Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I will keep my comments brief, not least because we have had so many learned and expert speeches, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). That is not the only reason I intend to be brief. We have many important Bills that we want to discuss today, not least, of course, my own Pet Abduction Bill, which is coming next.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on introducing this important piece of legislation. I fully support it. I declare an interest immediately, as I have had a number of mortgages over my time. We have a mortgage with the Halifax and of course we have had various savings accounts, although none with building societies at the moment.

Building societies fulfil a fantastic purpose. They are often, as we have heard today, the last institution standing on many high streets, still providing a face-to-face banking service. That is exactly what is happening in my constituency in Leigh-on-Sea, which I shall come on to. I welcome the Bill because it aims to put the building societies on a more level playing field with other retail deposit takers, such as banks, particularly on their capital raising and corporate governance requirements. It will make them more competitive and they will therefore be more effective in the financial services sector. Not only will building societies offer more to consumers and my constituents, but they will offer better support to their members. I can only see positives, particularly given everything we have heard about the support that building societies give to the first-time buyer and have given for many, many years.

I am sure that we all have our stories to tell about how exciting it was when we got our first mortgage and the keys to our very first place—a flat, in my case—and about what an important step that was for us all. After someone gets their first job and starts to pay tax and make a first contribution to society and the economy, the next thing is getting their first home and becoming a stakeholder in our property-owning democracy. Sadly, that experience is not available for as many young people as it was in my time. That is a crying shame, and I hope that the Bill will lead to building societies beginning to expand even more into that first-time market.

What I really want to talk about is the fact that in recent years bank branches have closed in Southend West. I do not have a single bank in my constituency offering that essential face-to-face service. I only have the Nationwide, a fantastic building society on Leigh Broadway.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As the Member of Parliament for Nationwide, whose headquarters are in Swindon, I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentions that building society, its leading role in mutuality in this country and its commitment to high street branches, which are a vital lifeline for our community. I am grateful to her.

[Anna Firth]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Nationwide does so much in all constituencies where there is a branch. My Nationwide in Leigh-on-Sea has a dedicated cost of living expert who is helping the most vulnerable members of our society navigate the challenges caused by the cost of living crisis. The branch is also going out of its way to ensure that people who are not as tech savvy as some of the rest of us, particularly the elderly—I have a very elderly constituency on in Leigh-on-Sea—get that extra help. They have tea and tech events, which are very popular, that teach people how to use online banking and apps to manage their money. Digital exclusion is a real problem in our society, and it is so encouraging that the building societies are doing so much more. I could wax lyrical about all the other things that the Nationwide is doing, but because of the Bill that is up next, I am not going to.

I will end on the need for face-to-face banking services. The banking hub is a very good model, but none of the banks will provide such a hub if there is a building society that provides face-to-face services. But one should not exclude the other. I have been campaigning on this issue, but this is a fitting moment to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) for her “Save Our Banks” campaign, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I fully support the Bill and thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central for introducing it. I hope it will ensure that building societies can do even more for their local communities, not just in Southend West but across the whole country.

Loan Charge

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

The answer is easy: the victims are easy targets. They are the ones who are easy to chase. The promoters of the schemes have all kinds of means of defence. Many disappeared when they realised that they may well be pursued. This is the baffling thing, and maybe the Minister can explain it: if these schemes are designed as contrived ways of avoiding tax, why is HMRC not pursuing even some of the new promoters who are establishing themselves today and who will have disappeared by tomorrow, once it is seen that their schemes are being challenged?

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy on this occasion. I share his comments about Sir Tony Lloyd, who was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the regulation of promoters. Where is the regulation of those individuals? This is an ungoverned space. Surely, as they are trying to sell financial service products, they should at least come under the control of the Financial Conduct Authority. We have to not just focus on what has happened in the past, but look at what is happening now, where innocent people are being exploited.

[Sammy Wilson]

I intend to come on to that point.

The parallels, as I say, are frightening. I ask myself this question and the Minister should be asking it of himself, too. In one, two, four, five or 10 years’ time, will we see the same embarrassment and see Ministers who parroted the Department’s line being asked the question, “Why did you not raise the alarm at the time? Why were the explanations not challenged, and why were the calls for help not heeded?” That should be a salutary warning to Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Absolutely, which brings me back to the point I was just making. I mean no insult to the civil servants, who work very hard; it is simply that the culture of HMRC is one of impunity. It does not behave like many other Government Departments. We have problems with other Departments—I ran one, so I know what that is all about—but HMRC acts very differently from them, and ultimately it is protected by the Treasury. That is where one of the biggest problems arises, and it is why it is so difficult to get any information out of HMRC, because even the Ministers who are in charge of it seem unable to command or direct it to provide that information. I make that observation from having worked in government.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about HMRC. It was the product of a forced merger of the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise by, I think, Gordon Brown and the Labour Government. The merger was rushed—they were pushed together—and HMRC has never enjoyed the proper scrutiny and ministerial involvement that it should have received. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for a root-and-branch review and a change to the nature of HMRC—retaining its independent functions, of course, but allowing for greater ministerial oversight?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. I did not intend my speech to head off down this track, but I will observe that it has now become clear that HMRC is unable to find any legal basis to justify its claim that it has to pursue individuals, but not those who promoted the schemes. HMRC has tried to deny that for some time, but it has now become very clear; even its head, the permanent secretary, has stated that

“In recent months I have repeatedly tried to obtain legal analysis to understand the strength of our claim with very little success. For yesterday’s hearing we were initially given a summary of avoidance wins, some of which seemed to have nothing to do”

with the schemes. I simply say that HMRC still cannot justify the legal basis for pursuing individuals and not going after those who promoted the schemes.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am conscious of time. If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, others have to speak, and I am going to try to stick to Madam Deputy Speaker’s prescription. I apologise to him.

I will quickly raise the cases of three of my constituents —Gareth Lloyd, Joe Green and Karen Duberry—all of whom have been facing terrible impositions. I am sure many colleagues have seen similar cases. Gareth Lloyd says that

“Facing and now paying the loan charge has meant years of stress with a constant stream of demands and letters from HMRC…when I should have been enjoying watching my young family grow up I’ve been constantly at fear of potentially losing our home.”

Joe Green says

“Nine years of worry, nine years of anxiety, nine years of not knowing what to expect from HMRC other than continual bullying tactics to try and extort monies from me”

with threats. Karen Duberry says that she was

“Shocked and alarmed when I learnt of the loan charge. I felt alone, scared, threatened and worried for me and my family…The mental stress on me and my family has been immense”.

We know that because at the far extreme of these cases, people have committed suicide, but there are many other problems between the extremes. All these people deserve a process that is better, fairer, open and reasonable and that goes after those who originally promoted the schemes. These people were under the impression—as was the case—that the schemes were quite legal.

The important point is that HMRC conjured up a retrospective process to deal with this, which is appalling. Historically, that has not been done—you deal with where you were at the beginning—but HMRC felt it had lost a whole load of taxation and did not want to blame itself. What it did was to go after those individuals, threaten them and cajole them.

An inquiry took place, but it now appears that the Morse review was not entirely independent. I gave some evidence, as many did, to the original inquiry, and I assumed at the beginning that it was completely independent. In fact, it turns out that it was not. HMRC got to see elements of the report before it was even published, which is astonishing to me as we were given a clear understanding that it was to be independent. There is much more that needs to be done, and that review is by no means the end of it.

I was surprised when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who was the Minister at the time, said:

“We…have plans under way to crack down further on the promoters of these avoidance schemes.”

It turns out that he did not. Why is a Minister allowed to stand at the Dispatch Box to make a statement drafted by civil servants, which we then find out is not right? He was not right: HMRC was going after the individuals, not those who promoted the schemes. As we have discovered, HMRC has no legal basis for doing that, so the whole thing has become a terrible mess.

I congratulate those who brought forward this debate, because there is so much more here that needs to be said. I just want to conclude by saying that this has been going on for too long, with laws changed retrospectively, denials about what HMRC was doing, bullying and intimidation, and a failure to come clean about the processes engaged in all of this. It is so familiar; as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we are in the middle of the problem over the Post Office, and we see the same things in that process. We have been seeing the same denials, protections and pretences with the loan charge for a long time. It is very clear now, and I hope the Minister agrees, that we are long past the point where we need to start recognising that this is not the way for any Government Department to behave when dealing with an issue such as this that has clearly created a huge problem.

My constituents and many others who have faced this issue should not be pursued in a way that treats them from the start as a criminal, rather than as somebody involved in something that HMRC never said was illegal at the time, but is now pretending that it is. I hope the Government will now recognise that we do not want to see a repeat of what happened with the Post Office scandal as a result of HMRC’s bad behaviour.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

There will have been 18 months of support for non-domestic accounts for businesses, charities and the public sector, in which time we have emphasised—I was very open about this—the need to adapt to the new environment we all face. Everyone is having to do that —households and businesses, and so on. In the autumn statement, the Government announced a new long-term commitment to drive improvements in energy efficiency and to bring down bills for households, businesses and the public sector, with an ambition to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030 against 2021 levels. Alongside existing support to 2025, the Government committed an additional £6 billion from 2025 to 2028 for energy-efficiency schemes across households, businesses and the public sector.

On the right hon. Member’s point about the £5.5 billion, I do think that we need some perspective, as £5.5 billion is roughly the cost of a 1p cut in income tax. That remains a significant fiscal intervention. It may be that, because of the huge amount of support that has been needed by our country, particularly since the pandemic—we have seen £400 billion-worth of support, and potentially close to £100 billion on energy—a figure such as £5.5 billion does not look as large. Perhaps that is understandable, but, compared with any normal fiscal event, it remains a very significant intervention. As I have said, it could still be worth up to £2,300 for a pub next year and, in our energy and trade-intensive sectors, up to £700,000 for a typical medium-sized manufacturer. That remains very significant support.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. He will understand that many businesses face the prospect of having to pay significant up-front costs to enter into new contracts, which is a real challenge for those in my constituency and elsewhere. What work will he do with Ofgem, the regulator, to ensure that such punitive contracts can be ended and businesses can operate on a much fairer basis?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. and learned Friend asks an excellent question. Through the review, we have heard of issues in and around the pricing and availability of non-domestic tariffs, including increased standing charges, prohibitive contract renewal terms such as those he referred to and, in some cases, decisions by individual suppliers to withdraw from supplying particular sectors. Ofgem and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are working urgently to understand those issues, and Ofgem is launching a deeper review of the market. I can confirm that today, the Chancellor has written to Ofgem, asking it to do that work with the utmost urgency and to update him in time for the Budget. The Government recognise the importance of that work to many pubs, restaurants and other businesses that feel they are not getting a fair deal from their suppliers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

We always need to be vigilant about tax evasion and work closely with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies on those matters. A lot of progress on registers has been made in recent years, and more is due to be made. I will continue to reflect carefully and work with the Economic Secretary on further improvements to get things to where they need to be.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor agree that investor confidence in the United Kingdom will be increased only if we bring forward the overdue reforms to the law of corporate criminal liability? If so, will he and the Treasury support further amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, including those that would implement the Law Commission’s recommendations to create further “failure to prevent” offences?

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. and learned Friend is one of the people who knows most about corporate criminal liability. I would be happy to take his question away and discuss it with him, because it is critical that the justice system addresses not just individuals who have criminal liability, but companies; indeed, I have prosecuted many companies across a range of offences. We understand that they can commit crimes too, so I am very happy to take his question away.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to make a short statement about our involvement with the devolved Administrations. Officials worked closely and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations throughout the Bill’s passage, and I am pleased to report that the Scottish Government, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly have each passed a legislative consent motion. I am grateful for their continued engagement.

It has been a great pleasure to lead on the Bill’s progression through the House. I extend my thanks to hon. Members across the House for their engagement, particularly of course the members of the Public Bill Committee. This is an important Bill that consolidates and strengthens the legal framework for pensions across all our main public services—the NHS, the judiciary, the police, firefighters, the armed forces, teachers, local government and the civil service. The Bill will ensure that those who deliver our public services continue to receive guaranteed retirement benefits that are among the best available on a fair and equal basis.

The Bill also addresses the resourcing challenges facing the judiciary, recognising the unique constitutional role of judges. It is clear that we are agreed across the House about the principles of fairness and equal treatment for public servants. Furthermore, a number of important amendments have been made, most notably to the provisions that cater for local government workers, which I am pleased have enjoyed cross-party support.

I extend my thanks in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for their detailed engagement throughout the Bill’s passage. I also convey my gratitude to the noble Lords in the other place, whose excellent contributions have helped ensure the Bill is as robust as possible.

Finally, I thank the Bill team, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, officials across Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, all Government Departments with responsibilities for public service pension schemes, and the devolved Administrations for their extensive support. There is a lot of technical detail in the Bill, and the team’s guidance and expertise has been exemplary.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

Fleetingly, yes.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

On a point of technical detail, I do not wish to put my right hon. Friend on the spot, but can he assure me that early commencement provisions will be brought into effect with regard to the judicial retirement age matters? It is a matter of real public importance that we bring those measures into force as soon as possible, rather than waiting for the usual two-month gap between Royal Assent and them coming into effect? Can he give me that assurance?

[Mr Clarke]

Further to my opening speech, I can confirm that that is the case.

In conclusion, this Bill recommits to the principle of greater fairness between lower and higher earners and for the taxpayer, as well as the future sustainability and affordability of public service pensions. I am pleased to see the Bill reach Third Reading, and I am grateful to all Members for their contributions today.

Economic Update

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

What millions of people across this country will see today is a Government who are on their side and a Government taking action to help them with the anxiety they feel about rising energy bills. We are doing it in a proportionate, fair, targeted and responsible way to protect people not just today, but for years.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thousands of families in Swindon and millions of households across the country will welcome the immediate help on council tax that the Chancellor has announced today in his welcome statement. Does he agree that the cod analysis we heard from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) about the energy market in Europe is demonstrable evidence of the paucity of the Labour party’s approach to energy? Is not our approach to a zero-carbon economy—one based upon energy security—going to be the way we deliver our country out of these short-term problems?

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point; he is absolutely right and I agree wholeheartedly with him. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working very hard to undo some of the mistakes that the Labour party made in the past.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me first in the debate. I am delighted to make a contribution to the Second Reading of a Bill that was very much part of the work that I undertook as Lord Chancellor. I was keen to make sure that we made progress with the Bill on several grounds, the first of which was the necessary reform to judicial pensions in light of the McCloud judgment and other legal developments since the previous set of reforms to judicial pensions. The second was the important and generational issue of retirement age for judges. The previous reform to that retirement age had been back in 1995, and it was not of immediate application but took many years to come into effect, bearing in mind its adherence to non-retrospectivity. I took a different view about the way in which we should approach reform this time. I felt very strongly that any change to retirement age should have immediate effect, and that it should benefit those currently in judicial office. I make no apology for that, because with welcome changes and elongations to lifespan, health and wellbeing, I thought that we were losing many talented men and women at the height of their career. I am not going to name names, but there are many people who served in the highest judicial office who left at the age of 70, but who I felt had much more to give. Some of them were able to carry on in retirement, sitting with special dispensation, but I felt that we needed to do something generational. I very much hope that the change that we are bringing about in the judicial retirement age will endure for many years, well into the middle part of this century. We are not saying that people have to sit at 75. We are not forcing people to sit beyond the time they wish to serve, but we are giving them an opportunity to do that.

Can I deal head-on with diversity, because I considered that matter very carefully indeed when I was Lord Chancellor? I have had the privilege of serving on the judicial diversity forum, which is a committee of the Judicial Appointments Commission, ably chaired by Lord Kakkar, and we take the issue of diversity very seriously indeed. In the other place, amendments were tabled to reduce the age of retirement to 72, on the basis that there were concerns about slowing the increase in diversity, but I believe that that worst-case scenario is based on a failure to act. In other words, it is incumbent on the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Appointments Commission and others interested in and passionate about diversity to do more to attract people of diversity to the judiciary.

In particular, many women have had career breaks to bring up their family in their 30s and 40s. At the moment, they face quite a difficult decision to return to practice, and regard a 70 age limit as inhibiting their ability to take up part-time, then full-time, judicial office. Increasing the age limit to 75 will allow more women who have had career breaks actively to consider what is a career of up to 20 years if they are to enjoy the full benefits of the pension.

We should not forget that in 1995, one of my predecessors, Lord Mackay, not only reduced the pension age but increased the time that people had to serve to take their full judicial pension from 15 to 20 years. That combined decision had quite an effect on the career opportunities presented to lawyers when considering whether the bench was for them. In other words, people really had to make up their mind in their 40s if they were serious about reaching the bench. There are plenty of exceptions—some people who have done very well in their profession could go to the bench later and perhaps take a smaller pension—but many people felt that they could not take full advantage of a judicial career because of that time restriction.

That changes with a retirement age of 75. People can come to the bench in their mid-50s and serve the full 20 years. That is a huge opportunity, not just for women but for people who come to the legal profession slightly later in their career, mainly because the financial burdens are so onerous in their younger years that they do not feel able to join it in the first place. Contrary to suggestions in the other place and elsewhere, the measure could be a spur to the Government and the Judicial Appointments Commission to do even more to attract women, people from an ethnic minority, and people who join the profession late to a judicial career.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Can I perhaps reinforce my right hon. and learned Friend’s point? He may have noted from the statistics released by the Judicial Appointments Commission that there has been a particular shortfall in appointments to the district bench and the circuit bench in recent rounds. Those are precisely the people for whom the ability to access a full pension is important. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the high-earning silk who goes into the High Court may be able to deal with a lesser amount of pension, but the people I am talking about, who are the workforce, particularly in the criminal and family courts—the senior juniors, the senior solicitors—will be under the most pressure if they are not able to get the 20 years’ full pension. That will be most difficult for them.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. There is no doubt that the district bench is under huge pressure at the moment. We are not getting the recruits and the applications that we need in order to have a full district bench. The work is some of the most difficult and challenging in the judiciary; it is unglamorous work, but it is vital because it is the bulk, for example, of the civil and family work that goes on in our courts day after day. We have increasing numbers of recruitment competitions seeking to attract more talented people to the bench, but often the vacancies cannot be filled, because there are not enough applications. That, frankly, is a problem. That is why not only the extended retirement age but the changes to the pension will really send a signal to practitioners that the Government value the judiciary and understand the vital importance of having the quality, independent and high-morale cadre of people we need. Without them, we really do suffer as a country.

I should have declared an interest at the beginning, in that I am the recipient, potentially, of a judicial pension because of my service as a recorder of the Crown court, which finished, of course, on my appointment as Lord Chancellor. That is another story, which I will not regale the House with today, but I did have to resign from the judiciary on my appointment as Lord Chancellor. That was not always the case prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and I think hon. Members know my strong views about the baleful effects of that piece of legislation. I am sure that, with leadership in the Ministry of Justice, we can come back to those issues, and that was certainly my intention when I was in office. However, I parenthesise.

Let me come back to the germane issue of the retirement age. I note the concerns that the senior judiciary and immediately retired judges in the other place had about the 75-year mark. However, I would respectfully but firmly disagree with them. Some 67% of respondents to the consultation agreed with my ultimate decision, which was to raise the retirement age to 75. The bulk of circuit judges, sheriffs in Scotland and other judges considered that the position absolutely pointed in the direction of 75. With the greatest respect to senior judges, many in the senior judiciary have already made their plans and their provision clear, and I do not expect that all of them will wish to serve until 75, bearing in mind the expectation prior to the expected change in the law. Therefore, I am not so persuaded that the logjam that some fear will take place, and I see no reason why there should not be a rise in the retirement age to 75, despite the concerns expressed in the other place.

I am particularly pleased that there was unanimity across the three jurisdictions that 75 was indeed the appropriate retirement age. I took a lot of time and trouble to make sure that colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland were consulted. I was extremely grateful to the then Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, for his careful consideration of the matter and for all the consultations I undertook with him, and indeed to the President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, who himself undertook extensive consultations with the Scottish judiciary. I was very grateful to colleagues in the Scottish Government for agreeing with the position that I sought to take with regard to the retirement age, because I thought that a cross-jurisdictional, pan-United Kingdom retirement age was highly desirable, bearing in mind the fact that atop it all sits the United Kingdom Supreme Court, with the members of that court therefore able to enjoy the same retirement age limitations irrespective of jurisdiction. That was a very important consideration that I am extremely grateful to colleagues in the other jurisdictions for agreeing to.

We have reached a position where we have come to an elegant solution: one that allows professionals to make decisions that suit themselves within that outer limit of 75 and acknowledges the reality that we see now, where the Lord Chancellor is constantly asked to allow judges to sit in retirement post 70—up to 72, in any event. It acknowledges the fact that, thanks to modern science and medicine, we have an increasingly agile and able cadre of people in their early 70s who are willing to serve. In the light of other societal changes—in the light of the fact that, thankfully, we are able to do more things at a greater age than perhaps we were a generation or so ago—I warmly commend the increase in the retirement age, in particular to the age of 75, to this House.

When it comes to the magistracy, we have suffered quite a decline in numbers in recent years. It was not so long ago that we had 30,000 volunteer magistrates—let us not forget, these are volunteers—sitting and serving in our courts. That number has declined alarmingly, and therefore it seems to me a matter of very good housekeeping for us to make sure that we can retain as many magistrates as possible while encouraging the excellent recruitment exercises that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking at the moment. The MOJ is to be commended on the vigour and focus of the exercises it is currently conducting, but without that additional help, my worry is that we are going to reach a critical position with regard to the number of justices of the peace that would undermine the viability of the system. That, frankly, would be a real problem, particularly in the family proceedings courts, where the lived experience, good judgment and common sense of magistrates is brought to bear on a variety of very difficult and complex family situations every day of the week.

This Bill was something I wanted to see even more urgently. I am glad that it is getting its Second Reading in early January: if I had had my wish, it would have received Royal Assent by now, but I understand that my ministerial colleagues in Government have to work to timetables, and that they themselves have different and conflicting priorities. However, it is an important signal that we are sending to the judiciary and to other public servants: not only that the Government take the judgments of the courts very seriously but, I hope, to make the point that any perception that this Government are somehow at war with the judiciary—that they somehow see the judiciary as enemies of the people, or think of them as an inconvenient encumbrance—is thoroughly dispelled by measures such as these.

Without a world-class, independent judiciary of quality, this country is no longer a civilised place. Without the important input of robust judicial independence, none of the jurisdictions for which we sit could call themselves world leading. It is vital that in this world of conflicting and competing calls for international investment, we have the brightest and the best from our legal profession serving in judicial office, because that is the most eloquent way in which we can express to the world the fact that Britain and the three jurisdictions are safe and secure places in which to invest, safe places in which to live, and free and fair places in which we can all be equal under the law. I can perhaps be accused of labouring the point, but I think that this sort of measure, detailed and technical though it is, embodies our commitment to that essential quality. That is why I am delighted to endorse the Bill on Second Reading and look forward to seeing it make a swift passage through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

Let me start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Before turning to the specific points raised during the debate, I join other colleagues in recognising that this Bill is ultimately about public sector pensions, and comes at a time when our teachers, nurses, police, judiciary, and the entire public sector workforce are once again being tested by the ongoing challenges of the pandemic. I join others in expressing my profound thanks to all those working so hard on the frontline, particularly—as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), has quite rightly just said—those who have not been able to work at home. They have been out there, risking their health for our benefit, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. That is why this Bill ensures that those who deliver our valued public services continue to receive guaranteed benefits in retirement on a fair and equal basis.

However, of course, the Bill also includes provisions to help address the resourcing challenges facing the judiciary. I wanted to start with this crucial point about capacity in our justice system, not least because it gives me an excuse to offer my profound congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on his honour in the new year’s honours list. It is richly deserved, and as the Minister responsible for court recovery, I hope that a particular part of that honour was due to the massive effort that my right hon. and learned Friend put in with the Lord Chief Justice to keep jury trials going in this country against all the odds. That was incredibly difficult when the pandemic started, because let us be clear: 2 metre social distancing and jury trials go together like a fish on a bicycle, to put it bluntly.

If anyone is in any doubt about this very serious point, they should look at the situation in Wales today, because I can confirm to the House that the new 2 metre social distancing rule in Wales could have profound implications. It is our calculation that, of the 17 Crown courtrooms in Wales, five could be out of use if 2 metre social distancing is enforced strictly, and the two we were planning to open could not be opened. In other words, that would lose seven out of 19 courtrooms, or almost 40% of capacity. My right hon. and learned Friend is of course very familiar with the Welsh criminal courts, where he cut his teeth. I have been able to speak to the Counsel General for Wales, who is my opposite number. We had a good discussion this afternoon, and officials will keep talking, because there may be ways to mitigate this, but it really outlines why we have a capacity issue. When the pandemic hit, it slashed the capacity of our courts to hold jury trials, and it was in the Crown court that this was so crucial.

To give the mathematical quantification, in January and February 2020 we averaged about 8,000 disposals per month. I am pleased to say that last year we were averaging about 8,000 disposals per month from January to October, so we have been getting back to pre-covid capacity. However, in April 2020 there were just 3,000 disposals, with 4,000 the following month and 5,000 the month after that. The massive hit to capacity initially was to physical space—courtrooms and so on.

Therefore the initial focus, led by my right hon. and learned Friend, was on Nightingale courts, which are particularly good for bail cases; the use of IT, so that we had remote hearings; and of course the super-courts, which have been so important for multi-handed cases, where, with multiple defendants, social distancing is even harder. All those measures were about capacity in terms of physical space or using the internet in effect to increase our capacity, but the key thing, as we have got near to pre-covid capacity, is that the labour force has become the issue. That is why the Bill is so important for the judiciary and for our constituents, because it is all about the backlog.

We have active recruitment programmes. We are doing everything possible to recruit more magistrates, more judges and more recorders—our fee-paid judiciary—to sit, which is incredibly important, but ultimately this measure is one way for us, relatively quickly, to bring some very experienced labour to bear to help us to bear down on the backlog. That is why I am grateful that all of my colleagues have welcomed the increase in the MRA to 75. Is my right hon. and learned Friend intervening? [Interruption.] I thought he was, but I apologise.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

No, but I am happy to intervene. I do not want to make this too oleaginous, but the point my hon. Friend makes about capacity is a huge one. We do not have enough recorders or judges, no matter how many the Lord Chancellor signs back in after retirement. That, I am afraid, is because there has been a bit of a crisis in confidence, and therefore a lack of people coming forward to do these important roles. I reiterate what I said in my speech, which is that we need a world-class independent judiciary, and that is why the Bill is so important.

[James Cartlidge]

Perhaps in the days without masks it would have been easier for me to tell whether my right hon. and learned Friend was actually intervening, but he is absolutely right.

I can answer the question posed about the lifetime allowance by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and by the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). To clarify, the legacy judicial pension scheme is unregistered for tax purposes, so the lifetime allowance tax charge does not apply to accruals under that scheme. The new judicial pension scheme, to be introduced from 1 April, will also be unregistered for tax purposes, so no lifetime allowance tax charge will apply to that scheme either. I hope that answers the question, which is a very important one.

Diversity, which was raised by several colleagues, is incredibly important. Just as in education we have been asking teachers to return to schools to help out and at the start of the pandemic the health service had many thousands of nurses and others returning to clinical roles, we are in effect doing the same. When we do that, however, we obviously cannot directly influence the diversity of the people who are returning to a profession or being retained for longer. As the Chair of the Justice Committee said, it is about reaching out to the recruits of tomorrow. We are taking many steps: for example, since 2020 we have been funding a two-year pilot programme of targeted outreach and support activity by the Judicial Appointments Commission, providing advice and guidance to potential candidates from underrepresented backgrounds, including those from BAME backgrounds, women and the disabled, and soliciting candidates for specific senior court and tribunal roles. In terms of magistracy, we will be launching a new online magistrates recruitment programme in the coming weeks to encourage applications from younger, more diverse cohorts. This is an important point.

The former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, and the shadow Work and Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East, asked the important question of where the £17 billion will ultimately be coming from. The cost of the remedy is estimated to increase pension scheme liabilities by £17 billion, so it is the scheme liabilities that increase. However, that liability will be realised over many decades. It also represents a small proportion of the total savings of around £400 billion that will arise from the wider reforms to public service pensions. To be absolutely clear, the liability will fall on the Exchequer. I hope that offers clarification.

The shadow Work and Pensions Minister asked for clarity on the issues around the ceiling breaches and so on. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear in his opening speech, no member will see a reduction in their benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations. I hope that provides some reassurance to the shadow Minister. UK asset resolution schemes currently pay out benefits of about £530 million per annum; this is a cost the Government already bear. The policy creates a more efficient situation for paying these pensions and ensuring the current schemes will have a stable benefit.

The question asked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the shadow Work and Pensions Minister about the so-called pensions trap and the issue around the police has been raised with the Government by police representatives and we have been considering it. The Home Office is consulting on detailed regulations to implement a prospective McCloud remedy for the police pensions scheme, but the Government must not take action contrary to the intention of this Bill to remove discrimination identified by the courts by inadvertently introducing new unequal treatment and discrimination.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and the shadow Chief Secretary both raised an important point about advice and guidance, and they were right. These are potentially complex issues. Perhaps one important point is that for many members this will hopefully be relatively straightforward; they will be presented with two options, one of which will be financially more generous. Hopefully, therefore, it will be relatively straightforward, but of course it is important that we provide guidance. Providing sufficient guidance for members to make informed decisions about their pensions is of the utmost importance and as such the Bill already requires that schemes provide members with remediable service statements containing personalised information about the benefits available to them. This will include details of the benefits available to them under the legacy scheme and the benefits available to them if they elect to receive new scheme benefits or choose for a period of opted-out service to be reinstated. These statements will be provided to active members on an annual basis.

The hon. Lady also raised the important issue of women and the general point about fairness. The Government agree strongly with the need to ensure that the impact of the Bill is fair on members of public service pension schemes with protected characteristics, including women. A full equalities impact assessment of the Bill was conducted and published alongside the Bill’s introduction. In addition, when making the necessary changes to their scheme rules to deliver remedy, pension schemes will carry out any appropriate equalities analysis for their specific schemes in compliance with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am grateful for the support of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on lifting the retirement age and, we hope, its impact on capacity issues. He put his specific point well in saying that his suggestion is the very opposite of politicisation. The Government have made their position on boycotts clear. We do not hesitate to express our disagreement with foreign nations whenever we feel that it is necessary, but we are firmly opposed to local boycotts that can damage integration and community cohesion, hinder exports, and harm foreign relations and the UK’s economic and international security. Local authorities should not undertake boycotts that could undermine foreign policy, which is a matter for the UK Government alone. The Government therefore remain committed to our manifesto pledge to ban public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanction campaigns, and we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Childcare Payments Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to speak in support of this Bill, which I welcome for many reasons, but predominantly for the long overdue support it provides to hard-working parents up and down the country. It shows parents that the Government are on their side as they return to work, fulfil their career aspirations, provide better futures for their families and their children and encounter new opportunities. It is incumbent on the Government to play a positive role in that regard.

I am a parent; my son is five years old. Like so many Members from all parts of the House, I understand the challenges of child care and work-life balance. I also understand that the costs of child care are far too high—to be fair, that was true under the previous Government as well. It is about time that we all faced up to that. Rather than throwing political brickbats across the House, we must start putting across a positive message about supporting hard-working parents and facilitating affordable child care so that everyone benefits, including children. Rather than being partisan and party political, we should realise that this is about children and ensuring that their futures are secure and that parents have access to good-quality, affordable child care. Parents need to feel comfortable that they are putting their children in the right environment—one in which their children will flourish, feel safe and be stimulated.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the need for flexibility. Does she agree that for parents with disabled children, the need to extend that provision through to late teens is very important? The provision to extend the scheme up to 17 is particularly relevant for those families.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He makes a powerful point. When we consider child care and child care payments, it is important to understand that this one size does not fit all—we all have different child care needs. All our children are different; every family is different. The Bill moves us away from the notion that everybody’s situation is similar. We must support families through all sorts of personal circumstances, some of which are challenging and very difficult. We know that both as constituency MPs and as parents.

One of the biggest challenges and choices that parents face is how to raise their children, so the Bill is not only timely but politically significant—we have not had such a measure before. We live in a society in which the pressures on parents are absolutely enormous, whether because of employment, changing jobs, the labour market, social mobility or the fact that we live in an international and global world. Many companies have different expectations of their employees, but employees are parents, too.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I speak as a Brit, a mongrel Englishman, a lover of Scotland and an MP whose constituency borders Scotland. Were there to be Scottish independence, I have no doubt that tourism and trade would continue, but it would be naive not to accept that trade on a cross-border basis would unquestionably be affected. That is not some Conservative Member of Parliament speaking; that is the opinion of the chambers of commerce, local authorities and business groups I have spoken to on both sides of the border.

Some of the key questions have been raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, but I have some others. On what basis would Scotland get to keep the pound? Would it be used informally, just as some Latin American countries, Greece and Montenegro use other currencies? Why should the Bank of England take notice of Scotland in setting monetary policy? Why should the Governor travel to Edinburgh and be interrogated by Scottish MPs in such an event? After independence, surely the Governor would owe his appointment entirely to a rest-of-UK appointment system? At that stage, would the First Minister come to London seeking an audience to negotiate? The arguments that have been put forward are, respectfully speaking, a farce.

I also suggest that, when one goes through Mark Carney’s speech and looks at the currency options, it would seem that the SNP proposes to keep the pound as part of a formal sterling currency union agreed with the rest of the UK. However, the SNP seems not to have contemplated the fact that that would involve giving up huge amounts, as Mark Carney made very clear, as well as requiring the agreement of all other parties. The SNP seeks independence but would require and accept greater control by a third party.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase “sterling area” used in the Scottish Government White Paper is wholly misleading? The sterling area that used to exist with the Commonwealth and Ireland was all about pegging exchange rates; the SNP actually wants full currency union, with all the concomitant controls that that would require.

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s point. I looked at the Scottish Government White Paper, and it states that

“a monetary framework will require a fiscal sustainability agreement between Scotland and the rest of the UK”—

that is, if independence goes ahead—

“which will apply to both governments and cover overall net borrowing and debt. Given Scotland’s healthier financial position”,

after independence, presumably,

“we anticipate that Scotland will be in a strong position to deliver this.”

With respect, that is complete comedy.

Beer Duty Escalator

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for securing the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that this is a powerful and important message for the Minister.

I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), my immediate constituency neighbour, who drew attention to the conversion of The Woodman pub in my constituency to a Tesco. I remind him that The Castle Inn has on occasion—I recollect this from the 2001 general election—played host to a polling station, which is evidence of a pub playing its role in the big society.

Historically, Romsey is a brewing town. I vividly recall from my primary school days the smell of the brew from Strong’s brewery hanging over the playground. On my 11th birthday the last brew began at Romsey brewery, but I am pleased to say that after a short gap Romsey is now host to a micro-brewery in Flack Manor, which brews some wonderful ales. The proprietor of Flack Manor, Nigel Welsh, and publicans in Romsey and Southampton North have forcefully told me that the beer duty escalator is deeply harmful to their commercial success. They are not alone; their opposition is shared by such august organisations as CAMRA and the Society of Independent Brewers.

The pub trade employs nearly 1,000 people in my constituency and contributes more than £14 million to the local economy, but publicans tell me that their trade is held back by a policy based on false assumptions about its social, economic and health benefits.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend highlights the contribution made to her local economy. In Swindon, 1,425 people are employed by the brewing and pub industry, which adds about £17.2 million to our local economy. The issue touches not just Romsey but every community in the country.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The economic argument is also flawed. As we have heard many times today, the amount of money raised through the Exchequer since the rise in beer duty in 2004 has failed to match the predicted levels of revenue. That has cost 5,000 jobs a year and VAT revenue has been lost through reduced beer sales.

The basic laws of supply and demand dictate that if the price of a commodity is increased, demand will fall. Demand for beer in pubs certainly has fallen. I am not suggesting that the beer duty escalator was the sole reason for the closure of pubs such as The Vine Inn in Stockbridge, or The Wheatsheaf in Braishfield, which has fortunately now reopened, but figures show that, despite the Olympic games and Euro 2012, in the three months to October this year pubs sold 117 million fewer pints than in the same period last year. I am not suggesting that nationally we are drinking less beer; we are simply changing our habits, giving an advantage to supermarkets over the traditional pub.

Before the introduction of the escalator, it was four times more expensive to drink in a pub than at home, but it is now 10 times more expensive. Beer sales in pubs are falling and the proportion of alcohol consumed outside that responsible, supervised environment is increasing. That brings me to my second point, about the benefits of the escalator to health and social policy. I believe that that merits close scrutiny. A recent study of the impact of alcohol pricing on consumption in Sweden produced some interesting results, showing mainly that increasing the price of alcohol in an attempt to reduce consumption might actually have the opposite effect, since drinkers who were buying more expensive brands simply switched to cheaper drinks and as a consequence bought and drank more. In other words, making it more expensive to drink in pubs simply pushes people to drink cheaper alcohol and possibly fuels binge drinking.

Binge drinking is a real and growing problem. Just last night Romsey police tweeted a picture of a massive quantity of alcohol they had seized from under-age drinkers. The beer duty escalator does nothing to prevent that. I give full credit to the local police for their action, and I encourage hon. Members to look at that photo on Twitter. It does not show alcohol bought at a pub—far from it. The cut-price bulk offers on alcohol in supermarkets often encourage parents to buy more, and that means easier access to large quantities of alcohol stored at home.

According to data from the World Health Organisation, alcohol consumption in the UK increased by approximately 4% between 1985 and 2003, whereas in Europe it decreased. Over the same period, alcohol-related harm has grown. For example, there were 8,758 alcohol-related deaths in 2006, twice as many as 15 years previously. The Government know this: in a preliminary assessment of the economic impacts of alcohol pricing policy, published by the Home Office in June 2010, the conclusion stated that duty increases are

“a ‘blunt instrument’ that does not target those drinkers who cause harms”.

The tax raises little revenue, causes unemployment and encourages binge drinking on cheap alcohol—and the taxpayer has to bear the burden.

I am on record as supporting minimum pricing for alcohol, but that does not in any way contradict my support for a review of the beer duty escalator. Major supermarket chains, such as Tesco, ruthlessly promote cut-price deals, so it is not the traditional public house, supplied by excellent local breweries, that promotes excessive drinking, but the supermarkets, which use their ability to buy and sell alcohol cheaply, often as loss leaders, to the detriment of the local pub, the local economy and the local community.