Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly there are very strict rules, including the stock exchange code and the Act that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, governing all of these areas. The point I would make to him is that there is no doubt that the special adviser did behave wrongly. That is why he offered his resignation and that is why it was accepted.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q4. I am sure that all hon. Members will congratulate the volunteers who raised £6.5 million to recognise the contribution and sacrifice by Bomber Command personnel in the second world war. The memorial will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 28 June, but the costs for security on the day have risen sharply. Despite necessary constraints on all Government expenditure, will my right hon. Friend consider financial support from the Government to ensure that veterans and their relations are properly looked after?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Many people served in Bomber Command during the second world war and many lost their lives, so it is right that there will be this splendid memorial, unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen. These memorials tend to be paid for by public subscription and that is what has happened in this case, but I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does have the ability to intervene, especially when monuments and other things are done on a national basis for a national purpose. I am sure that the Culture Secretary will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

Industrial Action

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

We have made available a huge range of information about the effects of the changes to public sector pensions, and there will continue to be more as the negotiations make further progress in the weeks ahead.

I just want to make this point about the job losses. I very much regret that there will continue to be job losses in the public sector. If we had not inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world from the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, those jobs would not be at risk today.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Minister knows that I, as one who has worked in the civil service and as the brother and son of teachers, have huge respect for people who work in public service. However, I also believe that many teachers and nurses in my constituency have been woefully misinformed about the details of a complex pension proposal by their unions and by statements from the Labour party. Will he clarify, once and for all, for all hon. Members and for my constituents in Gloucester, that the lowest paid 15% of the work force who are on less than £15,000 a year––about 750,000 people, of whom 85% are women––will pay no extra contributions and will receive a better pension than the one they now receive, inherited from the previous Government?

[Mr Maude]

I can confirm that and add that many of the lowest paid in the public sector will pay no more towards their pension. When the basic state pension is added on top of the occupational pension, they will be able to retire on a bigger income than they were earning while they were employed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Why do the Government so despise public sector workers such as nurses, doctors, teachers and street care cleaners as to impose a swingeing tax increase when the contributions to pension funds exceed their liabilities? The local government pension fund has an annual surplus of £4 billion to £5 billion. How is that fair and how can he justify it?

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm himself. There will be an opportunity for points of order, but it does not arise in the middle of a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady may know, that is already one of the key priorities in our aid budget and programme. As she will also know, that budget is increasing substantially, even though we have such huge pressures on the public purse elsewhere, in order to meet the UN target of 0.7%. I know that a great deal of discussion is going on with the American Administration and others who are trying to work collectively. I am more than happy to look into the details of her question if she feels that there is more we should do on this front.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T7. I strongly support the principle of fairness in constituency size, which is behind the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, but does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that the Boundary Commission’s proposal to relocate Gloucester’s entire city centre into the Forest of Dean constituency seriously damages the link between the Member of Parliament and the city, and the accountability of the MP for Gloucester’s regeneration? Does he agree that the Boundary Commission could split a ward? Will he confirm that that is in order?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the thrust of it. This is topical, so it has to be brief.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I was implying no such criticism of the blue hats. The responsibility for what did not happen in Rwanda and Bosnia rested and rests with the Security Council and the international community, which failed to take action in the face of what amounted to genocide.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for twice mentioning that former Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his groundbreaking speech in Chicago in 1999, laid the foundation for what six years later became the agreement on the responsibility to protect.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the efforts and success of our diplomats in the UN Security Council in ensuring the correct wording of resolution 1973 should be well recommended?

[Mr Straw]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was going to say, but I am happy to put that on the record, not least because as a former member of the Foreign Office diplomatic service, he served me and my predecessors and successors very well.

We all know what the consequences of doing nothing about Colonel Gaddafi would have been: industrial-scale slaughter. The medium and longer-term consequences of the military enforcement of Security Council resolution 1973 will be more benign, but we must recognise that the situation is fraught with uncertainties. The progress towards democracy in Libya and elsewhere in the middle east, which all hon. Members and the peoples of the region seek, will be inherently more difficult than eastern Europe’s progress towards democracy after the Berlin wall came down 20 years ago.

The middle east is a tough region, and its democrats will face two primary threats: the autocrats such as Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Presidents Mubarak and Ben Ali; and alternatively, those who wish to misuse and misinterpret the great and noble religion of Islam to establish backward-looking autocracies no less terrible than those of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.

Ultimately, the solution has to lie in the hands of the people of Libya and these other countries, but the international community—the United Kingdom included—can profoundly influence the final outcome by taking the right action or by inaction. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the plans on which Her Majesty’s Government are already working. However, I hope that they will also draw together and publish a strategy setting out the UK’s vision for the region and the assistance they will provide, as part of an international programme, for an economic and political reconstruction of Libya carried out by the Libyans for the Libyans. I hope that that will include not just traditional overseas aid, but the work of an enhanced Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to nurture and sustain the growth of democratic institutions.

As we have heard, there are those who are reluctant or unwilling to support our action in Libya, and who seek a rationalisation for that inaction by making the relativist argument that we should not intervene in Libya unless or until we also intervene in, for example, Yemen, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. The immediate answer is that Libya is by far and away the most egregious case. I condemn the brutality elsewhere in the region as strongly as anybody else, but processes are under way in some parts—not all—of the region that might succeed, and in any event the democratic forces in those and other countries across the region will be greatly strengthened, not weakened, by the action we are taking in Libya. In my view, provided there is international pressure behind it, the revolution in attitudes sweeping the region will also increase the pressure on the Government of Israel properly to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians. No longer can the Government of Israel rely on complacent and compliant countries on their borders within the Arab world.

There is a parallel with Iraq, and I understand—why would I not?—its controversy. However, there is not the least doubt—not least from the mouth of Colonel Gaddafi himself—that but for the military action in Iraq, Gaddafi would never have given up his well-advanced nuclear weapons programme and a significant part of his chemical weapons programme. In the end, he had to give them up. Gaddafi without nuclear weapons is dangerous enough, as we have seen; Gaddafi with such weapons would have been far more dangerous—perhaps so dangerous that the international community would have been prevented from dealing with him today.

I salute our military personnel, as they are placed, yet again, in harm’s way on our behalf and that of the international community. I give my wholehearted support to the motion before the House, and I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their indefatigable work in securing—against the odds—the resolution.

Big Society

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As many Members have said, it is a pleasure to contribute to this terrific debate. It happens at a time when several million Libyans are trying to find their way to a future without their great dictator. We are debating a motion on something that they, and many others around the world under the barrel of state power would dearly love—the pursuit of stronger communities and decentralised power and the encouragement of social action.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who gets out more words per minute than anybody else in the Chamber, said that the trouble with the big society was that it had no purpose, but what other purpose is there than creating stronger communities? That is surely at the heart of all political activity by all parties. Is there really anyone in the Chamber who would vote for weaker communities, state monopoly of power and the discouragement of social action?

There was a time, of course, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) said, when his party arguably led on those beliefs, with the co-operative movement, the formation of credit unions and the role of the trade unions in training. What has happened since? What happened to self-help and mutualism? Today there is more enthusiasm for, and I suspect there are more members of, credit unions on the Government side of the House. I do not just talk about co-ops, I worked for a mutual insurance group. We are the party that leads on apprenticeships and is changing British Waterways from a state-owned entity to a charity and the Post Office from a state-owned company to a mutual.

Somewhere along the line, Labour Members have, first, mistaken new Conservative Members—that is what those of us here today are—for 1980s Tories and, secondly, have lost confidence in their own roots and in anything except the state or state-funded voluntary organisations. In fact, the hon. Members for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) even asked how their charities could survive without Government funding. Surely everyone in the House is aware of, for example, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, a charity that fulfils its statutory duties without a penny of Government funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who spoke so eloquently, is here and available to help explain how to raise funds for charities. If need be, the Minister can help, with his transition fund.

For Opposition Members, the word “cuts” invariably means “worse service”. It does not need to if the community is involved. I shall illustrate that briefly with two examples from wards in my constituency that are among the most deprived in the south-west of England. The Podsmead Community Association has a building at a peppercorn rent from the city council, and it has 400 members, 20 volunteers and masses of activities. It has funding from both its bar and local businesses, and not a penny from the state. Nor can the 20 volunteers be remotely classified as millionaires, which was a particularly outrageous suggestion made by an Opposition Member.

Not far away, in Matson, we have an isolated library building, with two parking places, two staff—for health and safety purposes—and an inefficient, larger-than-necessary building that costs £54,000 a year. That is an important service in the wrong place and the wrong building, and it could be provided much better for rather less money. By contrast, the community offer could give the ward a library service and nearby community centre with lots of parking, plus sports, dancing and arts next door, and possibly a café, to be run by a charity formed by three religions, at a cost to the county council of £20,000, or slightly more than a third of cost of the current facility. In that way, there would be a better library service at slightly more than a third of the cost.

Many Opposition Members have called the big society a fig leaf for cuts, candyfloss, a big cop-out and a national joke, but for me, it is no laughing matter. Those are my most vulnerable wards, and I want to ensure that our communities are stronger and that we can continue the services that matter most to the people who live in them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was right to list the bureaucratic obstacles that I hope the Minister will commit himself to hack away at, so that more people will join the big society, volunteer and help to make our communities stronger. Of course the big society already exists—look at what the Civic Trust did in Gloucester and many cities around the country. I am committed, as all Government Members are—I hope Members of all parties are so committed—to working with anyone who wants to improve and strengthen their community. I have no idea how my community leaders vote. That is the least important thing. As Deng Xiaoping said, it matters not whether a cat is black or white, but whether it catches mice.

The motion defines the big society, which we were elected to do, and I encourage all hon. Members to support it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the importance of these facilities in rural communities. As I understand it, the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency has said that she will explore further how to continue to offer facilities in these locations. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to contact the hon. Gentleman to discuss this important issue with him.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, there was a memorial service in Gloucester cathedral for Tom Walkinshaw, a constituent of the Prime Minister and a legend in my city for all he did to revive Gloucester rugby. Does the Prime Minister agree that Tom, and many others like him who have invested so much of their own money in our great sports, have done a lot to increase self-belief and pride in our cities?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks very well of someone who lived in my constituency and invested not only in rugby, but in Formula 1, which has been an absolutely world-beating industry for our country. We should celebrate that, particularly in my region, where so many people are employed in this incredibly high-tech endeavour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

There is no Church of England rule that prevents a celibate person in a civil partnership from being considered for appointment as a bishop. The issue is whether someone in that position could act as a focus for unity in a diocese. That would have to be considered by those responsible for making any episcopal appointment.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on church incomes of the gift aid scheme.

[Tony Baldry]

The Churches, and I suspect all charities, are extremely grateful for gift aid. However, the administrative complexity, and particularly the need to keep paper gift aid declarations on file, causes great difficulty.

[Richard Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Churchgoers all over my constituency of Gloucester, both of the Church of England, which spends more than £1 billion a year maintaining a community presence across the city and all over our country, and of other Churches would welcome the introduction of a gift aid “light” scheme, meaning light in administrative burden for smaller charities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea, and would Her Majesty’s Treasury support it?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The plans being developed in Gloucester are extremely good ideas and we should like to encourage Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to move to a more streamlined system with an option for an online filing and accounting system. That would save time and money, not just for the Churches and charities but for HMRC.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I thank the Minister for generously giving way again in the limited time available today. Does he not remember criminal justice Bills of the past, for example, when some of us sat in Committee every Tuesday and Thursday for three months going through them clause by clause, word by word? In the case of the Legal Services Act 2007, amendments were tabled by Members in all parts of the Committee week after week, to improve the Bill. The then Government were sensible enough to listen to their Back Benchers in detail in Committee.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

Why do the Minister and his mate from the Liberals—the Deputy Prime Minister, who cannot even turn up—not have the courage of their convictions and listen to arguments on amendments, including from their own side of the House, to improve their rotten Bill?

Superannuation Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is valid and valuable. The Bill sets what many believe is a precedent for what will happen elsewhere, so it behoves us to get it right and ensure that we create a climate in which people at least understand that they will get a fair deal.

The Government’s tactic of the use of a money Bill was derisory. This was never really a money Bill, and when we asked for the justification for its being used as one, nothing was forthcoming. I have seen no note from Minister even defining it as such. It was simply a tactic whereby the Lords would have been excluded from amending the Bill, which would therefore have been implemented earlier. This House would have been denied the second opportunity for debate provided by Lords amendments. That tactic had an impact on people’s confidence in the genuineness of the Government’s approach to the negotiations.

The Government’s approach to the concept of accrued rights has been blasé. Their interpretation of accrued rights—that they are not really accrued but are obtained only at the time of a redundancy—seems contrary to not just law but common sense. I cannot see it standing up in any court of law, and it could indeed be challenged in court. As was said on Second Reading—by the Chair of the Public Administration Committee, I believe—the Bill could be enacted and then the scheme challenged in a court of law and the European courts. The Government could lose again, as they already have once, and then we would have to pay compensation to all the people who had been made redundant in the interim. That is no way to treat people and certainly no way to enact legislation.

I have some anxieties about the Government’s new clause, which is why I support my party’s Front Benchers’ efforts to eradicate it. It is there as a threat that the Government will drive people out of employment on the lowest terms possible. It would also enable them to amend the scheme in future. There are now additional proposals to change the protocol involved, the notice period for redundancy and other matters, which would undermine the protection of people who lose their jobs and the flexibility of a manager to avoid compulsory redundancies, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley sought.

The Government’s handling of the issue has soured the industrial relations climate in the civil service and sent a message to trade unions in other areas, such as health, teaching and local government, that what has come to the civil service unions affected may be visited on them. If the Government do not learn the lessons of the debates on the Bill over the past few weeks, they will provoke industrial action, and that action will be justifiable. Unions will have sought to negotiate a reasonable settlement, but the Government will have played fast and loose with the process, refused to listen and imposed something that will have a considerable effect on the lives of people threatened with the loss of their jobs.

To answer the question that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) asked me, the position of the PCS, and now of all the other unions, is that they would welcome the Government going back to the negotiating table for serious negotiations. I urge the Lords to amend the Bill so that it will be brought back here for debate. I welcome the Government’s proposals for amendments in the Lords, because they would give us the opportunity for further debate and a further period in which there would hopefully be serious negotiations. They would give this House a long-stop role, so that we could determine whether there had been a just settlement and whether the Bill should therefore pass.

Finally, the House should not underestimate the strength of feeling of public servants on this issue. We have a responsibility to them and to our constituents whom they serve. If we undermine their role in any way through the Bill, we will live to regret it and so will the Government.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am puzzled by the logic of the Opposition’s position this afternoon. At the beginning of the Bill’s passage, it was agreed throughout the House that every party recognised the need for change. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) tried to bring it about. She introduced her Bill, but she was blocked and prevented from taking it through. The ball passed to the coalition parties, and we have now introduced a new Bill that recognises the bluntness of the instrument required to achieve a negotiated settlement.

We have heard this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the deal on the table, which, if I understand it correctly, will offer up to 21 months’ pay on voluntary terms, plus a notice period of three months, making a maximum total of 24 months’ redundancy pay for all civil servants earning less than £23,000 a year, but based on that £23,000 figure. That is a better deal than the one that the Labour party offered civil servants earlier this year. When the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that she would oppose new clause 1 on the basis that our civil servants deserve better, I was left wondering which civil servants she meant. The truth is that the debate clearly shows that those of us who support new clause 1 do so precisely because we want a much better deal for lower-paid civil servants, which is the whole exercise of the Bill.

[Tessa Jowell]

Again, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman were quite specific on the respects in which the Bill’s provisions or those of the improved offer, which are not in the Bill, are better than the February 2010 offer?

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Lady asks in which ways the Bill’s provisions are better. My understanding is that under the new deal that is being negotiated, a lower-paid civil servant—for example, one on a salary of £10,000—would receive up to 24 months’ statutory redundancy payment based on a salary of £23,000, which is better than the deal put on the table by the Labour party.

[Harriett Baldwin]

One theme that has come up in all debates on the Bill, including in Committee, was that we want better treatment for the low paid. I agree with my hon. Friend. I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome the low-pay aspects of the Bill and the improvement in the negotiating position.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

If I may continue where I left off—

[Tessa Jowell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

May I make some progress first?

[Tessa Jowell]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady for the third time.

[Tessa Jowell]

rose—

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Jeremy Wright)]

No, don’t! She is being discourteous.

[Richard Graham]

The point that I had reached was that many in the House clearly agree that civil servants deserve better. Those of us who support new clause 1 are absolutely clear—I have talked to PCS members in my constituency—that many members of the trade unions involved do not understand, and are indeed being misled by their unions on, what is on offer and what is being negotiated. I therefore put it to the House that Members who believe in supporting lower-paid civil servants will support the new clause, precisely because those people deserve better. That is what the measure will achieve and why I support it.

Superannuation Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

Negotiations were carried out by the previous Government over the 18 months before the order was laid, which, as I understand it, exhaustively explored all the options. I met the Council of Civil Service Unions before the election and immediately after. I have had several meetings with the council—at least two, I think—since, and I am proposing to meet the chairman later this week. There is a continual process of discussion and dialogue, which I regard as very important. I do not want the measure to be unilaterally imposed; I want a genuine consensual arrangement, whereby all six civil service unions agree to a new, sustainable and long-term scheme.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a former civil servant. I am very conscious of the large numbers of low-paid civil servants in this country. He and other hon. Members will know that on average, the UK civil servant receives no more than £24,000 a year, so there are issues of fairness. I give him my full support in taking forward in his negotiations with the various trade unions every possibility of increasing the statutory minimum available for low-paid civil servants. That will fulfil exactly one of the major tasks for the Bill: greater fairness in the system.

[Mr Maude]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is exactly our aim. It is one of the great myths—I have sometimes heard this expounded even in this august House—that all civil servants are highly paid. That is simply not the case. As he says, the average pay of the civil servant is, I believe, around £23,000, and half of civil servants are paid £21,000 or less. In the pecking order, as it were, of the different sectors, average pay is highest in the wider public sector, private sector pay is next, and civil service pay is the lowest. So my concern for lower-paid civil servants is real and genuine, and it is based on a proper understanding of the concerns that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

And let me make it absolutely clear that the Minister has grossly misrepresented the words of the former Prime Minister. Let me also remind him that the deficit arose because of a global financial crisis, and that it was our Government—led by the last Labour Prime Minister—who steered our economy at that stage, who, indeed, provided leadership for the world, and who drew our economy back from the brink of disaster. Let us have no more trivial point-scoring on that subject. I hope that during this debate we shall be able to move on from some of the crass misrepresentation of our country’s public servants and once more recognise the importance of their work, both public and private.

[Richard Graham]

As the right hon. Lady knows, a number of Members on this side of the House, as former civil servants, have already said how important they believe the civil service to be. The amendment, however, focuses on fairness and affordability. Does the right hon. Lady agree that affordability is critical in the current economic climate, and will she tell the House what approach she intends to take? As for fairness, does she agree that the outline given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of his negotiations with the trade unions represents exactly the sort of fair approach that we should be seeking?

[Tessa Jowell]

I intend to test the Minister’s commitment to fairness—with respect, I think that he asked more questions than he answered—and, if the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) will contain his impatience, I shall respond to both his tests in relation to the fairness and the affordability of our alternative.

The Minister has made it clear that the civil service compensation scheme is in need of reform, and we agree. The cost of the scheme needs to be reduced. We fully recognise that, in the present climate, it provides over-generous and disproportionate benefits for some very highly paid people. I believe we are all agreed on the need for reform, which is why in February we set out changes to end what would be regarded by the wider public, and by any measure, as over-generous settlements.

The February 2010 scheme would have saved £500 million over the next three years. That was part of our Government’s plan to reduce the deficit. Yes, reform is needed, but it must be the right reform, delivered in the right way. It must be fair and workable, and in particular—here I echo the Minister’s words—it must provide protection for the lowest-paid. It must also be underpinned by open and honest dialogue with the civil service unions representing those who are likely to be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point based on extensive discussions in her constituency with civil servants likely to be affected. She is absolutely right in identifying that fear, but that does not mean that change is not necessary, nor that members of the Council of Civil Service Unions are not reasonable people who are prepared to negotiate in the spirit that they recognise is necessary.

[Richard Graham]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Tessa Jowell]

No, I am going to make some progress—and I think that the hon. Gentleman has already made an intervention.

The very fact that the Bill is designed to expire within 12 months makes its own case for its unworkability as a long-term solution. Instead the Bill is being deliberately used to force the trade unions into compliance. As such it should be seen as a very unusual use of parliamentary procedure to ask Parliament to pass legislation that—as the Minister has made clear—it is hoped will not be implemented.

The Deputy Prime Minister has stated—presumably on behalf of the Government—that fairness will be at the heart of everything the Government do. However, as with so much that the coalition does, the terms put forward under the Bill do not meet the first basic test: they are not fair because some of our longest-serving, and often lowest-paid, civil servants receive no protection under the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Jowell]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to ask that question. If employers in the private sector use the basic statutory scheme, it is considerably less generous than even the proposals in the Bill. In a way, that is not the point, because the value that we attach to public servants, to the importance of the jobs that they do and to the commitment to invest in security to prevent turnover and to compensate for what are often lower levels of pay is one of the reasons that such provisions have traditionally tended to be more generous. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman—the Minister took us through the history—that the scheme was created by a Conservative Government and amended by a Conservative Government and that attempts at reform were made under a Labour Government. Now, under the coalition Government, we have what amounts to a hollowed out version of the original scheme.

[Richard Graham]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McCann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention, but he is simply wrong. A minute number of individuals will attract substantial payments; the vast majority will receive a maximum three years’ payment under severance terms and, for early retirement, up to six and two thirds added years. The Minister nodded when I mentioned that the maximum is a six and two-thirds years’ enhancement.

The most important thing about the February 2010 proposals that the previous Labour Government put forward was that they would have protected the lowest-paid civil servants. The cap was two years’ salary, with a maximum payout of £60,000, but given that the average salary of a civil servant is £20,000—that figure has been bandied about a lot in the debate—Labour’s proposals would have protected those individuals. Under the Bill, they face a two-thirds cut, which is unreasonable and, with the greatest respect to Government Members, demonstrates that we are not all in this together. The Bill anticipates that, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, many thousands of civil servants will be made redundant in the months to come, and it effectively says, “While we give you the pain of making you redundant, we’ll also hammer you financially as you walk out the door.” That is unacceptable.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comments are focused on the Bill, rather than on the parallel aim of the negotiations with the trade unions? The fundamental aim of those talks, which is to increase the minimum statutory amount for the less well paid civil servants, is critical and fair. Does he support it?

[Mr McCann]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but may I make this point in return? If the February deal was unacceptable to one trade union in the negotiations, it strikes me as logical that that deal would have to be significantly improved in order to make it acceptable to the PCS. I do not get from the Minister any impression that there will be any significant move to improve that deal financially, which leads me to conclude that those negotiations might not be as fruitful as Government Members hope.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Gentleman support the concept of making the proposal to the trade unions more attractive to the lower paid, even if it is less attractive to the better paid?

[Mr McCann]

One of my final points is that the February deal should be put back on the table. That is the simple fact of the matter. That deal represents the best opportunity to reach an agreement, as the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), said.

The Minister said that the Government have proposed a 15-month deal for those who volunteer for redundancy, and from a negotiating point of view I can understand why that might seem attractive, but it will not be attractive to the many low-paid civil servants who work in my constituency. They will see it as a pearl-handed revolver to the temple, implying that they can take 12 months’ pay if redundancy is compulsory, but 15 months’ pay if they go quietly. That is not fair to civil servants.

I gave an example when I intervened on the Minister. Let us take a 42-year-old civil servant with 20 years’ service—I have chosen that age because it is, almost, close to mine. Under the current, pre-February deal, which is in place because, owing to legal action, the legislation has not changed, that individual would receive £60,000. Under the February proposals that the Labour Government put forward, that individual would have received £58,000. Under this Bill, they would receive £20,000 in compulsory terms or £25,000 if they went voluntarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have been contacted by a number of my constituents who work as civil servants. The people who contacted me are not serial complainers and campaigners who write to me or to other politicians about everything, but people who do valuable work in a number of different departments within the civil service and other bodies locally, and who are genuinely concerned about their futures. They do important work in places such as the Identity and Passport Service, the Housing Investment Division of the Scottish Government, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Child Support Agency and Registers of Scotland. Although those jobs are not based in my constituency, they are based in the travel-to-work area. They are important for an area such as mine, which has seen a downturn in the manufacturing sector and is still reeling from the announcement that Diageo is pulling out of the Johnnie Walker plant.

I have come to the Chamber today to put on record my constituents’ concerns and, like others, to take the opportunity to praise dedicated public sector workers, including civil servants, who have given their lives and careers to work on our behalf. However, it is no good speaking such warm words in the Chamber if we do not take action to back them up. We heard the Minister in his opening statement take a softly, softly approach, saying, “We can sort this. It’ll be all right on the night,” but that does not match up with the measures in the Bill.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Lady agree in retrospect that it was a tragedy that two years ago the PCS did not agree to the previous Government’s proposals?

[Cathy Jamieson]

We heard today that the people whom the Public and Commercial Services Union represents—the majority of people who work in the civil service—did not agree that the previous Government’s approach was the right one at that stage. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with the union, it had the right to go to court and did so, and secured a ruling in its favour. We must recognise and accept that. I was surprised to hear other hon. Members suggest that the ruling by the court was something that we should simply dismiss, and I would hope that that is not in fact what they are saying.

Given the need for brevity, I will focus on one particular point and that is the device that is being used to push this Bill through. I am very concerned that the Bill has been laid as a money Bill. I am a new Member and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong or if I have misunderstood what a money Bill has traditionally been used to do, but my understanding is that the Parliament Act 1911 defines a money Bill and charges the Speaker with certifying whether a Bill is a money Bill. Previously, money Bills have been used to protect revenue and to raise tax, but never before has a money Bill been used in a situation like this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who suggested that the use of a money Bill in these circumstances could be seen as an abuse of parliamentary procedure, and certainly many of the people who have spoken to me about this feel that is indeed the case. It is an abuse of that procedure to try to speed a Bill through Parliament without the proper scrutiny and, as the Minister has already accepted, to use a blunt instrument to try to force something on to the negotiating table.

If we look at the detail of the Bill, although it is very short we see that the degree to which it is unworkable in the long term is implicit in its provisions. The sunset clause, which means that the Bill will expire after 12 months, can be repealed at any time and can only be extended for a further period of six months by secondary legislation, and that is a real cause for concern. On the one hand, the Minister said that we have to negotiate but we cannot negotiate in public. However, at the same time, he is very publicly using this blunt instrument to try to force the unions into a particular position without providing any of the detail that Members on both sides of the House have sought today—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the warm, or perhaps lukewarm, words from the Minister about our civil servants, I see the Bill as part of a concerted attack on the public sector and those who work in it. The war on the public sector is being waged by some parts of the media without contradiction from the Government, and, indeed, by large parts of the Government.

Creating a straw man or woman simply to knock it down is lazy politics, but that has been done this evening by speaker after speaker. It is a case of picking up an extreme example partly in order to divert public opinion from the reality. The aim is to win over public opinion—to make the public think, “Oh, that is dreadful! How can people receive payouts, or salaries like that? We must do something about it”, rather than see the reality.

We cannot get away from the economic argument. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends feared that, if he drifted on to the subject of the wider economy he might be accused of irrelevancy, but that subject is not irrelevant. We see a clear divide between the two sides of the House, not because Labour Members are not concerned about the deficit but because we have a different view of the economy, how it should be built, and how we should emerge from recessions. Members on the other side of the House obviously see the public sector as a drag on the economy and something that must be shrunk, and they tell us that lo and behold, the private sector will leap up to pick up the pieces.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Lady accept that those of us on the Government Benches who have worked in the public sector find that very disappointing to hear?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Members on those Benches may find it disappointing to hear, but it is what many of my constituents who work in the public sector are hearing. They are witnessing a concerted attack on the sector and on public service. I am sure that many Members on the other side of the House genuinely believe that the public sector is pulling the economy down, but we do not believe it. We believe that we must not at this stage cut the public sector in such a way that the economy is put at risk, but that is what will happen if the Bill is passed.

Public sector cuts will increase unemployment, and my constituents are asking me where the other jobs are. Over the past few weeks redundancies have been announced by Standard Life, which is a big employer in my city, and by the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has also been a big employer there. My constituents are seeing such developments all around them. The construction industry has an administrative side, and people might otherwise have thought of working in that, but the sector has been decimated, and they know that there are no jobs.

We could all throw in such terrible examples. Members have spoken of low redundancy payments in the private sector, but we could cite the amount of money that Fred Goodwin received when his employment was terminated. Is it right for us to “equalise down”? We talk of equality, but why is it assumed that we should look to the least good employment conditions, and try to reduce the conditions of our public servants to that level? Some workers in the private sector do not receive sick pay. Where will it stop? Are we going to say, “That is a good idea—perhaps we should equalise downwards”? Such thinking constitutes a slippery slope, and in my view it is quite wrong. I am not surprised that my constituents are anxious.

Like some of my colleagues, I visited the local Jobcentre Plus during the summer break, and in many ways I found it an inspiring experience. It is a far cry from the old days when the staff sat behind glass barriers, frightened to come out, and people on the other side sat on chairs that were fastened to the ground—presumably in case they lifted them up and threw them—to arrange to sign on. A real effort has been made to do something that every party in the House considers important—to get people back to work—but how can that be done if the morale of the people who should be doing the job has been lowered?

I do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with the situation. If we were serious about the outliers, the Bill would be about them. If the problem is people on very high payouts—we have heard about that from several Members today—why is the Bill not about that? If that is the problem, the Government should deal with it, rather than introducing a Bill which will hurt all civil servants including the low-paid, and which is being used as a bargaining tool to force people to agree to even worse terms than those proposed by the Government. What is clearly being said is, “If you do not agree to much worse terms than you have at present”—although perhaps slightly better terms than those in the Bill—“the terms in the Bill will be what you have.” That is really what the legislation is about.