Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point I am in the process of making, but he does it more simply, and I thank him for that. That is the key point about the ring fence. The utility aspects of banking, which are operating the payment system and taking deposits, should be so constructed within an entity that when a bank fails—I say when, not if, because there will be another bank failure and our purpose is to try to make it easier for banks to be resolved so there is less likelihood of taxpayer intervention, meaning that the bank will be more likely to be allowed to go under and that bankers will be likely to be more prudent—the ring fence enables that while protecting the ordinary depositor and the payment systems.
This is a long and complicated subject, as I learned over many hours, and the flow of capital from the lady who puts some money into the bank to the company that needs it to expand and grow the economy is necessarily complex. One must therefore be careful—[Interruption.] I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I promised that my remarks would be brief, so before I get a beady eye from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) to let me move on.
The critical point, which I completely accept, is that the compromise we came to is the ring fence. The compromise holds good, however, only if the ring fence works properly. Our conclusion was that it would not work if it were not reinforced, and the term “electrified” was coined. The point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East was that if one has at one’s disposal the ability to do something—the armoury, call it what you will—those who are engaged in the activity will check whether they are being looked at before they engage in it. It is the modern equivalent of the Governor’s eyebrow. If we do not have that, we will simply have a lot of regulation that might lead not to a successful conclusion but to a long dialogue that leads nowhere between the regulator, the Treasury and the institution. People must believe that when the weapon, whatever it is, is deployed, it will have a consequence. That is the essential point.
In conclusion, I think all members of the parliamentary commission came to a unanimous view. We started from different viewpoints and with different concepts, but we agreed—all five from this House, all five from the other place: all 10 of us together—that to give effect to the ring fence it needed to be reinforced. We thought it could be done in this way and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has laid out the arguments perfectly.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In following the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), I apologise for the fact that transit issues meant that I, too, missed the start of the debate. I will take up only a little time in the Chamber today, but, following the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East(Mr McFadden), it is important to make the point that it is not just those who have served the House well on the Parliamentary Commission for Banking Standards who have concerns about such issues and can see the difference between the Government’s offer and the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers and by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).
We talk about the electrified ring fence and, essentially, the Government are offering us a Fisher-Price electrified ring fence—a VTech model. They have looked up ring fence in the index of the Argos catalogue and gone for the one in the toy pages. There is not much point the Government’s saying they have taken everything into account, that this is the best model and that it will give everybody reliable assurances. Frankly, that is like trying to pretend that a tyre is flat only at the bottom and that this is just a minor stylistic difference about perception. The difference is about substance and reliability.
I encourage the Minister to listen to what right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, and particularly to those who have had the best insight into these issues through the parliamentary commission and who have changed and modified their views, like the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. They have been able to give it more consideration than someone such as me, who comes to the question on a reflex reaction of full separation.
I recognise that the ring fence is the only show in town, but it must be reliable and meaningful. The Government’s proposed procedure in amendment 6 could take longer than the life of a Parliament to have an effect. There will be not just the preliminary decisions but the Treasury consents required for those decisions, and tribunals after the warnings and the decisions, then variations and consultation between the regulators—the whole thing will go on.
Spending Review
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I know that my hon. Friend has been a campaigner on social care issues. This is probably one of the most transformative announcements in the statement. The Health Secretary and the Local Government Secretary will set out shortly how it will work, but it will involve the local commissioning of social care services jointly by the NHS and local government to try to end the divide between the two services that people fall into. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s expertise will be drawn on, because she knows a lot about the subject.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Chancellor outlined a new annually managed expenditure regime. Will he colour that in a little, particularly as regards Northern Ireland? Does he intend Northern Ireland to have its own separate welfare cap? How is it to be fixed? Will it take account of the higher rates of disability and long-term conditions in Northern Ireland or will the cap be used to try to taper Northern Ireland’s higher spending on those benefits?
Mr Osborne
The welfare cap will be for the United Kingdom, as we have a UK welfare system. It certainly will not be used to target Northern Ireland in particular. We want to ensure that more people in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to work and to get off benefits and although the subject has not featured in these questions, some of the changes we have announced to the jobcentre regime will help in this regard. We will ensure that they are suitably applied in Northern Ireland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
As I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government have taken forward a package of measures. The Youth Contract, which is helping half a million young people, the massive expansion and improvement in the quality of apprenticeships, helping young people all around the country, and the Work programme make up a proper package of measures to do what the hon. Gentleman and I agree about—try to help more young people off benefits and into work. The problem has been building up for many years, and he should be a bit more humble about it.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Would a meaningful G8 outcome on tax evasion involve the Chancellor’s revisiting the controlled foreign company rules that he introduced? They incentivise the use of tax havens and deny revenue to the Exchequer here and, more so, to developing countries.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I acknowledge the effective advocacy that he has provided for Equitable Life annuitants. I commend him and the Chancellor and his ministerial colleagues for addressing that outstanding injustice. The issue now is to deliver not just the solution that has been designed, but the outcome that people deserve.
There are some things in the Budget that it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge from a Northern Ireland perspective. Our exclusion from the carbon price floor is hugely important, given that Northern Ireland is part of a single electricity market in Ireland. The effect of the price floor would have been to skew investment in our generating capacity in a way that would have penalised business and consumers. I am therefore glad that Ministers woke up to the problems that many of us have been raising in the Chamber for so long, ever since the measure was announced.
We already know that there is some confusion about aspects of the Budget, such as Help to Buy, the mortgage support scheme. The shadow Chancellor has rightly raised some issues and questions about the scheme, but let us be clear: whether or not it will support people with buy-to-let mortgages, there is to be no income cap whatever on the people qualifying for it. At a time when people here are all about the “aspiration nation”, there are a lot of people out there who just feel exasperation that a scheme such as this should come along with no income cap. Meanwhile, they have suffered the loss of child benefit, on which there is an income cap, starting at £50,000, with payments ending completely at £60,000. Those people are exasperated too when they hear, “Oh yes, child care benefits are coming”—in two and a half years’ time. Government Members used to criticise the former Chancellor and Prime Minister when he produced Budgets and made announcements about things that would be introduced in two or three years’ time but sold them as though they were happening at the time. They rightly criticised him for that, yet they are cheering on their own Chancellor for doing exactly the same thing, while people are suffering the loss of support for caring for their children.
The Chancellor talked a lot yesterday about investing in new energy sources, but we needed to hear about investing in energy efficiency. He talked about new house building schemes to help the construction sector, but the sector is screaming out for support for repairs, maintenance and retrofitting to support energy efficiency in our existing housing stock. Many people want to stay where they are and to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, and they should be supported in that, not least through proper, targeted VAT relief and reductions.
Similar VAT reductions should be targeted at the tourism sector. That is happening in quite a number of EU member states. It is allowed, it is effective and it traps the multipliers here at home. I do not agree with the proposals for a blanket reduction in VAT for a particular period, as it could suck in all sorts of imports and send other money out of the country. We should target VAT reductions where they will produce real benefit in home sectors, and such targeting on the construction and tourism sectors would help.
Mark Lazarowicz
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about targeting help, particularly on building maintenance and repair and on tourism. Does he agree that one benefit of such targeting is that it would take effect very quickly and would be likely to help small business and small traders? Many of the housing measures announced yesterday were welcome, but they will mainly benefit the bigger builders. The VAT cuts that my hon. Friend is suggesting would provide a quick way of boosting the economy and helping many of the people who need help now.
Mark Durkan
I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point. The multipliers would get into gear far faster under that sort of measure than under some of the other measures that have been proposed, welcome though they are in their own context.
Certain aspects of the Budget served notice of more pain to come. The Chancellor spoke yesterday about changes that he will be making through annually managed expenditure. That sounds like a dry, technical change, but it will have a significant impact in relation to the controls that are being placed on welfare spending. We have already had the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which changed many of the rules, structures and qualifying criteria for benefits. It was designed in such a way as to allow for wide regulatory powers to place further changes and squeezes on benefits without the need for further primary legislation.
It is clear that, by moving to change the rules relating to annually managed expenditure, the Chancellor is trying to put in place more fixed envelopes for welfare spending. That will have particular implications for the way in which social security spend is managed in Northern Ireland, because the money comes to Northern Ireland not as part of the departmental expenditure limit—the DEL—but as annually managed expenditure. If that is now to be subject to some fixed-envelope procedure and capped in advance, it will put serious stress on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly is in the bizarre position of having to pass karaoke legislation that has to be exactly the same as that passed here, but it is notionally responsible for the administrative discretion on delivery. That will be a fundamental challenge for us in Northern Ireland, and we all need to wake up to that fact.
We need to be as alert to that challenge as the Executive have been on the case for corporation tax. I can see where the Chancellor is going with that, but his rate of travel in regard to corporation tax UK-wide means that, by the time any concession is delivered to Northern Ireland, the marginal benefits it will give us will be a lot less.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman is talking about business. Will he welcome the introduction of the employment allowance, and the benefit that it will bring to small businesses in Northern Ireland?
Mark Durkan
Yes, I welcome that. Labour has advocated it as well; it is a good, sensible measure that I know many firms will take up.
Similarly, I welcome the increase in the personal allowance, although it will perhaps not benefit as many people in my constituency as in the constituencies of some Government Members who have mentioned the measure. That is because my constituency has very high unemployment and high rates of economic inactivity. The problem in my constituency is the lack of work, not the lack of a work ethic. I will support any measures in the Budget or anywhere else that will ensure that more people can find work, embrace and express their aspirations and ambitions and make a contribution to their community and society.
The Chancellor is introducing fiscal apps and things in regional and city economies here in Britain that I would like to see our Executive and Assembly emulate at home in Northern Ireland. I would like to see the devolution discretion used a lot more to give us more creative capacity. When I see some of the measures in the Budget, I recognise that there is some constructive engagement to get the economy going again, but we need to get our share of it.
Financial Services Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the new Governor. If it had been a condition of his appointment that he understood the Bill and could explain it, does the hon. Gentleman believe that he would have been appointed?
Mr Tyrie
Well, he is a very clever man. I am confident that at the time of his appointment he would have been unable to pass the FSMA test, but I have no doubt that by the time he comes before the Treasury Committee for his pre-appointment hearing he will have mugged up fully on it all.
I have spoken for 14 minutes already, which is four minutes longer than I make a point of ever speaking in the House these days, so I will move swiftly to one last point. The Minister, as he pointed out, started looking at the Bill three quarters of the way through the process of putting in place a new system of financial regulation. I will wager a pound to a penny that he has found the tangled web of legislation that we have just been discussing extremely confusing. In fact, I wager that he has found it, in places, to be a nightmare and impossible to understand. I wager the same amount that the officials advising him do not always understand it either, and that is no reflection on the high-quality advice he is no doubt getting. Will he be prepared at least to consider rewriting FSMA afresh when he comes to adapt it to take account of the banking Bill, because that is what regulators have told us they would prefer, what the Governor of the Bank of England said he would prefer and what would enable the industry, the public and Parliament to have a much more intelligible piece of legislation?
It is a great shame that that approach, which was vigorously put forward at the time, was rejected when the Government first announced that they would proceed with amendments to FSMA. The Governor was pressing for it very strongly, and he had allies in Parliament. We now have a second chance, and I very much hope that the Minister will consider taking it. He will need to bear in mind that there will be 100—perhaps 1,000—official voices telling him not to do that, but just occasionally there are moments when a Minister can greatly improve the quality of the statute book. Would he be prepared at least to consider rewriting the Bill so that we have one fresh piece of legislation that everyone can understand?
Chris Leslie
In Labour’s view, amendment 25 ought to allow that. If we are talking about ease of access to affordable financial services, it should be a responsibility of the FCA to think of new ways to map what is happening across the country and to ensure that there are not these deserts or vacuums of poor availability or no availability. That is why there should be a requirement for a map to be drawn up of where and what lending is available, perhaps on a postcode-by-postcode basis. It would provide transparency and enable hon. Members to find out what is happening in their constituencies. Anecdote is not adequate; we need a more rigorous system of regulation and monitoring. That is how it is often done in other developed countries, such as the US, as my hon. Friend said.
In the past, Ministers have said that they are opposed to that level of transparency. I am not sure about this Minister—I know he will want to take a fresh perspective—but previous Ministers said: “It’s too burdensome to require transparency in respect of lending patterns, and there might be anti-competitive issues as well.” It would be entirely feasible to collect anonymised data in the way suggested, however, and I hope that Lords amendment 25 could be so interpreted.
Mark Durkan
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome amendment 25, which, I note, was something he laboured on valiantly when we spent our Lent in Committee. Does he recognise, however, that in one part of the UK —Northern Ireland—the five high street banks he referred to are not part of the banking profile? In Northern Ireland, we are facing a twilight zone of banking, with changes happening almost by default squared—as a result of changes here and in Dublin—and that will change further in the context of banking union. That is why we need to question how the FCA would use the powers being given to it under amendment 25.
Chris Leslie
Exactly. I imagine that what my hon. Friend describes is absolutely correct. Incidentally, I pay tribute to him for his endeavours in trying to improve the legislation, month after month after month, as we proceeded through Committee and on Report. The situation in Northern Ireland will be compounded by different factors, so how much more useful would it be if he and his neighbouring parliamentary colleagues had access to data about lending availability in a more rigorous form? That is how we want to interpret amendment 25 and how we will press the FCA to interpret it.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his compliment that he thinks my point is not wholly without merit, but it might test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I tried to shoehorn into the debate on the amendment possible solutions to the global food crisis and productivity in agriculture.
On derivatives, in agriculture production there is a need to hedge. There needs to be some kind of financial security to take account of unforeseen weather events and so on, so of course there is a need to hedge, but that is not what I am talking about. The question is whether some of the recent high-volume, high-speed forms of speculation and trading have had an impact on the global food price. I suspect that they might have, but it would be nice to have more information.
Mark Durkan
When some of us raised these issues in the previous Parliament, the then Government pooh-poohed the whole problem of speculation in relation to derivatives and so on. Does the hon. Lady share the concern that, as banks, hedge funds and all our pension funds try to work their way towards replenishing themselves after the crisis, there is a danger that they will go back to the bad ways of speculating in all sorts of commodities? Does she think the Government should prioritise this issue during their G8 presidency next year, and discuss with other Governments how to circumscribe the capacity of financial institutions to play dangerous games with this sort of speculation?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which was characteristically well made. I share his fear, and his point about the G8 is absolutely correct. It will be great to have the G8 summit in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and will duly feed it back to the Prime Minister, because there is no doubt that it is important.
In conclusion, underlying what we are trying to achieve is a financial system that has appropriate oversight. Given the importance—we now know this—to our everyday well-being and comfort of what appear to be financial technicalities and bits of information that people do not necessarily connect with the realities of life, I hope that the Government will pay the most careful attention to the results of the consultation on commodities, because we might have a genuine opportunity to set in train rules that will help us to spot the awful crashes and difficult phenomena of the future.
Autumn Statement
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Of course I welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation of ultra-fast broadband for Digital Derry, and the announcements on the carbon price floor and the fuel duty, but I am afraid that on personal taxation and benefits, the Chancellor is becoming something of a fiscal drag artist.
On another tax front, I welcome the fact that he has cut through all the Treasury excusery against the general anti-abuse rule, but surely it needs to be more robust. If it is going to be a meaningful priority of the G8 presidency to co-ordinate members against corporate tax conjuring, the Chancellor surely has to start by revisiting the controlled foreign company rules that he made in the last Budget.
Mr Osborne
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of our decision to provide ultra-fast broadband to Derry/Londonderry, and I congratulate the city on a very good bid, which competed against other bids across the UK. He is also right to say that we are helping the Northern Ireland energy sector with decisions on the carbon price floor, which I did not have space in my statement to announce, but they are in the book. I am glad that he acknowledges those aspects. More broadly, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will benefit when we help people who work hard and want to get on with the personal allowance and when we help small businesses and motorists with the fuel duty. We are doing all these things and are making sure that they apply to Northern Ireland as well.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
That is exactly right. There has to be openness and transparency. The point has already been made, but some of us will now have to go out there and campaign to keep people in these schemes. The way to do that is by having openness and transparency about what they are paying in, the benefits being made and, I agree, the overall contribution made by taxpayers.
I fear for the future. We have seen the Fire Brigades Union survey of what would happen if there were increases in pension contributions to those workers’ scheme and also a reduction in benefits. Some 30% told the survey that they would question whether they wished to continue in the scheme. A 30% withdrawal rate would undermine some of those schemes. That is why openness and transparency are important. One of the key areas for openness and transparency is in the valuation process, with the terminology and methodology agreed with the employee representatives, so that they have confidence that the process is being conducted fairly, openly and, to be frank, professionally. In addition, once the revaluation is done, the report should be provided to the employee representatives. I can see nothing in that with which the Government could disagree.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us might well have to campaign to ensure that people invest in and stick with these schemes, but even if we get valuation and transparency right, is there not a “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza” syndrome with these Henry VIII powers? People will say, “You can say all that, but you can’t promise that it will be so when I reach pension age.”
John McDonnell
I fully agree. What concerns me is that the Henry VIII powers in clause 3 are retrospective. This is another reason why the valuation process is so critical: if there is not full openness, transparency and consultation, in particular with employee representatives, the Government could in future use the valuation process to withdraw some of the benefits of the scheme or increase the contributions retrospectively. People can sign up to a scheme and pay into it for 20 years, but then be told that the benefits are different—although I think that will be tested in law, because I believe that legally we are talking about accrued rights that are protected under European legislation. The Government do not accept that argument, but it is a critical point. That is why I have tabled my amendments. The Government underestimate the anxiety and fears out there—particularly among trade unions, but also in other organisations—which arise from the lack of confidence in the future management of the schemes in the best interests of employees and members.
Let me turn to my amendments 7 and 8. The Government’s reform was meant to change the nature of the schemes, so that they would be based on career averages, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said from the Front Bench. However, that is for a defined benefit scheme, not a defined contribution scheme, yet the Government have not committed themselves to that in the legislation. That is why I have tabled amendments 7 and 8, so that where a scheme is rearranged or staff are transferred into a new scheme, they must be defined benefit schemes, because that is what was promised in the negotiations with the trade unions. It is argued that we are binding future Governments, but all legislation is meant to bind future Governments, and any future Government could revisit this matter. At the same time, we need to try to give at least some security and ensure that the promises given by the present Government are adhered to. That is not much to ask, and it is all my amendments are designed to do.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I fully recognised the views expressed on the Opposition Benches about public sector pensions being some of the poorest pensions, but I want to return briefly to the point I made about police pensions.
There will be some bitterly disappointed police officers out there this evening. We have heard in the past few minutes about goalposts shifting, while we have also heard about the physically demanding work of prison officers, but it is the exactly the same for our police officers and firefighters. On Second Reading, I commented on the massive changes and pointed out that there is no time for some police officers to recover when the computation is reduced to something like a 30% figure and they are having to work an extra seven years. The projected pension when they first joined the force is now reduced to around 70%. The decisions made in this House have been life-changing ones.
Mark Durkan
On the subject of the implications of pension changes for the police, does my hon. Friend recognise that a far bigger cohort of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is affected, because there has been such a turnover since the Patten commission? These people and their families are still facing targeting by dissidents, and they feel mugged by the Government.
Mr Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I fully recognise the difficulties faced across the water in Northern Ireland.
I shall finish now because I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) wants to contribute to the debate. As I was saying, what has been determined in this place this evening and over the past few weeks amounts to life-changing issues. Let us hope that there is a chance for some of it to be corrected in the other place.
Small Charitable Donations Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Charities are facing challenging circumstances, with falling financial support from the Government and falling regular donations as a result of the squeeze on people’s spending. This is a tough environment for any charity to work in. Furthermore, the reliance on the charitable and voluntary sector is increasing, as we are seeing from the number of food banks that are springing up and the greater reliance on homelessness services.
We owe it to charities to help them out when we can, and I must admit that the Chancellor’s announcement of these proposals was one of the few parts of the Budget that I welcomed. Now that we have had a chance to look at the details, however, we see that there are still some outstanding issues. We will of course support the Bill on Third Reading, but I still have concerns about accessibility for many of the charities that could benefit most from it.
Offering charities the chance to take advantage of a gift aid top-up is of course welcome. My constituency is facing a number of serious challenges, but we are fortunate to have a thriving charitable and voluntary sector that does much good work throughout the area. I am thinking of the small charities run by a handful of local volunteers, such as Home from Home in Dumbarton, and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, which has a very wide reach but relies on a small team of dedicated volunteers, as well as the slightly larger ones with some staff, such as Y Sort-It in Clydebank. They all contribute so much, working alongside the services offered by the local authorities to help with a range of issues.
As I am sure other Members will recognise, it is often many of the smaller charities which are getting by on tiny incomes that help so much with the provision of local services. Many of them do not have steady income streams or the time and manpower—or, often, the womanpower—to administer complex donation rules. They rely on simple methods of fundraising, such as bring-and-buy sales and collecting donations in buckets on the street. Those small activities all add up.
I am sure that, like me, many of those smaller charities will be pleased with the effect that the proposals could have on their incomes. They remain concerned, however, about the restrictions that could make them ineligible. The Government need to ensure that the rules will work for charities and not against them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has comprehensively set out, we need the Bill to help charities out, not to add to the burden of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy can be a headache for small charities. Compliance with the rules is essential—they are there for a reason—but they can pose real difficulties, particularly for the smaller charities. A Treasury spokesperson said the Government’s proposals were intended to reduce the administrative burden on charities, but I am not sure that that is what they will do. It is possible that the bigger charities, not the smaller ones, will benefit.
The Government’s amendments are helpful; they are heading in the right direction. The original proposals could have resulted in the smallest charities losing out the most, because placing so many conditions on the new top-up would have made it difficult for those charities to take advantage of the scheme. I am pleased that the Government seem to have recognised the problem with the three-year criterion, and that they are moving towards a two-year period instead. That will widen the benefits to include more charities. However, the proposals will still favour the larger charities that have a history of gift aid claims over the smaller ones that rely on bucket donations.
Similarly, the Government’s amendments do not properly reflect the needs of newly established charities, which will naturally not have any history of gift aid claims. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said that her amendment would acknowledge the fact that, although many charities are proactive in their work, there are those that react to events. A charity might be set up to react to a natural disaster, for example; another might be set up in memory of a loved one. Newly established charities often receive a significant proportion of their donations at the very beginning, and their donations might subsequently tail off. Under the current proposals, they would not be able to claim top-up payments related to those important initial donations.
Our amendments are intended to help those small and new charities by removing the lengthy start-up period and replacing it with a probationary period. That would provide a real benefit. It would allow all charities without a claims history, whether new or established, to benefit from the top-up scheme while keeping the protections in place. It is important to have protections against fraud, but I believe that our proposed probationary period would be sufficient in that regard. I therefore encourage Members to support our amendments.
We need to ensure that we get the scheme right. The Government’s own “Giving” White Paper, published last year, made it clear that they wanted to work more with business and charities to make it “easier and more compelling” for people to give time and money, and so make the change that they want to see. Our amendments would make it much easier for the Government to meet their aims.
New clauses 1 and 2 would ensure a proper review of the impact of the measures on access to the scheme. The charity and voluntary sector deserves to have the rules properly reviewed, with a report being laid before Parliament so that all Members can see how accessible the scheme is. I hope that, in the spirit of openness and transparency that the Government say they are in favour of, all Members will consider supporting the new clauses.
The simple principle of giving charities the extra bit of help that is contained in the Bill is very much welcome, but the proposals could and should go further. As the Bill stands, thousands of small charities could lose out. Our amendments would take a few steps towards giving charities that extra support, and I hope that Members will support them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
As other hon. Members have already said, many practical concerns and suggestions were aired and shared by members of the four parties represented when we discussed the Bill in the Public Bill Committee. It is important that we use the Report stage to return to a number of those issues. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee. This is not the time for “Here are our best bits” or for simply making our pitches again. However, it is important to reflect on the fact that the Minister indicated that he was listening to some of the points that were made in Committee, even if he refuted many of the others. That is reflected in some of the Government amendments that he will no doubt speak to later. I welcome the fact that further progress has been made, just as I welcome the fact that, in Committee, the Minister tabled an amendment to clause 2 as a direct response to an issue that I had raised on Second Reading. I appreciate his doing that.
There is still a basic problem with the Bill. The original Budget promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was widely welcomed across the House, and certainly in the charity sector. People expected something along the lines of what they thought had been promised—that the equivalent of gift aid would be available, with certain conditions, to charities, without them having to fulfil all the gift aid criteria and the necessary processes attached to them.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I will start by reflecting on the Bill’s constructive Committee stage, and I thank the Opposition for their continuing support. I also thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for their contributions to today’s debate. I will try to answer as many of the issues raised as I can.
Proceedings in Committee, and now on Report, have provided an excellent challenge to and scrutiny of the Bill—as they should have done—and I hope it is clear from the amendments that they have tabled that the Government have listened to hon. Members from across the House. The amendments in this group cover mainly the eligibility conditions for charities that wish to claim under the small donations scheme. New clauses 1 and 2 would have a wider effect, as they require HMRC to publish certain details about the scheme as a whole. Amendment 21 would require HMRC to publish details of the connected charities and community buildings rules. Government amendments 28 and 29 are minor and technical and simply change the Government Department to which powers in clauses 7 and 8 are given.
In Committee we debated a variant of new clause 1 and the same text of new clause 2. I opposed the measures then, and I am afraid I shall oppose them again today, as I will amendment 21. As I explained in Committee, we need neither the new clauses nor amendment 21. We are already doing much of what they ask and it would not be a good use of civil servants’ time to duplicate that work.
Let me start with the annual report. As I said in Committee, HMRC publishes national statistics on the cost of various charitable tax reliefs three times each year. Once the gift aid small donations scheme is up and running, HMRC will include details of that in those national statistics. HMRC does not separately identify gift aid claims by types of organisation, regions of the UK, or their regulators. Those details are not published for gift aid claims and it would not be a good use of HMRC’s time to produce such information for this scheme.
HMRC does not collect information on whether a charity is exempt or excepted. Charities would have to provide that extra information, and HMRC would need to change its IT system to cater for that. Again, that cannot be a good use of resources for either charities or HMRC. HMRC does not publish details of fraud rates in particular schemes or tax reliefs, as that would be tantamount to advertising them to fraudsters. I therefore cannot commit to publishing such information. All information that HMRC can reasonably publish will be published, and interested Members will be able to find all relevant information on its website.
New clause 2 would require a review of the scheme two years after the Act comes into force. As I said in Committee, the Government are committed to a review of the scheme three years after it has started. That will allow enough time for the scheme to get up and running, and for charities to learn about it and get used to claiming. Any less time than that, and the review would not be representative of the scheme. A two-year review would be premature, but it would be wrong to think that no one will look at the scheme for three years. HMRC engages with charities every day through its helpline, outreach and audit teams. It will listen to what charities are saying and look for ways to improve the scheme.
HMRC’s charity tax forum has been discussing this scheme since it was announced in March 2011. The forum will share experiences of the scheme as it beds down, and identify areas for improvement. HMRC keeps all guidance under review and makes changes as necessary so that any issues raised can be responded to without having to wait for three years to pass.
Amendment 21 would require the Treasury to carry out a separate review of the scheme in relation to the community buildings and connected charities rules. As they currently stand, the community buildings and connected charities rules will affect only a few charities. For the vast majority who take advantage of the scheme, such rules will be irrelevant and can be ignored. Most charities are not connected with other charities, and do not operate within community buildings or collect more than £5,000 in small cash donations.
We will debate later more Opposition amendments on the community buildings and connected charities rules. The amendments would extend those rules—and their complexities—to a far larger number of charities. Whatever the outcome of that debate, I do not believe that amendment 21 is necessary. I have already said that we will review the scheme after three years, and that review will be wide ranging and look at all aspects of the scheme. It seems unnecessary and wasteful to hold another review 12 months earlier to look at just a small part of the scheme; it would be better to review everything at the same time.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) spent two Committee sittings setting out his concerns about HMRC, which he doubted would have enough resources to administer the scheme—if we go ahead with all these reviews and reports, he may well be right. I do not feel that the new clauses or amendment 21 are a necessary or effective use of public resources, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) not to press them.
New clause 3 was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, and amendments 32 and 33 by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They are designed to support new and smaller charities and to mitigate the effects of a three-year eligibility period. I hope that hon. Members have noted the amendments that I tabled on eligibility requirements, and that my proposal to drop the eligibility period to two years goes some way to allaying their concerns.
We debated new clause 3 at length in Committee, but I am afraid the concerns that I raised still apply. HMRC would be expected to gather information from other agencies to check the credibility of small charities. That would place a significant administrative burden on it to verify each and every charity that applied through that route. HMRC would be required to make subjective judgments about whether a charity was in or out, and would be constantly at risk of a legal challenge to its decisions. The scheme would be impractical in operational terms and I ask the hon. Member for Foyle to consider not pursuing the new clause.
Mark Durkan
The Minister suggests that under the new clause, HMRC would have to check with all sorts of other agencies, but the measure clearly states that HMRC can provide for a scheme to which charities may apply. It would be up to the charities to produce and submit the verifying information. It would not be HMRC’s duty to verify information with other charity regulators or anybody else; it would be up to the charity making the claim to produce the necessary evidence as laid down in the scheme.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. He sat on the Public Bill Committee and will understand from those debates—probably more than most Members in the Chamber today—the eligibility requirements. I know that he welcomes some of the Government amendments, but the remaining eligibility requirements provide a degree of protection for the public purse, so that charities that make claims and use the benefits introduced by this Bill are those that HMRC has good reason to believe are using the measure in the right way, and there is protection against fraud. I have looked closely at his new clause, which he has tabled with the best of intentions, but it is not a change that we can afford to make at the moment.
I turn to amendments 32 and 33, tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Again, I am afraid I cannot support them. They would allow certain charities— those with an annual income below £25,000 and those set up for specific projects and events, such as she described—to claim top-up payments from the time when they were established without meeting any other eligibility requirements. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, but they would cost a lot of money—tens of millions of pounds.
Most small charities starting up have an annual income well below £25,000, and those set up in reaction to events such as disasters would also qualify for payments under the amendments, so nearly every new charity would qualify immediately. As I said, I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendments, but it is essential to have some eligibility requirements, otherwise the scheme will be wide open to fraudsters and the cost to the public purse will rocket.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
If I may, I will come to that issue in a moment. The arrangements for the NHS pension scheme have been agreed, and the reforms have been taken forward on that basis. That includes the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age.
Danny Alexander
I will go on with my speech, if I may. I hope that I will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question as I do so. I will not take interventions at the moment, as this is an important subject. I will perhaps take some at the end of this section.
We have all heard the cries “68 is too late”, along with similar slogans, but it is crucial that people understand the facts behind the proposals in the Bill. The pension age is a calculation point, not a fixed date up to which people must work in order to receive their pension. Public service workers will still be free to choose when to retire, either earlier or later than the state retirement age. When a person retires at a different age, their pension benefits will be adjusted, to take account fairly of the fact that they are taking them earlier or later than the date against which they have been costed. People will still have the freedom to choose when to retire, however. The Bill does not deprive public servants of that choice.
Lord Hutton said that the Government should ensure that the link between the public service schemes and the state pension age should be reviewed to ensure that it continued appropriately to track longevity. We will do that. The Bill does not provide for such a review, however, and nor should it. We have already committed to come forward with details of how the review of the state pension age will be conducted. We will review the normal pension age of the schemes, to consider whether the state pension age appropriately tracks longevity in the public service schemes. The process will be determined once the detail of the state pension age review system is settled. That is the right way to proceed, and it would be inappropriate for the Bill to attempt to second-guess that.
Mark Durkan
The Chief Secretary is emphasising the importance of clause 9 in facilitating future adjustments in relation to pension ages. Why, then, does he also seek to justify the Henry VIII provision in clause 3, which will allow the Government radically and retrospectively to alter pension terms at any time, or times, in the future?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born, and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions. We have set out in the Bill certain elements of the scheme, particularly the pension age link, and the fact that the schemes need to be CARE schemes and certainly cannot be final salary schemes in future. The provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in fact more limited than those in the 1972 Act. It is appropriate that we continue in broadly the same way, because that has stood the test of time. I hope that, by setting out the Government’s intentions here and in Committee and by undertaking detailed negotiations with work forces, we will have ensured that people know precisely how we intend to use these powers. I think it is clause 23—I might have got that number wrong—that refers directly to the 25-year guarantee that I mentioned earlier. I hope that that will give people some assurance that our scheme designs will stand the test of time.
Danny Alexander
In that case, we followed the recommendations of Lord Hutton—and, indeed, previous practice. The point I made just a moment ago—I am sure the hon. Lady was listening carefully—is that the provision does not stipulate the date to which people must work. Clearly, if people wish to retire earlier, they can do so and take an actuarially reduced pension or, indeed, retire later and take an actuarially enhanced pension.
Danny Alexander
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
The second and third tests of Lord Hutton were fairness to public servants and fairness to taxpayers. The Government have worked hard to ensure that the reformed pensions are fair and continue to provide a generous level of retirement income for public servants as a fair reward for a career spent serving the public. The Government made a commitment that these schemes would be at least as generous at retirement for those on low and middle-income earnings. We have delivered that commitment in a number of ways.
First, clause 16 allows transitional protection to be provided for those who have already had a long career in public service and are approaching retirement. I said in November last year that the offer provided that those within 10 years of their normal pension age on 1 April this year would not see any changes to their pension, nor the date at which they can draw it. The Bill ensures that the current final salary schemes will remain open to people who are covered by the transitional protection criteria in those schemes. Most of the proposed final scheme designs include the transitional offer as we set it out; however, the local government scheme in England and Wales has chosen alternative arrangements as sought by their trade unions and employers.
Secondly, we have honoured our commitment to retain the final salary link for people who have already built up some service in final salary schemes, as the provisions in schedule 7 make clear. Although these people will move on to CARE schemes by 6 April 2015 at the latest, their accrued years of final salary benefits will be calculated and paid at their final retirement salary—not their 2015 salary.
Most importantly for low and middle-income earners, we are putting the fairness back into public service pensions. Clause 7 provides that the new default for public schemes will be based on career average earnings, rather than on final salary. Final salary schemes are unfair to the majority of the work force as they disproportionately reward those who progress to senior roles compared with the majority of staff who have more consistent career paths. These outmoded schemes provide lower effective benefit rates to the people that carry out the core front-line work in our public services—the nurses, police officers and our armed forces whose work is so valuable to everyone here.
Career average schemes are fairer to the members and to taxpayers alike. Under final salary schemes, it is the taxpayer that picks up the cost of those high flyers who attain high salaries by the time they leave public service. Such members can receive twice as much in benefits per £1 of contributions that they have paid towards their pension. This is clearly unfair, which is why this Bill will not allow final salary schemes to continue after 2015. For members, pension benefits will be based on the amount that they earn over their career. That means their pension benefits will directly reflect the contributions that they and their employer make over their career.
The Bill ensures that these pensions remain among the very best available—and rightly so, if we are to continue to be able to recruit and retain the right people to undertake these crucially important roles. A key objective of the reforms is to ensure a fair balance of risks between scheme members and the taxpayer. To achieve this, Lord Hutton recommended that the Government establish a mechanism to control the future costs of pensions.
Clauses 10 and 11 establish an employer cost cap in the public service schemes. This will provide backstop protection to the taxpayer to ensure that any unexpected risks associated with pension provision are shared between employers and scheme members. With foreseeable longevity risk controlled through the pension age link, this really is a backstop, which under normal circumstances should not need to be used. Everyone in a public service pension scheme will see their pensions reformed along the same lines. I do not believe in special cases at a time when we are reforming the pension arrangements of those who provide essential services to the public.
Danny Alexander
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in this instance. In fact, had the “cap and share” arrangements introduced by the last Government been allowed to operate, they could have manifested themselves—[Interruption.] No, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. They could have manifested themselves in both a reduction in benefits and an increase in costs to members. The right hon. Gentleman is free to explore the matter in Committee, and I am sure that he will.
I should add that I have some further information relating to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention. The working longer review is acknowledged in the proposed final agreement on the NHS pension scheme, which specifically states that early retirement factors allowing retirement before the state pension may be considered should the review suggest that that is necessary.
As we have established, public body pension schemes and public service schemes operated by the devolved Administrations are required to make equivalent changes to their schemes as swiftly as possible. In the case of public body schemes, it has not been possible in all cases to complete the reform process according to the same timetable. As I said in a written ministerial statement on 16 July, reform is definitely on the cards for these organisations, and the Government aim to complete the work by 2018.
Speaking of special cases, the House should note that the Bill will also close the generous and outdated “great offices of state” pension schemes. They have outlived their usefulness in the modern world. I am glad that the Bill will close them to new office holders and will ensure that people in such roles are given the same pensions as Ministers. As I am sure Members are aware, the Prime Minister waived his entitlement to such a pension when he took office. The current Lord Chancellor is making arrangements to do likewise, as did his predecessor. Mr Speaker announced on the day that we published this Bill that he would retain the pension, but would take it only when he reached the age of 65 rather than drawing it as soon as he left office.
Lord Hutton’s fourth key test related to governance and transparency. The reformed schemes should be widely understood, both by scheme members and by taxpayers. People understand what is in their pay packet each month, and it should be just as easy to understand how their pension works. Under the Bill, the schemes will have robust and transparent management arrangements.
Clause 5 provides for each scheme to have a pension board which will work to ensure that the scheme is administered effectively and efficiently. There will be local pension boards in the case of the locally administered police, fire and local authority schemes. The boards will consist of member representatives, employer representatives and officials. They will operate in a similar way to boards of trustees, holding scheme administrators to account and providing scheme members and the public with more information about the pensions. The board members will be identified publicly, and their duties will be made clear to scheme members. I welcome the greater transparency that the Bill will bring to this area of public pension administration.
Clause 15 and schedule 4 provide for an extension of the role of the pensions regulator, who will improve and police the management and administration of all the new schemes. The regulator is independent of Government, and will be able to utilise its full range of powers to ensure that the public schemes are managed properly and to consistently high standards. Clauses 12 and 13 will ensure that all schemes collate and publish information to improve transparency and enable comparisons to be made between them.
Since the Bill was published, I have received a number of questions about its design. It establishes a common framework of delegated powers which enable schemes to be made in respect of the public service work forces. The common framework constrains the use of those powers on core parts of pension scheme design, such as the link between state pension age and normal pension age, the career average pension structure, and the abolition of the final salary link. Those core elements are fixed in this legislation in order to create fairness and an even degree of cost control across the work forces.
At the same time, the Bill allows flexibility when that is appropriate, enabling the secondary detail of the pension schemes to be adjusted in recognition of the differences between different areas of public service work. Members will know that the final scheme designs agreed vary significantly from work force to work force, properly reflecting differing priorities and concerns within the cost ceilings that I established. The approach builds on that taken in the Superannuation Act 1972, which set out a framework of delegated powers some 40 years ago.
Mark Durkan
The Chief Secretary has just mentioned the Superannuation Act 1972 again. Does he accept that section 2(3) of that Act specifically prohibits retrospective effects, whereas clause 3 of the Bill specifically allows them?
Danny Alexander
There are some technical areas in which that may be necessary, but in practice the adjustments that we are making in the clause to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—and also in clause 11(7), which was mentioned earlier—allow the design of future benefits to change to ensure that costs are controlled, but do not allow changes to accrued benefits. The Bill, however, takes a more balanced approach than the Superannuation Act. The core elements for all public pensions are set out in the Bill. This serves as an important constraint on the delegated powers, to ensure our main objectives for reform are met.
I have also heard representations from Members of the devolved Administrations, but I think we have addressed that matter through earlier interventions. The Bill contains some minor areas that touch on devolved matters in Scotland and Wales, and I have written to all the devolved Finance Ministers to request that they seek legislative consent motions for the appropriate provisions. The Bill covers Northern Ireland, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel there—the hon. Member for East Antrim—has indicated that the Executive are considering a legislative consent motion to that effect. As to the progress of reform discussions in Scotland and Wales, the Government have made it clear that these Administrations have exactly the same flexibility in discussions with their trade unions as Whitehall Ministers have had, and within those parameters there is a great deal of flexibility.
Members who have followed this issue closely will know that the path to these reforms has been a long one, but it has also been a collaborative journey. The public debate on these pensions has been happening ever since this Government came to power more than two years ago. Some 18 months have passed since the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission published its final report, and discussions with trade unions and negotiators have taken place continuously since then. It is now time to take the final step by codifying the key elements of these reforms in legislation.
The framework set out in the Bill provides Parliament, public service employees and taxpayers with an assurance that the new schemes will be consistent, transparent and effectively managed. More than that, it requires new schemes to have common retirement ages, to provide benefits on a fairer basis and to include cost control mechanisms to protect members and other taxpayers from unforeseen changes in the cost of providing pensions.
The Government have set out a settlement that represents a good deal for public sector employees and a good deal for the taxpayer. It recognises the enormously valuable contribution that public sector workers make to our society and ensures a fair balance of contributions between public sector workers and other taxpayers. Taken together, these reforms will ensure that these pensions are sustainable for a generation. That is why the Bill proposes to create a high barrier for future changes to these elements of pension scheme designs. That means that any Government wishing to adjust them within the next 25 years would be required to jump a very high hurdle to do so.
In the UK’s long-term interests, we are facing up to tough decisions that Labour failed to address during its time in office, and we have done so while engaging with the unions every step of the way. We have made huge savings that were long overdue while protecting the entitlement of public service workers to a very good pension in retirement, giving public servants the confidence that future Governments will not need to make further reforms, and giving taxpayers confidence that never again will these costs be allowed to balloon out of control. These reforms therefore also help to repair the mess that Labour made of our public finances.
Fair, affordable, sustainable, good pensions that last: this is a new pension settlement for a generation, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a thorough debate, and I welcome the contributions made by Members from both sides of the Chamber.
We need reforms that enhance the sustainability of pension schemes. In an era of significant demographic change, it is right to reform the pension system to ensure affordability for both employees and employers—which in the case of the public sector is the taxpayer. The sustainability of a decent pension scheme was the focus of several tough decisions made by the previous Labour Administration. The changes made to public service provision when we were in office included raising the pension age from 60 to 65, introducing a “cap and share” approach that would protect Exchequer revenues and share costs between employees and employers, and reforming contribution levels, which rose by 0.4% for teachers and up to 2.5% for NHS staff. The Public Accounts Committee says that those changes would save the taxpayer £67 billion over a 50-year period, so considerable reform took place under the previous Administration.
However, the Government have mishandled subsequent reform. As we have heard from some of my hon. Friends, when the Government were formed in 2012 by the Conservatives with their good friends the Liberal Democrats, instead of building on the changes that we made, they decided to rip them up, thus causing major problems. Their incompetent and shambolic handling of the reform process has also made it much harder to build a consensus on some of the many sensible long-term reforms proposed in my noble Friend Lord Hutton’s report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said. We have to find better ways of rebuilding trust and achieving consensus on these vital matters.
The Government are compelling major changes without negotiation in a way that is both crude and unfair. In particular, by unilaterally imposing a steep 3% rise in contributions prior to any negotiations or even the completion of Lord Hutton’s review, and by making a permanent switch in the indexation of future pension income from RPI to CPI, the Government provoked strike action, at a cost to the country and the users of public services. They also provoked deep cynicism among public service workers. These changes were not recommended by Lord Hutton, but were unilaterally introduced, in an unfair and provocative way. The Government’s aggressive approach to this serious and sensitive issue resulted in months of stalemated negotiations. It is a matter of deep regret that the Government have lost the confidence and damaged the morale of hundreds of thousands of public service workers, whose engagement is vital at a time when they are being asked to accept ongoing pay restraint.
Many hon. Members have noted that Lord Hutton produced a thoughtful and comprehensive report on the way forward, using a number of the changes made by the previous Administration as a starting point for negotiations. The document was very useful. He was right to suggest that career average schemes could be fairer than final salary schemes—several hon. Members have made that point—and to say that we should be asking people to work for longer, given the increase in life expectancy. He was also right to stress the need to approach these issues in a careful, balanced way, and to avoid a race to the bottom on pension provision. It is those aspects of Lord Hutton’s report that I wish the Government had looked at more carefully and taken to heart. The Bill is only part of the story, as the unfair increases in contributions and the changes in indexation that have already been imposed do not appear in it.
The Bill contains a series of proposals that we need to consider on their merits. As it consists mainly of enabling legislation that is designed to put new schemes on a clear and equal footing, we will not oppose its Second Reading, but we will hope to address a number of serious concerns in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has very strong opinions on these matters, which I respect, but I want us to try to find opportunities to improve the Bill in Committee.
All too often when Opposition amendments are tabled in Committee, we see brand new Ministers, with the advice of their officials, opening up their briefing books to find the word “resist” in block capitals, and then simply parroting the notes that have been put into their folders. However, I am sure that that will not be the case with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, for whom I have great hopes. Let us pray that the Bill’s Committee stage will involve a genuine exchange of views, and give us the opportunity to look into the detail and dig into some of the Bill’s anomalies and, indeed, failures.
Several hon. Members referred to key aspects of the Bill that contain glaring deficiencies. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) referred to the retrospectivity involved in the changes to scheme regulations. By allowing scheme regulations to make retrospective changes, the Bill gives the Government the power to reduce benefits that have already been accrued. Many hon. Members will be surprised by that, because most assume that such things are sacrosanct.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne was right to point out that the proposal comes into conflict with the European convention on human rights. It also goes against the central tenet of pension provision, which is that what has been accrued cannot be reduced, because it has already been earned. That is an important principle, because how can public service workers have any security about their future retirement if they know that the Government can retrospectively reduce the benefits that they have already earned at any point? This should not be a partisan matter, but the contract between the employer and employee is important, so I urge the Minister to listen to the genuine concerns that have been raised in the debate.
Mark Durkan
Earlier, in response to an intervention that I made, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tried to say that the retrospective provisions in clause 3 would be used only for technical and incidental purposes. Will my hon. Friend test the Government by tabling an amendment in Committee that would stitch that commitment into the Bill?
Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
We definitely need more scrutiny of the resources committed through the European Union to some of the schemes abroad, but as I understand it, this Bill will not substitute for the investment that the UK taxpayer makes to the European Investment Bank and elsewhere. This is about underwriting private projects that will, hopefully, bring benefit to our economy more broadly. Our view is that we should focus our prime attention on the economic needs here within the UK.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us have a concern with the wording of his amendment, which specifically refers to “within the United Kingdom”? In Northern Ireland, for instance, many of the infrastructure projects are likely to have a cross-border character. Infrastructure projects both large and small sometimes have commitments of money from the Irish Government as they serve hinterlands that cross the borders. With renewable energy, of course it makes sense for significant projects to have a cross-border character. They will serve not only Northern Ireland’s but Great Britain’s future energy needs. Might not my hon. Friend’s amendment preclude sensible investment support for such projects?
Chris Leslie
I would not want the amendment to have that particular effect, and I do not think it need have it, especially if the Government were in a position to frame the legislation in such a way as to see this potential £50 billion focused very much on the needs of our own people in our own country. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think this is the be-all-and-end-all of Treasury expenditure, as there are other ways and means of dealing with those few projects that might have a cross-border character. When it comes to the underwriting capacity of this particular Bill, we think it important to prioritise investment here at home.
Mark Durkan
Further to the Minister’s earlier clarification, will he assure us that any moneys committed or guaranteed to support an infrastructure project in a devolved area will be truly and fully additional to allocations under the Barnett formula, or will some subsequent adjustments be sought?
Sajid Javid
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commitments for guarantees or other moneys used under the Bill will have nothing to do with the Barnett formula and that it will be true and genuine assistance from the United Kingdom Government for any area of the United Kingdom, including the devolved areas.
In conclusion, I believe that this is an important and much-needed Bill. It will allow critical infrastructure projects that are being held back by adverse credit conditions to proceed. It contains measures that will support growth, jobs and families, all at a minimal cost to the taxpayer. It will support the UK’s construction sector by providing access to finance for financially credible and high-value-for-money projects. It will help unlock the investment that the UK requires, it will help make the UK one of the predominant places in the world to do business, and it will support sustainable growth that is balanced across sectors and regions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Chris Leslie
Exactly; my right hon. Friend is right. Official data show that construction output is down by 11.6% on the year before, and the Construction Products Association predicts a 13% fall in infrastructure investment this year. When one starts to look at what is actually happening in the real economy and the real world today, it is clearly not about the announcements that Ministers bring to the Chamber as though they represent reality. The Bill may well go on to the statute book after this debate, but if the Government are relying on it alone, we remain concerned that the infrastructure schemes for housing, schools, child care, transport and so forth which should be proceeding will not move forward as effectively as they should.
There are other concerns that the Minister has not addressed, perhaps because the Government do not have an implementation plan that they can allude to. For example, they have not talked about state aid clearance. The Bill says that financial assistance can be given to particular industries and private sector ventures in operations, in maintenance and in repairs, but perhaps to the exclusion of other companies. What is the Government’s approach to state aid clearance from the European Union? If they hit such a barrier in the EU, will they simply say, “Well, another month, another quarter, another year has gone by and we didn’t get state aid clearance”? How are they approaching those barriers, and when will they report to Parliament about how they are going to tackle these issues? Those are more obstacles that they do not appear to have addressed in any way.
Mark Durkan
Does my hon. Friend perceive that under the Bill there is a risk of the UK Government granting guarantees to companies in a way that would mean that those companies could gazump other projects that had been developed, perhaps in devolved areas, and come in on a pretty anti-competitive basis, not only constraining the choices of devolved Administrations but ruining the chances and prospects of companies that were working on projects and making good offers in those areas?
Chris Leslie
That is the sort of point that should have arisen if we had had the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Bill.
Most people observing the Government and the workings of Parliament from outside assume that there is a level of sophistication in the Treasury and that the people there must have a level of intellect and capability that is somehow superior to the rest of us. They do not realise that when one looks inside the Treasury it is clear that those people are crossing their fingers, holding their breath, and making it up as they go along. This back-of-a-fag-packet approach to legislation simply will not do. This country’s growth prospects have been worsened by this Administration’s policies. As the former US Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, wrote in the Financial Times this morning, economies that become stuck in a vicious circle of austerity and stagnation will find it ever harder to deal with their deficits and stabilise public finances.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s out-turn figures show that the Government are cutting capital expenditure by more than £6 billion more than the previous Government planned. Combined with other austerity measures, this has resulted in a collapse in infrastructure investment. More than 119,000 construction sector jobs have been lost so far, and according to the Construction Industry Training Board the Government are spending £8 billion more in benefits for the 188,000 unemployed construction workers.
Borrowing is not falling, but rising this year—it is up 22% in the first five months of this financial year compared with last year. This Government are borrowing not to pay for investment and positive development, but to pay for the failures of their economic plan and to cover the costs of considerable increases in welfare in particular.
We need an alternative that focuses on action today and that understands that we need to introduce—really introduce—some of the capital schemes, roll up our sleeves and get on with them. The 4G mobile spectrum auction will take place soon and we hope that it will yield at least £3 billion. Let us put that money towards 100,000 new homes and put some serious investment into infrastructure. Let us build on some of the successes that we know Britain can deliver on infrastructure.
There is a complete mismatch between the Government’s words and their actions: our infrastructure is deteriorating, not improving; construction work is down, not up; and hundreds of thousands of young people are languishing on benefits while businesses delay the investment needed to maintain their competitiveness and market share. That is just not good enough and much more is needed than the vagaries of this Bill.