Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Graham]

I will come to exactly what I am looking for in just a minute.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Don’t let her tempt you.

[Luke Graham]

Yes, exactly. I am conscious that we have discussed new clause 1 at length and that my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened to private petitions from me and other Members. I reiterate that I am sensitive to the different constitutional arrangements for each overseas territory, the way that local legislatures pass their laws and the reasons why they have interests in different areas of financial services, as the hon. Lady highlighted. However, the United Kingdom Parliament should be clear that, if we find a wrong, we should try to right it. I have received correspondence from overseas territories about the cost of implementing a public register and how that might negatively impact their economies. The United Kingdom Government should try to help them with any transition or implementation costs. In the longer term, if it means a shift in their economies and if implementing a public register creates a large gap, we should commit to helping their economies to transition. We must not just take away one aspect of their economies and leave them to fend for themselves.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to commit to engaging with the overseas territories. We have already made a lot of progress. The United Kingdom mainland is the leading light on financial transparency, and we have led the way with the public register. We must engage with the overseas territories, take them on the journey with us and help them to overcome some of the challenges they will inevitably face in a positive and constructive way.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] (Sixth sitting)

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Graham]

I will come to exactly what I am looking for in just a minute.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Don’t let her tempt you.

[Luke Graham]

Yes, exactly. I am conscious that we have discussed new clause 1 at length and that my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened to private petitions from me and other Members. I reiterate that I am sensitive to the different constitutional arrangements for each overseas territory, the way that local legislatures pass their laws and the reasons why they have interests in different areas of financial services, as the hon. Lady highlighted. However, the United Kingdom Parliament should be clear that, if we find a wrong, we should try to right it. I have received correspondence from overseas territories about the cost of implementing a public register and how that might negatively impact their economies. The United Kingdom Government should try to help them with any transition or implementation costs. In the longer term, if it means a shift in their economies and if implementing a public register creates a large gap, we should commit to helping their economies to transition. We must not just take away one aspect of their economies and leave them to fend for themselves.

I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to commit to engaging with the overseas territories. We have already made a lot of progress. The United Kingdom mainland is the leading light on financial transparency, and we have led the way with the public register. We must engage with the overseas territories, take them on the journey with us and help them to overcome some of the challenges they will inevitably face in a positive and constructive way.

Power Cuts (North Finchley)

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again this afternoon, Mrs Main. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who is acting in locus ministries, if I have got my Latin correct.

I will give a little background on the situation that has affected businesses and homes in and around High road, North Finchley. During the past year there have been a series of power cuts: on 4 September, 16 and 18 October and 16, 18, 23 and 24 December 2013; and on 6 and 7 January and 13 and 14 November 2014, just a few weeks ago. I make the point of listing those power cuts to stress the ongoing impact and disruption not just to householders but to businesses in North Finchley. In particular, last December, in the run-up to Christmas—the busiest part of the year—businesses struggled to recover the customers and profits that they lost because their shops were closed in that period.

A series of issues has caused the power cuts; one problem has cascaded into another. First, in September last year, the outages were caused by water ingress into a UK Power Networks box, which meant that, quite reasonably, the current had to be isolated on safety grounds. The power then had to be redirected to the remaining circuits, but because those circuits were old, that led to the October outages and the first two outages in December, which were the result of power redirected to the neighbouring circuits overloading the cables: they could not cope and they failed.

Just before Christmas last year, the low-voltage board of the main substation that supplied the circuits failed, which caused yet more outages. That problem reoccurred in January this year. Then, in mid-November—just a few weeks ago—the insulation on the cables supplying this part of North Finchley failed yet again.

I want to put on record that UK Power Networks has been as helpful as it can be. I have met with its officials on a regular basis and they did bring forward a £70,000 investment to remedy the issue. The ducting for the cables to this part of North Finchley has been replaced, the substation has been upgraded, and next week the cables will be replaced through the new ducting. Barnet council has also been helpful in waiving the usual restrictions that prevent major works in the Christmas period so that that can be undertaken in an effort to ensure no repeat of last Christmas’ loss of business.

Although the repair and upgrade programme has taken more than 12 months, we seem to be on the brink of having a—hopefully—permanent solution in place. However, the power cuts that occurred in the past year or so have highlighted a couple of weaknesses in how the electricity is supplied and how customers are dealt with in such events.

One of the factors that contributed to the failure of the cables and the failure of the low-voltage board was increased demand. We have all seen the retail proposition changing: traditional shops, such as clothes shops and newsagents that are relatively low power users, have been replaced with cafés and restaurants. If such shops become restaurants, their power usage profile will be very different. Although the change of use goes through, the builders go in and the electricians assess the supply and say, “Yes, Mr Retailer, the power supply to your unit can cope,” what is missed is the cumulative effect of changes to the connections of that shop and neighbouring shops. Initially, the supply network simply absorbs the increased demand, but that strains the existing, and probably old, infrastructure.

The weakness in the system is that change-of-use permissions at the planning authority, which I appreciate fall under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government and not the Department of Energy and Climate Change, are not automatically fed to the network providers so that they can monitor and plan their infrastructure investment and ensure that they can cope with such changes in electricity usage. Perhaps the Minister could arrange that co-ordination with colleagues across Government, so that a system to monitor cumulative impact is put in place.

Finally, there is the issue of compensation, which I have raised with both UK Power Networks and Ofgem. UK Power Networks is helpful, but it is firm that it is bound by the regulations. Ofgem, while sympathetic, says that it holds the power suppliers’ feet to the fire through its internal mechanisms, and that it cannot be held responsible for all the consequential losses that the traders and householders incur through a series of power cuts.

The current arrangements do not provide adequate compensation to householders or businesses, nor do I believe that they hold the infrastructure providers’ and energy suppliers’ feet to the fire. A householder receives only £54 and a business £108 in compensation. That might be bearable if that were per power cut, but it is not. That compensation is payable only when there have been power cuts of at least three hours on four or more occasions in any 12-month period. A business therefore has to be interrupted for a minimum of 12 hours before it gets its £108, which is £9 an hour. That is hardly compensation.

Even though compensation is to increase in April to £150, that is still only £12.50 an hour. That is not compensation; it is barely a gesture. A restaurant that has 12 power cuts of only two hours could lose 12 lunch times but get nothing. I ask the Department to consider instructing Ofgem—or to ask it, if it cannot instruct—to replace the compensation thresholds with a scheme that pays out for each power cut, rather than having that unreasonably high bar. A greater financial penalty may result in faster repairs and investment in the network’s resilience. I have a background in business, where we always work to the motto: “If you grab people by the budgets, their minds will follow.”

In conclusion, we need to join up the change-of-use approvals so that increased energy demand is monitored. We also need a new compensation scheme that treats customers fairly and incentivises the power companies to invest in a resilient supply network.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

It is certainly interesting that the Bill is 57 pages long and has only three clauses, with the rest dropped into a schedule at the back. However, complicated rules are being changed, to take away some penal tax charges, among other things, and I guess it does not matter how the provisions are drafted; whether they are in a schedule or a clause, we get to the same position in the end. One of the problems with pensions is that everything is so fiendishly complicated that almost nobody can understand what all the rules are.

I am concerned about the provision in which the Government seem to be repealing the requirement that people must, before buying an annuity, have had a chance to check the open market situation. Clearly, we are not taking away the chance for people to compare annuity rates, because we are not compelling them to buy an annuity, so that option will still be there. A fall-back is written into the rules that says that before somebody defaults into buying an annuity from their pension provider, they must, under regulations, have had the chance to shop around and to be given advice. That looks like a sensible provision that should perhaps be kept. Repealing it strikes me as being a little too optimistic about how well this market might work in the early years.

Moving on to the general principle of the Bill, these changes reopen the debate about how we use the tax system to encourage pensions. There is a huge annual bill for allowing people to put untaxed income into their pension scheme. According to the latest figure I have seen, the net cost is about £22.8 billion in income tax, plus £15 billion in national insurance, so we are talking about £38 billion of taxpayers’ money being used to incentivise pensions saving each year. Okay, some of that money comes back when pensions start to be drawn, but it is still a large amount. The more flexible we make savings arrangements, so that people can choose when they draw down their pension and can do so 10 years before they retire, the weaker we make the justification for saying, “We should do this pre-tax”, because we are distorting the savings market.

I suspect that the only reason most people would choose to save into a defined contribution pension, locking their money away at the whim of some unscrupulous pension provider who charges them for things they do not understand and finally getting their money back 30 years later, is that they get this huge tax advantage. If we are going to start enabling people to have large amounts of that money, tax-free, a long time before they retire, does that change the equation? Perhaps we should be thinking about these things. Is this the right way to distort the pensions market? Should we not equally incentivise people to put money into an individual savings account every year and have a bit more control over it and a bit more visibility? Is that better protection for them?

We desperately want people to save money for their retirement, and we want it locked away so that they cannot spend it each year, and I suspect that using the tax system to achieve that is still very much the right answer. However, we probably need to think again about how much we are spending on higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions in order to make the system more flexible.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I am blessed with articulate constituents who understand pensions issues. One of the issues raised with me is that we are allowing people to take out the tax benefit that they have been given for free by the Government. Does my hon. Friend think it is worth looking at putting the tax relief into something like the protected rights pot that used to, or still may, be in place for personal pensions, so that the tax relief element could not be withdrawn, and only the contributions could be withdrawn?

[Nigel Mills]

That is an interesting idea. I am not sure how we would hypothecate part of a pension pot, and do I really care whether the 25% I am taking out is the tax bit, the bit I paid in, or the bit my employer paid in? If my hon. Friend means that I could not take out the 25% of tax benefits—I could take out only 18% of the pension pot, rather than 25% tax-free in a lump sum—I can see a certain logic to that. In effect, it would just reduce the tax-free lump sum that people can have.

The flipside of rethinking how much tax relief we allow for pension contributions is that it is probably unfair not to give people full tax relief on the way in and then still subject them to higher-rate or top-rate tax when they start drawing their pension. That is an interesting double charge for the Chancellor. If people do not get relief on the higher rate, should they have to pay tax at a higher rate when they draw the pension contribution back out? Frankly, why would somebody who was in that situation pay that amount each year? They would be far better off using the cash—probably to drive up property prices.

At some point after these changes, there will need to be a debate about how we are using the tax system to incentivise pensions. Is that still the right thing to do? Is it worth the cost incurred? Is it encouraging the right behaviours? Is the tax relief really getting more people to save for pensions? Is there evidence of that, and should we continue with it? I suspect that the answer will clearly be yes—we should. However, we are making such radical changes to the pensions landscape that once we have got through this flurry of activity it is worth taking a step back to look at the situation and ask whether we are really in the right place, in terms of how we encourage people to save for their retirement. Are pensions uniquely the best thing for everybody, or could people take up other options that might encourage them to save even more, because they had more control over their funds during their lifetime?

This Bill is absolutely the right thing to do. There are clearly issues to do with making the system work and ensuring that people who need to make choices are not disadvantaged by making the wrong ones. We are moving from a situation where people have, in effect, been forced by the law into choosing something that, sadly, was often wrong for them, towards a situation in which they can choose what they think is right for them. We need them to do that on an informed and fair basis; they must not be ripped off by the next round of mis-selling. I fear that somewhere in these freedoms there is the possibility that that will happen in the next decade, but there are things we can do to try to mitigate that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Monetary policy is, rightly, the preserve of the independent Bank of England. I would also point the hon. Gentleman to the fact that 3.5 million jobs in this country are linked to British membership of the European Union. That is why I believe so strongly that Britain should stay a full member of the European Union.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

In my constituency, homes worth £1 million or £2 million are not mansions, but family homes. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will not tax homes bought by hard-working families by introducing something called a mansion tax?

[Danny Alexander]

Although it is unlikely that such a tax will be introduced in this Parliament, I remain a strong advocate of an additional levy on high-value properties. I think that is an appropriate way to ensure that the further deficit reduction that this country still has to go through over the next few years is handled fairly and that everybody makes a contribution.

Money Transfer Accounts

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amounts of money are often small. People work hard to make a living and provide a bit of support. I know that because many of my constituents tell me stories about how they are supporting the education of distant relatives or immediate family members by sending them money every month. During Ramadan, which we are in right now, people have a duty to give charity, or zakat. They want to give it to people they know who are poorer, and not through charitable organisations, where administration costs are high compared with direct giving. There are many occasions on which people give small amounts of money. For example, the Muslim community in Britain contributes £100 million in charitable giving during the month of Ramadan alone.

A local activist in my constituency recently said:

“There is simply no other legal way of sending money to Somalia. If these firms are closed, it just means people will have to carry large amounts of money from airport to airport, and all that’s achieved is that everyone will end up a criminal.”

We cannot risk criminalising people who are simply trying to support their families.

Another major opportunity is at risk. Ethnic minority communities have insights and connections in their countries of origin. I see that in my constituency, as I know other right hon. and hon. Members do. They have insights into how to trade with their countries of origin, and affordable remittance facilities are critical to doing so. We are closing off opportunities for small businesses to operate and develop. It is also costing more than 3,000 jobs here in the UK and jobs in those countries.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has explained the security issues created by driving remittances underground. Is it not also true that it could drive the business into the hands of the big American globals, wiping out our domestic small and medium-sized enterprises in the market? That is a dangerous step, which the Government should do all they can to avoid.

[Rushanara Ali]

Absolutely. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has had any representations from such companies. I understand that some lobbying has been done, certainly in America. It would be useful to know whether he has had representations from bigger agencies, including MoneyGram and Western Union. One concern is that the underlying agenda is to shut down small operators because they do not charge as much and banks do not get as much revenue, and that this is about profit as much as anything else. We need clarity on the criteria that Barclays and other banks have used to stop providing banking facilities.

It is depressing that, unfortunately, the banking sector seems to have learned nothing from the past few years. Small community-based businesses are being hurt while they are trying to run decent businesses and support people. They should come together to consider how to address some of the underlying problems. We understand that there are grave concerns in the banking system about being fined by the US authorities. It is right that we should support the banking sector in ensuring that their due diligence processes are done, but that cannot be an excuse to shut down smaller companies just because they provide competition.

I will press on quickly to a few final points so that others can speak. Somalia presents a unique problem: it does not have a banking sector. That means not only that Somalia will be affected when remittance flows stop, but that humanitarian aid organisations such as Oxfam will lose the ability to send money to the region. Some 40% of people in Somalia who depend on remittance would be affected by that decision. Last year, the Somali authorities said that about $2 billion, or one third of the country’s GDP, is channelled to Somalia through small money transfer agencies.

The country has come out of a conflict that went on for a long time and cost many lives. It relies on the Somali diaspora around the world, who are working hard to rebuild Somalia and Somaliland. This decision would cripple the country. We cannot afford to let that happen, not least because it is in our interest to have a stable, prosperous and effective state in Somalia and Somaliland. That is what my constituents, many of whom are from Somaliland, want. I hope that the Minister will see the connection between this decision and its effect on undermining our aid and peace-building efforts in countries such as Somalia.

Although it could be said, and the Minister may have been told, that this is not as much of a problem for other countries that have a banking sector, the reality is—as he will know from his experience and background, as I do—that in remote places such as the Indian subcontinent, where we have our origins, during floods and in areas where there is no proper infrastructure and no proper roads, getting money to people is difficult. The banking sector is not localised enough. Banks such as HSBC might call themselves the world’s local bank, but they are not local enough. Our response must address the fact that it is impossible to get money to people, in particular at times of crisis, in countries throughout Africa, where there are still major infrastructure problems, and in many Asian countries, so that the banking sector—Barclays in particular—does not fob the Government off by saying, “Well, there are plenty of other operators available,” or, “The Government own a couple of banks, why don’t they to do it?” We need an industry-wide solution that is constructive and that safeguards the remittance industry and companies providing remittance services at low cost.

I have a few final points. On competition, I hope that the Government and the regulatory authorities will look closely at what is really going on. To what extent is this about trying to respond to the fact that these organisations are giving—to use a metaphor—the larger money transfer agencies a run for their money? To what extent is this about the regulatory pressures? I believe that to some extent it is. Where the regulatory concerns are legitimate and genuine, what can the Government and the regulatory authorities do so that we have a set of criteria for those companies to fulfil? Barclays and the regulators certainly have not provided any criteria or explained why banking facilities are being withdrawn. That is the least that these businesses should expect when they employ more than 3,500 people here in the UK and provide desperately needed assistance, not to mention trading opportunities between our country and developing countries.

I hope that the Minister will be able to look broadly at those interconnected issues. I have been told by his fellow Minister in the House of Lords that Barclays is merely making a commercial decision, but we have a responsibility to developing countries, where remittances support millions of people, taking pressure off our international aid budget. We also have a responsibility, if the sector is pretty much eliminated through those decisions, to ensure that money transfers and flows are not driven underground. How do the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for International Development intend to address this? Will he work with our American allies on an international solution, because we recognise that they are calling the shots on fines? Will he make representation to Barclays to provide six months of breathing room to allow the industry, working with the Government, to come up with a framework that can protect this vital industry?

As we speak, thousands of people are signing petitions; the diaspora community, in particular, and the aid agencies in the different sectors believe that people’s lives will be devastated. I hope that the Minister will work with the regulatory authorities on a solution—my colleagues and I are also happy to work with him—because we do not want to return to a debate in years to come and hear that, because of the decision today, many of the agencies stopped operating and people ended up being exploited. In some cases, money might be stolen—we have seen past examples of that—because the sector is not regulated at all, and in some cases remittances might end up in the hands of the wrong people, such as terrorists, and that would be a dereliction of duty on our part. The international community has a responsibility to ensure that people can get money safely and securely, and at an affordable rate, to their loved ones around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the hon. Gentleman joined the House in 2005, and he is probably scarred by his experience during his first term in government, when he saw unemployment in his constituency rise substantially, with youth unemployment going up by more than 100%. He will know that paid work is the best way to raise earnings. As I said earlier, this Government have helped to create 1.25 million jobs over the last three years—more jobs in the private sector than at any other time in our history. He referred to tax cuts; the tax cuts that have come through the personal allowance are for the lowest paid.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.

[Mike Freer]

Will my right hon. Friend advise us what assessment he has made of the effect of the £2,000 employment allowance on employment in general, and on small businesses in particular?

[Danny Alexander]

The employment allowance will reduce the cost of employment and will therefore support small businesses aspiring to grow by hiring their first employee or expanding the work force. In total, up to 1.25 million employers will benefit from the allowance, with over 90% of that benefit going to small firms with fewer than 50 employees.

Financial Services Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. She is right. In our debates about financial services we sometimes talk in rarefied or esoteric technical terms, but this issue is certainly of relevance to all our constituents, whose mortgage rates, the interest they pay on loans, and, in the case of oil markets, the price they pay for petrol at the petrol station and the price they pay to heat their homes, as well as prices in the gas and food markets—the price of a loaf of bread, for example—are all too often rooted in the costs of these commodities and investments, as determined by the global trading environment.

This is what it boils down to: it is a question of trust. Hitherto, people assumed that all the market benchmark arrangements were simply transparent exchanges of data and prices that showed the true value of an investment, product or commodity, and that people were buying and selling in an open and fair process. It turned out that those in the know, who were often highly paid traders in the bigger banks—incidentally, even more revelations will come out over the coming months about the banks that might have been involved in LIBOR—knew how to wangle the system and play the market in a way that helped not only the profits of their particular company, but that boosted their own personal bonus arrangements. It was a question of using other people’s money in order to shift massive volumes of trades. Even if the changes in price were fractional and seemed irrelevant, when they were multiplied by the billions of trades that were taking place they could have massive financial advantages to those traders involved.

It was alleged recently that banks rigged electricity markets in the United States and record fines have been issued. That involved British institutions, so British regulators should be explicitly equipped to tackle attempts to rig commodities trading, whether it be spot trading, forward contracts, futures contracts or hedging arrangements. Global commodities markets include a vast range of products, such as grains, fibre, other food, precious and industrial metals, energy, carbon offsets and so on.

As I have said, British households are affected by commodity market manipulation—perhaps even more than attempts to rig LIBOR. Commodity speculation has contributed to the record costs of staple foods in recent years. In fact, some people argue that the riots and social unrest in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries were influenced by pricing issues and distortions.

Last month, after the Energy Secretary made a statement to Parliament, the Financial Services Authority and Ofgem confirmed that they were conducting an inquiry into claims that British companies manipulated the wholesale gas market on 28 September. The Government have said that it would not be appropriate to use legislation to cover pure commodities, such as gas, but that if commodities are referenced by derivatives or other financial instruments, it is covered by the definition of investments. However, a derivative instrument may essentially be a traded instrument and there is no reason for it to fall within that definition. It could be regarded as an insurance product and so does not fall clearly within the definition of investments in Lords amendment 119.

Total, the French oil company, recently made open allegations against one of the PRAs. That is not the PRA as we know and love it—the Prudential Regulatory Authority—but another acronym. Price reporting agencies are companies or organisations that essentially gather information, almost as a journalist might do, and figure out broadly what is happening in the market. However, it is not necessarily a true reflection of what is happening. Total alleged that there were erratic processes involved and that it was not a true reflection of the state of the market. There were also questions over the methodologies of the price reporting agencies. Does the Minister think that price reporting agencies need to be within the regulatory ambit? Again, they are important component players in the financial services sector, but are not familiar to all our constituents—but by goodness, they would become familiar to all our constituents if they were not trusted or were seen to be failing in some way.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Much commodity trading is still focused on trading on the floor, rather than on the screen. Does the shadow Minister not accept that as the trend moves towards trading on the screen, that should drive transparency? Should we not let the transparency of the market work first, before we rush to regulate?

[Chris Leslie]

I do want to see more transparency. Electronic data exchanges certainly have the potential to provide the regulators, including the Bank of England, with more real-time transactional information about what is actually happening. I do not necessarily want to see regulators wading through reams of information, but I want to ensure that, if need be, they have the scope to act. It is not clear that the Financial Services Bill, as it first entered Parliament in February, would have captured the LIBOR benchmarking situation within the regulatory perimeter. There were suggestions from the FSA that it was not something that it could deal with. That was not good enough and the Government have come forward with amendments. I want to ensure that those amendments allow the regulators to trigger inquiries and oversight for all benchmarking indices and arrangements, especially in the commodities market.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has been campaigning on oil and petrol prices, has called for an OFT and FSA investigation into manipulation by oil firms in recent times. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission has raised questions about price fixing and manipulation in the silver market. That study was inconclusive, but questions linger over metals markets more broadly. The Minister’s good friend, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Commissioner Barnier, has suggested that all commodity indices should be covered in this way. Rather than waiting for European regulators to ensure that this happens, why do we not take this opportunity to deal with the issue?

We should not just say that benchmarking means investments; it is vital that we put it beyond doubt that the question of commodities is included. It is a stitch in time to ensure that we cast the regulatory perimeter correctly. I commend amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 60 to the House.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Having spent a considerable number of weeks serving on the Bill Committee, I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to press the Government on questions that remain unanswered and largely unaddressed. Considerable changes are being made to many of the public service pension schemes as a result of Lord Hutton’s report on the future shape of those schemes. The report was largely welcomed throughout the House and that has contributed greatly to the improvement of the reforms. However, a number of the report’s aspects have not been adopted in full by the Government in this Bill, and we are concerned about that.

New clause 2, the first in a considerable group of suggested changes specifically to pension schemes, would implement recommendation 18 on page 132 of the Hutton report that

“public service pension schemes should issue regular benefit statements to active scheme members, at least annually and without being requested”.

At present, defined benefit public service schemes are obliged to provide such information only if they are requested to do so. That limited obligation is set out in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1996, but normal occupational pension schemes that do not have an arrangement for either a final salary or career average payment at the end of the scheme are obviously a different state of affairs from defined contribution schemes. New clause 2 would simply implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and ensure that public service workers have a better understanding of the benefits that they have accumulated to date and what they stand to receive if they continue working until their normal retirement age.

We had a very healthy debate on this matter in Committee, where the exchange of views did not follow the usual to-ing and fro-ing of partisan speechmaking. A number of Members agreed that it would be very healthy if we improved the information and transparency for employees to enable them to make more informed decisions in planning for their savings and their financial future. For example, members of the schemes would be better able to judge whether they were saving enough for their retirement. The new clause is therefore compatible with the aim of reducing people’s need for state benefits in retirement—something that many Members across the House want to achieve.

When we tabled a similar amendment in Committee, it gained quite a degree of vocal support. The hon. Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who are in the Chamber today, helpfully pressed the Minister to resist his usual logic, which says in big block capital letters, “This is an Opposition amendment; thou shalt resist this devious device by Labour Members to do something nasty in the legislation.” That was not our intention. We actually wanted to implement Lord Hutton’s recommendation and bring defined benefit schemes into the modern age, especially in respect of communicating more regularly and effectively with scheme members. I live in hope that those hon. Gentlemen will chip in and offer their support again, because surely the goal of improving people’s understanding of their pension and helping them to plan more effectively for their retirement should find favour on both sides of the House.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way. In fact, I was just about the quote the hon. Gentleman. He said:

“If we want people genuinely to prepare for their pensions, we need to give them the maximum amount of information. Just suggesting that it is good practice without putting in place any requirement is the wrong thing to do.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 455.]

It gives me great pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mike Freer]

I am flattered that the shadow Minister should pay such attention to my words. Does he agree that it is rather perverse that when taking out a pension, particularly a private pension, a customer has to read reams of documentation about the risks, the forecasts, the potential growth rates and what might or might not happen, but when one has a public service pension, that level of detail is not provided and, most importantly, the annual statement provides scant information, even if it is requested?

[Chris Leslie]

That is an anachronism that has to change. The hon. Gentleman is correct that just because somebody is in a public service scheme or a defined benefit scheme does not mean that they should not think through carefully what the financial consequences will be for them on retirement. This Bill is the perfect opportunity to take that small but significant step forward.

In Committee, the Minister initially went into rebuttal mode and said that we could not have the new clause for a number of reasons. At first, he said that there were different ways of providing information to members of the scheme, that we did not want to be too prescriptive and that legislation was not necessary. However, the new clause does not prescribe the manner in which the information is provided; it would merely ensure that annual statements were provided in some form.

The Minister’s other objection in Committee was that defined benefit schemes in the private sector are not obliged to provide annual statements, so it would not be right for public sector schemes to do so. However, Government Members again disagreed. I cannot do better than to quote again the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green:

“We have a pensions problem in this country, and saying that private sector schemes are not required to provide statements—though many do…—is not a good enough reason for not requiring public sector schemes to provide them.”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2012; c. 455.]

Amen to that excellent argument. The Minister said at the time that he would consider the issue further.

Last week, I wrote to the Minister saying that it was our intention to table new clause 2. I rather hoped that he would table his own variant. Usually, there are accusations that the Opposition have not thought through the drafting of the phraseology of an amendment and there is some technical reason why it cannot be accepted. However, we have offered the Minister the chance to correct that. It is a matter of great regret that the Minister did not come forward with his own new clause. Perhaps I should be more optimistic and assume that that means that the Minister will stand up and accept new clause 2 straight away. That would be fantastic.

It is worth noting that all defined contribution pension schemes are required by the 1996 occupational pension schemes regulations to provide much more detailed statements than those proposed in the new clause. There is therefore no reason to think that there would be any problem in implementing the arrangements.

It would be helpful if the Minister made this change. If he wants to do it in the House of Lords when the Bill gets down there, we could probably accept that, but I think that most Members would accept the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is in Northamptonshire and mine is in south Yorkshire, but we share an industrial heritage and a strong tradition of steel-making, and I entirely understand the point that he has made. It is as relevant to Corby and to east Northamptonshire as it is to Wentworth and Dearne and parts of Rotherham and Barnsley.

New clause 3 is simply intended to ensure that the undertaking given to the House by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and given to the unions that have been negotiating about pension schemes changes on behalf of their members, is guaranteed, and that Ministers will not be able to change their minds and change the schemes in the future. This must be legislation for a 25-year deal, which is what the Government originally promised us.

The question of access to public service pension schemes for public service workers who may face compulsory transfer to non-public service employers and organisations is critical. As has already been pointed out, the Government’s commitment to an extension was a deal-maker for many unions and for many of their members, particularly on the local government side. It would have been a deal-breaker for those unions and members if the guarantee had not been in place, or if what the Economic Secretary said in Committee—which I have quoted—had been on the table instead. We had a clear and principled commitment. That commitment ought to be included in the Bill, and then, as is appropriate in the case of enabling legislation of this sort, the details of the mechanism for how it is to be implemented can be provided in further regulation or scheme rules.

I must say to the Economic Secretary—as some of my hon. Friends have already said—that trust is a problem for the Government in the public services, particularly when it comes to public service pensions. That should come as no surprise to them. After all, they commissioned Hutton to produce the report, and before the publication of the final version, they hit public service workers with a 3% tax surcharge on their pension payments, and with not just a temporary but a permanent switching of the link with pensions from the retail to the consumer prices index. A commitment in the Bill will serve as a confirmation and a reassurance for public service workers that the Government do indeed mean what they say in this regard.

Let me say something about amendments 19 and 20, and about the Bill’s use of the concept of “closure”. During this debate and in Committee, the terms “closure” and “winding up” have been used almost synonymously, but they are not, of course, synonymous. The winding-up provisions in the Pensions Act 1995 apply principally to occupational pension schemes. Those schemes are different from local government pension schemes, which are funded and have the quasi-constitutional backing of local government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East pointed out, the Economic Secretary has said that that it is not the intention to close local government pension schemes. If, as the Government seem to be arguing, closure does not mean closure and there is no intention to legislate for closure of any of the funds, this change should be straightforward. It is evidently needed, especially given that the concern of employers, scheme members, trustees, and unions representing many of the members has been consistent and clear. Why risk uncertainty, why risk a legal challenge, why risk financial jeopardy for some funds, by allowing debts to be triggered in the particular circumstances of a funded scheme for local government?

It may not be the Government’s intention at present to reduce people’s benefits that they have already accrued. It may not be their intention to end any flexibility in the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. It may not be their intention to make further and sweeping radical changes or cuts in people’s pension provision. As it stands, however, the Bill allows all those things to happen. That is why the new clauses and amendments are so important. They will reassure pension scheme members, now and in the future, that this is a settlement for the long term, that the Government mean what they say, and that the Government can, in the longer run, be trusted with public service pensions. Scheme members have seen little evidence since 2010 that that is really the case.

[Mike Freer]

Members have discussed the technical definition of “closure”, and I ask the Economic Secretary to make it clear in his response that closure does not mean closure, but instead means the scheme is frozen while a new scheme is run alongside and in parallel. Members have talked about the effects of closing a scheme and the crystallisation of outstanding liabilities. In respect of the local government pension scheme, the council tax payer would then be forced to meet those liabilities in one fell swoop. That runs contrary to all the other efforts the Treasury is making to keep council taxes down, so if closure is, indeed, what is intended, there would appear to be a lack of joined-up thinking in the Treasury.

[John Healey]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I hope the Economic Secretary will, too. For clarity’s sake, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this does not only affect local councils, as schools that are academies, charities and a number of non-government organisations also use the local government pension scheme?

[Mike Freer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Having chaired the London borough of Barnet pension fund committee for several years, I know that while the council is by far the largest fund, there are also many admitted bodies for which it administers funds, such as Middlesex university, academies and various charities. The crystallisation of debt that may arise if there is any vagueness in the legislation could therefore have massive impacts not only on councils, which could, perhaps, withstand the financial shock by using reserves and spreading the effects over many years, but on smaller admitted bodies, who certainly could not do that.

As we have seen in respect of Equitable Life, once a fund closes and becomes a zombie fund, all the good fund managers flee. No decent fund manager worth their salt wants to manage a zombie fund. Therefore, because of the performance of the zombie fund, the liability grows still further. The implications of crystallisation of liabilities in this context must be taken into account. I urge the Economic Secretary to explain precisely what he means when referring to closing a fund. I believe he means that one fund would remain but would have no new contributions and no new members, and a new fund would run in parallel. I urge him to make that clear.

On the issues addressed in new clause 2, I urge the Government to go further, because best practice in the public sector in respect of providing information is not enough. It is my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary’s birthday tomorrow; I think he will turn 43 years of age. I calculate that by the time he reaches the normal pensionable age of the parliamentary scheme he will have contributed some 24 years of accrued service, presuming that he is in a one fortieth, one fiftieth or one sixtieth scheme with the various contribution rates that attach to them. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a man of finance and has a head for figures, so I have no doubt that he understands the pension choices he has made, but I spend a surprisingly large amount of my time explaining to teachers and others—on Saturday I spoke to a police officer—exactly how their pension works, because they do not know and do not understand.

Further requirements in terms of transparency and quantity of information are needed, therefore, because people need to make rational decisions. If we want to defuse the pension time bomb, people have to make a rational decision based on information, not supposition. A constituent of mine who is a doctor has been trying for six months to get information from the NHS about his pension contributions and likely benefits. That is simply not good enough. The Government must go further in this regard.

[Mr MacNeil]

In respect of this Bill and the commitment to public sector pensions, what change in GDP are we likely to see?

[Mike Freer]

I am not qualified to judge that. I am not an economist, so I do not have information about the impact on GDP. It might be appropriate to ask the Economic Secretary that question, however.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I am not an economist either, but the issue is not the predicted rise in GDP; rather, it is the predicted fall in the working population who will be available to pay the pensions of a growing number of older people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The pensions time bomb is not only to do with the fact that people are making insufficient provision; it is also about there being insufficient taxpayers to make up the gap between the contributions made by employer and employee and that gap having to be made up from general taxation. There are two parts of the time bomb, therefore. Unless accurate information is provided on pensions, people will not be able to make the appropriate decisions.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Mike Freer]

As long as the intervention is not a question about GDP.

[Mr MacNeil]

In terms of the provisions in the Bill, the House of Commons Library informs us that this time bomb will be cut from 1.6% of GDP to 1.5% of GDP.

[Mike Freer]

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. After our debate, I may have to check whether I have said something that I cannot remember saying, and I apologise that I cannot respond to that point at present.

The House spends a huge amount of time regulating. The Food Labelling (Nutrition Information) (England) Regulations 2009 spell out in considerable detail the information that must be on food labels. The labels specify for consumers the fibre content, edible carbohydrate polymers, synthetic carbohydrates, salt content, kilojoules and calories, sugar content, fatty acids of trans fatty acids, yet when we ask people to make choices about their pensions, which is one of the biggest decisions of their life, we give them no information at all. I urge the Economic Secretary to go further by ensuring accurate information is included in our pension statements.

[Sheila Gilmore]

At least with regard to new clause 2 and the need for good communication and good information, it appears that there is a fair degree of cross-House agreement. Members may have different motives for wanting such information to be given, and may hold different views about what behavioural change that might drive. Some Members might also hint that they want this information to be given so that public sector workers are properly and humbly grateful for retaining better pensions than the absolutely dreadful pensions of many in the private sector. I hope the Economic Secretary will respond positively, however, and agree that this is an important step. It will be deeply ironic if better and more thorough information is given to people with private sector pensions than to those with public sector pensions.

We all want to avoid too much information being given, of course, with people receiving many pages of information, much of it hard to understand. We do not want to over-egg that pudding. There is a parallel debate happening in the world of private sector pensions on giving good, accurate but still efficient information, so that people can look at a single page of information—that is preferable—and understand what their likely pensions are going to be. On that matter I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate in Committee and again today, will be happy to make some changes to the provisions. I cannot see why new clause 2 should not be in the Bill, as it deals with such a major issue.

I wish briefly to discuss new clause 3, which deals with the issue of a fair deal. Again, there would appear to be a substantial degree of agreement across the House on the substance of the issue. Nobody is saying, “We don’t think these should be the provisions.” The question that has been raised is whether they should be in the Bill. Some Government Members have suggested that accepting what the clearly stated view of Ministers has been at various points should be good enough, because it is on the record and we should be confident that that is sufficient. However, as far as I am aware, it is not possible to litigate on the basis of what people simply said, rather than what is in legislation. People have attempted to say in the past, “But that was the intention”, even doing so in respect of debates in this House. However, legal disputes about rights or obligations turn on the much narrower construction of what is written in the Bill.

I am not suggesting, in any way, that those who have spoken during our consideration of the Bill do not intend what they have said, but many public sector workers are genuinely concerned. As I said in my earlier intervention, the matter becomes a great deal more important if the Government continue, as they presumably will, over the next two years to do what they say they want to do: outsource more of what we would regard, or have traditionally regarded, as public sector activities. That has already happened to some extent. Some people have explained how this could be very positive, with employee mutuals and all kinds of social enterprises springing up to provide public services. If the Government are genuinely serious about wanting current public sector employees not just to have to do this, but to be enthusiastic about doing it, these safeguards have to be in place. If this is the road that is to be pursued, it is even more important to have these provisions than it may have been in the past. Saying, “You didn’t do it before so we don’t need to do it now” is not a particularly good argument; some of us might disagree about what had been done previously. Even if we do not, the argument is still not particularly good, as we have also to learn from experience. I hope that the Government will seriously consider legislation on this matter, because if they genuinely have no intention of departing from the promised arrangement I cannot see what the problem is. When people begin to say there is a problem, that is when those paying into these schemes—the employees likely to be affected—begin to smell a rat. There may be no rat there, but why not make things absolutely clear?

That is also true of what we are trying to achieve in amendment 12, which deals with an apparent possibility arising from clause 7. Again we were given assurances in Committee that we should not be reading into this something that the Government do not intend. Clause 7 says:

“Scheme regulations may establish a scheme…as

(a) a defined benefits scheme”.

It then goes on to talk about

“a scheme of any other description”.

It is not at all clear what is actually meant. We were told that one or two specialist defined contribution schemes are in existence, but people are clear that the promise that was made as part of this negotiation is that the defined benefits schemes would remain in place. They will, however, be changed, and during the negotiation employees in various parts of the public sector accepted substantial changes in the kind of pension because they accepted the imperatives. In moving from final salary pension schemes to career average schemes, changes are being made in accrual rates. All sorts of changes have been made—for example, the forthcoming changes to pension age—but they were made on the basis that the scheme will remain as a defined benefit scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

If a private sector scheme rules to make its own arrangements, it has the flexibility to do so. We are simply saying that in future, some degree of latitude and flexibility should be placed in statute to allow Secretaries of State to take account of the outcome of any reviews. We are not saying there should be a requirement for exemptions to be made; we want to give the Secretary of State the power to implement the findings of any reviews should that be deemed fit.

[Mike Freer]

I sometimes feel as if I am on the wrong side of the Chamber for this Bill, but perhaps I may help regarding the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). The private sector does recognise physicality for those such as steeplejacks, chimney sweeps and jockeys who have a significantly lower retirement age. I hope that is helpful to the shadow Minister.

[Chris Leslie]

If only we had been talking about jockeys when the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) was in the Chamber; he would have found that helpful intervention most interesting. My respect for the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) grows by the minute and I am grateful for that interjection.

The key point is whether the reviews can find their course into effect. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly stressed that the working longer review for NHS staff was

“not in any way looking at the link between the normal pension age and the state one.”

Instead he said that it was

“considering the implications of working longer for NHS staff,”––[Official Report, Public Service Pensions Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 327-28.]

That seems a slightly contradictory statement. Linking the normal pension age to the state pension age means that people will work longer, and therefore the review will look at the effect on the state pension age link for NHS workers.

The terms contained in the Department of Health document “Reforming the NHS Pension Scheme for England and Wales” include the following objectives for the working longer review:

“Identify any categories of worker for whom an increase in Normal Pension Age would be a particular challenge in respect of safe and effective service delivery and consider how this may be addressed;

Identify any categories of worker for whom an increase in Normal Pension Age would be a particular challenge in respect of their health and wellbeing.”

If that NHS review concludes that a higher normal pension age is inappropriate for certain categories of worker, either because working longer would be physically damaging or because it could lead to unsafe practices in the NHS, the current Bill would not allow those workers to be exempt from the state pension age link in clause 9. I therefore contend that it is irresponsible to make legislation before the findings of the Government’s review are published, without allowing the legislation to accommodate some or all of that review’s recommendations. Given that the working longer review was a key component of the agreement reached between health service workers and their employers, it is unfair to fetter the recommendations that the review can realistically make. It is similarly inappropriate and unfair to fix the retirement age for firefighters at 60 when the working longer review in the fire service is yet to report.

This is an incredibly important issue. I accept that we must note that the cost-cap mechanism in the Bill would ensure that any extra costs of the extra exemptions to the state pension age link will need to be met by the scheme—the Opposition are not saying that the additional costs should fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer—but bearing that in mind and the fact that the clause does not require the Secretary of State to make exemptions, the amendment simply allows flexibility. I cannot see how the Government can object to it.

[Chris Leslie]

With the greatest respect, that does not deal with the problems, because there is a difference between the early retirement benefits to which an employee is entitled and those they can get at the normal pension age as defined in scheme regulations. The Government set up working groups and committees in the NHS, fire services and services throughout the country. Those groups have been given terms of reference, but now discover that they cannot implement their findings because of a drafting anomaly in this Bill. All the Opposition are asking is that the Government think again about how the scheme capability reviews come to fruition. This ought not to be a partisan point. I am simply seeking to ensure that we have flexibility in the legislation.

Others will want to speak to the amendments in the group that they have tabled, but I strongly urge the House to support amendment 16.

[Mike Freer]

I said in an intervention that I had some interesting views on the Opposition’s stance. I have sympathy with the thrust of the amendments, but I assure the Minister that it does not extend to voting for them.

Our starting point on the retirement age must be the demographic pressures we face. UK National Statistics data show that in 2008, males were expected to live to 78.1 years and females to 82.1 years, yet by 2011, life expectancy had jumped to 90.3 years for men and to 93.8 years for women, and we could expect to pay almost as many pension cheques as pay cheques. One of my reasons for supporting the linkage—in the main— between public sector pension schemes and the state retirement age is that there is a huge gap between the contribution rates of the employer and employee and what is drawn out as a pension.

The NHS pension scheme tiered employee contributions data, which are published by the NHS, show that the employer pays about 14% and the employee about 8.5%. My rudimentary maths leads me to conclude that 22.5% goes in. Members who took part in the Bill Committee evidence sessions will remember the British Medical Association’s interesting contribution, not least because the BMA said that doctors should pay less and the lowest-paid should pay more for their pensions. The BMA confirmed that the average pension out in the NHS was 49%, so if the contribution rates are putting in only 22.5%, but 49% is coming out, that 26.5% gap has to be covered from somewhere, and it is being funded by the taxpayer. If that taxpayer gap is going to grow because of the demographic time bomb—people are retiring at the same age, but living longer and drawing pensions longer—it will start to be completely unsustainable, undermining the public sector pension schemes in total. That is why the Government are right to link the normal pension age with the state retirement age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many years ago I took the bleep test and I can only describe its physical demands as a form of hell. The hon. Gentleman is right about the demands on the police, but what about other public sector workers? It has been put to me by nursery staff, school staff who work with small children, nurses and other NHS staff that they have very physically demanding jobs. Their jobs are not as potentially violent as the job he has just described, but they are demanding. Does he accept that we need to look carefully at the impact on those people too?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not rule out the possibility where there is empirical evidence that people’s ability to work and progress is affected by the physicality of that profession. One difficulty is that those in some of the roles described in the Bill will have limited opportunities to move into other less physical roles. That is another consideration. If there are roles in the NHS where the physicality affects people’s ability to perform that role and where no other avenues are available to them, that is a fair point, but in most roles there will be opportunities to move into less physically demanding roles. Unfortunately, in the armed forces, police and fire service, there are limited opportunities to move out of front-line roles. It is the House’s duty to protect those who protect us.

[Mark Reckless]

People are living longer and many, albeit not all, are remaining fitter for longer. It is suggested that we amend the Bill to enlarge those categories in the public sector, but what about those in the private sector—people who work in private sector nurseries, for example—who face exactly the same issues as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) just raised?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but if he revisits some of the private sector schemes, he will find that they rely on actuarial and physical evidence provided by various medical boards, and that the retirement age in certain private sector schemes already reflects the physical demands of certain roles. In an intervention, I mentioned, rather light-heartedly, people such as steeplejacks and jockeys, but there are other roles whose physical demands are reflected in certain private sector pension schemes, which already have mechanisms in place.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that those pension schemes are fundamentally different from the types we are debating? The former tend to be defined contribution schemes rather than defined benefit schemes. Does that not have an impact on the flexibility of those schemes and their ability to take account of those issues?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He knows my views and is tempting me down the path of debating the future of defined benefit schemes. I have been entirely consistent on this point: for many years, I have said that all defined benefit schemes are no longer sustainable, whether in the private sector or public sector. That is a debate for another time and is certainly not pertinent to the amendment, but I share his view that perhaps we need more wholesale change and a larger debate.

In supporting specific exemptions where physical demands can be proven, I am not undermining the broad thrust of ensuring that our public sector pensions are sustainable. I have long argued that the contribution rates of both employee and employer do not match: what goes in does not match what comes out. That has driven my long-held view that defined benefit schemes are no longer fit for purpose. Having said that, this Bill is a major step forward in making sure that our public sector pensions are sustainable. We have a duty, however, to protect those who protect us and we ought to revisit this point where there is hard empirical evidence that physicality, in certain roles within those categories, can be proven to be detrimental to people’s health after retirement. I am not suggesting that I will support the amendment, but I am urging my ministerial colleagues to revisit the matter.

I have rehearsed at length the point about physicality. I am sad that the Minister is no longer with us, but I hope that he will address that point when he winds up. Should empirical evidence emerge, I hope that we can revisit this subject.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to refer, in particular, to my amendment 1. I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) very interesting indeed. I certainly agree with a range of points he made.

The amendment seeks to place two additional occupations into the Bill, and they have been mentioned on both sides of the Chamber. They are those of prison officer and psychiatric nurse. Clause 9(2) lists the three occupations to be enshrined in the legislation as exemptions from subsection (1)—they have been discussed by various Members and there seems to be some agreement—which are

“fire and rescue workers who are firefighters…members of a police force, and…members of the armed forces.”

I fully support people working in those occupations and the courageous work they do on a regular basis. I fully understand why they are included in the Bill and support their inclusion, but for the very same reasons I wish to amend the Bill to include prison officers and psychiatric nurses.

It is widely accepted that prison officers and psychiatric nurses have to deal with some of the most dangerous, dysfunctional and disruptive people in society on an almost daily basis. Expecting these categories of worker to work above the age 65 is totally and utterly unjustified; in fact, when we look at it in great detail, the decision seems absolutely outrageous. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green mentioned a constituent of his, a very fit police officer from the territorial support unit who explained exactly how he kept himself in peak fitness to do his job. We cannot expect people in the Prison Service to be grappling with prisoners at the age of 65 and above, but the Bill as it stands would allow that.

Currently, prison officers regularly have to take five different tests: a grip strength test, an endurance and fitness test, a dynamic strength test, an agility test and a static shield hold test. If a prison officer fails any of those tests, they fail the entire health and fitness test. The current regime is therefore rather stringent. If clause 9 is agreed to unamended, it will mean many prison officers and psychiatric nurses either dying in service or retiring on ill health grounds and not having a very healthy lifestyle thereafter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to reflect on the importance of this Bill. First, I reiterate the debt of gratitude that this House owes to Lord Hutton of Furness for his comprehensive and adept work with the independent public service pensions commission. The consensus that his report and recommendations have engendered is testament to the care and thoroughness with which he and his team carried out that critical work.

For decades, successive Governments have failed to address the fact that the existing framework for public service pensions is unresponsive to work force and demographic changes. The simple and fundamental truth is that current schemes are not fit for purpose, and they have not responded effectively to the unprecedented improvements in longevity that we have seen over the last 50 years. Largely as a result of people living longer, the cost of providing public service pensions has increased by 40% over that period. At the same time, the number of active, deferred and pensioner members of schemes has risen significantly.

Since 1971 the number of active members has increased by 23% to 5.3 million. At the same time, pensioner member numbers increased by more than 260%, from 1.6 million to 4.2 million. Deferred member data are available only from 1991, when there were 1.2 million preserved public service pensions. There are 3.4 million today. Most of the people who entered public service when the schemes were last fundamentally assessed have now retired.

[Mike Freer]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow, but will he clarify the application of the fair deal policy to the local government pension scheme?

[Sajid Javid]

We discussed that earlier. Transfers from local government are currently covered by an equivalent policy to fair deal. The Government are considering how most appropriately to apply the principles of the new fair deal policy to the LGPS, but our commitment on fair access to transferred staff stands and applies, including to members of the LGPS.

People are now expected to live significantly longer than the generation that went before them—an average of 10 years more than someone retiring in the 1970s. The increasing numbers of people with public service pensions and improvements in longevity have led to significant increases in the number of pensions that are being paid. Consequently, the cost of paying pensions has increased to £32 billion per year—an increase of a third in the past decade.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I referred earlier to clause 9(2), which clearly states that firefighters will be required to work until the age of 60 before receiving their pension, whereas at the moment they have to work only until they are 55. My understanding of the fire service is that jobs requiring lesser physical skills would not be available, so I asked the Minister what he expected people to do. Labour Members fear that they would retire early, but would then have to get other employment, such as a part-time job in Tesco, or to sign on. That is not an adequate way to deal with people who do such jobs over a lengthy period.

Of course, it is not only firefighters who will be affected. Many people in the public sector work in very physical jobs, whether they are the paramedics in our ambulances or nurses—particularly grade A nurses. Those who carry out manually demanding tasks would not be able to work until they were 68, but other jobs might not be available to them. We need to think this through very carefully. Having listened to the Minister, I am worried that the Bill has very little flexibility. We need to be able to think far more flexibly about working ages. We must recognise that while it may be appropriate for some people to work for longer—indeed, many people might want to work until they are much older than has traditionally been the case—for others that is simply not appropriate.

The Bill will have significant implications for the various public sector schemes in Scotland, where there has been considerable debate about its impact. Of course, the civil service schemes are a matter for this Parliament, but the local government, national health service and police pension schemes, as well as those of teachers and firefighters, are devolved. When Westminster legislates on matters that are devolved to Scotland, it usually needs to obtain a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. I appreciate that the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), is in the Chamber, so she might address this later, but I am told that Scottish officials have advised Ministers in the Scottish Government that such a motion is not required, although the view of the trade unions in Scotland, on the basis of legal advice that they have obtained, is that a motion would be necessary. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about that, because there are very significant implications for Scotland. The negotiations that have taken place there are not identical to those that have been held with Ministers down here. I hope that the Scottish Government will wish to ensure that they are able to enact measures on the basis of whatever agreements are made with the unions in Scotland.

I believe that this is a devastating Bill, not only for pensioners in the public sector, but for those in the private sector. It sends all the wrong messages about what we should be seeking for pensions. We need to put in place frameworks through which we collectively save far more than we have in the past to ensure that we have provision in retirement. That does mean that individuals who can afford to should be paying more into their pension schemes, but it also means that the employer should be paying more and that the state should be playing a greater role in ensuring that that happens. In 2007 and 2008, the then Labour Government implemented reforms to the four largest public sector schemes that took account of the changing demographics that we faced. My view, which is shared by most people who have looked seriously at this, is that those schemes are viable and that sufficient funds are available to ensure that pensions are paid out.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katy Clark]

I was about to conclude, but I am happy to take an intervention.

[Mike Freer]

In actual fact, the Audit Commission report on the local government pension scheme, which is by far the largest scheme, says that it can meet only 75% of its future liabilities. Far from being sustainable, it has a shortfall.

[Katy Clark]

My understanding is that there will be a review of the scheme. Having spoken to some of those who are directly involved in the negotiations on the scheme, I am firmly of the view that we need to look carefully at those figures. On the basis of the financial information that we have, which is, of course, dated, because there has not been an up-to-date review, the reality is that the scheme is viable and there is no reason to believe that that will change.