National Insurance (Contributions) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

If I heard the hon. Lady correctly, she said that she wanted the cut in the jobs tax to be brought in sooner, yet in 2010 she said in Committee that she was proud to stand on a record of increasing the jobs tax. Does that represent a flip-flop?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It does not represent a flip-flop, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. It would not be a debate on this issue if he did not make the point that he has made on a number of occasions. I would have felt as though I had missed out on something if he had not made that intervention, so I am grateful to him. He will not be surprised if I repeat my previous answers to him in relation to national insurance. I was very proud to stand for election on the Labour party manifesto at the 2010 general election and proud that the Labour Government had got the recovery under way at the time of that election—a recovery that was choked off by this Government as soon as they came into power. [Interruption.] Government Members might not like to hear it, but I am afraid that that does not stop it being true.

Let me clarify my point about the employment allowance. From the moment it was announced in the Budget, our immediate critique was not that it should not be introduced —we supported its introduction from the beginning—but to say, as we have continued to say, “Bring it in as soon as possible—why wait?” If there were compelling reasons for the wait, it would be understandable, but I am afraid that I find nothing compelling in anything the Minister has ever said about the delay in bringing these proposals forward. All the issues relating to IT and systems and getting software up and running could be sorted out, with a bit of will.

I understand that software developers are still waiting on HMRC to give them the full guidelines on what software they will need to produce to make sure that take-up of the employment allowance goes ahead with relative ease. I hope that the Minister has had sight of the submission by Mr Holloway of the Learn Centre to the National Insurance Contributions Bill Committee, which was submitted after the Committee had disbanded but was still made available to all its members, because it contains concerns about the delay in getting proper clarification and explanation to software developers on what they need to do in relation to the employment allowance. Given that it is December and they have to get ready for the employment allowance to come online in April 2014, they will not have a huge amount of time to get everything in place and ready. If that is the position on the employment allowance, then why not add in the proposal on NICs for under-21s and deal with both issues at the same time?

Given that we are speaking from the Opposition Benches—unfortunately—our amendment does not propose that the measure should be introduced immediately in 2014; otherwise Government Members would no doubt have shouted at us about the cost of doing so and the spending commitment entailed. However, we have asked for a review that would look at the level of youth unemployment now and the impact that introducing the measure in April 2014 would have had on the level of youth unemployment as it stands today. That is because the Government should not escape scrutiny for the impact that this measure may have had compared with what it will have, I hope, when it comes into force in 2015. If it is found that the measure would have had a significant impact, as we believe it would, that is an important bit of information and the Government would be put under pressure to introduce it sooner than they intended.

This Government found money in the autumn statement for the married couples allowance. They have always said that the recognition of marriage in the tax system is symbolic. However, government is about choices and priorities, and if money can be found immediately to do something that is symbolic and sends a message, then surely it should be found for a practical Government measure that helps to prioritise our young people who need jobs today and not on a date far from now. The choices and priorities of this Government are wrong and they should think again. The emergency presented to this country by the current rate of youth unemployment cannot wait to be dealt with on some future date. The Government should reconsider the start date of this proposal. We therefore intend to press our amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given that I am still relatively new to my shadow Treasury brief, I am not yet—as hon. Members who served in Committee will no doubt be pleased to note—suffering from review fatigue. Both of the new clauses seek further reviews from the Government. New clause 1 envisages a post-implementation review, which was the subject of some debate in Committee, and I felt it was worth having a further discussion to push the Government a little more in relation to the impact that the employment allowance will have on jobs and wage rates, and the effectiveness of the promotion of the employment allowance to all those who are eligible for it.

New clause 2 envisages an administrative and compliance cost review—a one-off review to take place six months after the employment allowance comes into force. It was prompted by the evidence of Mr Holloway, which I mentioned earlier, and I shall go into more detail shortly.

In Committee, the Minister helpfully indicated that he would publish information on two of the elements that I have included in new clause 1—the overall take-up of the employment allowance and its geographical spread. I understand from his comments in Committee that the information on the geographical location of those taking up the employment allowance will probably be available on a regional basis. I hope that he will clarify that point when he responds to the debate. The Minister said that he would put information on both elements in the Library so that Members can raise questions about the effectiveness of the employment allowance and its take-up levels. We have in mind the previous regional national insurance employers’ holiday, which had difficulties from the start. We have made the point that those difficulties should have been dealt with sooner, and it is in that context that we think the Government should have a formal post-implementation review of the take-up of the employment allowance.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady earlier made the breathtaking assertion that although the Labour party was proudly in favour of increasing the jobs tax in 2010, its attempt now to reduce it was not a flip-flop. With the proposal of an annual review, businesses will be concerned that the Labour party is not committed to the employment allowance, as we are. The hon. Lady said in Committee that she could not commit the Labour party to supporting the employment allowance at the next election, so will she therefore admit that Labour’s support for employment allowance is at risk in their shuffle of policies before that election?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will repeat exactly what I said to the hon. Gentleman when we had this debate in Committee: we have been unequivocal in our support for employment allowance since it was introduced in the Budget earlier this year. We have taken every opportunity to say to the Minister and his colleagues in the Treasury team that it should be introduced sooner. We could not have been more unequivocal in our support.

The purpose of the review is not to put the employment allowance at risk. The regional national insurance employers’ holiday scheme had problems with take-up from the start. They were raised with Ministers in this House at every available opportunity—in oral and written questions—yet we had to wait for the full three years of the scheme to run before the Government brought forward a proposal without the same problems. That is the context for tabling new clause 1. We want employment allowance to succeed and not suffer from low take-up—we want it to be taken up. The Government say that it will be taken up by 90% of eligible employers. I am sure that all Members want to see 100% take-up, and there seems to be no real reason why 10% should be missed off. We want to ensure that take-up is not affected by any unforeseen issues during roll-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), if I may, for her grace and courtesy in responding to my persistent and somewhat repetitive questions about her party’s commitment to the proposals on employment allowance, and on its continuing commitment to it in the lead-up to the next election. The reason for my persistence is that I think it is an absolutely fantastic measure. It will have a positive impact on employment, on wages and on the economy, and it should be embraced by all parties across the House, now and in the lead-up to 2015. I wish the hon. Lady every courage in talking to her colleagues to ensure that their support for it is maintained in the Labour party’s next manifesto. I wish her every success in that regard.

This small measure is so important because it has shone a light on a much broader and deeper issue—namely, the extent of Government intervention in the wages and living standards of people on low incomes. I should like to give the House some figures. Let us take the example of someone on the minimum wage earning £13,000 a year, and assume that they are the only earner in the household and have two children. Taking into account the impact of the tax and national insurance paid and the benefits received, that person’s take-home pay will be £25,000. Their wages will be £13,000, but their take-home pay including benefits will be £25,000, which is nearly twice as much. The difference will not be so significant for people without children, but even someone who is single and earning the minimum wage will see an increase on the £13,000 being paid by their employer to a total of £17,600 in pay and benefits.

I do not want to question the level of Government intervention in the labour market, other than to say that a better outcome could be achieved if it were the employers who were paying the higher levels of wages that people need to achieve an adequate living standard. That outcome can be achieved in a number of ways. There will be uplift in the economy thanks to the measures that this Government are taking to encourage growth and boost the economy, and wages should increase over time as a result. It can be achieved through measures to increase the skills of our employees, to ensure that people can aspire to take on more complex tasks and earn higher wages as a result. It can also be achieved through innovation among our entrepreneurs as they create new higher sector employment, and through action on the minimum wage. I hope that all the political parties will think carefully about their policies on each of those points, so that we can make progress.

In the proposals in the Bill for the employment allowance, the Government have found a tool to tackle the additional costs that we place on labour. The chart on page 18 of the autumn statement shows that, since early 2001, employers’ social contributions as a share of total employee compensation have increased from 13% to 17%. The employment allowance will start to make a change in that regard, and I encourage the Minister to see it as a first step, with more still to come.

National Infrastructure Plan

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

As RWE said at the time, its decision about the project was a commercial one taken for a range of reasons. It was aware of the timetable for setting out the strike prices. I know that my hon. Friends in the Department of Energy and Climate Change had conversations with that company.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have listened to the many questions from hon. Members, but none has referenced the fact that, despite making progress on the deficit, the Government’s finances are still not in balance. Having listened to the scepticism of a former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), does my right hon. Friend think that the Government would do better by being more modest in their scope, more effective in their delivery and more stringent in their evaluation of the projects?

[Danny Alexander]

The evaluation of all the projects is very stringent, and I ensure that that happens, but we have also taken some very difficult decisions to constrain public spending in other areas to make more investment available for infrastructure projects. I think that that is the right balance, because infrastructure projects are so important for the long-term future of the country. Under-investment in infrastructure has been a British disease for decades, and we need to end it.

Cost of Living

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I was concerned that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to understand the difference between deficit and debt, which I thought would be a prerequisite for talking about economics. Will my hon. Friend explain to the House what the circumstances were when this Government came to office?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend tempts me and I will do just that in a moment, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), as I have to many Opposition Members, but on the question of what we should do, I have not heard much. The honourable exception was the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), whose speech had some coherence, but I guess he is far too moderate to be included in the Labour party’s Government-in-waiting, assuming that position remains—we hold out that hope.

The motion is a listing of some of the pain points that many of our constituents are feeling as they look to balance their budgets each week. “I feel your pain” is an important expression of empathy. Empathy is important for politicians of all parties; we have to be empathetic with the constituents we represent. However, empathy is no substitute for policy, and Opposition Members have shown a complete absence of policy in dealing with the points of pain that they can so lucidly set down in their motions. That is why I shall support the Government in the Division later.

When we have seen a policy from the Opposition, it has often been about ways in which they would seek to intervene in markets. I suggest to Opposition Members that Government intervention should always be used sparingly and where it can be effective. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen as his flagship intervention policy one where he cannot be effective, and nor does it make economic sense. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) pointed out, the consequence of the Labour party’s position on an energy price freeze has been to crater the willingness of energy companies to invest in effective energy in the long term. It is very sad that just a few weeks after the Chancellor had been to China to secure investment in our energy sector—something that the Labour Government sadly missed out on year after year—the Labour party came up with another policy designed to make our energy more inefficient, rather than efficient, in the long term. If we are going to address some of the issues about the cost of living for members of the public, we have to be honest about what the Government can and cannot do.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the subject of honesty and admitting the failures of the past, is it not strange that last week the shadow Chancellor told a National House Building Council lunch that a future Labour Government would deliver 200,000 new homes a year when, in their last year in office, the previous Labour Government presided over the lowest number of homes built since 1923? Is there not a huge chasm between Labour’s promises and its record in office?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the chasm between reality and certain things promised by Labour. There is also an absence of a basic understanding of economics. It is nice to see the shadow Chief Secretary in his place again. It was not clear from his opening speech whether he understood the difference between deficit and debt, which is quite an important thing to know for someone who wishes one day to hold an important Treasury position.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I am very happy to give way. I recognise that the shadow Chief Secretary has been for his economic tutorial, so perhaps he can enlighten us.

[Chris Leslie]

That is very funny and droll, but does the hon. Gentleman know that borrowing accumulates and forms at the stock of national debt? Has he figured that much out? If he has, will he tell us whether it is true that, during his time in Parliament, his party has presided over the accumulation of £430 billion of borrowing? Is that not right?

[Richard Fuller]

Boy, has the hon. Gentleman picked the wrong person with whom to have an argument about debt and the Labour party’s record on debt. Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman on that record. He will never be Chancellor of the Exchequer, but were he ever to achieve that position—

[Chris Leslie]

Answer the question.

[Richard Fuller]

I am answering the question. I know it is hard for the hon. Gentleman to follow the argument, but I will put it in bite-sized pieces so that he can keep up. It is important for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at not just the indebtedness of the Government, but at the way in which the entire economy is accumulating debt, which is one of the things that the previous Labour Government signally failed to understand.

If we look at the United Kingdom’s debt in the mid-1990s and take into consideration Government debt, household debt and corporate debt, we will see that that total indebtedness was, like that of many other OECD countries, two times the size of our national economy. Over the intervening 15 years—which in this country were spent mostly under a Labour Government—other OECD countries saw their total debt go from about two times to about three times the size of their economy, and that includes all of the impact of the financial crisis. One country in the G8—and only one—increased its total debt from two times to five times the size of its economy, and that was the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government. It is the consequence of that pervasive debt in the economy that is the real cost of living crisis in this country.

Every family knows that when they have significant debts that they cannot avoid and that they have to pay, their monthly income will be less because they will have to pay back the debt of the past. They are paying the consequences of the Labour party’s failure when in office.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, against that backdrop, it is commendable that under this Government and this Chancellor of the Exchequer, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years? [Interruption.]

[Richard Fuller]

I see that the shadow Chief Secretary has left for more education on economics. My hon. Friend raises a point about income levels. There is an issue about how we increase the incomes of people at the low end of our economy. How do we make sure that work pays for those people who go out and work very hard?

Over the past 10 years, the United Kingdom has created a massive level of state intervention to support wages at the low end of the income spectrum. In order to try to improve living standards for people at the low end, we have to encourage employers to somehow pay higher wages. References have been made to the living wage. One of the issues about changing people’s income from the minimum wage to the living wage is that the change to their take-home pay, including any benefits they receive, becomes a very small change in their net income level, because the tapering of benefits takes away nearly all the impact of the increase in wage rates. A change to the living wage is therefore a transaction involving additional cost to the employer and additional benefit for the Exchequer; it does not result in additional pay to the employee.

We have to be clear about what we are truly promising people as we seek certain changes. It would be good to hear from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who I presume will wind up the debate, what answer the Government can give people about their income and about making work pay. What are we doing about their tax and their benefits? For people in work who wish to take on additional hours or to increase their responsibilities and get more pay per hour, what are we doing to ensure that their benefits are not taken away so rapidly? If we do that, in the next period of Conservative Government we can continue the battle to make sure that work pays, which is the true answer to any cost of living crisis.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The policy of providing a NICs break only for new employees raised all sorts of practical questions such as who constituted a new employee and what perverse incentives might have been created. That is not dissimilar to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has made about Labour’s current policy.

I will turn to the other elements of the Bill. Clauses 9 and 10 relate to the general anti-abuse rule. The Government announced at last year’s Budget that they accepted the recommendation of the Aaronson report to introduce a GAAR targeted at abusive tax avoidance schemes. The GAAR was introduced in part 5 of the Finance Act 2013 and has been in force since July. This Bill will apply the GAAR to national insurance contributions.

Clause 11 relates to oil and gas workers. In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government would strengthen the legislation on offshore employment intermediaries. The Bill will address the non-payment of employer’s national insurance contributions in the oil and gas industry through the placement of the employer of oil and gas workers who are working on the UK continental shelf outside the UK. The measure has been subject to consultation. The consultation document, “Offshore employment intermediaries”, was published on 30 May 2013 and the consultation closed on 8 August 2013. The summary of responses was published in October.

The Government intend to address those offshore employment schemes largely by using existing powers contained in social security legislation. The Bill supplements those with a new certification provision for the oil and gas industry. That provision will apply where the national insurance obligations are fulfilled by someone on behalf of the person deemed to be the employer for national insurance purposes.

Clause 11 is part of a measure that, as a whole, is expected to bring in the region of £100 million per year to the Exchequer, without having a significant economic impact on the oil and gas industry. Staff costs for some businesses may increase if they had not previously been accounting properly for all tax and NICs. There will be little cost to the Government through additional administration, other than HMRC implementing the new certification system, and I hope hon. Members will agree that this is a straightforward and uncontroversial provision.

Finally, I wish to refer to provisions in the Bill concerning HMRC’s partnership review, which are contained in clauses 12 and 13. Following the Chancellor’s Budget announcement, HMRC carried out a consultation on two aspects of the partnership rules between May and August this year, and the Government are bringing forward measures in the Bill as a result of that review. The Government are proposing two sets of changes, the first of which was not part of the consultation proposals but resulted directly from information received during that consultation. It concerns a tax issue that can arise from the interaction of the alternative investment fund managers directive—AIFMD—and existing partnership tax rules. Only those alternative investment fund managers who operate as a partnership will be affected by the proposed changes in the Bill.

A provision in the Bill will allow regulations to be made to modify the class 4 NICS liability of partners whose profits will be deferred under AIFMD, which aims to improve investor protection and reduce risk. The regulations will be based on new tax legislation that will be included in the forthcoming finance Bill. Measures will be included in the NICs Bill, the forthcoming finance Bill and secondary legislation to reclassify certain limited liability partnership—or LLP—members as employed earners for tax and national insurance purposes, to tackle the disguising of employment relationships through LLPs.

The tax and NICs changes are expected to bring in approximately £125 million to the Exchequer in the first year, while the broader economic impact is expected to be negligible. There will be changes to the NICs liability for certain partnerships and individual partners in the alternative investment fund sector. The Bill will also result in some LLPs in certain industry sectors where disguised employment has been most prevalent paying increased amounts of NICs.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I greatly appreciate the Minister giving way. Before he sits down, will he or one of his colleagues respond on the financial costs of the employment allowance contained in the Treasury documents? What impact on the take-up of tax credits were included in the estimate of £1.25 billion impact on the Exchequer in 2014 through to £1.7 billion in 2017-18? I do not expect the Minister to have those numbers to hand, but if his colleagues could reply to that later, or send me a note, I would appreciate it.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, and we will of course take a cautious estimate on the impact on tax credit take-up. Those numbers were signed off by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives an answer on the detailed technical point before long.

This is an important and necessary Bill. Through the employment allowance it will allow us to support businesses with the cost of employing their staff, as well as small businesses that are aspiring to grow. The Bill also includes a package of measures aimed at activity that attempts to reduce the national insurance contributions payable to the Exchequer—an issue we are seeking to address.

This is another Bill that will help to create a system of low taxation that is properly enforced. It will continue to help businesses help our economic recovery, and it will help jobs and job creation. I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was a valiant effort to change the subject, but today we are talking about this Minister’s record and the regional national insurance holiday plan. I note that the Minister could not bring himself to admit that the Opposition were right and that he was wrong about that. Perhaps we can return to that point later.

The Minister sought to focus as much as he could on the employment allowance and desperately tried to forget its predecessor scheme that the Government introduced in their 2010 emergency Budget—the regional national insurance holiday, which was enacted in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2011. The national insurance holiday was an abject failure, so I am not surprised that he wants to pretend it never happened, but it did, and it failed utterly. He has wasted three years clinging to that policy rather than doing what Opposition Members told him to do, which was to rip it up and design a new scheme that took account of the criticisms made by us and others.

The Bill introduces the employment allowance, which we support, so perhaps we should give the Minister credit for getting there in the end, but it is somewhat difficult to do so, because it has taken him far too long to rectify the flaws of the previous scheme, which we warned him about from the beginning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has reminded him. As a result, businesses desperate for help have struggled in the meantime.

Those businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the engine of our economy, have continued to suffer. Bank lending to SMEs is still contracting, and analysis published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shows that tightening credit has disproportionately affected low and average-risk SMEs. Last year, Project Merlin missed its target for lending to SMEs by more than £1 billion. In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted that lending to businesses would have risen 34% by now, but in fact it has fallen by 10%.

Given this climate of the past three years, action has been necessary to support business, but, on national insurance, it has taken the Government too long to get there.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady is making some fair criticism of the national insurance holiday, but does she agree that one problem with the holiday was that it was a one-off, and that businesses are so smart in their planning that they ignore one-off schemes and go on previous predictions? Does she agree that a steady basis for policy is better than one-off, one-year schemes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but there were many other problems with the national insurance holiday, which I shall return to later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused. As was pointed out earlier, we always said that one of the problems with the scheme was the regional element, and I am coming to that point.

During the passage of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2011, we told the Minister that he should drop the regional condition attached to the national insurance holiday and expand it to areas of the UK that had been excluded. Today, he brings to the House the employment allowance, which does exactly that. In fact, the Government’s analysis, published this morning, shows that more than 40% of the expected total number of employers who will not pay any NICs under the employment allowance are based in regions excluded from the previous scheme. At the time, the Minister said that extending the national insurance holiday across the UK would increase the cost by approximately £600 million to a total of £1.6 billion over three years. Today, his employment allowance is predicted to cost £1.3 billion in the first year, rising to £1.7 billion by 2017-18. We said that the national insurance holiday should be extended to cover all businesses, rather than simply new ones. Today, the Minister is introducing an employment allowance that covers all businesses, not just new businesses.

[Richard Fuller]

I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady talk about the virtues of expanding reductions in national insurance across the country and extending it in terms of time. Does she therefore think it was wrong for her, in the previous election, to stand on a manifesto that advocated an increase in national insurance?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was proud to stand as a Labour candidate at the general election when the economy was starting to grow, but that recovery was choked off by the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

During the Committee stage of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2011, we tabled amendments to extend the national insurance holiday to charities. The employment allowance will do just that. This is effectively our policy, so we are of course delighted to support the Bill. Since the policy was announced in the Budget, we have been calling for it to be enacted immediately, rather than waiting until April 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is truly a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who is a mighty champion for our small businesses that are trying to access international markets. It is no wonder that her region leads the country in increasing exports to developing and developed nations around the world. She spoke most eloquently about the benefits for small businesses and echoed some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister about the impact of the Bill on the willingness of employers to add to their labour force.

I want to focus on the Bill’s impact not on the quantity of people who will be employed but on the price of labour, and on how the Bill might be used to implement some of the efforts to create a living wage across the United Kingdom. The Treasury team have come across a useful tool in implementing that change, and it is up to them to see how much courage they might have to move forward with this initiative to achieve it. That marks the difference between those on the Opposition Benches, who wish to posture over changes in the economy on employment and wages, and Government Members, who are interested in taking action to achieve change.

If I may, I shall consider the record of the previous Labour Government. As we have heard often today, the Labour Government were interested in increasing the tax on employment, and indeed went into the general election calling for increases in the jobs tax. Despite the words we have heard today, we have not heard one word of apology from the Labour party for saying at the last election that the right way to increase employment was to increase the tax on jobs. Still no apology on that, but it was part of a pattern that impacted negatively on the price of employment.

Labour abolished the 10p tax rate. It created a tax credits system that was an incredibly complex way to give people a post-tax income on which they could live. Any of us with constituents who have been caught up with tax credits when they went wrong knows how hard it is for families when the tax credits office claws those tax credits back and savings have to be found. Why on earth was that system a good system? Underpinning it—

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I will give way in a second; I would love to hear from the hon. Lady.

Underpinning that system was Labour’s creation of a benefits system that discouraged work. We had hundreds of thousands of workers in our country going out to work on the minimum wage or a little more and seeing people living on benefits when they could have worked and ending up with a lifestyle that those people in work could not afford. Labour has not apologised for that policy and has opposed even the benefits cap.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the intention behind tax credits was indeed to encourage people to enter employment and that 350,000 single parents entered employment as a direct result of the introduction of the tax credits system?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a point, but not a particularly good one. If the economy was borrowing so much money to stimulate employment, it was not a particularly outstanding outcome to achieve an increase in one part of the labour force of 350,000, especially when we consider the fact that every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

That is the bigger picture to which I guess the hon. Lady wishes to return, as she is one of, I think, just two Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and being so generous with his time. That myth about every Labour Government leaving office with unemployment higher than when it came to office is not entirely accurate. For example, unemployment was extremely low at the end of the period in office of the 1945-51 Labour Government. Under the Tory Governments of 1979 to 1997, unemployment was more than 10% in the majority of those years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady is digressing significantly from the Bill to talk about 1945, but in any debate I am more than happy— [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers want to make an argument about how good the Labour party is in office at reducing unemployment. The facts are the facts: Labour comes to office and when it leaves, unemployment is higher.

To return to the impact of the Bill on improving wage rates, let us consider the record of the coalition in government. We are in the process of raising the personal allowance to £10,000. I shall return to that point. We are targeting and simplifying tax credits and other benefits. We have introduced a benefit cap, making work pay. With this Bill, we are introducing an employment allowance, which will provide greater opportunity for us to improve wage rates. The living wage is a crucial issue that Members on both sides of the House should embrace. We should all endeavour to find ways to improve wages for those who are unskilled or on low pay. For many decades, real wages for people who are unskilled have been stagnant, or rising at a very low rate. One benefit of the introduction of higher wages is the potential that many businesses will see for higher productivity. Most importantly, if very small businesses are able to pay higher wages, there is reduced staff turnover. That is particularly important where there is low pay across a profession.

I looked at the Bill with great interest to see how it could provide a solid basis for an answer to the question, “How do we implement the living wage in practice?”. Tomorrow, we will hear from the Leader of the Opposition about his approach. It was interesting that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), said that one-off policies were a bad idea when it came to persuading businesses to take up a new Government scheme, but a one-off policy is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition will propose tomorrow as his approach to the living wage. If it does not work for national insurance contributions, how on earth will it work for substantial wage changes by employers? The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he just does not understand business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range quite widely, but his comments must relate not to what might happen tomorrow, but to the Bill and its contribution or otherwise to the living wage; I think that was the point that he wanted to develop. I would be grateful if he stuck to that.

[Richard Fuller]

You read my mind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return directly to the implications of the measure for the living wage and wage rates. Let me give some numbers showing the impact of a change from the minimum wage to the living wage, and say how the Bill can help to achieve that change for the long term.

Let us consider what happens when a married person who works 40 hours a week, has two teenage children, and earns the minimum wage, which is £6.31, moves to the living wage, which today went up to £7.65. I am using the numbers for outside London, because I represent Bedford, which is outside London. The employee’s gross pay would increase from £13,125 to £15,912—an increase of 21%. After the changes to their tax, national insurance and tax credits, their net take-home pay, which is what matters to them, increases from £15,067 to £16,483—a welcome increase, but an increase of only 9%. That is the impact on the family of the change from the minimum wage to the living wage.

Looking at the cost to the employer, there is an increase in salary of £2,787, and an increase in the employer’s national insurance contributions of £385; that is essentially a 23% increase in the cost of employing that person. Then there is the impact on the Exchequer. It benefits from an increase in income tax of £557, and an increase in the employee national insurance contribution of £335. The reduction in the payment of tax credits benefits the Exchequer by £479, and the increase in employer national insurance benefits it by £385. The Exchequer ends up increasing its tax take by 32%. The change from the minimum wage to the living wage means a modest but welcome increase for the employee, has a high cost for the employer, and brings a substantial benefit, on my calculations, for the Exchequer.

In that context, let me say this about the Government’s use of the employment allowance to give something back to our hard-pressed employers and small businesses: £2,000 is a start, but we have found a tool here, if we have the courage to use it, that we can use to encourage—not compel—our private sector employers to accept a living wage. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could act as a compliance officer for those who seek to pay the living wage, as it does for the minimum wage. We could pay back some of the significant gain to the Exchequer that my simple calculation has brought up, though I am sure that there are more complicated numbers out there. There is a useful tool here, and this is a small start. Let us have the courage to see how we can improve living conditions and wages for our low-paid workers, and use the Bill as the start of a better future for all of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because the Opposition will set out clearly that we very much support and welcome this measure. It is something we have been proposing for the past three years, so we greatly welcome its introduction through the Bill.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. We have touched on the living wage, the economy, employment, unemployment, self-employment—many forms of employment. We have strayed far from the core subject and, I think, strained the patience of the Deputy Speakers in the Chair today. At times, we have been on a magical history tour in which the history of this country and its economy has not only been airbrushed, but at times rewritten. In my concluding remarks, I hope to bring back a bit of realism to the discussion. I know that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) finds that somewhat depressing, but I am going to do it anyway.

I am disappointed that the Exchequer Secretary is not in his place for the winding-up speeches, as it is important to take a little step back in time and recall how the Bill was introduced. Until recently he was my opposite number, and it would have been good to have him in his usual place. The hon. Gentleman has the dubious privilege of being one of an ever-diminishing number of junior coalition Ministers who have been in the same job since 2010. He therefore finds himself in an unfortunate position because we can measure the ambitions that he set out for supporting small businesses and job creation against his actual record of delivery in government.

As we have heard, although this was not included in the draft Bill published on 16 July, the main purpose of the National Insurance Contributions Bill is to implement the employment allowance announced by the Chancellor in the Budget 2013. Given the apparent importance of the policy—which accounts for clauses 1 to 8 of this short Bill—perhaps when she concludes the Minister will say why the employment allowance was not mentioned in the draft legislation. It would be useful to clarify that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood made clear in her excellent opening speech, the Opposition support the introduction of this measure and this Bill. It might be painful for the Exchequer Secretary—although he is not here to pained—but it could be helpful to cast our minds back to why we support this Bill. Let us think back to 2011 and the similarly entitled National Insurance Contributions Bill of that year.

[Richard Fuller]

Before the hon. Lady casts our minds back to 2011, may I ask her the question I asked her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood)? In 2010 she stood on a manifesto that planned to increase the jobs tax. People want politicians who are honest, so will the hon. Lady say that that was a mistake?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will repeat the words of my hon. Friend, who said that she was proud to stand in 2010 on a manifesto for a Labour Government who were committed to reducing the deficit but had an economy that was growing. Since then we have seen three years of stagnating growth, wages rising slower than prices, and borrowing not coming down anywhere near the amount the Government promised. I would caution Government Members against trying to rewrite in this Chamber the history of what they have achieved over the past three years.

On that point, let us return to 2011. The Bill taken through this House by the Exchequer Secretary—I welcome him back to his seat—included the introduction of the three-year national insurance holiday, worth £5,000 for employers. The scheme, which was originally announced at the Chancellor’s first Budget in June 2010, was not aimed at supporting just any employers, however, because it was restricted. It did not apply to businesses in London and the south-east or east of England, as we mentioned earlier, and it extended only to new business start-ups, and then only to the first 10 employees of those firms—but, of course, only to those first 10 employees who had been hired in the first year of that business. I hope hon. Members are still with me. [Interruption.] I am sure the Minister is still with me as he designed the dubious policy.

Indeed, serious concerns about the scheme’s complexity were raised at the time by Robert Chote—then at the Institute for Fiscal Studies; now at the Office for Budget Responsibility—who told the Treasury Committee that the policy

“might be a little too complicated to offer best value for money.”

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I agree that 16 months is a very long time. Even when cases are accepted into the redress scheme, they seem to be taking a long time. The banks would argue that businesses need to engage with them, but I believe we still need to look carefully at this matter. The sophistication test should be more flexible, and the discrepancies that I have described need to be acknowledged.

Another discrepancy involves the asset value. A business could be excluded from the scheme because of the asset value that it holds. In effect, it could be argued that a business that had been lucky enough to invest in property at the right time should be excluded from the redress scheme because of that piece of luck. If the asset value had increased to a certain level, that could result in the company being excluded from the scheme.

There is also a lack of consistency. In some cases, the banks are ignoring the sophistication test because they believe that a customer would fail it and therefore be eligible for the redress scheme. Instead, they are moving the customer straight into the assessment of redress. If they can ignore the sophistication test in some cases, where is the consistency? A member of the all-party parliamentary group argued strongly on behalf of a constituent who had a £12 million swap and, lo and behold, the constituent was subsequently allowed to become part of the redress scheme. That was an excellent result for that business, but again, where is the consistency? The FCA needs to look carefully at the sophistication test.

My final point on the sophistication test is that, if a business spends six months waiting to be assessed, those six months will be lost in regard to the statute of limitations for taking legal action. The FCA needs to recognise that, because it is potentially dangerous for the businesses concerned.

A further concern relates to the alternative products on offer. It has been said time and again that if these complex products are unsuitable, it cannot be right to introduce a redress scheme in which a swap can be substituted by a slightly less complicated swap. It is also important to note that a business will be offered an alternative product only if it has failed the sophistication test—that is, if it has been deemed to be unsophisticated. I find it difficult to understand how any alternative product other than a cap could possibly be suitable.

Another reason why the cap is the obvious alternative product is that if businesses had been told clearly of the cost of the products they were taking on board back in 2006-07, they would have seen that a cap would have offered them significantly better value for money. Why was the cap not offered? Probably because of the financial imperative of the banks to sell something more complex and more rewarding. It is thus important to highlight the fact that having a complex derivative rather than a cap as alternative product is a real concern. If businesses have been classified as unsophisticated, that issue should be recognised and we should try to ensure that we provide a cap as the only acceptable alternative product.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the omission of information from the sales process; does he also accept that the information needed was introduced late and that only opinions were offered? What was really going on was a sophisticated sales process to dupe people who may have been financially unsophisticated for the financial benefit of the banks. Does he believe that that should mean that the people in charge of that process should face criminal sanction, not just financial redress for their customers?

[Guto Bebb]

That is certainly a call that some of the organisations campaigning on this issue have made, and I am sure that other hon. Members and members of the all-party group will expand on that theme in their speeches.

We thus need to look carefully at the alternative product issues. It is fair to argue that businesses might have been looking for interest rate protection, but it is difficult to argue that they would have been tempted by an expensive product in 2006-07, when a cap offered such good value for money at that time. I am unpersuaded of the arguments for a complex derivative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I will try to explain the issue as simply as I can now.

Imagine a second-hand-car dealer. He may buy a dodgy motor on his own books and try to make as big a turn as he can, but he risks not getting his money back. Now imagine a car dealer with a valuable vintage car who aligns a seller and buyer at exactly the same time. He takes a turn with no risk at all, and that is how a swap behaves. Now imagine that, having lined up that trade, he takes the money from the buyer, so has a contractual agreement with them, and agrees a sale with the seller. However, on the way to deliver the car, he writes it off in a crash and is not insured. He still has liabilities on both sides—he still has to deliver a car to the buyer and has to pay the seller. That is the mess that the banks are in. They have caused themselves a massive car crash and have to look after the other side of the trade.

We are fully aware of the losses to the banks on the financial redress scheme—plus, obviously, the consequential loss scheme as well. We have heard about how much has been put aside, and there will be debate about whether that is the right amount or not. However, we have heard nothing yet about the value of the liability on the other side of the swap—the liability to institutions, most likely to be pension funds, that still needs to be honoured. That has implications for the stability of the banks and shows why it is important for banks to keep the redress scheme running for as long as possible.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Mark Garnier]

I see that my hon. Friend wants to intervene, but may I develop my point?

The financial redress scheme has a specific value, based on a number of factors—including, crucially, interest rates and time. Similarly, time to run is a key component of the value of the other side of the swap. With interest rates so low, the longer the time to run, the higher its value to the customer and the higher the liability to the bank. As a result, we get a built in incentive for the banks to delay settlement for as long as possible. With each day that goes by, the liability on the other side of the swap is reducing.

Harry Wilson, of The Daily Telegraph, has put in freedom of information requests to the Financial Conduct Authority to find out exactly what the loss on the other side of the trade will be. Amazingly, nobody seems to have the answer. It seems inconceivable that the banks would not have the information. Any derivatives trading room team, especially on a swaps desk, will have detailed information on the extent of the liabilities; they have to know that. Even if the swaps team does not, the risk or treasury department should know it—loads of people should know it. It is extraordinary that nobody is coming forward with the information.

The issue has been dragging on for far too long. Too many businesses have failed as a result of it and it is likely that too many more have fallen into that twilight zone of bad forbearance by banks, which sometimes keep otherwise dead institutions alive simply because it is in their interests.

I spent the best part of the last year on the Banking Commission considering the matter. It is worth noting that this crisis happened before the Banking Commission, the financial crisis and the rest of it. However, today the banks have to prove that they have moved on, that they should now be allowed to come into polite society and will do the right thing by the consumer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is a defender of a system of true free-market principles. He has identified the twin problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest, which is that, in addition to the unfunded liability cause, we have now booked the profits and paid the bankers for going through the process that duped the people. Those involved should face criminal sanction.

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I want to live in a free society with a free and commercially successful banking system, but we have to ask ourselves whether the current system has incentivised behaviour that is fraudulent under the law as it stands. The last thing we must do is allow ourselves, in a frenzy of condemnation, to start criticising a system on which our civilisation depends, when that criticism is unjustified. We should be looking at the law as it stands and checking—carefully investigating—whether individuals have broken the law. I am particularly concerned about IFRS. I do not think it complies with UK company law and think it has incentivised behaviour that is probably fraudulent.

Banking ought to be simple. It ought to be about connecting depositors with those who wish to borrow in order to invest for productive purposes, such as buying a house or even going on holiday, but predominantly it should be about investing to create real resources and real wealth, and to increase productive capacity and the balance of capital invested per head, so that real wages increase and the cost of living goes down. Instead, we have ended up with a system in which poor state intervention from one end to the other has created so much moral hazard and so many perverse incentives that it has become abundantly clear that a small number of individuals—far fewer than 1% of the population—have captured the state in order to turn implicit and explicit taxpayer guarantees, or bail-out funds, into personal remuneration. It is a disgrace.

The banking system needs to be made honest, and quickly, and part of that is a system of compensation for people who have been treated extremely badly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for his leadership of the all-party group on interest rate swap mis-selling. The issue is important for all Members, which is why the Chamber is so full.

We all know of a number of cases in which people were switching banks or wanted loans for a project, and one of the last products slid across the table to them was an interest rate swap. Many felt that they did not have much choice but to take it. The British economy is showing welcome signs of starting to recover, and the Bank of England is pushing cheap credit into it to get the banks to lend, which is having an impact. However, we should all reflect on the fact that 30,000 to 40,000 businesses run by serial entrepreneurs could well go out of business before the process that we are discussing is finished, which would have a cataclysmic effect on the businesses with which they deal, the people who work for them and many of our local economies. The issue is not just mis-selling but whether we maintain stable economic growth and create jobs and prosperity in future.

[Richard Fuller]

Does not my hon. Friend find it sadly ironic that the victims of mis-selling were people who had shepherded their money and built their businesses carefully over many years, while the people who benefited were those who were in it for a fast buck?

[Mr Syms]

I do, and many of the people who have been affected have a lifetime’s work in their business—more than one lifetime in the case of many family businesses, which are the bedrock of our constituencies. Those people have been key members of the community and employed many people. Today’s debate is therefore important, as we need to give the FCA and the Government a strong message that the authorities must get the banks to get on with it. Things are going too slowly. As we heard earlier, the banks have put forward some billions of pounds for compensation, but they have dealt with only 0.2% of cases. Of the £3 billion that is potentially available for redress, only £2 million has been paid out to 32 businesses, which shows that we need to speed things up.

In many cases, first the capital was sucked out of businesses and then the break clauses were such that many people could not afford to get out of the contracts. With most normal capitalist activity, if someone felt they could not make a go of it, they would sell their business on. However, nobody will buy a business that has the poison pill of an interest rate hedging product because they know that it is a major drag on the business. It is not free enterprise as we know it, and I rather agree with Members who have suggested that the banking system has not done itself any favours.

What is so tragic about the products in question is that people have no way out. We need to get on with achieving compensation. Members have made some good contributions today, and behind every story they have told is tragedy and worry. People cannot sleep at night because they are not sure how to deal with the problem. I say to Ministers and the FCA that we need to get some speed up and get compensation paid. We need to deal with people fairly, and to support and cherish serial entrepreneurs, who should be playing a major role in the economy’s recovery, rather than being put in a position of not knowing what will happen in a week, six months or a year. We need to give them our support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Richard Fuller.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Worse than the shadow Chancellor’s talking down of the British economy is the Labour party’s love of the jobs tax, which reduces employment, depresses wages and discourages enterprise. Will my right hon. Friend think about what he will do with the employment allowance next year, and see whether he can reduce it further so that we can reverse those trends?

[Mr Osborne]

I well remember my trip to Bedford with my hon. Friend before the 2010 election, when we were campaigning against the jobs tax which was the Labour Government’s solution to rising unemployment. This Government are adopting the opposite approach. We are taking taxes off jobs, and from next April there will be a new employment allowance that will help the many businesses in Bedford and throughout the country. That is just one example of what we are doing to fix what went so badly wrong.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No. The right hon. Gentleman has not got it quite right. We are absolutely enthusiastic about creating regional banks, and the exchange that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and the changes made by the regulator to the approvals process, underline that. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asks a specific question about whether RBS, in which we, of course, have a very substantial stake, should be broken up in that way. It is important that we have regard to value for the taxpayer. I suspect that we will talk about these things tomorrow, but I confirm that it is the Government’s view that we should not damage the potential value to the taxpayer in that way.

As members of the Bill Committee will recall, I made a commitment to introduce on Report amendments to implement electrification, and here they are. The amendments give powers to the regulator, with the consent of the Treasury, to require a group to separate completely its retail and wholesale banking operations. The regulator would be able to require the group either to sell its interests in ring-fenced or non-ring-fenced entities, or to transfer specified businesses to outside ownership. The regulator will be able to require separation if it is satisfied either that the group’s ring-fenced bank is not sufficiently independent of the rest of the group or that the conduct of any member of the group is such that it undermines the regulator’s ability to achieve its new statutory objective to ensure the continuity of core services.

The amendments set out a process for the exercise of that power. The first step is that the regulator must notify all affected members of a group that it is minded to exercise its powers and how it proposes to do so. The affected bank has the right to make representations following the receipt of each notice. Following that stage, the regulator is required to allow members of the group at least a year to take action to rectify the position. If, after that period, the regulator wishes to proceed it must issue a warning notice before a requirement to separate is imposed. The regulator would then allow five years to complete the separation required in line with the disposals required under competition law, particularly state aid interventions.

As the parliamentary commission recommended, the Treasury’s approval is required before that action can be taken. We agree with the commission that providing for a deterrent against any bank that seeks to game or evade the ring fence is a sensible reinforcement in keeping with the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking. Government amendments 11,12, 13 and 14 make technical adjustments to ensure that all the necessary components of structural reform comply with the ring fence and are brought within the scope of the ring-fencing transfer scheme.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his clear explanation of how the ring fence will work. He is discussing time frames that make sense in benign economic circumstances, but some of the problems with the interaction of retail and investment banking came about in circumstances of great financial trauma. Is he confident that the measures he has proposed will work in those circumstances as well?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The use of state aid is often a response in the context of difficult circumstances. That was certainly the case in the financial crisis, and it happens in other industries as well. Five years is the standard period for these arrangements to be executed or completed, and that is the reason, anticipating an intervention from my hon. Friend, that period was chosen. I dare say, however, that that there can be reflection on that: my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester may have a different view that he may wish to share with the House later.

Government amendments 15 and 16 reflect concerns expressed both by the Commission and in Committee that the use of ring-fencing transfer schemes to restructure groups could provide unscrupulous banks with an opportunity to shirk their responsibilities, such as liability with past misconduct. The requirement for PRA approval is a substantial safeguard against that, but Government amendment 16 requires that before the PRA can consent to a ring-fencing transfer scheme it must commission an independent report to assess whether anyone other than the bank itself would be adversely affected by the transfer. Government amendment 15 requires the PRA to “have regard” to that report in deciding whether to approve a ring-fencing transfer.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East will of course have more to say about amendments tabled by the Opposition, but his first amendment was debated extensively in Committee. It requires a review of ring-fencing every two years. I am certainly not set against an independent review. Indeed, the Bill builds in future reviews, including the PRA being able to report annually on the operation of the ring fence, and being able to report every five years on whether the detailed rules it has made are still delivering the objectives of the ring fence. Requiring another review specifically to look at the case for full separation risks in many ways achieving the opposite of the Bill’s intention, which is to secure consensus, as far as that can be established, and to provide for a stable regulatory structure.

It would be paradoxical for such a review to be confined to looking at ring-fencing or full separation, but not any other remedy for deficiencies that the review might uncover. Amendment 18 is identical to an amendment that was debated in Committee. The Government’s position is clear: in the Bill, we are following the advice of the commission chaired by Sir John Vickers, which considered the case for full separation—that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—and rejected it. It is a different policy. I know that it has some distinguished advocates, but it is a different policy. Of course, any future Government could adopt it, but they should do so properly, through thorough analysis and following parliamentary and public scrutiny.

It is worth reminding ourselves briefly of the history of the proposals before us. They were not invented during the past few weeks or months. They go right back to 2010, when the Government established the Independent Commission on Banking under the chairmanship of Sir John Vickers. The commission produced three reports, instigated two public consultations, considered 1,500 pages of written submissions and hosted more than 300 separate meetings. The Government produced a response and a White Paper, on which they again consulted fully before coming to Parliament. At each stage there was full cost-benefit analysis. Now in Parliament each detail of the policy is being debated—and has been debated in Committee—and in many cases improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful and probing point—I wish I had had the opportunity to probe the Government’s proposals in the same way. The point is to look at patterns of behaviour and conduct. The important thing is that this change or anything that the Government introduce should be robust and should stack up. That is why I was particularly keen to know how the Minister sees this issue being taken forward. However, I recognise that there is a wider context, so if he could respond by giving me some assurances on this issue, I would probably be tempted not to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Let me briefly mention new clause 11, which deals with criminal sanctions. New clause 11 was also inspired by the work of the Banking Commission. It would require the Government to bring forward proposals for the new offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank covering the people licensed under the senior persons regime and would seek civil recovery of money from people found guilty of the offence. Although that might be controversial in some areas, it is important. I welcome the fact that the Government now seem to be moving on this, and I await the detail with interest. It is vital that bankers are held to account for their actions. That is important not just for any action after a future crisis, but as a deterrent, should any bank executives be tempted to take unnecessary or reckless risks.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish at this moment to be unduly partisan, but could the hon. Lady advise us on the evolution of the Opposition’s thinking? Was the imposition of criminal sanctions for the reckless management of banks discussed in the previous Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am not going to go into the detail of that case. He has had a career in the banking sector dealing with such issues, and he will be as aware as I am that looking at one case in isolation is sometimes not the best way to appreciate the overall picture. The overall picture is what I am interested in, and why I specifically mentioned LIBOR, because it is already a criminal offence to attempt to fix that rate. We need to seek to ensure that the SFO has the resources necessary to tackle this and to prevent any further scandals.

We have tabled new clause 13 to give Parliament a chance, once again, further down the line to discuss the creation of a new agency, and we hope it would send a firm message to those tempted to engage in criminal conduct. I hope that the Minister may be able to say something more on that in his response. He did not seem to be persuaded in Committee of the need for a new unit or even a subdivision. My recollection is that he took that view, “Its all fraud and there is no need to have a specific unit or part of an organisation dealing with it.”

I think I have covered a number of issues relating to these proposals. Once again, it is important to put on the record the fact that although we have had the opportunity to raise some of these issues in Committee and this evening, it is unfortunate that on Report we are not going to be able to scrutinise the detail of some of the new clauses—it is fair for us to assume that they might have been tabled at this stage. I seek the Minister’s further reassurance that we are going to get the important detail of how he intends to proceed, that we will see as much as is possible of the draft new clauses and legislation as things are taken forward, and that we will have an appropriate opportunity to discuss all that further in this place.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to discuss the proposals in this group, particularly new clauses 11 and 2. I am not a member of the Treasury Committee, I was not a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and I was not even on the Public Bill Committee, so I hope that other hon. Members will permit me to make a few perhaps less-informed commentaries about these proposals on conduct and remuneration, and the issues they raise, and perhaps come at this from a different perspective.

May I start by thanking the commission for its work on this issue and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who made an extraordinarily strong contribution? Collectively, they have a much greater claim than Goldman Sachs to have been doing God’s work on financial services. I thank the Government and congratulate them on their speedy response to the recommendations. I also thank the Minister for allowing us to see the document ahead of today’s debate.

I remember the evening when the membership of the commission was established. It was a late evening, and quite warm. It might have been 10.30 pm, 11 pm or even later and hon. Members were keen to get back to their duties in responding to their constituents. I got up to speak with some trepidation, as hon. Members were hoping that the membership would go through on the nod, to make the point that for my constituents in Bedford and Kempston the commission would fail in its duty if, as a result of its actions, nobody went to jail. It is in that spirit that I want to comment on the new clauses today.

[Mr Love]

I was present on that occasion and the commission took very seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for that intervention. A lot in the commission’s recommendations reflects the seriousness with which it considered that point, and rightly so. In the intervening 12 months, I have dealt with constituents whose businesses have been put at risk because of the fraud of interest rate swap mis-selling and whose lives have been rent asunder by payment protection insurance mis-selling, and the Government have also taken action on the fiddling and fixing of LIBOR. Beyond that, some of us have been dealing with regulatory failures on Equitable Life. My view is that jail for such bankers and for those responsible is the only fair outcome for the victims of those scams. Despite the intervention from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), I must still ask where justice is to be found for the victims of those crimes in the recommendations and in the amendments tabled today.

Banking is full of honest and decent men and women. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) said, one of the attractions of new clause 2 is that it focuses like a laser beam on the individuals who are responsible and culpable. If we fail to do that and those people do not go to jail, where is the justice for all the other people who work in financial services honestly on behalf of their clients every day?

It is not a habit of this House to consider retrospective legislation, but I want to mention that in a minute. First, let me ask the Minister a couple of questions. In the senior persons regime and the actions that would be covered by new clause 11, the focus is on named individuals at the top. As we saw in the interest rate swaps, a lot of the decisions made by the senior ranks at the banks were translated into budgets and business plans and transferred down through the hierarchy of the banks. Perhaps the Minister, when he considers the issue of conduct, could answer the question of how those extensions beyond the senior persons regime will be handled.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about my contribution to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. He raises a number of points and as the chairman of the sub-panel that considered below board level corporate governance I can say to him that the management structures of banks are so fiendishly complex that there is little way that the senior managers of banks can translate their wishes all the way down to the bottom. Other evidence gave reasons why the senior management in banks can effectively set up what amounts to an accountability firewall, thereby putting wilful ignorance between them and the activities that go on in the front line and absolving themselves from any responsibility for any misconduct at the bottom end of the bank. That is a very serious issue.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I do not want to attempt to get into the debate that the commission has considered thoroughly and much more knowledgably than I would be able to do.

The House does not frequently indulge in passing retrospective legislation, but if the senior persons regime is appropriate, is there merit in applying it retrospectively, if only in the form of an exercise through which to judge the conduct of those involved in financial services—in the banks and elsewhere? Whether that took the form of a self-audit conducted by the financial institutions themselves, or further work for the banking commission, to the extent to which that would be feasible, it would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that when David Strachan conducted his review at the Financial Services Authority following the Legal and General case and brought forward his recommendations for a light-touch enforcement regime, the vice-chair of the FSA was Sir James Crosby, who is one of the three figures who are especially criticised in the banking commission’s report? We have a multi-layered, light-touch enforcement regime that often creates a disincentive to the regulator—this is why market abuse often involves criminal sanctions, not civil sanctions. One of the people criticised in the banking commission report actually designed the system that applies to the regulator.

[Richard Fuller]

I am appreciative of that intervention, which adds not only to my body of knowledge, but to the commonly held disgust that, following all these efforts involving the best minds we can put in place, no one is going to jail. In the absence of anyone going to jail, we have gone through all the fraud, all the mis-structured, light-touch regulation and all the mis-positioning of responsibilities without a single person being truly accountable. If there is a point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend, which I rarely do, it is that he said in his speech that financial penalties are likely to be more successful. He might have a point in saying that there will be more successful prosecutions, but the loss of one’s liberty cannot be put in a discounted cash flow—there cannot be a beta high enough. If we want to change behaviour, we have to show that people will go to jail and lose their liberty. If, having gone through the worst financial recession that we have experienced in our lifetimes, not a single person goes to jail as a result of all our work, I do not care that there is a cross-party consensus because, in my view, this is failing the people.

[Jonathan Edwards]

To what extent has the hon. Gentleman been influenced by events in Iceland, where the bankers were all purged? They were jailed, as were some very senior politicians, including the then Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I must admit that I am not particularly familiar with Iceland—certainly not as familiar as the hon. Gentleman is—but he makes an important contribution. Other regimes look at things differently, and are far stricter than we are. Normally, we would look at how United States regulations dealt with some of these things. In the past, they have been more successful than they have been recently as regards criminal prosecutions in financial services. Many people in the United States were held criminally responsible for their actions in the savings and loans scandal; the same has not happened in this financial crisis.

I respect the work of the commission, and I am nowhere near as smart as it is on these issues, but I have to say that no one has gone to jail, and that is not good enough.

[Mr Love]

I will comment on the commission’s thought processes on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He will remember, as we all do, the evening on which we set up a special parliamentary vehicle in the wake of the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal. Since 2008, there have been a variety of critical events, including the credit crunch and the recession. All that led to a catastrophic decline in the reputation of the financial services sector. Trust in bankers sank to an all-time low, and frankly LIBOR was the last straw. This was truly shocking behaviour on an unprecedented scale. Something had to be done, and the focus was very much on our terms of reference on standards and culture.

As a result, the commission had to answer some tough questions, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) has posed some of them: why had so few bankers been held to account for their failings? Why had it appeared that bankers pocketed the gains, but passed on the losses to the taxpayer? Why were customers who should have been treated fairly treated in the exact opposite way—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) raised? We tried to answer those questions through three themes that came out in our report. The first theme is individual responsibility.

When all the head bankers came before us, we were genuinely shocked to hear that they denied any responsibility for what happened in their banks. Whether it was ignorance of the serious failings happening under their noses, or because there was collective decision making, the result was the same: no one could be held to account. That, we discovered, was the result of the failure of the approved persons regime, which did not attribute responsibilities to senior staff, who, as a result, could not be held to account.

Two steps are proposed to try to address that problem. First, we have already mentioned the new senior persons regime, designed to ensure that the most important responsibilities are assigned to specific individuals, who will more easily be held to account for them. Secondly, for a much wider group—not every employee, but those who could do serious harm to the bank, or its customers, due to their customer-facing position—we propose a new licensing regime, with a set of banking standard rules that enable them to be held to account.

However, for people to be held to account, we need more effective sanctions, and that is the second theme of the commission’s report. Identification of those responsible under the new regime will provide a stronger basis for the regulator to enforce existing civil penalties, such as fines, restrictions and bans. One of the great difficulties was assigning responsibility; we hope that individual responsibility will address that.

Given the seriousness of the wrongdoings—an issue mentioned in earlier contributions—the commission is recommending two new, far-reaching powers. New clause 2 does not address this point, but under certain conditions, the regulator should be able to impose a full range of civil sanctions, unless the person can demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to prevent or mitigate the failing. In effect, that does what new clause 2 suggests: it reverses the burden of proof, but only under certain conditions.

Finance Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I agree with the Minister about one thing—it was certainly a long and well-scrutinised Bill. To elaborate on that brief moment of cross-party agreement, I, too, pay tribute to all Members who served on the Committee, the Clerks, and the officials who helped pull together a substantial legislative moment in the parliamentary calendar—albeit that the Bill does not do much to help the economy or do much good for the country at large. I am afraid the Bill offers just more of the same: carrying on regardless of the urgent need for action to stimulate our economy.

We know that the Chancellor, scarred as he was from the omnishambles Budget in 2012, decided to go in the opposite direction this year and produce a Budget that contained so little of any import or substance that the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility said on page 42 of its Budget report, that the Bill would have

“no impact on the level of GDP at the end of the forecast horizon…these measures reduce GDP growth”

in 2013. It is a Finance Bill that sees the economy moving backwards.

This is in the context of a great deal of humiliation for the Chancellor, including the downgrading by not just one but two credit rating agencies. The cherished prize that was supposed to be at the heart of the Government’s strategy—retaining and defending that benchmark triple A status—is gone. Then, of course, as we saw in the most recent figures, there was the humiliation of a rising deficit, not a fall in levels of borrowing.

This Finance Bill has its priorities all wrong. The lowlights include there being little on growth, but yet persisting with the cut to the top rate of income tax. It means that the fortunate 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million a year will get a lovely, juicy tax cut of £100,000, while typical families will be £891 worse off this year on average because of the changes to tax and benefits introduced since 2010. There are failures in a number of different ways, but it has been particularly piquant this evening to focus on the Government’s largesse and the City tax cut to the stamp duty reserve tax that gives £150 million to the investment manager community.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is a former investment manager, but I wonder what his view is of that change.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s indulgence in allowing me to intervene, and to answer his question, no I am not. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cut to the top rate of tax and the house tax that Labour wants to introduce. Yesterday, I sat through the debate on Report, and the Opposition Front-Bench speaker was unable to say whether, if Labour get into government in 2015, it would increase the rate of tax and introduce a house tax. For the record, will the hon. Gentleman say whether that is the intention of the Labour party, or is it again just fine words but no real meat?

[Chris Leslie]

Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, but unfortunately for the rest of us, there are still two years of this Parliament to go. He has probably two years of employment left in his parliamentary career and although we think there should be a Labour Member in his seat, we will miss him.

In two years’ time, we will set out the detail in our manifesto. When the Conservatives are in opposition after the general election, we hope to implement a radical manifesto that actually does something to benefit our economy. Today, we would implement a mansion tax that would raise a significant sum that we would give away as a tax cut for lower and middle-income households with a new 10p band of income tax. Government Members struggle with this, but we will judge what needs to be in the manifesto in two years’ time when we can judge the needs of the economy.

Government Members think they already know what their fate will be in 2015, hence the Chancellor coming forward with his cuts programme for 2015 when any responsible Chancellor would be rolling his sleeves up this summer and getting on with bringing forward capital infrastructure investment and doing something to stimulate the economy now. There is nothing in the Budget, nothing in the spending review and, more to the point, nothing in the Finance Bill to help growth. Indeed, the most interesting measures are conspicuous by their absence. There is no mansion tax, although there is provision for an annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which usefully illustrates that it is feasible to move in that direction.

Finance Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I find it astonishing that Government Members never seem to take any responsibility for what is going on under their watch. Under their watch, the deficit has not come down as much as they promised, borrowing is higher than planned, and the Government have failed to get growth back into the economy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made some important and passionate points about the impact of being worse off every year by £800, which is a big amount of money for many of my constituents. Given that we have just broadly agreed public expenditure figures for the next Parliament, does she feel that if this is a point of principle it is beholden on her to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about whether a Labour Government would stick to their principles in the next election?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that yes, we would stick to principles of fairness and equality, and we would not seek to advantage those who already have the highest incomes at the expense of those on lower incomes. Once again, I repeat what a number of Labour Members have said: at this point we do not know in what shape the economy will be two years from now, and as a responsible Opposition we intend to look in detail at where spend would be best put in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I always listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I know from his contributions in the House and in Public Bill Committees that from time to time he scrutinises the Government fairly thoroughly. There is a difference between saying that the overall spending limit put on by the Government will be our starting point, and accepting their approach in full, which is not what the shadow Chancellor has said, of course. He has made it clear that we would look at that overall spend and see how we could allot resources more fairly.

Despite the fact that the Government tried to make much of fairness in the spending review, let us look at the millionaires who will benefit from the tax cut. First, 643 bankers earn more than £1 million and the combined tax cut will be worth £34.6 million to them—[Interruption.] There is a lot of grumbling and other muttering from a sedentary position by Government Members. If they wish to speak, they will be able to do so later.

My constituents want to know how the Government can justify that tax cut for millionaires at a time when those on middle and low incomes are being squeezed so hard. I can understand why the public are angry and why they do not feel that the Government are acting fairly. They see many people on massive salaries that ordinary people can only dream of and working in the very same banks that were bailed out by the taxpayer now receiving a handout from the coalition. People do find that difficult to understand. That is why our amendment would require the Chancellor to consider the effect that the tax cut will have on the level of bonuses in the financial sector. That is what the taxpayer—ordinary people trying to make ends meet when their living standards are being reduced—wants to know.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the impact on bonuses. Does she welcome the recommendation from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which the Prime Minister has accepted, which will change from very short-term bonuses to long-term ones? Would not that mitigate some of the very real concerns that she has mentioned?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the points that I have made. He will, of course, be aware of some of the discussion that took place in Committee on the Finance Bill and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. It is unfortunate that the Government chose not to accept our amendments to those Bills, and so far we have not seen legislation to enact the change that he mentions. I look forward with interest to further debates on that subject at a later date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution in our future debates about the possibility of a mansion tax and a reduction to a 10p rate. I always listen with interest to what he has to say, but on this occasion I have to say to him that the first year of the new rate is not a real basis for estimating the revenue raised, or likely to be raised, by the 50p rate.

The Government should be tackling tax avoidance. We all want to see that, and we will be debating it more when we discuss later clauses.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I know he takes this issue very seriously.

[Richard Fuller]

I wish to take the hon. Lady back to the impact of the bankers bonus tax on getting young people back to work, because I do not think she had the numbers to hand. May I just indulge you with some statistics, in order to help the Opposition, Mr Speaker? Last year, the bankers’ bonus total was £5.2 billion. There are 61,000 young people who have been out of work for more than a year. Much of that £5.2 billion would have been paid to taxpayers who are not UK-resident—they will work for a UK bank but not be resident here—but let us assume that it is all paid to UK residents. An increase in the rate from 45% to 50%, as the Opposition are proposing, would yield £260 million a year—the equivalent of £4,500 per young person out of work. Is the basis of her argument that £4,500 is enough to employ a young person who has been out of work for more than a year?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information; I gave way to him because I know he takes these issues seriously. As with a range of other issues, we would have to look—if the bankers bonus tax was brought in—at the circumstances at the time and how best to get young people into employment. Other hon. Members will have heard me speak about this issue before, but I can tell the House that we believe young people and those who have been out of work for two years ought to accept that there will be a compulsory jobs guarantee. From speaking to a number of small businesses and some of the larger ones, I know they believe that a range of things could be done to encourage them, as local companies and national companies, to take on young people and get them into employment.

Where the Government have done things that we think are helpful, for example, in relation to national insurance contributions, we have supported them. As has been said, we do not accept that the move away from the future jobs fund was the correct thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was going to go on to say that the Labour Government lasted 13 years, and that it was only in the last month that, under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), they felt so strongly that they had to impose a 50% rate.

This is an important point. For their first 10 years, that Labour Government were led by Tony Blair. When he and Lord Mandelson were planning for that Government, they made a conscious decision not to replicate the old-fashioned language of class warfare that we have heard so much of today. They made a conscious decision that, if the Labour party was ever to regain the trust of the British people and regain power after 18 years in opposition, it would have to reach out to the centre ground. One of the principal ways in which they did that was to commit themselves, before getting into government, to accepting the spending plans of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), now the Minister without Portfolio. They accepted his spending plans and made it absolutely clear that they would not raise the higher rate of tax during their term of office. That was a very sensible thing to do.

In truth, the only possible justification for raising the higher rate of tax above 40% is a political one. It is political because it appeals to the argument, which we have heard repeatedly today, that a right-wing, vicious, unpleasant Tory Government are only helping millionaires. At first sight that might seem quite an attractive argument for the Labour party to adopt in opposition, but if it is so attractive, why did the right hon. Tony Blair, when he was in opposition and planning for the greatest election landslide in Labour’s history, not follow it? He did not follow it because he realised that it was nonsense economically and, ultimately, nonsense politically.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is making the point, very cogently, that elections are won on the middle ground. The old Labour party, under Tony Blair, understood that. What we are seeing today, in this new clause, is the new Labour party moving to the left and seeking to introduce more taxes. When we turn over the page in the amendment paper, we see that its next new clause proposes yet another tax. Is not this just the start of a further leftward lurch by the Labour party to tax people more and waste public money?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not know why we are bothering to give the Labour party this friendly advice. Why are we trying to help it, when it is so obvious that its approach is increasingly to remain in its comfort zone on tax?

The speech we just heard was littered with the word “millionaire”. It is the old language of Denis Healey, going back to the 1970s, when they wanted to tax the rich until the pips squeak. It does not impress anybody, and one reason for that is that people think it is fundamentally hypocritical. The point has been made again and again: the Labour party is not making any commitment to reverse the changes. If Labour Front Benchers really felt so passionately about this matter, they could say now from the Dispatch Box that it is iniquitous and make an economic case against it.

Throughout the speech that we have just heard there was virtually a complete absence—a desert—of economic facts and justification on how much money would be raised. All we heard, constantly, was the mantra about millionaires getting richer. The truth is that the top 5% pay 25% of taxation. There is no evidence—Tony Blair understood this—that if we tax them more we will increase tax revenues for the Exchequer. All we would be doing is increasing avoidance. It is bad economically, bad politically and it does not make sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better stop now, because others want to get in.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will give way one last time and then I will stop.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. He has highlighted the precise premise of the Opposition’s argument: they like talking about millionaires and football players because they realise that people perhaps do not like footballers and bankers earning lots of money. However, does my hon. Friend agree that, once they have started with bankers and footballers, they will then move on to judges, teachers and regional sales managers—the middle-income people who earn the money that produces the highest tax yield? Should we not all be aware of the danger in allowing Labour’s new tax policy to harm the middle classes and working people in this country?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course. There should be a huge health warning on Labour’s proposal. British people should be warned that it is not footballers or bankers who will suffer, but middle England—people who work really hard to create small and successful companies, who are halfway up the corporate tree and who are near the top of the public sector. Moreover, it is those precise people in the public sector whom we need to incentivise to make efficiency savings, if we are to have a successful economy.

People should not swallow the lie that this is only about bankers and footballers. They can look after themselves in any country—they always have and they always will—and if there is a Labour Government, I predict that they will get richer and richer. We should forget them and concentrate on middle England.

Finally, if the Labour party wants to get back into power it should remember what Tony Blair did. He was its most successful leader ever, because he realised that politics had to be won on the centre ground. At the moment, Labour is going nowhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

The tool that the previous Tory Government used, which this Tory Government are using as well, was value added tax. Indirect taxation has always gone up under a Tory Government. Value added tax went up from 12% to 15%, and then to 17.5%. It is now 20%. This Government have also given a tax cut to the highest earners in society. The problem with indirect taxation is that everybody has to pay it. That is why the tax take always goes up. Such taxation is regressive. It does not matter what people are earning; everybody has to pay it. People who are very rich and have means do not have to worry about it, but those who are struggling at the bottom, such as those who are struggling to get by on the state pension, have to pay it, whatever the rate is.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he therefore approve of a permanent reduction in VAT, compensated for by an increase in income tax?

[Chris Evans]

As I was saying, there is a problem with trying to impose a scientific discipline on something that has nothing to do with science. I do not believe in that kind of economics. We have to take stock of the situation that we find ourselves in. That might have been a way forward in the ’90s, given the economic situation that was faced then. However, we do not know what we should do until we are faced with the economic situation.

[Richard Fuller]

It is almost impossible to have a debate when Opposition Members talk about the past but when questioned about what they would do just say, “We don’t know. We have no idea.” Presumably the hon. Gentleman will at least accept that if he is proposing a reduction in value added tax, given the state of the public finances, a future Labour Government would have to increase income tax. He must also accept that the yield on income tax comes from middle-earning people up and down the country. That is what a future Labour Government would do.

[Chris Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is not listening to what I am saying, if I may be so bold. I did not make any commitment to reducing VAT. I was harking back to the economic theory of the Laffer curve and supply-side economics, under which indirect taxation is used to cut taxes for those at the very top. When the top rate of tax is cut for people at the top, they have mobility and can spend the money in different countries. We have heard that already. That applies to footballers as well. However, when the tax rate is cut for middle earners, they tend to spend the money on the high street and stimulate the economy in that way.

I do not want anybody in this House to think that I have a problem with millionaires. Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough, I have a lot of friends who want to be millionaires. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be something better. That is what the Labour party is about. I am sorry to hark back to his speech so much, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough said that that is what we understood in the mid-’90s. Human beings aspire to something better. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a millionaire. My point is that if we could find the money to give a 5p tax cut to higher earners, why could we not do that for middle income earners? A 1p tax cut for people under the top rate of tax would have done more to stimulate the economy than a 5p tax cut for higher earners, because they will spend the money elsewhere.

I also sense that this is a moral argument. Whatever I believe about cutting tax for the very richest in society, a lot of the people I talked to when the top rate of tax was cut were very angry, especially constituents of mine. They said to me that it is the people who are riding in limousines who are getting the tax cut, not the ones who are driving white vans and keeping this country working. Those are the people who are feeling the pain. We should look at the level of anger.

If we look at a breakdown of the figures, taking into account all the changes to tax, tax credits and benefits that have been introduced since 2010, we see that households in the UK will be an average of £891 worse off this year, or £17 a week. A one-earner couple with children will be a staggering £3,995.65 worse off this year. For a multi-family household with children, it will be £1,723.88. It is all very well quoting statistics—I do it all the time, and everybody is guilty of it—but I am sure that every family affected aspire to something better for their children. Yet the message they are getting from the Government is that they should be worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wise intervention. Welfare reform is a warm and nice thing to say, especially for those of a right-wing bent who want to take out the scroungers and make them pay. But when benefits start to be cut and people are kicked out of their houses, it is a serious concern—I do not want to be melodramatic—that we could see the return of the workhouse.

In constituencies such as mine and those of my hon. Friends, I am fearful that we will see homelessness on a wide scale. The Government may have thought it was a good idea at the time to cap benefits and introduce the bedroom tax, but when we have a huge homeless population and emergency schemes need to be introduced to sort that out, I am afraid that it will be the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

Does the squeeze on benefits motivate anybody to go to work? If someone has arrears or debt and is seeing more of their pay go down the drain, why would they go to work? The Government should be motivating people to go to work; they should be tackling worklessness. Instead of cutting welfare, they should be stepping in to stimulate people to go to work, and talking to those people individually.

We talk about economics all the time, but it is not a scientific discipline—it is about people and how they react to certain circumstances. If I found myself out of work, my needs would be different from those of someone with a lower educational attainment or problems with reading and writing. However, we should be able to say to that person, “What is stopping you going to work? What are the barriers?” What can we provide to get people into work? Yes, that will cost money up front, but in the long term the country will win because of it.

Let me return to my point about putting a finger in the air and wondering which way the wind will blow. It has been estimated that 267,000 people who earn more than £150,000—including 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million—will receive an average tax cut of £100,000, according to figures from HMRC. In contrast, child benefit will be frozen for a third year, and tax credits and other working-age benefits will increase by just 1%, and these real-terms cuts will affect a shocking 9.7 million households. Can we understand that? My constituency has 56,000 electors, but 9.7 million households will be affected by this measure and each person will have an individual story and will have struggled.

The figure of 9.7 million in relation to benefits might conjure up an image of worklessness, but 7.3 million of those households—75% of all households claiming benefits—are in work. That is the crux of the problem we face. We talk about welfare reform and so-called scroungers, but the people suffering most are those we are trying to encourage—those who work hard and play by the rules but who are locked in an economic theory that has clearly failed. Some 2.4 million families will pay on average £138 more in council tax in 2013 as a result of cuts to council tax benefit. That is the ultimate failure of Government—six in 10 working people are claiming benefits. For all the talk of work paying, for many people work is not paying.

Let me return to what I said about the new clause. We need a report. I sat on the Finance Bill Committee with the Minister—I feel sorry for him, as I would for anybody who sat through that. Every day he felt as if he was batting off different reviews. However, this is such an important issue, and the coalition Government have made it such a cornerstone policy, that it needs to be reviewed. We have heard so much about it being wonderful, but we must test the theory: is it stimulating the economy, bringing money through and making work pay? We will not know unless we have a review. That is why it is so important.

I hope the Minister listens. I have a lot of time for him. As I have said, I was in Committee with him: he is sensible and takes a rational view of these matters—[Interruption.] That is the problem—we judge a man by his friends. This is such a cornerstone policy that I hope the Minister will give us some prospect of monitoring it.

I do not want to go into the history of the 1980s and tax cuts again, because I have touched on it already. But I am deeply concerned that we again face a Government who believe in an economic theory that ultimately failed the country. It was not just that we lost heavy industry in the valleys: I think of all the people in the 1980s who were motivated by the dream of starting a business or buying their own homes. By the end, their businesses went bust or they were forced into rented accommodation because they could no longer afford the mortgage. For all that Government’s lauding of their control of inflation, it was through the roof and interest rates hit 15%. We have heard recently from the Governor of the Bank of England that interest rates will go up next year, and I am deeply concerned that this Government will blindly follow the theory of supply-side economics, of Karl Popper and of leaving everything to the market.

Governments have responsibilities. They have a responsibility to create the environment for businesses to flourish and for people to achieve their dreams. I came into politics because I wanted people to aspire to something better, but the Government are giving the very rich a tax cut and everybody else is losing out—660,000 people will lose an average £728 a year under the bedroom tax. Why are the people at the bottom—the people we should be helping—feeling the pain?

I have said before many times that I do not want to knock the bankers. I worked in banking myself and I know how difficult the industry is. I have met my fair share of bankers and they are not all bad, and banking is the cornerstone of this economy, so I always tread carefully when we talk about bankers, but any industry has people who are guilty of criminal activity. In this case, the guilty have not been punished for their criminal activity. It is the Government’s failure that has allowed people to walk away.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman may be right about that, but the acts that he is complaining about happened under the last Labour Government, and it is the laxity of their regulation that means that people are not facing criminal prosecutions now.

[Chris Evans]

When Conservative Members were talking about the Laffer curve, Ronald Reagan came to mind. For some reason, when the hon. Gentleman stood up, Ronald Reagan came to mind again, as I recalled him saying to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election campaign, “There you go again.” The person sitting tonight at their kitchen table, worrying about paying the rent, the mortgage, the gas bill or the electric bill, and watching this debate—although given the time they will probably be watching “Pointless”—[Interruption.] I walked into that one. They might be watching ITV instead—

Public Service Pensions Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

We return today to the Public Service Pensions Bill, which will put public service pensions on a fair and sustainable footing for generations to come. There was broad support from all parts of the House for this measure, and I am grateful to all those who have voiced an interest in the Bill for their co-operative approach. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the progress the Bill has made in the other place.

First, when the Bill left this House, the Opposition were concerned about the wide scope of powers to make retrospective changes and to amend primary legislation. The Government understand that concern. Pensions are an important part of scheme members’ future income in retirement. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to give members or their representatives a complete veto over any significant adverse retrospective change to their pensions and to restrict the powers to amend primary legislation. Furthermore, any Treasury orders for negative revaluation of scheme benefits will now need to be made by the affirmative Commons procedure.

Secondly, the Opposition sought further assurances on the governance elements of the legislation, particularly a requirement in the Bill for employee representatives on scheme boards. Again, I am pleased to report that the Government tabled amendments in the other place to require an equal balance of member and employer representatives, along with an explicit requirement for national scheme advisory boards.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is talking about some welcome changes that the Government have made, but there is another party to this contract on pensions. The taxpayer will foot the bill for the unfunded part of the obligations of public sector pensions. Will he assure me—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I do not blame him, in the first instance, because the trouble, the mischief, was started, however inadvertently, by the Minister, who is looking at me with an innocent expression belied by the reality of what he was saying in the debate. This is not a generalised debate; these are narrowly defined matters, and we are considering the relevant amendment, to which, to put it kindly, the hon. Gentleman’s remarks were not altogether adjacent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions for all the right reasons. I still have a few more minutes in which to set out the Government’s case, and I hope that I shall answer them in the process. If anything remains unclear, however, I hope that he will come back to me. I will be happy to add to the information that I am giving the House.

[Richard Fuller]

Labour has accepted that it completely forgot about those workers when it was in government. Its spokesman has been noble enough to admit that it did not find the 350 people in the fire service and 3,000 people in the military police. Given that my hon. Friend the Minister now understands that fact, can he tell me why the workers did not bring the issue to the attention of the then Government? Were the unions involved in any negotiations at the time, or has this just become an issue now?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. I cannot answer on behalf of the previous Government, but I can say that the change was carried out by ministerial order. There was no open, ongoing debate on the matter like the one we are having today. A written ministerial statement was issued by the then Minister for the East Midlands, Gillian Merron, on 26 July 2007, and I can find no record of any Labour MP complaining about the change at that time. If my hon. Friend is making the point that the Opposition’s credibility is severely damaged because of this, he is making it very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I think that is indeed the case, but my general point is about the physical demands on these individuals. Today we are debating whether their retirement age should be, as the Minister thinks, 67 or above, or whether it should be at 60—the same age as for other firefighters, police officers and members of the armed forces. It is a simple proposition and the House has the power to make a judgment on it today.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case on physicality for those three classes of public sector employees, but the crucial issue is that those people put their lives at risk, which other public sector workers do not. Can he advise the House why the issue was not raised, and why those people were missed, in earlier pension scheme reforms?

[Chris Leslie]

That is a very pertinent question. We heard from the Minister that 12 million people were affected by the various public service and civil service pension schemes. We heard that even Lord Hutton, in his detailed inquiry, was not aware of the 350 or so affected individuals, because it was a new scheme that started in 2007, and only some MOD firefighters and police will come into the age bracket. Given the complexity of pensions, it is not surprising that some issues were not spotted; apparently even some employee representatives and others were not aware of the anomaly at the time.

These things happen. Mistakes can be made, but it is really important that when a mistake is pointed out, people assess whether they are big enough to accept that it needs to be corrected and justice is done, or whether their pride is such—whether or not this applies to the civil service—that they try to retrofit their arguments to justify a clearly unjustifiable anomaly. That is what the question boils down to.

The only reason I can see for different treatment for those groups is that one set happens to be employed by the Ministry of Defence and the other is in the public service at large. It is such an evident anomaly that the House of Lords, when made aware of the lacuna, correctly sought to repair the fault in the Bill, but incredibly we heard from the Economic Secretary—I am delighted that he has been joined by the Chief Secretary; perhaps he can be lent on by more enlightened colleagues—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says he will have a go, but he does not have much time as the question will be put shortly. [Interruption.] Anyway, Ministers are not particularly interested in listening to the debate, so it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman could text the Economic Secretary to suggest that he pays attention.

In essence, the Economic Secretary said that the Government were too proud to admit that they had got it wrong. They are still defending the indefensible, but the arguments for admitting the error are overwhelming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

How much more of an answer can I give than the actions that we will take in the Division Lobby today? Instead of the party political games that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are playing today, it is a responsible thing to do to try to help—[Interruption.] They laugh, but this is not a laughing matter. They expect these firefighters and police officers to work up to the age of 67 or above, and that is not the right thing to do.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

I have given way enough to Conservative Members and I want to make some progress because it is important to bottom out these specious arguments that the Minister can barely grasp.

Lord Hutton said that the reasons for giving uniformed forces a lower normal pension age is the

“simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them. ”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 520.]

In his report he recommended that the Government set a new normal pension age of 60 across the “uniformed services”. That was the phrase that he used. He did not refer to the type of pension they were in; instead he referred to “uniformed services”, and argued that they deserved to be singled out because of the nature of their work. The spirit of Lord Hutton’s recommendation clearly applies to MOD firefighters and police officers. Lord Hutton said:

“The nature of the work the uniformed services perform is unique and this needs to be reflected in their Normal Pension Ages. The modernised firefighters scheme has struck a balance between recognising these changes in life expectancy, but also recognising the unique nature of the service provided by scheme members. The Commission’s view is that the Normal Pension Age in this scheme, 60, should be seen as setting a benchmark for the uniformed services as a whole.”

We agree with Lord Hutton’s reasoning that the amendment was merely intended to correct an oversight that has occurred in drawing up the Bill. He supports the amendment and the reform is based on his idea. He said that

“if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MOD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report…Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so it did not make any specific recommendations about the MOD firefighters or the MOD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

It is important to mention this. We are towards the end of the Bill’s passage and we have not had much opportunity to debate it. This has been brought to my attention during the course of turning the pages on the detail of this pension legislation. The Opposition say the same as Lord Hutton. This is just one of those anomalies that we should be big enough to admit was wrongly overlooked in previous reforms.

It is true that the last Government raised the normal pension age for the civil service to 65 for post-2007 entrants, and that included Ministry of Defence staff. However, I am now convinced that had we known then about the small group of firefighters and police officers who are technically on the civil service payroll rather than employed by police or fire authorities, we would have taken account of these groups, and an exception could have been carved out. There should be no embarrassment inside the Treasury in admitting that this was an oversight. Regarding this previous change, even the Defence Police Federation said that the

“Council of Civil Service Unions did not consult the DPF, and we did not have the opportunity to make the above points about the physical demands of being an MDP officer”.

The issue was not raised or considered when it should have been. Those staff should not be punished because of that particular oversight. If Lord Hutton is able to admit the oversight and if Opposition Members in this Chamber are able to admit the oversight, the Economic Secretary should be big enough now to do the same. Rather than just read out the brief provided to him, he should engage his brain, use his own judgment and discretion, and do the right thing. If he engaged the brain of the Chief Secretary, who is sitting alongside him, that might go some way towards a solution.

There is the cost to the public purse argument, but as I understand it, only 56 people have joined the Ministry of Defence police, and fewer than 300 have joined the defence fire and rescue service since 2007. So the anomaly could be easily corrected by bringing a small minority of pensioners back into line with the pre-2007 entrants’ normal pension age of 60. We are not talking about a large number of firefighters or police officers here. Sadly, we have had to get to the Floor of the House of Commons to put the pressure on the Government. What the Government have tried to present as a cost is in reality a reduction in the predicted saving from this overall package of changes. They overestimated the savings to be made by overlooking the existence of this particular group of fire and police officers and failed to include them in the definition of uniformed services.

The Minister might put up various arguments, but the question of physical burden cannot be overlooked. A worker for the Ministry of Defence police may be required to wear 11 stone-worth of kit, and a normal shift will involve wearing 5 or 6 stone-worth of equipment for up to 11 hours. Workers in the Ministry of Defence fire service carry out the already difficult and dangerous job of firefighters, but do so in war zones and other extremely hazardous conditions around the world.

The fact that these workers are labelled civil servants should not blind us to the reality of what their jobs entail. Along with the police and the armed forces, they are the only public service workers who have to undergo regular fitness tests. In fact, the majority retire before 60 because they are unable to meet the high demands their jobs entail. They are also recognised as uniformed forces in the civil service pension scheme, and there is a small reflection of that already. Unlike civilian police forces, there is no option in the MOD police for officers to move to unarmed work if they struggle to cope physically. Even when mainstream police officers are armed, they are not expected routinely to carry guns around beyond the age of 55.

Another point that has been brought to my attention today—I imagine that this is something none of us is massively familiar with—is that many MOD firefighters have to work alongside colleagues who will qualify for retirement at 60. Royal Air Force firefighters—I think that they are called Trade Group 8—will often be on similar operations with service colleagues, working in the field together. One colleague will retire at 60, whereas another standing next to him will be required to work to 65, 66, 67 or beyond. The same applies to Royal Navy firefighters, who are regarded in their classification as armed forces. This is riddled with anomalies, and it would be very simple for Ministers to overcome them. They really ought not to have allowed this to become such a large point of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and in this case it is a great pleasure to have listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He asked precise questions and reinforced some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in order to move forward what the Minister had said earlier. Thanks to those two contributions, we are beginning to get to the real meat of the issue of how we can ensure that this group of overlooked public sector workers can find an acceptable and fair outcome to their pension situation after all these years.

Within the overall ambit of the Bill, I speak as one who sits outside the cosy compromise between Government and Opposition Members on the principles set out by Lord Hutton. Our decisions on pensions must stand the test of time. People make decisions about contributions to their pensions based on the expectation that those contributions will have an effect 20 or 30 years later when they retire. My concern about the compromise relates to affordability, given that we are asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the specific costs involved in the measure. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the amount involved is £10 million per annum. I am a big admirer of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), but he said earlier that £10 million a year was not really a considerable amount of money. I believe, however, that it is indeed a considerable amount of money to be paid year on year. Under the previous Government, it was that attitude that £10 million here and £10 million there did not really matter that led to the grotesque financial situation that we found ourselves in in 2010.

[Stephen McPartland]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I will give way to my spendthrift Friend.

[Stephen McPartland]

The point I was making was that, although £10 million is a lot of money at a personal level, I do not feel that it should be a reason to allow such discrepancies to continue. The House should be trying to create parity between all those who do that difficult job on a daily basis, and to focus on the overall package of measures rather than just on the pensions question. That £10 million could provide savings, as the Minister suggested earlier.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend has characteristically drawn us to the centre ground. When we consider our public sector workers, we should look not at their pensions in isolation but at the broader question of the compensation terms and conditions under which they are employed.

As I have said, we are talking about a relatively small number of workers. Those members of our public services have a physically demanding job, but it is also a requirement of their public service employment that they are at times asked to put their lives at risk to maintain public safety. It behoves us to take a special approach to such workers and to the way in which their pension conditions are treated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I may have to do so. Many jobs in both the public and private sector are physically demanding, but I would not advocate a different retirement age purely on the basis of physicality. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman tried to make a specific point about physicality, but I believe that that is the wrong course to take. I believe that this group of workers—the MOD police force and firefighters—have an additional requirement placed on them by us, the taxpayers, whereby we ask them as part of their responsibilities potentially to put their lives at risk, or at least to put the safety and interests of the public ahead of themselves. If I may say so, that is a far more appropriate basis for our looking at this particular issue. People may wish to make the case for physicality, but there is a special case here that goes above and beyond that. That is, I think, the reason why the Minister has taken such great interest in trying to find a solution on this issue.

I welcomed hearing the Labour party admit that it completely forgot about these people when it was in office and raised the pension age. Hearing that was welcome, because all Governments make mistakes and people do get missed out in the transitions. Let me explain what I would like to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) today. There is a chance in future—I do not think it will be in 2015, but it is likely at some time for these public sector workers in the MOD, the fire service or the police force—of there being a Labour Government.

[Chris Leslie]

Hear, hear.

[Richard Fuller]

I am pleased that the shadow spokesman raises that possibility. Is he therefore prepared to put his money where his mouth is—today? He has made a commitment, but is it just words? If he is so confident of being in office, will he pledge today to ensure that these MOD workers have the same conditions as he advocates? I give way if he wishes to make that pledge.

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not making this decision in 2015; we are making it here and now in 2013. We have to confront the issue. He is trying to find all sorts of reasons not to disagree with the Whips who are leaning on him, saying “Please do not vote with your conscience on this particular issue.” We have accepted that the issue should have been addressed in 2007. Now that there is no excuse for lacking awareness of it—it is being debated now—is he really going to vote today, in his full awareness of these facts, to say that this particular group of firefighters should not be entitled to retire at 60 when all the other firefighters are? Is that really what he is going to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Member for Nottingham East is a fine fellow, but I have to tell him—[Interruption.] “Fine fellow” will be the beginning and end of my comments to him. [Interruption.] I will come to the point, as this strikes at the credibility of the political class in this country. What the Labour party spokesman is trying to do is to use words to set up people’s expectations without taking the responsibility to fund them. That is why the political class is seen through by the public, who are fed up with politicians making up arguments that exist in the world of fancy but not in the hard reality in which people live. If I may say so to the fine fellow opposite, if he wants to be honest to the British people and, more importantly, to the people whom this amendment is designed to represent, it is his responsibility to pledge today to put taxpayers’ money where his mouth is if he is ever in government. I note that that is a commitment that he has very specifically missed out today.

[John Hemming]

The Opposition seem to be saying that the decision should be made today without negotiation, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that negotiation is the best way forward, and that to have such negotiation, we need to support the Government’s proposal for negotiation?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s second intervention, because it enables me to agree with him this time. As I said at the start of my speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made the same point in pressing the Minister for more specificity. I, too, wish to ask him for clarification on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is time-limited? If he wishes to hear the Minister’s clarification, he must leave time for it before the debate ends at 5.37 pm.

[Richard Fuller]

I shall attempt to make my points speedily, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made two requests. He asked when the negotiations that may be conducted between the Ministry of Defence and the workers and their representatives would have to be concluded, and suggested a three-month time frame. I support that recommendation. He also asked for an indication from the Minister, today if possible but otherwise in a subsequent letter to Members, of what the legislative process would be for the reaching of a resolution. I think that both those suggestions are very worth while.

Will the Minister confirm that the assessment by MOD and the workers’ representatives will not specify a particular retirement age, and that the decision will be based on an assessment of the potential ability of members of those work forces to do their jobs effectively? Will he also confirm—I think he said this earlier, but confirmation would be helpful—that the scheme will be flexible enough to allow us to make the changes without any limit, but that it will be up to those in the scheme to make the recommendations? I hope that he will be able to make those two commitments today.

It is important for the Government to be able to maintain a dialogue about the retirement age of our firefighters, both in the MOD and outside it. We are embarking on unknown territory, and I think that a Government who listen to these workers will be seen to be truly putting their money and their heart where their mouth and commitments are.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank all who have spoken during the past hour. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who could not speak in the debate, but who has an interest in the issue and has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I shall be able to respond to the points that have been made in the time that is available to me.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a number of points. As they will understand, I could not agree with everything that they said, but they both made the sensible point that the Treasury and the MOD should take account of those who retire early on health grounds when considering the potential cost implications of the changes that we are discussing. I agree that we must bear in mind all the impacts on costs that the amendments might have.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also raised a number of issues, including the important issue of the Opposition’s credibility in this regard. Some MOD firefighters and police officers who are listening to the debate will already have a retirement age of 65 rather than 60 because of the changes made by the last Government in 2007. When the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) speaks about such matters, his own credibility becomes somewhat shallow.

I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I again did not agree with much of what he said, but I know he believes passionately in what he says, and I respect fully what he had to say. He is a great advocate for his constituents, but he, too, did not address the issue of the change that was made in 2007, and nor did his party colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). For the purposes of this debate, it would be useful to know whether the hon. Members who have spoken up today also did so when the retirement age was changed in 2007.