Wales: we have just seen a demonstration of that talent. We need to ensure that there is much more opportunity, which means investment in infrastructure and skills and retaining a dynamic, competitive economy.

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

In the last month we have seen the Financial Times predicting that the Chancellor will miss his balanced budget target, and today we have seen zero growth in the economy. At the same time, Mr Dominic Cummings has demanded cuts in taxes and massive spending commitments, so the Chancellor has resorted to floating a possible raid on middle-income pensions, a mansion tax—once described as Marxist—and a 5% cuts round to find some money to pay for Mr Cummings’s demands. Yet in the real world out there, the victims of Wonga, the payday loan company, were told a fortnight ago that they would receive less than 5% of the compensation that they are owed. Will the Chancellor take a break from his arm-wrestling with Mr Cummings, and introduce measures to compensate the Wonga victims fully?

[Sajid Javid]

I think that I have to correct myself. I said that there was talent throughout the country, but, judging by what we have just heard, I do not think that that includes the Labour party.

There is all sorts of speculation about the Budget, and I am not going to respond to that. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when the Budget is published, it will be published alongside a report by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Those are the figures that are going to matter, not the ones that are speculated about in the press. As for growth, the right hon. Gentleman will also know that although there has been a fall in global growth, the International Monetary Fund forecasts that Britain will grow faster this year than France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

[John McDonnell]

I asked about Wonga. [Hon. Members: “You did.”] On the basis of that answer, I can see why No. 10 nicknamed the right hon. Gentleman CHINO: Chancellor in name only.

Wonga is just one example of the recent scandals in the financial sector. We have seen the scandals of closet tracking last year, London Capital & Finance, Woodford Investment Management, the tax avoidance by Lycamobile —a Tory party donor—NMC Health’s misreporting today, large-scale money-laundering, and audit failure after audit failure. Regulation of the finance sector—I say it again—is clearly failing, and now there is the risk to jobs resulting from the tardiness of a post-Brexit settlement. Let me put this to the Chancellor: can he assure me that the White Paper that he has promised today will address the failure of regulation and the culture of recklessness and abuse that has developed in some sections of the City, in addition to the risks from Brexit, so that we can plan a long-term stable future for our finance sector?

[Sajid Javid]

I remember that not long ago the shadow Chancellor stood here and said that he wanted to be known as the “people’s Chancellor”. I think the people had a very different idea, however. On his question about high-cost credit, when I was last in the Treasury as Economic Secretary, that was the first time that any Government had introduced proper regulation around high-cost credit. This is something that we keep under review, which is why, as we present our White Paper, we will be looking to see what more we can do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He is absolutely right about the importance of business rates, which are a real burden, particularly on smaller community and village shops. That is why we have made our exemption for the smallest businesses—some 675,000 businesses—permanent, and we have a rural and retail discount scheme. He will also know that in our manifesto we committed to a fundamental review of our business rates schemes. I look forward to working with him and hearing his ideas.

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

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words about the tragedy taking place in Australia?

Let me say to the Chancellor that I welcomed his statement yesterday that we are to have a Budget at last, as well as that the Green Book is to be rewritten—only two years after Labour proposed it; and that there is a new fiscal rule to accommodate new investment—only four years after Labour proposed it. But there was another statement, which he made reference to, which was the statement before Christmas about appointing Mr Andrew Bailey to be the Governor of the Bank of England. During Mr Bailey’s tenure as chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, we saw the scandals of London Capital & Finance and the Woodford Equity Fund, and the continuing saga of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group. In all those scandals, many people—many on low incomes—were hit extremely hard. May I ask the Chancellor: did he consult any of the victims of these scandals before he appointed Mr Bailey?

[Sajid Javid]

First, I welcome the shadow Chancellor to his seat. He fought a hard campaign and I commend him for his efforts. As he noted, just before the Christmas recess, I announced the new Governor of the Bank of England—I have just referred to that. Mr Bailey was an outstanding candidate—the stand-out candidate to be the next Governor of the Bank of England. That is one of the most important public sector jobs that our country has to offer, and it is hugely important that it goes to a rightly qualified person. Any reasonable person who looks at Mr Bailey’s track record of outstanding public service will see that he is eminently qualified.

[John McDonnell]

You will note, Mr Speaker, that I asked whether the Chancellor had consulted any of the victims of these scandals, and no response was received. Clearly, he did not. I referred to the Woodford Group, and in the filings lodged today at Companies House, it is reported that £13.8 million of dividends were received by Mr Ian Woodford, and his chief executive, in the 12 months leading up to the crisis that engulfed Woodford Investment Management and affected so many investors deleteriously. That adds to concerns already expressed by others that Mr Bailey was asleep at the wheel during his period of office at the FCA. Labour has already called for a short, sharp inquiry into the recent scandals and into the regulation of the financial services sector. May I suggest to the Chancellor that it would be appropriate to postpone Mr Bailey’s installation in office until an independent inquiry into those failures of financial regulation had taken place?

[Sajid Javid]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman means Mr Neil Woodford, not Mr Ian Woodford. The ongoing inquiry is, rightly, being led independently. It is not a matter for Ministers, and neither should it be. We are, of course, interested to ensure that an inquiry takes place and that we learn all necessary lessons. I believe the Economic Secretary to the Treasury again has a meeting with the FCA on this issue tomorrow, but we will let the inquiry take its course independently. Once it is complete, we will ensure that all necessary lessons are learned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Chancellor give the House a quick fact-check of his speech yesterday? The Conservatives have cut funding for buses by £640 million a year. Yesterday, he announced nothing new; he simply reannounced £220 million from the spending review. His Government have cut £900 million a year from annual youth services budgets. Yesterday, he offered £500 million, possibly as a one-off. The National Infrastructure Commission says that we need £33 billion to roll out full-fibre broadband. Yesterday, he offered £5 billion. All of those promises will count for nothing if there is a no-deal Brexit. Has he not just followed the Cummings code: grab a headline, possibly wrap it around a bus and ignore the truth? But there is one figure that I would like to ask him about: 120,000. What significance does the figure 120,000 have for him?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the last time his party was in office, we had the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and the biggest banking collapse this country has ever seen, and our country was virtually bankrupt. Now our economy is strong, with the lowest unemployment rate in 45 years, and it is because the economy is strong that yesterday I could make the announcement of investments in buses, roads, youth facilities and full fibre. If he wants to see that kind of investment continue at the next general election, he should vote Conservative.

[John McDonnell]

I did not ask about the Chancellor’s record at Deutsche Bank; I never asked about the products he was selling that brought about the financial crash.

Let me tell the Chancellor what the figure 120,000 means. It is the number of deaths linked by the British Medical Journal to the Conservatives’ cuts since they came to power in 2010. No amount of spin will wash away the memory of nine years of this scale of human suffering. He claimed yesterday:

“We believe in a society where everyone knows that if they work hard, and play by the rules then they will have every opportunity to succeed.”

But isn’t it true that the Conservatives have broken the link between people working and being able to lift themselves out of poverty, when 70% of our children living in poverty are in households where someone is at work? And isn’t it the case that, despite the Chancellor’s pathetic attempt yesterday at playing catch-up to Labour party policy, under the Tories’ plans no one will reach the Tories’ target minimum wage until five years from now? And isn’t it the truth that, with this Chancellor and Prime Minister in charge, the Conservatives will always be the party of tax avoiders, bankers and the super-rich?

[Sajid Javid]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman a fact: the Labour party no longer represents working people and it is no longer the party of working people. That stopped a long, long time ago. He should reflect on his own policies of renationalisation; mass confiscation of private property, including the shares and homes of individual investors; protectionism; and state control. He calls business the real enemy, but the fact is that the Labour party is no longer fit to govern. It would wreck the economy and it would be hard-working people who would pay the price.

Spending Round 2019

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member of staff was escorted off the premises by an armed police officer. Can I just say that that is no way to treat a member of staff? I ask the Chancellor to tell Mr Cummings, on the spending review: do not insult the intelligence of the British people. The people will see today’s statement as the grubby electioneering that it is.

This is not a spending review as we know it. This is straight out of the Lynton Crosby handbook of opinion-poll politics. The Tories have checked what the top three or four issues in the polls are and they have cynically judged how little money they have to throw around to try to neutralise those issues and the concerns of people. To come here and try to fool us with references to people’s priorities is beyond irony.

When did this extremist, right-wing Tory group ever put the people first—ever? Were they putting the people first when they froze child benefit year after year or when they introduced universal credit, a brutal regime? The result this summer, according to the Childhood Trust, was children scavenging for food in bins because they did not have free school meals in the summer holidays. Were they putting people first when they cut council budgets, and prevented 1 million elderly and disabled people from getting the social care they needed? Were they putting people first when they cut social services budgets so much that we now have record numbers of children coming into care and 155 women a day turned away from refuges?

We are expected to believe that these Tories, who for years have voted for harsh, brutal austerity, have had some form of damascene conversion. I tell you, they treat our people with contempt. Announcements have been dripped out over the last week or so, all designed to give the impression of a spending spree—announcements dictated by No. 10 and meekly accepted by a Chancellor too weak to conduct a full multi-year spending review as he should, even before the Government’s majority disappeared yesterday.

We have seen the so-called headroom, which the Chancellor’s predecessor had claimed was needed to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, spent instead on preparing for a general election. We all know that the Chancellor may not be in his job very long and maybe that is why he felt he needed to rush a spending round based on figures from March, rather than wait for the Office for Budget Responsibility to tell him officially what the rest of us have known for some time: that the economy, after nine years of Tory austerity, is in bad shape and, yes, is getting worse, stagnating.

A full fiscal event would have meant new economic forecasts and the need for a fiscal framework to give Departments security over the Parliament, allowing them to plan ahead after years of cuts. Instead we get this sham of a spending review. The Tories are claiming to be against austerity after years of voting for it. They are claiming to be using headroom, which the Chancellor knows has largely disappeared, yet they are still failing to deliver a real end to austerity.

Let us take a look at some of the announcements that the Chancellor has confirmed today. For schools, the Chancellor announced new spending of £1.8 billion next year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has previously estimated that it would cost £3.8 billion this year alone to reverse the cuts that have been made. Was the Chancellor aware, when drawing up his spending plans, that the Department for Education budget as a whole has been slashed by almost £10 billion in real terms since 2010? The reality is this, is it not: heads will still be sending out begging letters and teachers will still be buying basic materials for their classes?

The Government have some front to mention childcare after hundreds of Sure Start centres closed on their watch, undermining the start in life for our children. They mention that £700 million was announced for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Does the Chancellor know that the Local Government Association found that councils already face a funding shortfall for SEN children of £1.2 billion by 2021? The reality is that these children will still be left vulnerable and in need, with their futures in jeopardy. That is what it means today.

Further education colleges are getting a one-off £400 million. Does the Chancellor really think that they should be grateful when he has cut £3.3 billion from them since 2010? The reality is that the economy will continue to desperately need skills and training, and our young people will still be denied them.

On the NHS, the announcement of £1.8 billion spending for the NHS has already been exposed as largely a reannouncement of existing money. There is no mention, is there, of the £6 billion backlog in the maintenance we need in our hospitals? Our hospitals are still using buckets to catch water coming through leaking roofs. Operating theatres are closed because of the lack of maintenance over the past nine years of austerity. The Government mention GP waiting times. Any announcement on GP waiting times is likely to turn out to be totally undeliverable. Why? Because we have just lost 600 full-time equivalent GPs over the past year. They are just not there because of nine years of lack of investment.

On local government, any new money for local government today will be a drop in the ocean compared with the 60% funding cuts that councils have suffered in recent years. What effect does the Chancellor estimate his announcement today will have, for example, on the crisis in children’s services that we have highlighted at every spending review and budget over the past two years? There has been a 29% drop in Government funding after eight years and as a result vulnerable children are left at risk.

On homelessness, the Chancellor mentioned £54 million of additional spending to tackle homelessness. There has been a 160% increase in people sleeping rough. In the past two years, people have died near the doors of Parliament. The LGA says that there is a £100 million spending gap just to get by. The most vulnerable in our society have been put at risk as a result of the Government’s austerity over nine years, and he expects us to celebrate an inadequate attempt to plaster over the problems we have.

On bus services, the Chancellor mentions £200 million allocated to them. That is a third of the £645 million that has been cut from bus services since 2010.

The Government seem to forget that they cut 20,000 police officers. The Chancellor expects us to celebrate what he has announced today, when we now know that at best there will be only 13,000 on the streets. Can he tell us how many will be frontline? We will support him in the investment to protect religious establishments and communities, and we will support him in tackling the problem of protecting young children from online abuse—of course we will—but the real protection comes from the safer neighbourhood teams that we constructed under Labour and that we had in every one of our wards, with a sergeant, police officers and police support officers, all of whom have been wiped out. [Interruption.] An hon. Member shouts, “Not true.” He needs to go out into the community and talk about the increase in violent crime in our communities as a result of what has happened.

The Chancellor spoke of money to create another 10,000 prison places. Can he just tell us: are they the same 10,000 prison places promised by previous Justice Secretaries in 2016, 2017 and yet again in 2018? Can he answer how many suicides and how many assaults on staff have taken place because of the Government’s cuts to prison staff over the past nine years? Will he, or someone in the Government, ever apologise to the Prison Officers Association for ignoring its warnings about the effect of staff cuts on safety in our prisons?

Those are just some of the announcements we heard today, but there are many that we have heard very little about. What about those who have been effectively forgotten in the Chancellor’s opportunist, one-year spending round? What about real structural reform to address the social care crisis, which we have been waiting for, for how many years—three, four? All we have now is a sticking plaster of £1 billion, which will leave this sector in the same sorry state as it is in now. What does that mean in real terms? It means 1.4 million people not getting the care they need and 87 people a day dying before they get the social care they need to support them.

I understand that the Chancellor’s mates, the bankers, were pushing the other day for more tax cuts and less regulation. I suppose they think they have a soft touch in No. 10 and No. 11. I hope he sent them packing. When we compare how much has been cut from the basic social services that we and vulnerable people need for support, with what is calculated to be, by the end of the next couple of years, £110 billion given out in tax cuts to corporations, we can see why people do not believe the Government have any concept of social justice or equality. Does the Chancellor have any words for the thousands suffering—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said, “Pathetic.” I’ll tell you what develops real pathos. Many of us in our constituency surgeries are having to deal with people who are dependent on universal credit. Yet the Chancellor did not have any words for the thousands who are suffering from the brutal roll-out of universal credit—the people we represent who are now queueing up at food banks as a result of the cuts. Traditionally, the spending review concentrates on departmental expenditure limits, rather than social security. I appreciate that. But there was no reason why the Chancellor could not have signalled the Government’s intent at least to end the misery and hardship that their policy is causing and to end the roll-out of universal credit as it now is.

Most shockingly, the Chancellor has given no sign that he understands the scale of the climate emergency facing us and the urgency of the significant Government response that is needed. He mentions the climate but allocates minuscule amounts of funding to address an existential threat to our society. I hope that in the next few weeks Members will remember those who got no comfort from today’s announcements, if the Government push ahead with their plans for tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy, as is widely rumoured. I hope that Members will remember all those individuals and services that were deemed too unimportant by the Chancellor to address today. I tell him that whenever that election comes—in any election campaign—he can be sure that the Labour party will remind those people and the voters what nine years of austerity have done to them, and of today’s failure to act. The opportunity was there today really to end austerity—to start reversing austerity—and to give people some hope. What a missed opportunity.

We remember when we were told that there was no alternative, and that there was no money. We all know the lines—we have heard them enough times. They were not true then and they are not true now. The majority of economists have always agreed that there was another approach that the Government could have taken, rather than austerity, and we always argued—and we were right—that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. As recently as March, the Conservatives ploughed on, saying that there was no alternative. Look at them now suddenly proclaiming an end to austerity—after 125,000 excess deaths as a result, after £100 billion has been taken out of the economy, and after the worst decade for wage growth since the 19th century—just because there may be an election around the corner. After all that, to deliver a pathetic sum to spending Departments, who are on their knees at the moment, is just adding insult to injury.

This is a Government who are not just callous and uncaring, but hypocritical. This is not a Government—it is a racket. They pretend to end austerity when they do nothing of the sort. They pretend to plan ahead while they plot a no-deal Brexit that would devastate parts of our economy. They are a Chancellor and a Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said yesterday, with no mandate, no morals and no majority. They are trying to distract us from the crumbling public services and stagnating wages that they have created after a decade in charge. It is almost as if they forget they have been in government for nine years. They seek to fool the British public with fantasy promises of a Brexit deal that they knew they could not deliver and they were not even trying to negotiate. This short-lived Government will go down in history for its unique combination of right-wing extremism and bumbling incompetence. This is a Government that betrays the people it is meant to serve—a Government that will never be forgiven, but will soon be forgotten.

[Sajid Javid]

At least the shadow Chancellor did not try to throw a little red book at me this time. He attacks the decisions that were made over the last decade to restore the nation’s finances. He attacks the same free enterprise system that has delivered the prosperity that our nation enjoys. He refuses to understand that a strong economy is absolutely necessary to pay for public services.

Why have we made these decisions over the last decade that get us to where we are now, where we can properly end austerity for good? Labour trashed the economy the last time it was in power, like it always does. The shadow Chancellor talked about cuts that were made to public services over the last decade. Let us just remember what we inherited—the absolute mess that we inherited—in 2010: a deficit that was 10% of GDP, with £150 billion in borrowing in that year. It was the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and the biggest budget deficit of any large industrialised nation. Labour was borrowing £5,000 a second. There was the deepest recession that we had seen in almost 100 years. The shadow Chancellor talked about the bankers. Which Government gave us the biggest banking bailout in global history? It was the last Labour Government. That was our inheritance.

It was absolutely clear that had that unsustainable rate of spending continued, with no link between what was coming in and what was going out, the country would have gone bankrupt, just like it did with Labour in the past, when we had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. That is the legacy of every Labour Government. It took Conservatives to clear up Labour’s mess, bringing the deficit under control, bringing debt under control—having it falling for the first time in a generation in terms of the proportion of national income—reducing taxes for 40 million people and backing millions of businesses. And we have had a jobs miracle, with more people employed today in Britain than at any other time in our history and the lowest unemployment rate since 1975.

The shadow Chancellor talked about the impact of our policies on economic growth. Let me tell him about the impact on economic growth: since 2010, since the Conservatives were back in office, our economy has grown by 18.7%—faster than the economies of France, Italy and Japan. I will tell him about the risk to the economy—the only risk to the economy is from the shadow Chancellor, his policies and the entire Labour party. They have a tax hike for everyone. They have a tax hike if you happen to own a garden, if you want to give a gift to someone, if you want to go on holiday, if you own a home—whoever you are, they have a tax hike for you. They want to raid private pensions. Just this week, we learned more about their plans. They want to confiscate 10% of almost all our large companies. That is £300 billion that they want to confiscate from pensioners’ private plans. They also want to renationalise industries—is it seven, eight or nine? I do not know how many industries they want to renationalise—

Budget Resolutions

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am aware—far more than the Labour party, despite its name—that what workers want is work. That is why we should celebrate the fact that we have more people employed today than at any time in our history, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years.

Labour Members talk a good game, but all they have are blank cheques they know will never be cashed and empty promises they know they will never be able to keep. Over and again, the shadow Chancellor refuses to say how much his spending plans would cost, how much he would have to borrow and how much debt he would pile on to the next generation. He says that he does not “need a number”, because that is “what iPads are for”. He even accused one reporter of wanting him to “pluck a figure” out of thin air. Well, no, we do not want him to pluck a finger out of thin air—[Interruption.] A figure, and a finger as well. He is good at putting up the finger—we know that. We want him to tell the British people how much his plans would cost. His failure to do so can mean one of only two things: either he has no idea what the cost would be, in which case he is not fit to be Chancellor, or he does know, but is refusing to share his dirty little secret because he is all too aware of how shameful it is.

[John McDonnell]

I have taken a vow that I will not throw about any form of book in the Chamber ever again, but may I suggest that we send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the “Grey Book”, which identified every policy, all costings and all funding sources—including our capital transformation fund—that would build the homes that we need and ensure a fair taxation system? That is how we would fund our policies. The only numbers in the Tory manifesto were the page numbers.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the state-owned banks came about by accident rather than design, and the Government’s overriding purpose now is to return those banks to the private sector, with the best interests of shareholders paramount. With regard to Government involvement in the banking sector, he mentioned the Help to Buy scheme. That is a good example of a scheme that is designed to work through incentives. No bank is compelled to take part in that scheme or similar ones, such as the funding for lending scheme, which work through incentives. It is important to consider what the Government can do to make it easier for banks to stay in the MSB sector or to get more active in it. That is the right area to explore to help our constituents.

The Government cannot prevent UK banks from facing supervisory and enforcement action from other jurisdictions. Hon. Members know that this is not just about rules in the UK, because European Union rules, and especially rules in the US, affect many money transfer businesses, because most transfers typically have to be converted into US dollars and therefore touch US soil. What the US authorities think is therefore important.

We are committed to doing our utmost to ensure that remittances continue to flow through secure, legitimate channels. The market is adapting, and remittances are continuing to flow into and out of the UK. Particular concerns have been raised regarding Somalia, as we have heard today. That market, too, is adapting and remittance channels remain open. The supervisors and the Government have been monitoring the situation carefully. We know that all MSBs operating in the Somali corridor prior to the decision by Barclays continue to do so, with a number still having bank accounts. Although individual MSBs may be finding trading conditions more difficult, remitters can still service a wide range of customers in the UK and different areas in Somalia. Additionally, many MSBs across a range of corridors are becoming agents of other MSBs, and discussions have been held with various MSB communities on using cash couriers in a manner that is secure and compliant with legal requirements for the cross-border movement of cash.

We must ensure that our constituents are aware of the options available to help them to continue to make remittances. Since the previous debate on the matter in this Chamber, the Government have engaged directly with the Somali community on these options.

Since the previous time I addressed hon. Members on this issue, I have made a written ministerial statement setting out the cross-government effort to find solutions, which included an action plan to secure the continued flow of remittances. The plan includes steps to improve trust in the UK remittance market by the formal banking sector, for example, through building the capacity of money service businesses and providing guidance on the banking of such businesses. It also outlined the creation of an independent action group on cross-border remittances. Through this group, officials from across the Government are working closely with regulators and the private sector to facilitate a sustainable market-based solution. The first full meeting of the group is scheduled to take place next Friday—31 January. I am pleased to announce today that Sir Brian Pomeroy will chair the group. Sir Brian has extensive experience in this field, as the founding chairman of the Payments Council and the previous chair of the Treasury’s financial inclusion taskforce, and through his work with the Alliance for Financial Inclusion.

[John McDonnell]

Fauzia Adan, a former constituent of mine, is now Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister of Somalia. I am not sure whether there has been full dialogue with the Somalia Government regarding their representation on this group. Has a representative been nominated?

[Sajid Javid]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman specifically whether a representative was nominated or if there will be one in the group, but I can certainly look into that and get back to him. I can confirm that we are working with the Somalia Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on this issue overall.

The Somalia-focused working group may be of particular interest to many hon. Members in the Chamber. The group has been tasked with developing a safer corridor pilot to ensure secure remittance channels to Somalia. The group will work with the World Bank, which will provide technical expertise, and the pilot will aim to improve the security, transparency and oversight of this existing remittance channel. The Department for International Development has held consultations to identify appropriate representatives for the working group on the safe corridor. International partners, including the World Bank, the G20 and the international strategic alliance on law enforcement, are also supporting this work.

The group working on the pilot has agreed its final terms of reference, through consultation with stakeholders, and these will be presented to the action group next week. The Somalia-focused group, working with its partners, including the World Bank and others, believes that there is a one-year implementation for the pilot project.

Before I conclude, I want to make sure that I have answered questions raised by hon. Members, if I have not answered them already. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked about international engagement. I hope that I have given him some insight into that, regarding our working with the G20, the World Bank and other international partners. We are also working through the EU. The hon. Gentleman knows that a payment services directive exists, but a second payment services directive is being negotiated with EU partners. We have taken a strong interest in that to ensure that whatever comes out of it does not make this situation any more difficult, but helps to improve it by encouraging the development of rules to deal with money laundering and our other natural concerns that are proportionate and do not make the situation difficult for banks throughout the EU. We have to keep in mind that Britain has, I think, more money service businesses than any other European country, so that is another important aspect of our international engagement.

Several hon. Members asked how well Government co-ordination is working. We have a steering group at Government level, of which the Treasury is part, which meets every single week. As well as the Treasury, the group involves the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the National Crime Agency, which provides information from our intelligence agencies that we think might help, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Department for International Development. The Treasury is a core part of that group, which has proved important in ensuring that we stay on top of the issue and treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I chair the PCS parliamentary group. It is a cross-party group that was formed a number of years ago, and several Members of Parliament on both sides of the Chamber tonight are members of it. I think it has been helpful for Members of Parliament to gain a knowledge, through the union, of what the union’s members undertake, how they effect their work and the role that they play.

PCS represents the largest number of civil servants, and certainly the largest number affected by the compensation scheme, and I want to add my name to the compliments that have been paid today, across the Chamber, with regard to civil servants and the role that they play. It is an admirable tradition, serving Governments of all political colours, with commitment and dedication that is second to none across the globe. It is slightly ironic that we praise them now, and yet, by the looks of it, in a month’s time we are going to lay off and make redundant the largest number of civil servants ever in our history, as a consequence of the comprehensive spending review. Anyway, we are all committed to the existence of a civil service that implements the policies of a directly elected Government.

There are certain measures that Governments introduce that can be described as land mine Bills. Judging by the type of the legislation or their subject matter, they might appear relatively innocuous at first, but they are political land mines that can permanently damage and taint an Administration. I think the art of good governance is to identify—perhaps from bitter experience—the potential disasters, those land mines, and avoid them. This Bill is a political land mine. It is potentially extremely potent and it is an explosive issue. I think it is potentially disastrous for this Government and I think, coming at it as an ex-bureaucrat myself, that it will undermine their ability to implement their overall programme. Why? Well, many Members have commented that they have discussed with constituents and civil servants and they have received representations, so many Members will share the feeling that I have. I think morale is being affected by this legislation and the way in which it is being handled. I think morale at the moment in the civil service is at an all-time low as a result.

The Government have been democratically elected and have the right to implement their policy programme, but every manager, whether in the public or the private sector, needs not only resources and clear objectives but a committed, dedicated and motivated staff. The imposition of the Bill is undermining that morale, that commitment, that dedication, that we so need among the work force.

There is a depth of feeling about the unfair way in which people are being treated in the civil service. I have met many PCS members, including many who are my constituents, and there is resentment of the Government’s political action on this issue. The most common response that I—and, I am sure, other Members—have met is the simple statement, “We didn’t cause this economic crisis, but we’re having to pay for it with our jobs and with cuts in our conditions of service, and this is the latest round of those cuts.” There is a real, palpable sense of grievance, particularly as the bankers who did cause the crisis are not just back in position, but have, in some cases, been appointed to higher positions. Some have even been appointed to ministerial positions in recent weeks. Bankers are coming back for their obscene bonuses and obscene pay. There does not seem to be any equity or equivalence of suffering. There is a feeling among civil servants that we are not all in this together.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the budget deficit that this Government inherited from the previous Government is £155 billion, but even the structural deficit, which was there before the economic crisis commenced, was £128 billion. The country was already living way beyond its means. That is why his Government tried to make changes to the scheme, and it is a reason why we need to do so. It is no good trying to blame the problem on a particular profession. If he is going to pick a profession to blame it on, he should pick the political class represented in the previous Government.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman came to the House at the last election, so he may not know that I was probably not the most vociferous supporter of the economic policies of the previous Government. I was a critic, and if he looks at the alternative Budgets that I provided annually—which this House rejected, but never mind—he will see that there would have been no deficit if I had implemented them. There would have been a redistribution of wealth and an increase in taxation, which would have enabled us to afford the public expenditure that our society requires.

I am not a Keynesian; I am a Marxist—[Laughter.] Well, it is interesting how true some of the predictions in “Das Kapital” are coming. Even if one takes a Keynesian position, the last thing one would do at this point in time is reduce aggregate demand and cut jobs, wages and conditions of service. It flies in the face of reality to lay off large numbers of civil servants, and then cut the income and compensation arrangements that they receive. Anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker would rule us out of order if we went into another economic diatribe.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I believe that people who are made redundant should be properly compensated and, yes, I believe that the system put forward by the last Government was certainly affordable. I actually believe that the mechanism previous to that is still affordable. However, I accept that there was a need for reform. That is what the unions were negotiating on. It was not the PCS’s fault that the last scheme fell apart; the Government ruled that the process by which it was introduced was unlawful—it is as simple as that.

Let me return to the myth of a highly paid civil service that is promulgated, if not today, certainly elsewhere, including by the media. Yes, there are some highly paid civil servants, and we have dealt with that today. The unions themselves are at the forefront of highlighting the need to tackle high pay and bonuses. However, as had been said, the average civil service pay on which redundancy payments are based is £22,850 a year, compared with £24,970 in the private sector. There are 35,000 civil servants who earn less than £15,000 a year. Some 210,000 people—40% of the civil service—are paid £20,000; 350,000, less than £25,000. The bulk of our civil servants are on low or relatively modest pay.

The other tactic that is used—and it has been paraded again today by Ministers and Members in the debate—is a justification of the attack on the compensation scheme by divide and rule, playing public sector workers off against private sector workers. The Government have argued that many people in the private sector receive only statutory minimum redundancy payments or low-level additional scheme payments, but the reality is that most private sector workers are covered by some form of additional scheme, and are usually protected by its being written into their contract of employment. The fact that the level of many of those compensation payments is disgracefully low in some parts of the private sector is no justification whatsoever for undermining standards in the public sector. It is an argument for raising levels and standards in the private sector, even in these economic times.

The argument that when civil servants take on their job they weigh up the merits of going into the public or private sector has been made today. Wages in the public sector are lower, but the benefits are better, and usually more secure—that is the calculation that is made. If we compare civil service grades with jobs in the private sector, we can see that admin officers in the civil service earn 21% less than people in comparable jobs in the private sector.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. The latest report by the Office for National Statistics in 2009 stated that the median weekly salary in the public sector was about £540 versus £470 in the private sector.

[John McDonnell]

I shall refer the hon. Gentleman to the figures, so we can base the debate on them. I repeat: average civil service pay is £22,850 a year compared with £24,970 in the private sector.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman might want to pick up the report from the House of Commons Library which contains the exact numbers: £539 a week in the public sector versus £465 in the private sector.

[John McDonnell]

I will not quote the figures again, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the income data survey. I am happy to provide him with a PCS briefing that sets out the figures. [Interruption.] Well, the briefing is based on information independently issued by the income data survey.

In the executive grades, supervisors in the public sector—people with vocational qualifications—earn 18% less than supervisors in the private sector. The decision to go into the public sector, as I have said, is based on a judgment in the round about security, benefits, pensions and, yes, redundancy payments, which are described as accrued benefits that people earn over time. They are part of their wages. What is happening today is a Government unilaterally tearing up the contract that was entered into when many of these civil servants entered employment. I think that that will be open to challenge on the grounds of human rights compliance. Inevitably, members not just of the PCS but of other unions will wish to exercise their rights in law. What is happening is the worst of all worlds for civil servants.

Finance Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Sajid Javid

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

May I say that there seems to be a big confusion between tax evasion and tax avoidance? The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to “avoidance and evasion” and treating them in almost exactly the same way. Clearly one of them, avoidance, is entirely legitimate—it is a basic human instinct for someone to try to hold on to more of their own money, which they have earned through their hard work—whereas the other, evasion, is an illegal activity. Would he not do well to focus on what might be the issue, rather than trying to confuse it?

[John McDonnell]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My amendment tackles tax evasion, which is clearly an illegal activity, but we need to address a wider issue that goes beyond the normal tax planning: tax avoidance beyond the spirit of the law. In previous debates, we have tried to insert into the tax laws of this country a general duty of tax compliance, which exists in other countries. Such an approach puts an onus—as a duty in law—on the individual to comply and to try to emphasise that duty, rather than to look for every possible means to avoid tax. There is a gradation in these matters, but I tackle both these things because they are both legitimate concerns in wider society and will become increasingly pressing ones as individuals experience the public expenditure cuts that will take place as we seek to tackle the deficit.