Housing Benefit

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrew Gwynne

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because many of the spare bedrooms are used by carers supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. We think that the time is now right for each and every Member of this House to show where they stand, because we know the facts. Stories of the hardship and heartache that the Secretary of State is causing are streaming in from every part of the country and every constituency.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this motion before the House today. In Tameside, New Charter Housing has seen the number of people in arrears rise by two thirds as a result of being clobbered by this pernicious bedroom tax, yet Tameside council’s discretionary housing payments go nowhere near tackling the real problems families are facing. This is not creating new capacity in housing; it is clobbering the poorest the hardest.

[Rachel Reeves]

As in Tameside, two thirds of the budget for discretionary housing payment in my constituency has already been used, despite the council adding £250,000 to the budget.

I have heard heart-rending testimony about the tax. I have heard about a man who received worrying letters about rent arrears while in hospital for a triple heart bypass because he suddenly had to find another £18 a week to keep the specially adapted home he had lived in for most of his life. I have heard about a woman with young children who had found another flat with a family and wanted to swap, but she was in a Catch-22 situation because she could not move until she had paid off the arrears she had built up as a result of the bedroom tax. I have heard about a family with a disabled son who have discovered that the room that carers stay in is now designated as a spare bedroom with a charge of £14 a week.

In so many cases, local authorities and housing associations are put in impossible situations, trying to minimise the impact of this badly designed policy on local people. Decent people in tough situations who are doing their best and trying to survive are being trapped by an absurd policy that makes no sense. They are terrified of losing their homes or sinking deeper into poverty and unmanageable debt.

The Economy

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrew Gwynne

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Like other countries around the world, our GDP contracted during the global financial crisis. Germany and the United States have managed to recover that growth; we have not, because our Chancellor chose a different course—austerity—when jobs and growth are needed to get the economy moving and the deficit down. Unlike this Government, we recognise that we need to take action to stimulate jobs and growth. That is why we have said there should be a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new workers and a bank bonus tax to fund a programme of youth jobs, and that we should genuinely bring forward infrastructure investment and temporarily cut VAT to 17.5%. Those are the policies that would get the economy moving, get jobs back in our economy and help to bring the deficit down in a sustainable way.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Government have placed great emphasis on the views of the Office for Budget Responsibility. My hon. Friend will be aware from reports in today’s media that Robert Chote of the OBR has suggested that the UK need not fear losing its triple A rating. Does she see us losing our triple A rating as a ringing endorsement of this Government’s economic policies?

[Rachel Reeves]

Let us see what the rating agencies have to say in the new year. Of course we are on negative watch, but it was not we who said the rating agencies should be the be-all and end-all. Indeed, they were giving Lehman Brothers a triple A rating until that company crashed and almost took the global economy with it. It was the Chancellor who said that a triple A rating would be the watchword of his chancellorship, so if it were to go, it would be a damning indictment of what this Government have presided over.

What was the Government’s response to all the bad economic news last Wednesday? Let us give credit where it is due. The Chancellor now agrees with us that we should not go ahead with the fuel duty increase in January; he agrees with us that introducing regional pay in our public services would be costly and impractical; he agreed with us that we should reverse the relaxation of restrictions on pension tax relief for the very rich; he agreed with us that it was a mistake to implement deep cuts to capital programmes such as Building Schools for the Future; and he agreed with us that cutting investment allowances risked damaging incentives for long-term wealth creation. We propose the creation of a British investment bank to support small businesses, and the Chancellor has produced a pale imitation of that, but I am afraid that all these measures are too little, too late—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Smoke and mirrors will not hide the lack of a real, purposeful growth strategy.

The chief executive of British Airways summed it up yesterday when he said:

“I don’t see an agenda for growth.”

I agree, and so does the Office for Budget Responsibility. Taking into account all the Government’s measures from the autumn statement, the OBR has concluded that they will add just 0.1% to UK GDP over the next five years. The economy is shrinking this year. Growth next year—forecast at 2.9% just two years ago—is now forecast at just 1.2%. Indeed, we have seen downgrades not just this year and next, but the year after.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrew Gwynne

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We have said that we support the shift from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for the period of this Parliament to reduce the deficit, but we do not support a permanent shift from RPI to CPI that will continue long after the deficit has been eliminated. I will discuss shortly some evidence from the Pensions Policy Institute and the Royal Statistical Society on the appropriate measure of inflation for uprating pensions.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend realises that the vast majority of public sector workers do not have massive gold-plated pensions. Instead they have very modest pensions, and they are concerned about their employment prospects as well as their contributions. Does my hon. Friend agree that those are the kinds of concerns that people out in the real world we speak to are talking about?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The average public sector pension in payment is under £6,000 a year, and it is considerably less for women who work in the public sector, so we are not talking about huge pensions in the vast majority of cases. Instead, we are talking about modest pensions to which people have contributed throughout their working lives.

We support in principle the main measures in the Bill, however, so we will not oppose it on Second Reading, but we will work in Committee to improve it, in order to ensure that it underpins, rather than undermines, the progress made in negotiations. We will seek to ensure it facilitates a smooth and stable transition to new scheme designs, entrenching good standards of governance, transparency, administration and consultation, thereby allowing those who give their working lives to serving the public to save for their retirement with confidence, while establishing a workable system for managing change and controlling costs to the taxpayer.

The Government and public service employees do need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. In government, Labour had agreed and established a framework for negotiating reform and the “cap and share” mechanism to manage long-term costs, and it was always clear that this would mean increases in contributions and, as the population lives longer, a rise in retirement ages.

We have always said that the Hutton report provided a useful starting point for negotiations. Lord Hutton was right to suggest that career average schemes could be fairer than final salary schemes, and we think his proposal that public service pension ages should rise with the state pension age is right in principle. Lord Hutton also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, however, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower paid public service workers, and for avoiding fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. Reform needs to be fair to taxpayers and public service employees, as well as being genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of political games.

The vast majority of public service workers retire on very modest pensions. The average public service pension in payment is less than £6,000 a year, and even less for women. Tearing up decent public service pension schemes, or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases, would be entirely counter-productive if that resulted in lower saving and inadequate retirement incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We argued exactly the same point when the Government arbitrarily increased the state pension age for women in their late 50s with just six years’ notice given. When Lord Turner carried out the review of state pensions for the previous Government, he recommended a 15-year notice period be given, and the Pensions Policy Institute recommends a 10-year notice period. Such notice needs to be given and it is not enshrined in this Bill.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the reasons why that notice period is required is that as the retirement age rises careers may also have to change to ensure that employees are not forced into ill health and are not forced to do work that is unsuitable for their age?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We also believe that this Bill should not pre-empt or cut across ongoing discussions—this builds on the point that he raised, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron)—between the Department of Health, NHS employers and NHS workers about the implications of working longer for some staff groups, especially those, such as paramedics, in physically demanding roles.

We think that the Bill should reflect Lord Hutton’s recommendations that the link between public service pension ages and the state pension age should be kept under review and that this should be conducted by a properly independent body, with public service employees and employers represented and consulted. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his speech that that will happen, but it is not guaranteed in the Bill—indeed, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with the Bill. These are all issues that we will be raising in Committee to get the commitments that public service workers deserve and thought they had been given during the negotiations behind the Bill. These are also issues that we will have in mind as we look to any future increases in the state pension age itself.

For our finances to be sustainable, and for decent pensions to be affordable, it is right that retirement ages rise with longevity. However, as Malcolm Wicks, the late Member for Croydon North reminded us in some of his most recent work, many people doing manual jobs started work at 16 or 18, with some doing so even earlier, and find it harder to continue work into their late 60s. We should be mindful of people’s capacity to work later and later, especially if support is not in place for them in the workplace.

Secondly, there are real worries that the Bill fails to take due account of the special characteristics of the local government pension scheme. Members will know that it is a fully funded scheme administered by local authorities and we should welcome the hard work of local councils and trade unions, who have made very valuable progress in negotiations on a mutually agreeable agenda for reform. The Bill threatens to unravel the agreements that have been reached and destabilise financially the local government pension funds by forcing a disruptive and potentially disastrous closure of existing schemes instead of facilitating a smooth transition to the new scheme design. That extension of Treasury interference into aspects of scheme valuation and design could prevent local authorities from delivering on the deal they have agreed with their work force. Indeed, the view of the pensions manager at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is that the relevant provisions in the Bill represent

“a major shift in the governance of local authority pensions and”

raise

“questions about future local democratic accountability for those pension funds.”

Again, we expect those concerns to be addressed in Committee.

Thirdly, on the question of good governance, the Bill must underpin and not undermine high standards of scheme governance. As Lord Hutton stated in his final report,

“there is a powerful case for…much stronger governance of all the public service pension schemes. This should keep government, taxpayers and scheme members better informed about the financial health of these schemes. There should be minimum standards set for scheme administration. There is also a proper and legitimate role for representatives of the workforce to be formally involved in these new governance arrangements.”

The Bill fails to include key recommendations from Lord Hutton’s report, such as the inclusion of member-nominated and independent members on pension boards; the establishment of pension policy groups to consider major changes to scheme rules; the need to ensure that pension boards are responsible for the oversight of financial management and, in the case of funded schemes such as the local government pension scheme, for investment management; and the commissioning of a review into how standards of administration in public service pension schemes can be improved. Those measures would improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of scheme administration and would ensure that public service pension schemes matched best practice in the private sector.

Finally, we must ensure that the Bill adequately reflects and reinforces the progress made in negotiations. We should give public service workers a system they can trust and pensions that they can save towards with confidence, ensuring protection against retrospective or arbitrary detrimental changes. We also have concerns in this regard, which some hon. Members have already mentioned, and we will seek to address them in Committee. For one thing, the Bill subjects many aspects of public service pension provision to unilateral Treasury control. Although it is right that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that costs to taxpayers are contained, public service employees also have a right to know that critical changes will be consulted on and that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to arbitrary interference and opportunistic cash raids.

Furthermore, Lord Hutton has stated that

“there must…be full protection of accrued rights”,

but the Bill does not rule out retrospective changes that reduce benefits already accrued, going against the fundamental principle that pension benefits accrued are pay deferred and must therefore be honoured. The Government have reiterated their commitment to maintaining defined benefits in the public sector, and the Chief Secretary reaffirmed that to the House last year. He said, as he has on a number of other occasions, that his commitment was that

“public sector schemes will remain as defined benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 927.]

Clause 7, however, provides for the creation of new schemes that are

“defined benefits…defined contributions…or…a scheme of any other description.”

That should not be a means to drive a coach and horses through the commitments the Government have given and allow another round in the race to the bottom on pension provision.

In addition, the Government have made much of their promise of

“no more reform for 25 years”.

In his foreword to the Treasury’s document on new scheme designs, published last December, the Chief Secretary wrote that

“we need a long term solution that will last a generation”.

Clause 20 specifies “protected elements” of scheme design that cannot be altered for the next 25 years without clearing a “high hurdle” of comprehensive consultation and a report to parliament.

We think it is right that public service workers should be given an assurance that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to further arbitrary and unfair changes without adequate scrutiny and debate, but the Bill seems to be riddled with loopholes, excluding a number of important scheme features from the list of “protected elements” and stating that the “high hurdle” can be bypassed in order to meet a cost cap that is in turn set by the Treasury with no such requirement for consultation and report. Furthermore, it was a critical part of the agreements reached with employee representatives that protection should be provided to staff transferred to alternative providers as a result of public service outsourcing —the so-called fair deal policy. The Chief Secretary told the House last year that

“we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff. The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers, and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]

Yet there is no guarantee in the Bill that public service workers transferred to new employers will be able to keep their public service pensions. We will seek to address all those issues in Committee to improve the Bill and the protections granted to public service workers.

In conclusion, we think public service workers with understandable fears for their financial futures deserve better than being treated as pawns in this Government’s political games, with the consequence that it has been harder to reach agreement on reasonable reforms that control costs to the taxpayer. Indeed, perhaps the best case for the Bill is that it should ensure that never again can an opportunistic Government create unnecessary conflict and disruption by imposing unfair and arbitrary changes without adequate consultation, scrutiny and accountability. Let us ensure that it fulfils that objective.

Finally, let us remember that the real pensions crisis is not in the public sector but in the private sector. It is right that we should ensure public service pensions are sustainable and affordable for the taxpayer, but we should not allow that to distract us from the unacceptable inadequacy of pension provision in the private sector. Too often, it has sounded as though the Government’s answer to disparities in pension provision across the public and private sectors is to level down, not level up. Indeed, we have seen more than a million lower paid workers excluded from automatic enrolment when we should be ensuring that the National Employment Savings Trust can deliver low-cost, high-quality pensions to all who could benefit.