Public Service Pensions Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly will, when I come to it.

Lord Hutton’s first set of recommendations consisted of safeguards to ensure that the long-term cost of pensions was sustainable through a link between state pension age and normal pension age, and included a cost-cap mechanism to protect the taxpayer in the event that other unforeseen costs arose. He recommended that the new schemes should be fairer by smoothing the current disparities between high and low-income earners and ensuring that benefits are distributed more equally, which was why he recommended a move from final salary provision to career average revalued earnings—CARE—schemes. Finally, he recommended stronger governance provisions for the new schemes so that scheme members and the public could understand how the schemes were run and what they cost.

We accepted all 27 of Lord Hutton’s recommendations as the basis for discussion with trade unions and scheme member representatives across the public service, and designed our blueprint reference scheme in a way that reflected the recommendations of the Hutton report without any cherry-picking. Our aim was to strike a deal that would last, unchanged, for 25 years. Talks with the unions took place on all elements of that deal. I should stress that the Government did not do all the talking in those meetings—we listened carefully, too. Agreeing the design of these pensions has taken a considerable cross-Government effort over the past 18 months. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Education Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Communities and Local Government Secretary and the former Health Secretary worked hard to understand the concerns of the trade unions and member representatives in their sectors.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary talks about a deal on pensions that will last over the long term. Lord Hutton specifically ruled out moving from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes. We currently do not account for the cost of public sector pensions within our public debt numbers. Would it not have been wiser to have looked for a system that included the long-term costs for public sector pension schemes if the Government wanted to achieve such long-term sustainability?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Lord Hutton addressed that issue. The costs of such a transition would have been enormous and very disruptive, and I think that the recommendation on the career average revalued earnings scheme is preferable from that point of view. He will also know that the new whole of Government accounts presentation of the public finances takes detailed account of the unfunded liabilities in public service pension schemes. That means that the public and the House have precisely the information that he wants transparently available, so I hope that he regards that as progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

If that was such a disastrous thing, why have this Government not reversed it or made any efforts to do something about it? They have no intention of doing so.

The contribution increases in this Bill were based on no assessment of the future funding needs of public sector pensions and were simply a tax on public service workers who were already facing a pay freeze and redundancy risks. The increases came long before Lord Hutton had published his final report. He warned that excessive increases could hit lower-paid workers hard and result in a counter-productive increase in opt-out rates. He has said that although it is for Ministers to decide by how much contributions should rise,

“there must also be a careful examination of the implications of any possible increase in opt out rates in these schemes as well.”

But the Government chose to plough on, not mindful of the increase in opt-out rates and with little regard for the consequences.

The Government promised that lower-paid workers would be protected from excessive and unaffordable increases, but the reality is that as many as 800,000 part- time workers earning less than £15,000 a year are already paying higher contributions. As I said, for many of them the contributions are 50% higher, because their full-time equivalent salary takes them over the minimum threshold. That approach had nothing to do with long-term reform and everything to do with a cash grab by the Treasury, which made it much harder to deliver progress on the real reform we needed, because the Government acted arbitrarily before Lord Hutton reported and lost the trust of public service workers.

In addition to imposing that hike in contributions, the Government used their June 2010 Budget unilaterally to change the indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI. On average and over time, public service workers will be 11% worse off in retirement as a result. According to analysis published last week by the Pensions Policy Institute, this is a bigger hit than the extra contributions, the raised retirement age and all the other changes to pensions put together. Independent experts, such as the Royal Statistical Society, have emphasised that CPI fails to reflect the spending patterns of pensioners and the rising costs they face. As pensioners worry about the hikes in energy bills this winter and expected steep increases in food prices, we should be particularly mindful of the challenges that retired people face in meeting ever-rising costs.

Again, those changes were imposed on public service workers without any negotiation or discussion. Lord Hutton stated:

“If these reforms have any chance of succeeding then people need to know that they are being treated fairly.  We have seen…the anger that has been triggered on the state pension when older women feel the finishing line is being put back at the last minute with very little time to adjust. So there should be full and proper consultation and discussion with the trades unions. That is how we do things in Britain—the public would take a very dim view of any government that fails to honour this basic requirement. We must try and avoid the confrontation and division that marked previous decades and must not turn the clock back.”

I regret to say that the Government did not follow that advice. Sometimes it seems that they are turning the clock back to the conflicts and divisions of the 1980s, and perhaps that was exactly their objective. Their aggressive and provocative approach to these serious and sensitive issues resulted in months of stalemated negotiations and several days of strike action, which resulted in closed schools, cancelled operations, and disrupted lives for families and businesses across the country.

[Richard Fuller]

There are times when the hon. Lady seems to be making a coherent argument and then she goes back to using rhetoric. She said that the change from RPI to CPI is the most significant one. If she seeks to make amendments on that issue and she does not want to make savings on the basis of a change from RPI to CPI, will she set out where she would make the savings in order to make the overall numbers add up as they are at the moment?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. The RPI to CPI change was imposed before it, so it is not contained in the Bill and we will not be able to make any amendments in terms of RPI and CPI when discussing it. The point is that the Government acted arbitrarily before Lord Hutton reported, thus making it harder to deliver the long-term reform to public service pensions that we need.

Labour Members think that those strikes could and should have been avoided last year, and that it is a matter of deep regret that this Government have lost the trust and damaged the morale of millions of public service workers, whose engagement and commitment is vital at a time when they are being asked to accept prolonged pay restraint while delivering continued improvement in the quality and efficiency of public services with fewer resources.



Let me turn from the Government’s mishandling of the issue to the specific provisions in this Bill. The Bill is designed to put the new schemes on a clear and consistent legal footing, with clear lines of accountability to scheme members, public service employers and taxpayers. That, in itself, is a worthwhile objective. I have already emphasised that our big disagreements with the Government’s approach to public service pensions lie elsewhere, so we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading.

However, we have a number of concerns about the Bill that we hope to address in Committee. It is an ill-prepared and poorly drafted Bill containing a number of mistakes, including giving the wrong dates for the transitions to new schemes. The Bill fails to deliver on the commitments and assurances given by this Government to underpin the provision of decent pension schemes that allow public service workers to save for their retirement with confidence. In short, as we have come to expect from this Government, it is a shambles of a Bill that has not been properly thought through, risks creating more problems than it solves and fails to deliver on the promises that Ministers have made.

First, we think it is right that pension ages rise in line with longevity, but it is essential that that is done carefully and fairly, with due notice given to people whose retirement plans may need to change and due consideration given to the impact of working longer on people in front-line or particularly strenuous occupations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Bill and, perhaps more significantly, the delegated legislation that will follow it, will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for all those who receive public sector pensions in this country, as the debate has clearly highlighted. Analysis from the Pensions Policy Institute suggests that the proposed changes to the NHS, local government, teachers and civil service pension schemes will reduce the average value of the benefit offered across all schemes by more than a third compared with the value of the schemes in place before the coalition Government came forward with these proposals and the other steps they have taken since coming to power. The Minister has already spoken about a 40% cut in costs over time, so I assume that he will accept that figure.

We find it shocking that while there have been pay cuts of 40% in Greece as its austerity programme has been implemented, pensions in the UK are facing equivalent cuts yet most people are unaware that that is happening, perhaps in part because many people find pensions complex and difficult to understand. Of course, pensions are as much a part of our employment package as other benefits, such as pay. Indeed, many argue that pensions are in fact deferred pay, so in effect we are discussing significant cuts in the terms and conditions of all public sector workers in this country, which will, of course, have all sorts of ramifications for the private sector.

According to the Pensions Policy Institute’s analysis, following the coalition’s proposed changes, the scheme value across the four largest public sector pension schemes will reduce on average from 23% of a scheme member’s salary to 15% of their salary, with the net effect that the pension will form a much smaller part of an employment package. I argue that we should not support that. I have listened with interest to the debate on private sector pensions—I hope that we have can have a much fuller debate about it on another occasion—but I think that the message that should be coming from the House is that we want the pension to form a much bigger part of a person’s employment package. We should put in place a framework whereby the individual is required to save, as is the employer, and the Government have a role to play by ensuring that the policy framework is in place to enable that to happen.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister said that the change in the indexation for public sector pensions from RPI to CPI is wiping 11% off the value of pensions in the public sector. In effect, that means that the pension of each public sector worker will be 11% lower in each year of their retirement. We have already heard about the implications of people opting out if these proposals are implemented, but we must also consider the implications for the public purse if people have lower incomes in retirement and therefore need to look to the state for support through welfare benefits. Half of all women workers who have a pension of less than £4,000 will be worse off, and the TUC estimates that 60% of all public sector part-time workers earning less than £15,000 a year will have to pay higher contributions. We need to look at the wider implications of the proposal.

In previous debates in the Chamber on public sector pensions, many figures have been cited to show the low salaries that most people who receive such pensions receive. As we know, public sector pensions are far from gold-plated. The Hutton report said that the average pension paid to scheme members was about £7,800 per year, with the median payment being £5,600 per year, while half of all women public sector pensioners get less than £4,000 per year. In reality, however, many people in receipt of public sector pensions receive smaller sums. The proposals suggest that those people should be required to pay greater pension contributions, to work longer, and to receive a worse pension at the end of the process.

Tribute has already been paid in this debate to the former right hon. Member for Croydon North, Malcolm Wicks. It is incredibly sad that he is not here to explain, in his most articulate way, why it is not the case that everyone should be expected to work longer, especially those who have worked in heavy manual jobs from an early age. Perhaps such people should have a lower retirement age, with the retirement system and their pension schemes taking that into account. I remember chairing a sitting of the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Pensions Act 2011 during which Malcolm Wicks entertainingly and powerfully highlighted his passion for this issue as he strongly led a rebel Labour effort to make the case that we need to look seriously at how we deal with those who carry out manual tasks.

[Richard Fuller]

Does the hon. Lady share my particular concern about firefighters whose retirement age will be extended? It is argued that fire prevention roles requiring less manual work will be made available to them, but does she agree that that will probably not prove to be the case for the vast majority of firefighters as they reach their later retirement age?

[Katy Clark]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. I am not advocating that we reduce public sector pensions to the private sector level, but this does, of course, absolutely bear comparison. This Government are not reducing public sector pensions to the pitiful state the Labour Government left private sector pensions in when they left office. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. We are proud of the fact that our public sector pensions will remain among the best in the world. That is something to be very proud of, and the Opposition should be congratulating the Government on having achieved that at this extraordinarily difficult time.

Let me disabuse Members of one final myth. The Opposition like to say that private sector workers earn more, so private sector pensions make up for the shortfall in salaries. That is not the case. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that on average hourly public sector wages are 7.5% higher than hourly private sector wages, even when we take into account an individual’s education, age and qualifications. That is a very important point. Public sector pensions do not subsidise lousy working rates—quite the opposite, in fact. Those in the public sector rightly have a good deal in their employment and in their pension. That is what we wanted to achieve and I commend those on the Front Bench for doing so.

The most important aspect is sustainability, because what we had was unsustainable. Over the past decade, public sector pension costs increased by a third in real terms. Between 1999-2000 and 2009-10, the amount of benefits paid from the five largest public service pension schemes increased by 32% in real terms. In five years’ time, we are set to spend £33 billion a year on public sector pensions—more than on police and transport combined and 1.8% of GDP.

[Richard Fuller]

On that point about overall fairness and sustainability, does my hon. Friend believe that the Government could have gone further in ensuring sustainability by looking to move towards a fully funded form of public sector pension scheme? There is still an exposure for the public purse in the future. and although the Minister is putting in some cost control, we could have gone further, could we not?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right: we could have gone much further. Across Europe, public sector pensions and terms are being cut with immediate effect to deal with the appalling debts that countries have run up, whereas this Government are putting in place measures that are entirely fair and sustainable both for the taxpayer and the public sector worker.

Let me conclude by saying again that it is an unmitigated good thing that people are living longer, healthier lives, and that we should celebrate our public sector workers and the job they do. They do a fantastic job for us of which we are very proud and we want to ensure that they are fairly rewarded, in a way that is sustainable for the public purse for many decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

One issue is the fact that the cost that will fall not during this Parliament but on future taxpayers—our children and grandchildren. Does not the Bill do something to relieve some of the burden on future taxpayers? As the Intergenerational Foundation has said, that is a fair way to proceed.

[John McDonnell]

Let me quote the Treasury, which has said that the cost of the unfunded public sector schemes—I am particularly interested in the civil service one—as

“a share of GDP was 1% in 2007-08 and was projected to rise to only 1.2% in 2057.”

Only 18 months ago, the National Audit Office produced the report, “The cost of public service pensions”, and showed that

“when projections of liability are based on earnings, the total annual payments from the civil service pension scheme will be largely stable over the next 50 years.”

So no, I do not accept that analysis, and neither did the Treasury at the time.

I oppose the Bill. Members of my Front-Bench team will abstain tonight, I believe, because they hope they can amend the Bill. The Bill is unamendable to make it acceptable to me. Therefore I oppose it and I wish to have the opportunity to vote on the Bill if I can. If that means walking through the Lobby on my own, I will. I will find a teller somewhere, I hope.

The Bill is extremely damaging to the well-being and living standards of ordinary working-class people. We know that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) quoted the definitive piece of work, an independent analysis from the Pensions Policy Institute, which is a charity funded by the Nuffield Foundation to undertake the research. It confirmed that the Bill means that pension benefits will be cut by a third. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) referred to the shift from RPI to CPI, which was a further 11% cut. What the cuts in pension benefits mean is exactly as others have said—a reduction in participation that will ultimately threaten the viability of the schemes. Perhaps that is what the Bill is about—the degradation of the schemes so that they will eventually be replaced by the private sector.

Let me deal with the issue of private sector pensions, which is dragged out on every occasion. It is a rewriting of history. Let us go back to the 1980s and 1990s. The state pension was undermined by the Thatcher Government when they broke the link between earnings and pensions. That also undermined the earnings-related element of the state pension. They encouraged people to enter private sector schemes but, as we heard, they allowed many employers to take pension holidays, not for one or two years but for long periods. Eventually that undermined the schemes and a number of them in my constituency were wound up almost overnight.

Individuals were urged to enter into their own arrangements, which they did, only to be fleeced on their endowment policies and other mechanisms. Previous Governments, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, destroyed private sector pensions and now this Government are moving on to destroy public sector pensions in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I will in a moment.

Because of their long-term nature, pension reforms will not save money quickly, but they make an essential long-term contribution to the health of public finances. We have heard that today from a number of Conservative Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). As the Chief Secretary has said, it has been forecast that the Bill will save UK taxpayers £65 billion over the next 50 years.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend talks of savings for the taxpayer. Will he admit that this was a golden opportunity for us to convert public sector pensions from a “tax as you go” model to a fully funded scheme, saving future taxpayers billions and bringing true fiscal prudence to the way in which public sector pensions are set? Why has my hon. Friend missed that golden opportunity to go further and save future taxpayers more money?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend raised the same issue in his speech. I think it fair to say that that would have involved an excessive fiscal cost, and would have been much more complex than the approach that we have taken. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that.

In preparing this policy, we have been careful to follow the recommendations set out by the former Labour pensions Minister Lord Hutton in his independent report. We have heard much about trade unions today. The head of the TUC, Brendan Barber, whom I met recently to discuss our reforms, has described the report as a “serious piece of work”. He has taken a very constructive approach to the problems that the Government are trying to address.

While we are on the subject of trade unions—

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I do not want this debate to descend into a battle of quotations—although I could, for example, provide the hon. Gentleman with a quotation from Mr Graham, the chief executive of a charity not far from my constituency, who has said:

“Being a very small charity relying on small private donations and monies collected in tins positioned in shops etc I welcome this Bill. It will certainly make a difference to the very needy children in Kenya that Mnarani Aid supports.”

The Bill has been broadly welcomed by the sector. It puts cash towards charities. I shall set out how it does that and deal with some of the points that some stakeholders have made over the summer and beyond. I am confident that the Bill does what it sets out to do, which is to support charities in a constructive way and the funding will be welcomed.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

If I may, I shall take the Minister away from the details and towards the overall philosophy. In the tax treatment of charities, we can use the gift aid or “charity grabs back the tax” model or we could convert to a model whereby individuals deduct from their tax the charitable contributions they make, as happens in the United States and other countries. Was that general philosophical debate part of her consultation and deliberation on the Bill, or has she looked more specifically at how to improve and enhance the gift aid scheme with this new initiative?

[Miss Smith]

I shall try to be careful in responding. A number of interesting issues have been raised that are not necessarily part of today’s Bill. In addition, a number of improvements to gift aid have often been mooted or discussed, but they are not necessarily part of the Bill either. In direct answer to my hon. Friend’s question, therefore, the matters for consultation and scrutiny to date relate closely to this scheme and the mechanisms within it, which I shall now set out.

Under the scheme, charities will be able to claim top-up payments equivalent to the basic rate of tax paid on a donation, which is currently worth 25p for every £1 collected on small cash donations of £20 or less. Therefore, if a charity claims on the full allowance of £5,000 of small donations in a year, that will mean an additional £1,250 of income. It is that which charities will welcome. Hon. Members will know that tax reliefs for charities and charitable giving are an important source of income for charities, totalling over £3 billion a year. Of those, gift aid is the largest relief and is worth over £1 billion a year. We estimate that the gift aid small donations scheme could result in additional Government funding of around £100 million a year for charities and CASCs by 2015. That represents a significant boost in income for the sector and will be especially valuable to small charities. That is why—I again emphasise the point—this is a Bill that is to be welcomed and which has been welcomed by many across the voluntary sector.

To ensure that the new scheme is as accessible as possible to charities, it will be administered using the same mechanisms that apply to claims for tax relief under gift aid. The scheme will look and feel familiar to those charities and CASCs that already claim gift aid, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will publish clear guidance ahead of the commencement of the scheme to ensure that it is simple to access. However, because the new scheme will not be a tax relief, it cannot be legislated for through the usual Finance Bill route— I regret to deprive my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) of the chance to serve on such a Bill and discuss the philosophical principle—so we are legislating for it in this programme Bill instead. The scheme was widely welcomed by the sector when it was announced in Budget 2011 and continues to be well received. We have worked closely with the sector to get the scheme right.

Let me now address some of the points of detail that have been raised, and which I am confident will be well understood by hon. Members. I shall set out the rationale for the ways in which we have designed the scheme, but first I want to set it firmly in the wider context. We have had to take steps to ensure that it operates as fairly as possible, but also to ensure that it remains affordable and is protected against fraud. We want this money to go to legitimate charities doing important work with real social benefit. We also want the small donations scheme to be as fair as possible. We want to ensure that charities doing the same kinds of work at local level, but which have different historical structures, get allowances under the scheme that are not hundreds, or even thousands, of times different from one another.

Those are the key driving principles behind the scheme: fairness, protection against fraud, and providing a complementary scheme to gift aid. We also want to channel some extra funding to charities, which I suspect that no hon. Member would want to speak against. I ask hon. Members to keep those principles in mind as we debate the detail of the gift aid small donations scheme. Let me take them in turn.

First, we want the scheme to complement gift aid rather than to replace it. I would urge all charities that receive donations to make full use of gift aid, where there is no limit on the amount of donations on which the charity can claim. However, there are some donations for which gift aid declarations are hard to come by, and that is what the scheme is designed to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whose contribution reflects today’s interesting debate. We started with the Economic Secretary’s opening speech, during which there was a series of interesting interventions. The Chair of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), made a series of interventions, one of which dealt with the need to build into the legislation easy scope for a review of its effectiveness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made clear in her opening remarks, we need to make every effort to ensure that the primary legislation is as strong as possible. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He has developed a reputation as an assiduous— and, for the Government, troublesome—Chair of the Committee. In the eyes of his Whips, that may rule him out of serving on the Public Bill Committee, but his comments were a helpful guide to amendments that we might want to think through.

In her intervention on the Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) highlighted a concern that has clearly been put to her: whether, because of the way the clauses on community buildings have been drafted, hospices will benefit from the Bill as much as had been hoped. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), in the first substantive speech in the debate, made a point of praising the Arrow riding centre in his constituency. It does indeed sound an excellent organisation, and in that sense probably reflects the many excellent organisations that each of us in this House can point to in our communities. They benefit our communities and make them stronger, particularly because of the enthusiasm of the volunteers and original sponsors of these charities.

Our challenge is surely to try to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) suggested: to simplify the system as much as possible and to enable those with fire in their belly—those behind a particular charity with the passion and commitment—to benefit as much as possible from this legislation. She has clearly been working throughout the summer recess, carrying out extensive research on charity debates and tracking down the first ever discussion of charities in the House of Commons, more than five centuries ago. That is a particularly impressive piece of work that I suspect puts the rest of the House to shame. It is not surprising, however, given her track record of interest in this sector.

In his short time in the House, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) has already built a track record of interest and enthusiasm in this subject. He urged Ministers to pay close attention to the comments and concerns of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group. He raised a particular concern about whether the three-year HMRC rule is quite as necessary as the Economic Secretary suggested in her opening remarks. He went on to argue that Leamington is the most generous town in Britain. He is stretching the credulity of the House there, if I may say so; nevertheless, it sounds almost—but I suspect not quite—as generous as Harrow.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has already established a strong record in this House in working with international development charities, outlined his support for the Bill. He will recognise that people in this country rightly respond to disasters around the world, and that the Bill could enable such charities to do more to make their money and effort go a little further.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) emphasised that Ministers should do further work on the detail behind the Bill, and I understand that she has a strong track record of working with charities, including development charities. Among the many thoughtful points she raised was whether or not HMRC might be persuaded to use marketing or analytical tools to provide further support to ensure that charities benefit as much as possible from this legislation, when both Houses eventually conclude their debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) outlined his scepticism about the Bill being perfectly formed. He made the perfectly proper point that debate with the Northern Ireland Assembly on some of the detail is required. Again, Ministers and the Committee will need to have further conversations with the representatives of the sector to maximise the Bill’s benefit.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) praised another excellent sounding organisation, Community Action Milton Keynes, which he knows well. He raised concerns about the three-year rule on eligibility, highlighting the need to get right the balance between preventing fraud and helping more charities to benefit. He hoped that today’s discussion is part of an “evolutionary” approach by Ministers, and I hope to encourage the Minister to take such an approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, in his substantive remarks, emphasised the concern of all Members about the eligibility criteria in the Bill and whether as many charities that rely on small donations will benefit from the Bill as might do.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made clear, the Opposition will support the Bill, but we have a series of concerns about its detail, which she set out and which I will touch on briefly at the end of my remarks. The House will of course be aware that the Bill’s proposed changes to gift aid build on the reforms that my right hon. and hon. Friends introduced under the previous Government—my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South made that point. My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor had an excellent track record of enabling smaller charities to benefit from gift aid, introducing a less complex audit process and helping at least some charities to get a proper advantage from the various changes that he introduced.

We will want to probe and challenge the complexity that has been written into this scheme by Ministers, which has been highlighted to us by the NCVO, the Charity Finance Group, the Institute of Fundraising, the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action and a series of other groups. I, like a series of other hon. Members, alluded to the fact that this complexity risks ensuring that a number of small charities miss being able to benefit from the changes implicit in these arrangements.

Ministers have highlighted this measure in the past as a big source of help for charities and proof of their ongoing commitment to the big society. The Chancellor made that point in one of his Budgets. In truth, this is a modest Bill, which risks being far more modest than it needs to be. It is, sadly, an isolated gesture of help amid a dismal funding and contracting environment for charities, entirely of the Government’s making. The Bill will, nevertheless, put back into charity coffers a small amount of the income that Ministers have collectively axed since they came to power.

The context for this debate is grim, as a number of hon. Members have said, and it bears spelling out as a reminder to the whole House and, in particular, to the Committee to do our utmost to maximise the benefit of the legislation to the maximum number of charities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South mentioned, earlier this year the NCVO highlighted the “toxic mix of circumstances” facing charities: increasing demand for their services, rising costs, and an unprecedented fall in income. The NCVO argues that Government spending on the sector will fall by some £3.3 billion between the coalition’s taking and eventually leaving office.

A report by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, which was commissioned by the Government—by the Cabinet Office—and which Ministers were eventually forced to release, revealed that charities would lose, in 2011-12 alone, at least £1 billion as a direct result of Government cuts, with two thirds of the charities most at risk of suffering being in the most deprived areas of Britain.

[Richard Fuller]

In a comment in his opening inquiries of the Minister, the hon. Gentleman referred to the transition fund and he is now referring to the same point about Government funding, so I would just like to pick up on the point. Does he accept that one of the underlying philosophical differences with this Bill is that it is using Government money to support the actions of individual citizens in supporting the charities they wish to help, rather than looking at charities as an extension of the state that should be supported by public moneys? Although there may be an issue to address about the quantum and how much we can afford to put into these charities, does he accept that this is a wise way for the Government to spend their money?

[Mr Thomas]

With the greatest respect, the previous Government and the one before had exactly the same approach. The difference between us is over the scale of the funding cuts that the hon. Gentleman and other Government Members have signed up to. As I said in my opening remarks, I accept that the Bill will make a small positive difference. We welcome it on that basis and we want to work with Ministers and, indeed, with all hon. Members to try to maximise its benefit. He does not serve his cause well by minimising the scale of the cuts which charities are suffering. According to the National Children’s Bureau in April, two thirds of children’s charities had cut staff last year and reduced the range of services they offered, with 25% expecting to have to close this year. That grim direct funding situation is hardly a sign of a commitment to charities and community groups, or indeed of Ministers’ professed commitment to the small platoons or the so-called big society.

I say gently to the House that not one of the more than 140 charities I have met over the past 12 months has said that reform of gift aid is the defining answer to the problems the Government are causing charities, despite the Chancellor’s enthusiastic claims in the Budget. Ministers, notably Cabinet Office Ministers, have failed in the past 12 months to offer serious heavyweight leadership in Whitehall for charities. The Work programme has become an iconic example of charities losing out on funding because of poor commissioning of major Government contracts.

Let us consider the example of just one charity, St Mungo’s. Given its skills at getting people in the most challenging circumstances back into work, one would have thought it was the perfect participant in the Government’s Work programme. However, having had no referrals in just under 12 months, St Mungo’s finally called it a day earlier this summer. You couldn’t make it up: record long-term unemployment, a Work programme that is not exactly going all guns blazing and a charity with huge experience not being used —not even once.

We have, of course, also seen charity after charity having to line up to demand that the Government withdraw their charity tax relief cap. For example, Cancer Research UK is seriously worried about donations to build a world-class centre drying up because of Ministers’ incompetence. It was a badly bungled Budget measure from Treasury Ministers—one of a number. One of the arguments originally used to try to justify that measure, until it was eventually pulled, related to the problem of “dodgy charities”. Although the Economic Secretary veered a little towards such language in her opening remarks, she certainly did not repeat that mistake. However, we need to be careful that the requirements that we set out in the legislation that is finally passed do not allow people to think that Members in all parts of the House share the concern that there is a huge problem with poorly managed charities engaged in fraud. We will certainly wish to probe her argument about the three-year relationship with HMRC that charities must have in order to benefit from the Bill.

We debate this Bill in the context of a dismal picture of substantially reduced charity funding and of Treasury Ministers who need to make amends for the charity tax relief debacle. The Bill nevertheless deserves a Second Reading and further robust scrutiny. We will want to explore carefully the Government’s arguments on a series of clauses, particularly to try to reduce the complexity of the new arrangements, which has been highlighted by the likes of Sir Stuart Etherington, Peter Lewis, the chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, and NAVCA. Let me take just one set of comments as an example: NAVCA called the proposed system “overly bureaucratic” and “out of proportion”.

To be fair, the Economic Secretary hinted that Ministers would be flexible in Committee. I hope that her ministerial colleague will emphasise that Ministers are determined to be flexible and to see the discussions in Committee as an evolutionary process. That point was made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South in particular. We will want to probe the concerns about the eligibility criteria as there is particularly wide consensus outside the Treasury among voluntary groups that many charities will miss out if the Bill goes through unamended in that regard. We will want, too, to explore the thinking of Ministers on the connected charities rules, which risk creating an unnecessary barrier to recruiting high-quality trustees if they have similar roles in similar organisations.

On community buildings, there is a risk that some charities could lose out, as other Members have highlighted. Ministers would be wise, given the scale of the Government’s failure to help and support charities, to recognise the limited scope of the Bill. It is a worthwhile Bill with the potential, if Ministers are open-minded, to offer even more significant benefits. It builds on the reforms Labour introduced when we were in power. It needs amending in Committee, and Committee members, particularly Ministers, will need to show further flexibility to maximise the benefit it could have for the charity sector. We will support the Bill tonight and I commend it to the House.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

The sole argument advanced today by the Chancellor as to why there should not be a thorough, comprehensive, judge-led inquiry is that it would not report quickly enough. Despite the enormous bluster and noise of this debate—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) about that—that argument has been overturned by the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal for a two-tier inquiry, with the section on LIBOR to report by the end of December and the second part, which is the more important part, to report within 12 months.

We have to answer the question that has not been answered: why are the Government so coy about a genuinely independent inquiry? Is it because of their fears over what a Leveson-style inquiry into banking might expose? After all, the City, which is a pretty hard-nosed institution, does not give half the Tory party’s total income to it year after year for nothing. It expects, and undoubtedly gets, a great deal in return. Is that why the scams that repeatedly tumble out of the City under the false pretence of financial innovation, such as the mis-selling of private pensions in the 1970s, which has not yet been mentioned, and the recent mis-selling of payment protection insurance and credit default swaps, have always been treated so lightly?

Is that why the Vickers recommendations, which were already weak since the City will always get around Chinese walls by regulatory arbitrage, have been watered down further through the lobbying of the banks? The crucial rise in capital ratios was initially set at 4%, which is certainly the minimum that is necessary. That was reduced by the Chancellor to 3% and even that feeble reform has been postponed, almost unbelievably, until 2019.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s support for my efforts in January to secure a Back-Bench debate on criminal prosecutions in financial services. He asked why Government Members want a parliamentary inquiry. Does he not accept that our constituents have a visceral attitude towards the misdeeds in the financial services sector, and that one problem with a judicial inquiry is that it is the equivalent of a snooze button and the people disengage? A parliamentary inquiry would not suffer that fate.

[Mr Meacher]

I think the exact opposite is true. The Leveson inquiry has aroused and maintained intense public interest. Yesterday’s Treasury Committee sitting showed what happens on such occasions. Unfortunately, it became very personalised about what each Member had been saying and drew attention to the degree to which Bob Diamond was not put under serious threat. There are therefore very good reasons for a judge-led inquiry.

Is the close political-financial nexus that exists in this country the reason why the demands of Germany and France for a financial transactions tax have been swept so cavalierly under the carpet by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor? Is that why the pressure from Germany and the US to wind down the egregious tax avoidance that is largely centred on Britain’s Crown dependencies has been flatly rejected by the Government at the behest of the City?

Why are the complex derivatives that lay at the heart of the crash in 2008-09 being retained by the Government within the ring fence? Why has the incestuous relationship between the credit rating agencies and those whose creditworthiness they are supposed to be assessing been left untouched by the Government, when it allowed junk derivatives to be sold around the world with a triple A rating? What is the answer to all these questions? I think that they are very significant. Why has the colossal scandal of tax avoidance on the industrial scale of £42 billion a year, in which the City is so intimately involved, been ignored so unscrupulously?

I shall give an example. The Government set up the Aaronson group to consider the issue, led by a lawyer who has always represented the tax avoidance industry and never Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. On the first page of its report last November, that group said that a general anti-avoidance rule was not necessary. It produced the preposterous proposal that if there were such a rule, HMRC would have to seek the permission of an external body before it could be used. It gets worse, because there would have to be a majority of tax avoidance industry representatives on that body. Not surprisingly, the Government have accepted those recommendations in full. That shows the inordinate lengths to which they will go to protect the City by appearing to do something but in reality elaborately constructing a paper aeroplane in the sure knowledge that it will not fly. Those are just some of the reasons, and I believe a lot more remain hidden, why the Government do not want a judge-led inquiry at any price. They are exactly the same reasons why a systematic, wide-ranging inquiry is now so necessary.

I agree with many Members that in the last analysis, this is not about personalities or even about the corrupted culture of banking. It is much more about the deeply flawed structure and role of banking in Britain. The banks are far too big, and the big five control up to 90% of the money supply, which is far too much. We need smaller, more specialised banks that focus on key areas such as infrastructure, relational banking like that in the German mittelstand, the knowledge, science and research and development industries, the green economy, small and medium-sized enterprises and all the rest.

Above all, we need to regain public control of the money supply, which was privatised as a result of deregulation in the 1990s, so that—this is the crucial point—the nation’s financial resources are focused not on the banks’ interests of profiteering from overseas speculation, tax havens and property, in which they specialise most of all, but on the national interest of putting the nation’s resources primarily into industry, manufacturing and export. That is why the whole House should unite behind the Opposition’s motion.

Finance Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Livingston, and indeed the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who served on the Public Bill Committee. He is not in his place at the moment, but I found his contribution interesting, as always.

I support new clause 13, tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, which would introduce a bankers bonus tax to fund a job guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months. History will judge this Budget as chaotic. It has been a Budget of U-turns—on pasties, on caravans, on skips and on charities. It should be remembered as a Budget for “millionaires row”—admittedly, that is a little sparse at the moment—but I hope it will not be remembered as the Budget that let the greedy bankers off the hook. Tonight, I want to put on the record the impact on the north-east.

The north-east requires an alternative vision for economic confidence, growth and jobs. The proposals in new clause 13 of a guaranteed paid job for people who have been out of work for 12 months, as suggested by the Institute of Public Policy Research North, would boost the process of regeneration that is so badly needed in my region. According to economists at IPPR North, coalition spending cuts have worsened the impact on our region’s economy and added to unemployment—especially youth unemployment—in the north-east. Well over 32,000 public sector jobs have been cut. I remind the House that unemployment in my region stands at 11.3%; 145,000 people are out of work. The private sector-led recovery that was promised has clearly not materialised in my region, at least, and a recent report from Northern TUC shows declining employment in the private sector.

In the Public Bill Committee, I gave some examples of the private sector haemorrhaging jobs in my constituency, and I do not propose to repeat that tonight. The problem we face—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, raised this point—is that money is being sucked out of the region through public spending cuts, benefit cuts and the slashing of regeneration and infrastructure projects, worsening the economic problems. The Government, through their policies, are squeezing out demand from the regional and national economies. That is counter-productive, as it pushes up both the benefits bill and Government borrowing.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor pretend that there is no alternative, but the Opposition recognise that politics is about priorities and making choices. Sadly, the Chancellor has chosen to give a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires, while more and more people in my area are losing their jobs and young people in particular have little prospect of finding paid employment. He has also chosen to keep VAT, a deeply regressive tax that hurts the poor, at 20%.

IPPR North has said that business confidence is failing. The lack of confidence among employers has created a hire freeze across the north that looks likely to get worse. The unwillingness of employers to take on permanent staff only increases economic insecurity for ordinary households. Where vacancies do exist, they are often for low paid and insecure work. Given that more than 1 million young people are out of work, we need real action from the Government to stop the next generation from wasting away on unemployment benefits. That is where the real jobs guarantee comes in. We need to offer a jobs guarantee, especially to young people, to stimulate the economy and offer personal hope to each individual.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

General Government expenditure accounts for 50% of the economy, our debts are at record levels and we have the highest deficits. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the answer to debt, deficit and the Government’s massive share of the economy is for the Government to do more or to do less?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he had sat through the whole debate, because those points have been raised. It behoves the Government to do more, not less; we have to learn from the lessons of history. I urge hon. Members to support new clause 13.

Beer Duty Escalator

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

All the Members who have intervened have made the most wonderful points, and my hon. Friend certainly has not disappointed in that regard. I am a little disappointed, however, that he did not mention his four breweries for a potential future press release.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As the Member for Bedford, the home of the largest family-owned brewery, Wells and Young’s, may I ask him whether he agrees that it is also a timely debate? The Treasury recently took action to reduce the fuel duty escalator, and it would be a welcome addition if we were also to eliminate the beer duty escalator and its impact on our economy.

[Gavin Williamson]

I would never dream of supposing that I knew more than Treasury Ministers, but that would certainly be a good idea to bear in mind for future Budgets. We must look at the economics involved. As I mentioned, there has been a 50% increase in the rate of duty, but only a 10% increase in the amount of revenue.

I have had the great privilege over the past few months of serving on the Finance Bill Committee, where I heard many emotive and brilliant arguments from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary about the need to get the balance right between the rate of tax and the money it brings in.

Interest Rate Swap Products

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is right. My constituents are in exactly the same position.

There is, at least, provision for my constituents to break the swap, but doing so would cost them a cool £1 million. They have complained to the financial services ombudsman, asking for compensation and asking for the original swap margin to be reinstated at its 2006 level or, alternatively, for the swap to be torn up so that they can keep their existing margin. They have been advised that the 2008 swap was mis-sold and inappropriate for their business, and they are discussing the details of that with the financial services ombudsman.

In 2008 Lloyds sold another of my constituents, Phillip Derbyshire, an enhanced collar—or, as it was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), an enhanced noose. It has cost him £1.275 million, about 75% of his pension pool. He is 64 years old. Both the FSO and the Financial Services Authority are unable to assist him, and Lloyds claims that there has been no wrongdoing. My constituent claims that the circumstances of sale were

“tantamount to a sting operation under duress”,

and I completely believe him.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does not the abuse of trust that my hon. Friend is describing give rise to another fear—that the FSA will roll over and talk about changing the rules while missing the critical issue of compensation for people who have suffered, which is what the House wants to see?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend, and I shall end my speech by making the same point.

Lloyds repeatedly referred to the product that it was selling to my constituent as “a protection”, both orally and in writing. The downsides were simply not explained. My constituent was told that if he sold his business or died, the product would be an asset. All that was independently witnessed, because he is quite a savvy man. He was told by an independent banking consultant that the product was totally inappropriate to his needs, and that it was beyond the level of his financial sophistication to understand it. He is now looking into whether he can sue Lloyds.

Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for banks to make loans contingent on the purchase of other financial products such as IRSAs? Where are we with this issue now? What conclusion will be reached from the debate? We have seen the motion, and we have heard from many Members in all parts of the House who want to see forthright action by the Treasury and the FSA, and compensation for their constituents. Can the FSA be persuaded to move faster? As for compensation, there is an absolute need for it.

This is a scandal and a scam. It is finished now, but we need to ensure that it never happens again.

Public Sector Pensions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, for, I think, the first time, and it is a particular pleasure, if I may say so Sir, to have the Economic Secretary as the Treasury Minister responding to the debate.

We live in a time when nation after nation is being told: “You are not as rich as you thought you were.” As a result, nation after nation is facing cuts—sometimes mild, sometimes severe—in the services their Governments can provide, the real incomes that their labour can earn and the value of their assets, calculated as the debt that can be raised against their businesses and homes. We are living in such times because for more than a decade nation after nation rapidly increased the amount of its borrowings as a proportion of its economy—its national leverage. It was not just excessive Government borrowing, but an entire national pastime undertaken by millions of households, companies and banks in many nations. That beggaring of future generations is now—sometimes harshly but ultimately correctly—being brought to an end, and it is in that context that we review a future fund, including how it may help and how it might fit with current Government policies.

So, what is a future fund? A future fund is shorthand for moving the burden of paying for public sector pensions from the current tax-as-you-go model to a proceeds-from-invested-capital, or fully funded, model. It is fair to say, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will confirm this, that Lord Hutton’s recent review of pensions ruled out a move to a future fund. Like you, Mr Leigh, I do not have any wish to be a champion for lost causes, but I hope that I am able to make some strong points about why the Treasury should reconsider Lord Hutton’s proposal to move on and not make a transition in the way in which public sector pensions are funded. This is not about public sector pension negotiations or about changing public sector pensions; it is about the process that the Government undertake to fund the pensions.

I encourage the Economic Secretary and the Treasury to reconsider a future fund for three main reasons. The first is that it promotes intergenerational fairness, and reinforces the Government’s view about long-term thinking for the security of our economy. Secondly, it offers an opportunity to rebalance the structure of earnings, to restore emphasis on pension provision—deferred income—rather than on immediate income and, thirdly, it enables the creation of a UK sovereign wealth fund, to stimulate investment in long-term projects.

I shall take each reason in turn. First, on a future fund promoting intergenerational fairness, those of us of a certain age look back on our lives and, being part of a bulge bracket of population—some of us at the latter end of it—perhaps realise that we have taken a lot for ourselves and that, as a generation, we have been somewhat greedy on the nation’s resources. That is one reason why this Government came into office at a time of such enormous debts, which future generations will need to repay. One thing that guides me as a Member of Parliament is looking for ways in which we can use fiscal probity to unburden future generations of some of those liabilities. Let us be under no illusion: it will not be easy for our children and grandchildren to compete in the future world economy. It will be tough. We have new competitors coming up all the time, so they will need every advantage, one of which is to bequeath them lower taxation rates than they otherwise would have.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider the Norwegians to have been a great example of setting up an oil fund for future generations to ensure that their oil wealth was not squandered in one generation?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely fair point. I was not in Parliament in the 1970s, and I am not sure whether such points were made at that time, but clearly countries that have received the beneficence of resources—Norway is one example, and Australia another—have seen the value of looking at the long-term investment of natural resources, and have set up future funds to provide for future pension liabilities. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point in support of my argument. Of course, we are not as endowed with natural resources as those countries are, but the fundamental point about fairness between the generations is still solid.

Let us remind ourselves that the current level of public sector debt—the debt that we all talk about and are so worried about—is £1 trillion. The public sector pensions liability, which we do not often talk about, is £1.1 trillion. All those obligations have to be paid by future generations and, as we have so significantly ramped up this first amount of debt, should we not look for ways to reduce the unfunded part of public sector pensions for future taxpayers? A future fund would, over time, eliminate that burden from taxpayers and transfer it to the returns that would be generated from a funded pension scheme.

The Intergenerational Foundation has noted some questions about public sector pensions, and also some of the risks, and this change would reduce risk. At the moment, Lord Hutton’s proposals manage risk by way of a view of a cost ceiling on total public sector pension liabilities, which is based on projections of economic growth. The projections show the liability as a steady share of gross domestic product, falling in the long term. I am not sure that history is littered with Governments who under-predict economic growth; in fact, I think that it is often the other way around, with Governments having a rather rosy view of future growth. So, inherently, as we consider the risk that will fall on future generations, there is a likelihood that the Government, under current systems, will underestimate the liability that they are passing on. As Lord Hutton said:

“What we’ve seen is how very quickly the assumptions which underpinned my assessments of the long-term sustainability of public services pensions have been shown to be too optimistic…That is going to affect the sustainability of public sector pensions in a negative way.”

The change in the pensions structure would considerably eliminate that risk.

I shall now talk a bit about the second point, which is the rebalancing of the structure of earnings, to restore the emphasis on pensions. Over the past few decades, the role that pensions have played in the round of the compensation offer made to potential employees has reduced considerably and, I would say, undesirably. There is much more emphasis today on the immediate levels of compensation, on “How much will I earn this year?” rather than on “How much of what I earn am I putting away for my long-term retirement needs?”.

House of Commons statistics have tracked the active membership of occupational pension schemes for private sector and public sector employees, and have compared 1995 with 2010. Over that period, the number of public sector workers in such pension schemes increased, from 4.1 million to 5.3 million, but the number of private sector workers halved, from 6.2 million to 3.1 million. That was a halving in the coverage of occupational pension schemes in a very short period—15 years—which is why I say that the change has been dramatic. Being conservative, I like to see things in the round of their consequences. We are now seeing that many people fear that they do not have enough money for their retirement, and the Government have rightly recognised the need to encourage pensions through auto-enrolment programmes. This would be another measure that would encourage people by, as I shall explain in a minute, creating a floor on public sector pensions that would enable the focus to turn back to how pensions will be provided for private sector workers.

The third point is the role of a future fund in creating a sovereign wealth fund. To create a future fund, we have to fund it—and, boy, does it take a lot of money. If we have £1 trillion of liabilities, that is a lot of money to save up, so a long period is needed. The Australian future fund set a period of 14 years before money could be taken out: the law was passed in 2006, and no disbursements can be made until 2020. For the UK, taking a 20-year period, it would require a minimum of at least £20 billion a year—probably significantly higher than that; somewhere between £20 billion and £30 billion a year—fully to fund all the Government pension schemes over those 20 years.

To put that in context, that figure is equivalent to 3% of total Government expenditure. It sounds a lot, but the Government spend a lot—it would be 3% of expenditure—and it would be only half the money that the Government are spending on the interest on their own debt. It is therefore a manageable amount of money, even though the amount is significant. In addition to looking to fund that out of annual public expenditure, it would also be possible to make asset sales into the fund. In fact, the Australian future fund started with an asset transfer, from the sale of part of the telecommunications company Telstra, for its seed investment. I have checked—with the Minister here, I wanted to be absolutely sure—and the Government’s deficit reduction targets would not be imperilled by any future sale of assets going into a future fund. Quite rightly, if I may say so, the deficit reduction targets are set absent of any funds from the proceeds of the disposal of certain assets, such as those of Royal Bank of Scotland.

Some may say that taking £20 billion out of public expenditure when we are trying to create demand is a very odd suggestion, but of course the £20 billion would not be lost from the economy. Essentially, £20 billion would be transferred from current expenditure to an investment fund for long-term investment. That money would become a fund of resources that could be used to invest in long-term projects. If we take the Ontario teachers’ pension fund—I hope you will look it up later, Mr Leigh—it involves patient capital that is invested in long-term investment projects. It is there to secure the pensions of those wonderful teachers in Ontario; they are not quite, but almost, as good as the teachers in Bedford. It is there to protect their pensions, which it does by looking for long-term investment returns. It is the fund that seeded the money for Birmingham airport. If we had our own infrastructure fund set up as a future fund for public sector pensions, we could provide resources to fund long-term investment projects.

Let me say something that I rarely say, which is that I agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who spoke yesterday about the need for a significant investment in housing construction. Of course, we need other construction projects, but we understand that we are under fiscal restraints because we must demonstrate that our deficit is being reduced. I ask the Treasury team to consider this very carefully: in current market conditions, particularly with the constraints of fiscal responsibility and the lenient conditions for monetary policy, a future fund would be uniquely placed to provide the long-term patient capital to fund such infrastructure investments, without there being any challenge to the probity of the Chancellor’s deficit and debt reduction policies. This environment provides an opportunity to fund and seed a future fund with the resources from the Government’s credit easing or quantitative easing programmes, and that would happen in such a way that markets would see that it was matching a reduction in the country’s long-term public liabilities for funding public sector pensions.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a visionary proposal. How does he believe that he could bring the public with him, not only in accepting his proposals but in having a profitable engagement about them?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I recently got the box set of “Yes Minister”, and “a visionary proposal” has echoes of “a courageous decision” in the lexicon of that show. However, he raises the important point of how we are to bring the public along with us. That can be done in a number of ways. First, it is a responsibility of our generation to show young people that we are doing everything we can to give them a better future. That is what mums and dads are doing around the country right now—cutting back on their own budgets to make sure that their kids have a few extra luxuries and are protected from some of the problems that we are going through as we try to reduce our deficit. The future fund would be another way of engaging with and doing something for younger generations, and I hope that groups such as the Intergenerational Foundation will press that message.

I am conscious that I am taking up the Minister’s time, but I want to make these points, if I may, Mr Leigh. Secondly, trade unions have been very concerned about a race to the bottom on pensions and—you know what—for many reasons, they have been fair in making that point. We do not want to have minimal or zero pension provision. It would be too attractive to take that headline number for this year’s income; it would be far better for us to have a structure in which people understand the proper role played by pensions. If we said to trade unions, during the process of reviewing public sector pensions, “That’s it—no more reviews,” that would deal with all the fears of people enlisting in pension programmes about another change somehow coming in. They have already had one change and now there is another, so they are thinking, “Well, there’ll be another one, so why should I contribute to a scheme when I don’t know where it’s going?” If we called a halt to that while investing in a public fund—the future fund—we could tell trade unions, “That’s the floor in public sector pensions. Now work with the Government on trying to encourage the private sector to start rebalancing the ways in which it looks at compensation, so that the role of pensions is restored to its rightful place.” In those ways, we can bring people along.

Of course, the person I most wish to bring along with me in relation to this opportunity is the Minister, but I am fearful that I am not in a position to do so today. However, I hope that, much like the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and me, she is at least engaged to look at what the hon. Gentleman called the “visionary” idea of having a proper and fair way between the generations and of accounting for public sector pensions through a future fund.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

It is a pleasure to respond the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). A number of us have heard him make those points passionately and eloquently in the House, and in a fairly factual way, I shall lay out what the Government are able to say in response.

Before doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, because he has been able use this platform to draw attention to the importance of ensuring affordability. He has spoken in robust and wise terms of the bombs that an irresponsible Government might leave for future generations, and I particularly congratulate him on raising such themes in his well-informed and practical discussion. I suspect that he will agree that it is a great shame that no Front Bencher from Her Majesty’s Opposition is here to join us in the debate. After all, they have a sizeable charge to answer in terms of what they left for future generations in this country.

I shall describe the situation that we face. As I expect you know well, Mr Leigh, the annual cost of public service pensions paid out has risen by more than a third over the past 10 years to £32 billion. To put that in context, as my hon. Friend did for other areas of spending, that figure is more than what is spent on police, prisons and the courts combined. Put simply, costs have of course increased because people are living longer. Although improvements in longevity are very welcome, the Government are therefore paying public service pensions for much longer than was expected when the schemes were designed. The bulk of that extra cost has mainly fallen on the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend is well aware that rebalancing the costs of providing pensions more fairly between employers, employees and other taxpayers requires bringing expenditure under control. We must make far-reaching structural changes to scheme designs, and that is what the Government are doing.

My hon. Friend has teed me up to deal with the remarks of Lord Hutton, who produced a landmark report—Members are well aware of it; perhaps you even have it on your bedside table, Mr Leigh—that took an impartial and comprehensive look at public service pensions. The Government are committed to implementing that blueprint, which will give us a new public sector pensions landscape. I do not intend to examine that landscape in detail, but I will make some points about it.

I emphasise, as my hon. Friend already has done, that this is not a race to the bottom. It is important to get public service pensions on a fairer, more affordable footing, but the Government must also ensure that the hard-working public service workers continue to receive pensions that are among the very best available. That is what has encouraged us to consider the changes so carefully. They have been discussed extensively with trade unions and other scheme representatives for more than a year, and those discussions continue.

The changes will deliver the Government’s objective to ensure that most low and middle earners who work a full career will receive pension benefits that are at least as good, if not better, than they would get now. They will also deliver our commitment to protect accrued pension benefits for those closest to retirement.

I have digressed somewhat, so let me return to the key point from Lord Hutton’s report with regard to this debate: the concept of funded versus unfunded. My hon. Friend has referred extensively to the Australian Government’s future fund, but we must bear in mind that we in this country are not alone in providing unfunded public service pension schemes. It is also fair to note that all pensions, whether funded or unfunded, are claims on the output of our successor generations. The great and truly visionary questions raised by my hon. Friend relate to intergenerational fairness, which is an issue that spans both funded and unfunded schemes. The funding status does not determine the sustainability or affordability of pensions, or the size of liabilities built up over time. Unfunded pension schemes are commonly used by Governments, because they are the most cost-effective way to provide pensions benefits over the long term. The method is available to Governments, but not necessarily to the private sector.

Lord Hutton’s report—or, to give it its full name, the interim report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission—found that keeping schemes unfunded has many advantages. It also dealt with some areas of funded public service pension schemes in this country, but recommended no change. The report stated that keeping schemes unfunded avoids potentially significant investment management costs and the risks involved in investing, whether in the UK or overseas. The report also noted that there are risks involved in the Government—in one guise or another—controlling up to £1 trillion or more of financial assets. It also stated that, even when the funds are placed in the hands of trustees, in an emergency the Government could still be compelled to underwrite the funds, which represents a further risk.

My hon. Friend spoke of the Ontario teachers pension plan as an example in support of his cause, but I feel honour bound to put a few points on record about its current performance, which is a cause of concern. The plan has experienced recurring funding shortfalls for the past 10 years. Indeed, as of 1 January, it is projecting a $9.6 billion shortfall, because the cost of future pensions continues to grow faster than the planned assets. That is connected to how the plan’s members are living longer and to interest rates.

Ireland’s national pension reserve fund also gives us cause to reflect on what can happen with such funds. My hon. Friend may have read the same Financial Times article as I did in November 2011 that reported on how that reserve is to be tapped for €12.5 billion of the bail-out costs with regard to Ireland’s public finances. There are risks connected to some of the schemes, so I do not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation that all is rosy in the land of funded schemes.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not think that anyone is saying that all is rosy in one scheme or another. Equally, I am sure that the Minister would agree that all is not rosy in the current system. One of the reasons why we have an off-balance sheet is that Governments do not like to talk about the obligations that they incur when they take on additional work. Does she accept that, if we transition to a fund, rather than the current scheme, and Governments add it to the public sector payroll, they would have to justify the full obligation of those pensions to the fund?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Such a scheme could be designed in that way, to entrench the principles of responsibility that have been the key note of what he has outlined today, and for which I respect his argument.

To respond to the debate and to offer the Government’s view on funded pension schemes, we support the conclusions of the Hutton report, as my hon. Friend knows. I think that he will therefore understand why I acknowledge the report’s concerns about funded schemes. I think that he will also appreciate why I want to finish by talking about the problems that can result from moving to a different scheme structure. The transitional costs are difficult to contemplate. As is often the case—perhaps in those countries that have already tried this—a move to funded schemes involves significant financial costs.

Contributions in respect of current employees would have to be diverted to the new pension funds. Pensions in payment would therefore have to be financed through extra Government borrowing or taxation. To put a figure on that for the UK economy, it would cost more than £25 billion next year alone, with costs declining only very gradually over the 21st century. It would be problematic for the UK Government to contemplate that at this time, owing, as my hon. Friend has already said, to the actions of previous Governments and to current global trends.

My hon. Friend referred to the Government’s credit easing schemes, which were announced earlier this year. He is interested in how the funds connected to those schemes could be used in relation to a future scheme, but, although the national loan guarantee scheme will provide up to £20 billion of guarantees to banks, that is not a case of guaranteeing loans to individual businesses. The full credit risk of the loans remains with the banks, so no cash is set aside for the project that could be redirected, as my hon. Friend suggested, to setting up a pension fund. I will direct his interest—I am sure that he is already, as the phrase goes, “all over it”—to the memorandum of understanding with the National Association of Pension Funds and the Pension Protection Fund that was announced in last year’s autumn statement. That might be a way to gain direct investment from pension funds into UK infrastructure assets, which I am sure my hon. Friend is interested in.

To sum up, the Government will introduce legislation in the autumn to implement the final proposals that have been reached based on Lord Hutton’s recommendations, including maintaining the current funding agreements. The Government believe that those deals should not need to be revisited in the next 25 years. We have said so publicly and deliberately, and stand by that position. That should reassure pension scheme members that they are right to remain in their schemes, which will remain among the very best available. The Government’s commitment to continue to provide guaranteed, index-linked benefits in retirement should encourage young and old people alike to take up the pensions savings baton. The reforms should achieve the objectives of sustainability, fairness and responsibility within the public finances.

Banking Reform

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The process we are going to go through is a very transparent one. We have published a White Paper today, setting out clearly our response—our detailed response—to John Vickers’ recommendations. As I said earlier, we are going to publish a draft Bill, which will be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. We are being very transparent about how we are implementing Sir John Vickers’ recommendations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with us and ensure that the recommendations get through, so that we remedy the mistakes of the past.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s proposals for the long-term protection of depositors, but he will be aware that many of us are concerned about the supply of credit to businesses in our economy right now and the impact right now of these long-term proposals. What analysis has the Treasury made of the impact on credit from these proposals in the near term? May I suggest that the Minister continues to monitor the impact with more urgency so that the concerns that have been raised can be assuaged?

[Mr Hoban]

Strong banks that are in a position to lend to businesses are absolutely vital to the long-term future of our economy. We have seen that the mistakes of the past eventually catch up with people. They have led to a weakening of bank balance sheets, which are now being strengthened. We need not only strong banks, but schemes in place to sustain bank lending and to ensure a supply of credit to SMEs.

Jobs and Growth

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

Credibility is about getting things right, not about getting them wrong. We were told that we were out of the danger zone and that the recovery had been secured, but what has happened? Plan A failed in Britain and in the eurozone too, and it is the very plan that the Chancellor has been urging on us. What did he say to The Daily Telegraph in August last year? He said:

“Britain is leading the way out of this crisis”,

and

“The eurozone must follow our lead and act decisively”.

The Prime Minister is off to the G8 summit this weekend. The only countries in recession that will be represented there are Italy and Britain. How are we leading the way? The fact is that the austerity policies that are failing in Europe are the very same policies that have failed in Britain, and which the British Government have been urging the German Government to urge the eurozone to stick with. That is the reality.

Opposition Members have consistently argued that it will not work for all countries to try to reduce their deficits at the same time, that tough medium-term plans to cut the deficit will work only if Governments also put in place a plan for jobs and growth, and that a time when a global hurricane is brewing is precisely not the time at which to rip out the foundations of the house here in Britain.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). We have nothing in the file for him, because unfortunately we were unable to find anything interesting that he had said during the last two years.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the compliment from the right hon. Gentleman, who has often demonstrated that he does not have a sound grip on economics. He is continuing to say something that I do not think is correct: he is continuing to compare austerity policies with growth policies. Does he not accept that growth is an outcome, which all policies are intended to achieve, and will he have the honesty to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and cost his plans?

[Ed Balls]

The right course is to take a balanced approach that combines medium-term deficit reduction with getting jobs and growth moving. The problem with austerity is that it chokes off jobs and growth and ends up costing more in spending, more in unemployment and more in borrowing. We have set out a clear alternative. We have said “Repeat the bank bonus tax, and use the money to create jobs.” We have said “Rip up the failed national insurance cut introduced by the Chancellor, and use the money for a tax cut for small businesses.” We have said “Yes, cut VAT by £12 billion for a year to get the economy moving.” We have not said how many shovel-ready infrastructure projects can be launched, because we do not have the details.

The Prime Minister says that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis, but unless you grow, your debts get bigger and your deficits get worse. That is what the Chancellor has proved over the last two years. It is not only the Labour party that is advancing that argument. Only last week, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said:

“We know that fiscal austerity holds back growth and the effects are worse in downturns... so the right pace is essential”.

Even the head of the European Central Bank is now pressing for a jobs and growth plan.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor must wake up to the fact that our economy has not grown on their watch for a year and a half. Instead of trying to divert the blame for their failure and using the eurozone as an excuse for Britain's problems, they must admit that they got it wrong—that they gave the eurozone the wrong advice—and start pushing for the right solution to the eurozone crisis. I agree that there should be a proper role for the European Central Bank and a greater emphasis on fiscal burden-sharing, but there should also be a change of course on austerity, because only a balanced plan that puts jobs and growth first will succeed in getting the deficit down. When the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and even the United States are urging policies for jobs and growth, this Chancellor and this Prime Minister are looking increasingly isolated and out on a limb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

On that point, will my right hon. Friend note that last month we had the largest number of new company formations in my constituency of Bedford? One reason for that is that they want stable, low, long-term interest rates, which this coalition’s policies are delivering.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what businesses need—a stable economic environment in which we are not exposed to some of the financial problems that some eurozone countries face at the moment. The low interest rates and the credibility that our policy bring help every business, not only in Bedford but around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

I do—they will tell you that, Sir—as you did when you said that there was no money left. We are both honest men.

I wish that the shadow Chancellor would welcome some of the achievements that the people of this country welcome; it is foolish of him not to do so when there are considerable signs of recovery. It simply lowers the esteem in which all politicians are held, and I urge him, and the Opposition Front Bencher who responds to this debate, to take that into account.

There are welcome signs of recovery. The private sector has created more than 500,000 jobs since the general election; the International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK will grow at twice the speed of Germany and three times that of France; borrowing costs have fallen, investment has been increasing and only yesterday we saw a drop of 45,000 in the number of unemployed people in the first quarter of this year. All those things are welcome, but it would be refreshing to hear Opposition Front Benchers greet them with some enthusiasm—although I doubt that they will.

The truth of the matter is that consumers and businesses are saying, “To hell with it; we’ve got to get on with life,” and that is one reason why we are seeing some of the green shoots of recovery. Now we need to nurture them and ensure that they continue to grow and bear fruit.

The situation is fragile, and no one would say otherwise. Consequently, I urge the Government and the Chancellor to do more. We will not achieve growth with new laws. The previous Government tried that for 13 years, and we saw what happened. This place does not create the growth; it simply sets the atmosphere and ambience for it. So I appeal to the Chancellor to recognise that we need to change the culture regarding entrepreneurialism and the attitude to small businesses, and indeed serious and important recommendations on doing so are coming forward from various parts of the House.

We must also understand the needs of small businesses, because therein lies our best chance of growing jobs and the well-being of this nation.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing that a small businessman would like to do more than to employ a young, new worker? What would my hon. Friend suggest to the Chancellor can be done with employment regulations, so that we get our businesses employing people more easily?

[Mr Binley]

I welcome that important point, because I was about to turn to that very area. More can be done, and we do indeed need to reduce the regulatory burden and to strengthen the business environment.

I welcome in the Queen’s Speech the proposed measures to deal with executive pay and employment tribunals, but I still do not understand why the Government are obsessing about maternity and paternity leave, especially for very small businesses. I simply point out that many people meet in the workplace and set up a family life together, and, if a small business employing 10 people loses 20% of its work force for six months, temporary labour cannot be used as a replacement. That simply does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention and that of other Members to the fact that I am an adviser to a venture capital fund and also to my other entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I support everything in the Queen’s Speech that will deal with improving jobs and achieving growth in our country. I hope that is the only partisan point that I shall make because I would like to talk a little bit about the use of language, and then advise hon. Members about a very practical way that Members of Parliament can play a role in achieving the goals that we all seek in terms of enhancing jobs and creating growth.

Let me start, if I may, with language. It is always important, in trying to solve a problem, to use words in the correct way and in ways that make sense, because if we do not do that, of course we will not solve the problem. Sadly, we have a major problem with the language when it comes to jobs and growth, starting with the word “austerity”, which has been much used today in a number of speeches.

A dictionary definition of austerity, in its economic context, is:

“An economic policy by which a Government reduces the amount of money it spends by a large amount.”

In popular discourse that is a description of the coalition Government’s economic policies. The trouble is that it is not a correct description of the coalition’s policies. Over the period of this Government, total public spending will increase, not decrease, from £670 billion to £734 billion. If we choose to measure it in terms of public borrowing as a percentage of GDP, the reduction in the UK will be significantly less than that of Greece, Portugal and Ireland. “Austerity” is therefore a good catch-phrase, but it is not an accurate way to describe coalition policies. That is compounded by a false choice that is presented to the public: austerity versus growth. I think that is a false and misleading set of alternatives to present, because growth is an objective that all policies seek to achieve, and a better description of the policy alternatives that are being put forward is, on the one hand, growth based on living within our means, and on the other, growth based on borrowing.

The BBC, if I may say so, is particularly noteworthy in its use of these false comparisons. On 12 May Gavin Hewitt, who is the BBC’s European editor, had a column entitled “Growth versus austerity”. On 4 May, Stephanie Flanders, the BBC’s economics editor, commented:

“It’s not only Labour politicians who say this”.

in the debate about the trade-off between austerity and growth.

Yesterday evening, a debate on BBC’s “Newsnight” featured a huge animated set of scales with “austerity” on one side trying to be balanced with “growth” on the other. That is not the BBC bias of which the Mayor of London has recently spoken, but it is misleading propaganda being put to the British public.

I now turn to a practical idea that all Members of Parliament should consider in their constituencies. I am drawing on some of my experience in Bedford, and on Monday at 3 o’clock I shall be holding a workshop to describe that in more detail to hon. Members. I looked at the comparative advantages that Bedford had in terms of economics. We do not have much. We do not have a university science park, we do not have a lot of inward investment, and we do not have a big employer, but people have a willingness to invest in and grow local businesses. We are in the process of creating a Bedford business enterprise investment scheme fund—a policy introduced by the Labour Government and enhanced by this Government. That is an excellent scheme, to encourage people to invest in local businesses. The idea of the fund is to get people to put money into their local business because they want to see them grow. There is a sense of civic duty that motivates people, and the fact that they have idle balances sitting in the banks, earning very low interest rates, is a very good economic incentive for people to do that.

A Member of Parliament can act as a great initiator, champion and cheerleader for this initiative, drawing together a local advisory board of business people to run the fund, seeking out partners for the fund to help to popularise it in the community, and finding new businesses that the fund can invest in. In Bedford, we have set a target of raising £500,000, and we are well on our way to achieving that.

I believe that if other hon. Members engage in that sort of action, it will mean that MPs, who are often criticised for lacking real world experience and being out of touch, will be seen in their local communities doing something practical to help people. If we put a network of projects together, we could seek support for this excellent initiative from the regional growth fund so that we have a constellation of local groups across the country where local people come together to support—commercially—the growth of local businesses in their community. If people would like to learn more, I shall be happy to explain on Monday at 3 o’clock in the Thatcher room.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

We have heard quite a lot already about the economic situation. The context for the Budget is one of economic stagnation. The growth forecast produced last year for this year was for growth of 2.5% in 2012. The OBR’s estimate now of growth in 2012 is just 0.8%. The growth forecast for 2013 is also 0.8%. That is close to stagnation.

Unemployment is rising, the cost of living is rising, and it is particularly worrying that business investment appears to be collapsing. The OBR forecasts that business investment this year will drop 7%, from an estimate of 7.7% to 0.7%. That is connected with the OBR’s forecast for such meagre growth as there is to be, according to its estimate. A much larger share of this growth—three times larger—is to come from private consumption rather than from export-led growth. We have a demand crisis in the economy. I worry that the Chancellor is putting all his eggs in one basket, rather like Japan did in the 1990s, gambling everything on low interest rates as a way to stimulate the economy.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a demand crisis, but does he accept that some of the responsibility for that comes from the policies of the previous Government, which so substantially over-leveraged not just the Government, but the entire economy?

[Gregg McClymont]

There is no doubt, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say, that not everything in the garden was rosy by 2010. That does not take away from the current Government their responsibility to stimulate the economy. On any metric, growth of 0.8% this year and next year is only very limited growth. On current estimates we will not return to 2007 GPD levels till 2013. That slump will be the longest since the 19th century—six years to get back to a previous level of GDP. That is indeed a slump, and this is a stagnation Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who already outshines his predecessor in his integrity and sincerity, if not in his fame.

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, to you and the House for the fact that unfortunately, owing to a constituency commitment, I will not be able to be here for the closing speeches. That is a great shame, because we have had a very stimulating debate across both sides of the House, with the opening speeches by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). The hon. Gentleman is standing in for the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who became sick at a TUC conference. I think that this is the first time that a Labour Front Bencher has issued a health warning on their union paymasters. Let us hope that those health warnings will continue.

I will be going back to the great towns of Bedford and Kempston, whose people know that these are tough times but wanted to have a Budget that rewarded work, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered precisely that. The single most valuable part of this Budget for the people of my constituency is the raising of the personal allowance by over £1,000 so that the first £9,000 of a person’s income will not be liable for tax. That is a fantastic encouragement for people who are finding that their budgets are very tight.

Members on both sides of the House have expressed concerns about fuel duty, and I echo those concerns, because the duty does have a significant impact on personal budgets and on business. I would have liked the Government to do more, but I understand that they were unable to do so. I draw my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary’s attention to the campaign by my local newspaper, the Times and Citizen, which echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said about how petrol prices can vary significantly between different regions. The Times and Citizen found that in Bedford and Kempston, our fuel prices were 4p to 5p per litre higher than in other areas. If we cannot do anything about fuel duty, will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Government can ensure that we do not face monopolistic positions on fuel duty in very localised situations? The Times and Citizen’s campaign has shown that the people of Bedford and Kempston care very much about that, and it can, in itself, have as much impact as a cut in fuel duty overall.

I should like to spend a couple of minutes on the deficit crisis, inter-generational debt and competitiveness. On the deficit crisis, it is excellent that the Government are looking for fiscal neutrality, but that is different from considering the overall level of public expenditure and public debt. Public expenditure is still going up, in cash terms and in real terms, and tax receipts are going up—from 35.8% of GDP in 2010-11 to 36.4% of GDP in 2014-15. We continue to be a high-public-spending, high-tax economy. I hope that the Government and the Chancellor will look at ways in which the overall balance can be brought down so that resources can be moved from the Government sector to the more productive private sector.

May I also urge caution on Ministers in the use of quantitative easing? Quantitative easing is a policy to overcome a credit-driven recession. It should not be a policy to support excessive public expenditure or the long-term erosion of the value of savings. It is pertinent to look at the “Debt and reserves management report 2011-12”, which shows that the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility holds more than 18% of Government gilts. That holding has, at some point, to be unwound, which will have inflationary consequences.

[Mike Gapes]

Can I take it that the hon. Gentleman is calling for an increase in interest rates?

[Richard Fuller]

No, I am not calling for an increase in interest rates. I am calling for the Government to be clear, which I think they are, about the use of the quantitative easing policy. The results of that policy will, in a few years, have to be unwound. The level of their own gilts that the Government hold will have to be reduced. When that happens, interest rates will go up. We need to caution the Government to be aware, in setting the level of public expenditure, of what that level will mean. People will need an increase in pay owing to the increase in the Government’s cost of borrowing. Foreign holdings have also increased, and are now at 31%. We now have the highest spread between five-year and 30-year gilts in terms of the risk premium. All those points should caution us about our deficit.

Those facts come on the back of a significant level of debt in our economy. Opposition Members fail to realise that ours is the most indebted major economy in the world. That is the legacy of the previous Government and the previous Chancellor. Those who were here yesterday would have seen the shadow Chancellor give an uncharacteristically short speech. He sat down and people were surprised, because there was more that he could have said. However, I think that his speech could have been shorter. It could have gone thus: “I am sorry. I am really sorry. I am sorry for my hubris in thinking that I could end boom and bust. I know now that that was achievable only by leveraging up the entire British economy and dumping the debts on our children and grandchildren.” That is the speech that the shadow Chancellor could have given yesterday. He could then have sat down, because that sums up what he left us to sort out.

The shadow Chancellor did not give that speech yesterday, so perhaps I can give him some advice. The next time he goes to a school, instead of looking for a photo opportunity of him playing football, he could go up to one of the schoolchildren and say, “Hey, I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I shackled your potential with the debts that my monumentally short-sighted economic strategy created.” That is the truth of what he left behind.

[Gregg McClymont]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is rather a caricature of what happened during the global financial crisis? It was a global crisis. Surely the financial sector, and the banks in particular, have to take some responsibility for the debt that we face.

[Richard Fuller]

As always, I have a lot in common with the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the point. The point is that the damage was already being done in our national economy. It was the strategy of the previous Government not to be content with leveraging up their own debt; they required the leveraging up of household debt and corporate debt, as well as financial sector debt and Government debt. Debt was the answer in the period when they came up with the statement that they had ended boom and bust. That debt has to be paid for. It is two years since the Labour Government left office and there is not enough time to pay for the 10 years of the growth of debt in our economy. It will take a significant amount of time for us to de-leverage the economy in every sector. This Budget is part of that process.

[Phil Wilson]

If that is true, why did the Tory Opposition go along with our spending plans right up until 2008?

[Richard Fuller]

That is a good question, which the hon. Gentleman should address to the Chancellor. I was not in Parliament at that time and I am not sure that that is what I would have said.

Much has been said about the granny tax. The one thing that grandparents want is what is best for their grandchildren. They understand that in tough times—this is because many of them have been through tough times—they have to give something to ensure that we will be stronger in future. That is what this Budget will deliver, and it is part of getting our economy balanced and back on the right track.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned personal debt, about which I share a great deal of concern. Is he aware that under the Government’s plans personal debt will rise, not fall, over the coming period?

[Richard Fuller]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to unsecured personal debt rather than overall levels of personal and household debt. There is much for the Government to do, such as examining excessive rises in credit card terms and penalties for people who have to take on unsecured debt, and I believe they intend to do it.

We need to do more about our deficit, and I suggest again that one thing we can do for the sake of general fairness is consider creating a future fund that takes the pension obligations of our public sector workers and puts them into a fully funded scheme. It would take 20 to 25 years to accomplish that, but Australia, New Zealand, France and Norway are doing it, and it would show that this generation in Parliament understands its responsibility to the next generation of Britons. If we added that to our fiscal responsibility, we would be doing the next generation a great favour.