Public Service Pensions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for advance notice of it. I welcome today’s signal that the Government are now willing to enter into proper discussions. That is a welcome change from the months of Treasury and Cabinet Office intransigence that came before.

Too often in recent months it has appeared that the Government have not understood that strikes are a sign of failure on both sides. Let us be clear: it was this Government’s decision to rip up the framework established by the last Labour Government and to go much further much faster. In particular, it was the Chancellor’s decision to pre-empt Lord Hutton and impose a 3% surcharge for all employees announced in the spending review last year, before negotiations had even begun. That decision suggested that rather than negotiating in good faith, the Government were intent on acting unilaterally and so provoking confrontation. It is good news, therefore, that the Government have at last made a constructive move to begin proper discussions.

Let me be clear: no one wants strike action. The Government and the unions have a duty to show that they have exhausted every possible avenue. Our focus is on those who rely on services that would be affected by strikes—from parents who will have to take a day off work to those who rely on home help. However, public sector workers—nurses, teachers and dinner ladies—also care too much about the people they serve day in, day out to consider action as anything other than a last resort, yet those who work in front-line public services are also desperately worried about their future and about whether they will be able to afford retirement. It is for the Government to ensure, therefore, that change is agreed and delivered in a way that brings with them the nurses, teachers, home helps and dinner ladies affected by the changes.

It is welcome that the Government have now recognised that announcing tactical offers on the airwaves, rather than constructive proposals in proper negotiations, is not the right way to proceed. However, I would suggest three key tests for a fair agreement. First, on affordability, do the changes deliver a fair deal for taxpayers when times are tough, taxes are rising and spending is being cut? Secondly, on fairness, do they deliver a fair deal for public sector workers on low and middle incomes, whose pensions are far from gold-plated and who have given so much to the services in which they work? Thirdly, on sustainability, do the changes deliver a workable settlement for the long term that does not undermine the sustainability of existing schemes and which can be flexible in the face of rising life expectancy? That is how we will judge the outcome of the negotiations.

To meet those tests, it has always been clear that public sector workers will need to accept higher contributions on average and, given that people are living longer, an increase in the retirement age, too. That was fundamental to the arrangements put in place by the previous Government for capping the Government’s contributions and then, as costs rose, negotiating how to increase workers’ contributions or change entitlements. Equally, however, the Government have to accept that for many low-paid staff, their pension is the only means of security in retirement. In a time of pay freezes, sharp increases in contributions risk hardship today and increased levels of opt-out, pushing up pensioner poverty in the future, which is why we have been critical of the confrontational stance taken by the Government and of the rush to early industrial action in June.

We will see in the coming days whether these moves are sufficient to restore the much-needed trust in these discussions that could ensure that, even at this late stage, there is still time for both sides to step back from the brink. We must all study the detail of what is now on the table, but on affordability will the Chief Secretary set out the cost of these concessions to the public purse? As he rightly sets out the transitional protections for workers in their 50s and tapering arrangements for those in their late-40s, can he say whether both these additional costs will have to be made by savings elsewhere in the system? On fairness, can he confirm that the proposed increase in contributions, if applied across the board, would still mean an increase in contributions for low-paid and part-time workers earning less than £15,000 a year? Have the Government assessed the impact of the pay freeze on opt-out rates from public sector pension schemes to date?

On sustainability, has an assessment been made of the impact of the 3% increase in contributions proposed from April and of whether increased drop-out rates could affect the viability of funded schemes, such as the local government scheme? Is it the Chief Secretary’s intention that those affected as a result of the settlement will have the certainty of knowing that there will be no further changes for 25 years? How will he deliver on that commitment? Will he give the House a timetable for discussions over the next eight weeks, given his aim to secure agreement by the end of the year? I hope that he can reassure taxpayers and public sector workers—teachers, the police, home helps and others—on those points. The Government must leave no stone unturned in their negotiations to seek a genuinely sustainable agreement that is fair for public sector workers and taxpayers, and avoids a strike this autumn.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response, although she left a few questions unanswered herself, which I shall come to.

On proper discussions, I reject what she said about the Government’s stance. Talks have been going on constructively for the last eight months. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have spent many, many hours in those discussions, and if the hon. Lady talked to the trade unions, she would discover that they, too, see them as constructive. She also referred to the previous Government’s cap and share arrangement. Let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about it in his report:

“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”

In other words, the previous Government’s arrangements were simply not good enough at controlling the costs in the way we need to.

The hon. Lady asked me several questions; let me address them directly. As I said in my statement, transitional protections and tapering are outside the cost ceiling, so they will not be met at the expense of other arrangements, which may be negotiated on a scheme-by-scheme basis. On contributions, there was an assumption, audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, about the impact that 1% of pay bill would have on opt-out rates, which I accept. We are engaged in a separate track of negotiations with the local government pension scheme—which the hon. Lady also mentioned—precisely in recognition of the fact that it is a funded scheme and that therefore different considerations apply.

On affordability—the first of the hon. Lady’s three tests—let me tell her that, yes, the changes are affordable. Her test is met. This test ensures—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers are saying, “Part-time workers?” The contributions increase has been set out. We have ensured, on a scheme-by-scheme basis, that the contributions will be tiered according to income. Those earning less than £15,000 a year on a full-time equivalent basis will have zero—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) likes to hector from a sedentary position. Instead of being the shadow chunterer, perhaps he will sit there and listen. We have made it clear that those earning up to £21,000 on a full-time equivalent basis will have a reduction. The full-time equivalent basis for pension reform is the basis—[Interruption.]