Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The number of specialist tax people at HMRC dealing with compliance is going up over this Parliament. We are also committing an extra £900 million to the organisation specifically for that activity. As I have just explained to the House, we are collecting £3 billion more in tax as a result of compliance over this Parliament and, as we will confirm later this week, we are collecting £500 million more from high net worth individuals because of the high net worth unit and its better than expected performance over the past two years.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Following the Government’s very good initiatives so far on dealing with tax avoidance, will the Chancellor look at those private sector companies that are monopoly providers of public sector services, which have billion-pound turnovers, pay no corporation tax and often channel their money through offshore accounts in places such as the Caribbean and the Channel Islands?

[Mr Osborne]

I repeat the general observation that we are making every effort, through legislation and enforcement activity, to reduce tax avoidance and to stop tax evasion. If my right hon. Friend has specific examples that he wants to bring to my attention, he should please do so, and if necessary we will investigate.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I have to say that there would be no point taking an intervention from the part-time Chancellor on this point, as he clearly does not have a clue what is going on. The confusion is that the timetable that we have set down for our first-stage judicial inquiry is exactly the same as that which the Government announced for their parliamentary inquiry. If it is too short for one, how can it be the right length for the other? More than that, my argument was that when we are discussing complex issues that require fine legal judgment, the idea that judges would make that fine legal judgment in a worse way than a parliamentary Committee is nonsensical. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done a very great service to this House. I had four objections to the form of the inquiry, but it has been torpedoed while I am only halfway through.

I have a feeling that the Attorney-General’s interventions might have completely killed off the parliamentary inquiry, but there are two more reasons why it is a bad idea.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own particular way. I was saying that the inquiry needed to be independent, objective and non-partisan, so I understand his concerns. I would probably also understand his bafflement about why the Chancellor and Prime Minister seem to be unwilling to appear before a public inquiry looking at wider issues of culture.

[Simon Hughes]

My constituents—like, I think, the right hon. Gentleman’s—want this mess in the banking industry to be cleared up as quickly as possible. They want laws to be changed—and there are two chances this year—they want people to be taken to court and, if necessary, sent to prison; and they want it now, not some time in future. Why can we not get on with it, rather than delay the action that has been delayed for too long?

[Ed Balls]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with the Attorney-General, because we just heard precisely why the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes we cannot get on with these issues.

Finance Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not want to dissociate those things—they are linked in lots of ways. Initially, we were told that there were constraints on the Budget, including not postponing the increase in fuel duty. What happens in a few months’ time? The measure is a deferral—we are not forgetting about it for ever—but what financial complexities will that create?

It is heartening that the Government’s motivation seems to be their recognition that people are suffering from a general reduction in their standard of living. As many commentators have pointed out, many working families are experiencing real reductions in disposable incomes such that they have not experienced for many years. That is part of the serious position in which people find themselves. It is good that the Government have understood that and want to act on it, but I would like them to act on some of the other issues that Opposition Members have constantly raised. I want them to understand that people are suffering not just from fuel prices, but from a number of other measures. The Opposition’s five-point plan would have reduced VAT and enabled investment in job creation. Perhaps it is not too late even now for the Government to U-turn on that.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am happy to speak in the debate on new clause 1, which was moved by the Economic Secretary on behalf of the Government; on new clauses 9 and 11, which are in the name of the Labour Opposition team; and on new clause 8, which is in my name.

I support new clause 1. I am not against responsive government—indeed, there is a duty to be responsive in government. I therefore welcome the fact that the Chancellor announced that the Government had heard the concerns of ordinary people, families and businesses that cost of living pressures continue to be difficult on them. The cost of fuel at the pumps affects people in rural areas, but it also affects people in suburban and urban areas, and people running both small businesses and larger firms. For some people, there is an inescapable obligation to drive—they drive for their families and businesses, and in emergencies. Therefore, the price at the pump is a hugely important part of their weekly budget.

People made the case, and the Government, including Treasury Ministers from both parties, first agreed to delay the increase scheduled for earlier in the year until August, and last week announced a further delay until the end of the year. That is welcome. It is fair to say that the announcement came slightly out of the blue and yellow last week—it took a few people by surprise—but it clearly has not been met with opposition from those on the Opposition Benches, because a grand total of six Labour Members, including the Whip, have been present in the Chamber for this debate. There is clearly no great furore at this concession to the needs of the consumers.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady spoke for a very long time, as she often does, and I will not concede. This is a short debate—it goes on only until 7 o’clock—and I want to allow other colleagues to speak.

I want to make a specific plea on biodiesel. I should declare my interest: as some colleagues know, I sometimes drive a London taxi, which has often been powered by biodiesel bought from Uptown Oil, a firm in my constituency that collects used cooking oil from local firms—a chain of good environmental practice ends up in my cab and other vehicles in south London.

I have had discussions with the Economic Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and I asked colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Redcar (Ian Swales)—to argue the case in Committee last week. We have so far not persuaded the Government to change policy, but I wanted to put the case as to why the industry needs continuing Government attention and to ask that they do not turn their back on the industry, even if they are not willing to concede to my requests now.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I remember a case reported in the papers some while ago. A gentleman in Wales was arrested by customs officials for not paying duty on the cooking oil in his car. He was traced by the smell. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cooking oil fuel no longer smells, and that customs officials should not arrest people found with it in their cars?

[Simon Hughes]

I confirm both.

Biofuel is produced from waste vegetable oil and collected locally. This has been going on for a century or more—the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil. Colleagues may not know this, but the idea was that biodiesel vehicles would be used by farmers, who could use their crops effectively. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is clear that the huge numbers of blockages caused by pouring oil down drains are not a good thing—it is better to put it somewhere else, which costs money for companies and local authorities.

Biodiesel also means that such waste does not go into landfill sites, which produce 40% of our methane emissions and 3% of our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The product therefore helps us to meet our renewable energy targets. We produced something like 35 million litres of biodiesel from used cooking oil sourced in the UK for road transport two years ago, which meant a carbon saving of 82 million kilograms of CO₂.

There are about 30 to 40 producers—not just Uptown Oil in my constituency, but companies all over the UK. They are generally small firms, employing about five to 20 employees. They are confronted by a severely difficult economic situation. We could lose them, which would mean a loss of employment, a loss of revenue to the Government because they pay their taxes, and a loss of the source of the product, which would be a very bad thing.

In April 2012, following a decision by the previous Government, the differential fuel duty on biodiesel was taken away—it was put in place to support the industry—as the system of support across the EU changed to a new one. The derogation was originally meant to end in 2010, but it was extended by two years by the previous Government, because the implementation of the renewable energy directive was delayed—perfectly legally. There was therefore an attempt to ensure that the industry in the UK had continuing support on the basis that when such support ended—it was planned to end in spring 2012 —the new renewable transport fuel obligation certificate system would bring in the revenue.

Sadly, that was delayed—it was due to be implemented in December 2010, but in the end, it was implemented in December 2011. The new system has therefore had only a few months to bed in. The problem—bluntly—is that the price of the certificates is nothing like what the industry expected. Let me give a couple of quotes from people on the front line. This is from a firm in Feltham:

“I have found biodiesel road sales fall through the floor since the removal of the tax differential. 80% of my biodiesel sales now are for use as heating oil at a considerably reduced margin and overall volume of sales. I have had to lay-off my production manager and am working 7 days a week just to try to keep the business going.”

Edible Oil Direct Ltd of Rye, East Sussex says:

“We had to keep our prices at the pre budget price. Our On-Road customers who most makeup ‘saves money’ as opposed to the ‘green impact’ stated that if the price was increased in line with mineral they will switch back to mineral.”

Convert2Green of Middlewich, Cheshire says:

“"On average Convert2Green…received last year 20p tax differential and 17p Renewable Transport Fuel Certificate…revenue per certificate i.e. 37 pence per litre. With this, the company made an operating profit of £290k. Currently, the best offer we have for RTFCs up to April 2012 is 7 pence per litre and from April 2012 onwards 10 pence per certificate. At two certificates per litre”—

the new system—

“we estimate we will get 9 pence per certificate or 18 pence per litre on average. This is a reduction of 19 pence per litre. We sell approximately 3.75 million litres of road fuel per annum. Our profit reduction is £712,500 per annum or £59k per month. This takes us into significant loss. We will have to consider our future.”

Finally, the firm from which I bought my biodiesel, Uptown Oil, just over the bridge in Southwark, says:

“So far it has had a disastrous effect on our sales of Biodiesel for road use....Down 75%. Before the change we were receiving…around 17 pence…and 20p from the government. Now we receive 7p x 2 RTFC so 14 pence. So having increased our price we are worse off by 13 pence a litre. If we were to increase our price by 13 pence our fuel would be marginally more expensive than fossil fuel and sales would virtually cease.”

Those figures speak for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, the House—and the nation—can hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Following the exchanges about tax avoidance and the Government’s very robust position, can one of the Treasury team tell us how soon we will have in place a system that targets not just celebrity individuals but all high-worth individuals, so that they all pay a decent share of tax to the nation?

[Mr Gauke]

HMRC already has in place a particular team that focuses on high-net-worth individuals; under this Government, we have also introduced a team that deals with not just the very top but the next band; and we are looking to introduce a general anti-abuse rule that will address tax avoidance—aggressive tax avoidance—more widely. This Government remain absolutely determined to ensure that people pay their fair share.

Changes to the Budget

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

They apply to all denominations, but to provide further clarity we made it clear that we would change the level of grant available under the listed places of worship scheme to reflect the need; after consultation with the Churches, we have increased that number, but there is no change to the tax law relating to VAT for listed places of worship.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Let me reassure the Minister that Liberal Democrats welcome the change both to the pasty tax and the caravan tax. [Interruption.] We would also have liked a third change—to keep the top rate of income tax, but we did not win that argument. Will the Minister join me and make sure that all Ministers turn up the volume—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is most discourteous. We must hear the voice of Bermondsey and Old Southwark— Mr Simon Hughes.

[Simon Hughes]

Will the Minister ensure that all Ministers turn up the volume to get over the central message of the Budget, which is that over 20 million pay less tax and millions pay no tax at all? Clearly, some people have not heard it yet.

[Mr Gauke]

This coalition Government are proud of the fact that we are taking 2 million people out of income tax and cutting the tax for 24 million basic rate taxpayers.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. On churches, she will be aware that, as we said in the Budget, we will increase the listed places of worship scheme by £5 million a year, precisely to enable churches that have alterations to benefit from the scheme and not to be adversely affected. However, our investment in transport infrastructure and a number of local transport schemes, and the massive investment in broadband in rural areas—we are investing £520 million to ensure that every part of the country has the latest superfast broadband—will make a major difference to rural economies. Along with the increases to the income tax personal allowance, to which I shall turn in due course and which will particularly benefit rural areas, where incomes tend to be lower than in urban areas, there are many reasons why the rural economy will benefit significantly from the measures taken by this Government. Enterprise zones will help to promote growth in every part of the UK.

The Budget included an announcement of a package of measures to ensure that we fulfil our potential to extract the greatest possible amount of oil and gas from our reserves in the North sea through a major package of tax changes. We will end the uncertainty on decommissioning tax relief that hangs over the industry by entering into contracts with companies. We will also introduce new field allowances, including a £3 billion new field allowance for large and deep fields, to open up west of Shetland, the last area of the basin left to be developed. Clause 184 gives the power to introduce new brownfield allowances as and when the industry can demonstrate the need for them in specific areas through the information it shares with the Government through the new processes that we have established. Those measures together are a huge boost for investment in the North sea.

We continue to support economic development in the devolved Administrations. Clause 189 devolves the power to the Northern Irish Assembly to set rates of air passenger duty for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland, which will help to protect the vital direct air service to the US, supporting tourism and businesses in Northern Ireland.

The Government will not relent as we seek to restore prosperity across the country. We are committed to promoting business enterprise, investment and exports across all parts of the UK. Securing sustainable growth and creating sustainable private sector jobs are the best ways to support families and raise living standards in the long run. Of course, I understand that these remain tough times for many families across the country. That is why the Bill reinforces our commitment to helping the lowest-paid in the country while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders continue to carry the heaviest burden.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Some of us have been frustrated in recent weeks that that point has been obscured by bigger press reporting of changes with much smaller consequences for the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend put on the record the relevant impacts and costs, including the number of people benefiting from the threshold changes compared with the number benefiting from the other, much more marginal changes that matter little to most of our constituents, including, I think, his?

[Danny Alexander]

My right hon. Friend is right that the single most significant measure in the Budget was the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance. I will dwell on that in detail in a moment but his point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The point I am making is that the consumption growth forecast for this Parliament is being funded by increased indebtedness. A VAT reduction would boost the spending power of households without their having to take on extra debt. With incomes stagnating and, in many cases, falling, many families are resorting to taking on more debt because they cannot afford to make ends meet—that is the point I am making. That is why a reduction in VAT would help put money into the pockets of ordinary families, who are struggling so much with rising gas, electricity, train, bus and petrol prices.

[Simon Hughes]

Has the hon. Lady seen the OECD reports, which make it clear that raising tax thresholds is a far more effective way of getting money back into the economy than changing VAT? Such an approach benefits poorer people much more, whereas VAT changes benefit the rich just as much as the poor.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which shows that the increase in the personal tax allowance most benefits those who are in the second highest income decile. Increasing the income threshold is not a progressive policy; in fact, pensioners do not benefit from it at all, and nor do people who are on such low incomes that they do not pay income tax—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says something from a sedentary position. I am happy to take another intervention if he wants to dispute the analysis of the IFS.

[Simon Hughes]

Of course some pensioners will not benefit, but some will. Some pensioners receive an income on which they pay tax and the rise in the threshold will benefit them. The hon. Lady has avoided my question about the OECD study, which makes it very clear that if one is choosing between reducing VAT and increasing the threshold and if the aim is to help people on lower incomes and to get money into the economy, one should go for the increase in the threshold.

[Rachel Reeves]

That is just not true and it is not accurate. A reduction in VAT helps people who do not pay income tax, which includes the poorest people, and benefits pensioners. The increase in the personal tax threshold does not benefit pensioners one jot, nor people who are not earning enough to benefit from a change in personal allowance. A cut in VAT helps all those people, however, including the lowest paid who will not benefit from the changes to the tax threshold. The right hon. Gentleman is just wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

The Labour party voted against the entire Finance Bill, including the cut in the 50p rate. On Wednesday and Thursday, we will have an opportunity to vote on the tax cut for the wealthiest 1%, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will join us in the Lobby to vote against a tax cut for the very wealthiest in society at a time when ordinary families are being asked to pay more.

[Simon Hughes]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I look forward to hearing how the right hon. Gentleman will be voting later this week.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Lady was not a Member in the last Parliament, and she used a phrase that I find a bit rich. The Labour Government regularly failed to close the loopholes to deal with tax evasion and tax avoidance, and only in their last weeks in office put income tax rates up to 50p in the pound, yet the hon. Lady now comes to the House saying that she would prefer not to change the top rate of tax even though it might be far less effective than a range of measures that would make the wealthy pay five times more. Does she want the wealthy to pay more? If so, is she willing to support measures that would deliver that?

[Rachel Reeves]

I want the wealthy to pay their fair share in the deficit reduction, which is why I shall be voting this week against a cut in the taxes for 14,000 millionaires. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that in Budget 2002—a Labour Budget—anti-avoidance measures were worth £1.7 billion. In Budget 2003—a Labour Budget—there were £1.7 billion of tax avoidance measures, and in Budget 2004, £1.7 billion-worth of tax avoidance measures—I could go on. The point is that in the Budget this year—a Conservative Budget, with a little bit of help from the Liberal Democrats—tax avoidance measures are worth £0.8 billion, lower than in all but two of the last 10 years. The idea that it is a tax avoidance Budget just does not stand up in the statistics. The Institute for Fiscal Studies knows it, so perhaps Members on the Government Benches should look at those numbers. Of course we should cut down on tax avoidance, but we should not then compensate the rich by giving them a tax cut worth £3 billion. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to cut down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthy pay more, I hope he will join us in the Lobby to vote against a tax cut for the richest in society.

Amendment of the Law

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

It is no surprise that Labour Members want to drown out any reference to their record in government.

I think I know why the record increase in the income tax personal allowance has not been welcomed by Labour Members today and was hardly mentioned by the two Opposition Front-Bench speakers, despite the fact that Labour used to call itself the party of working people. This debate has also revealed something of lasting significance about the Labour party—

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

But I will give way to my right hon. Friend first.

[Simon Hughes]

Given that the shadow Chancellor is so keen to talk about pensioners, will the Chief Secretary remind us of the increase pensioners will have next month compared with what they got under Labour, and what they will have by the end of this Parliament in the citizen’s pension compared with what Labour never did in 13 years?

Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I have so far written to Cabinet colleagues for salaries in central Government, and the Treasury Officer of Accounts has written to accounting officers in central Government, but I will take that suggestion away and discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether that particular extension would be appropriate.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Chief Secretary has always been very robust in dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion. May I seek an assurance that the Government’s policy will be what all those who have submitted their tax returns in the past few days want, namely to ensure that everybody in the public service, from the Cabinet Secretary downwards, and in local government service, pays normal tax like the rest of us, in a normal way, with no funny business on the side?

[Danny Alexander]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to be robust about these matters. Frankly, I think this Government have been a great deal more robust on tax avoidance and tax evasion than our immediate predecessor. I certainly agree with the principle that he annunciates, which is that we need to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and that arrangements are not put in place that are in breach of the guidelines that I set out earlier, which specifically say that arrangements to avoid tax for individuals should not be put in place.

Business, Innovation and Skills

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I join others in wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the rest of our colleagues a very happy Christmas.

The theme of this debate has already become apparent. It is warnings against excess, calls for a fairer and more prosperous society, requests for things we want in the new year—not from Father Christmas, but from Ministers —and an optimistic belief that Parliament can change things. I join in that optimism. I specifically associate myself with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that the market in the borough of my birth may be more prosperous with every year that passes.

I have been raising such issues ever since I entered Parliament, and the issue that I want to highlight this year is high pay. We have talked a lot about low pay but now, mercifully, we are also talking about high pay. When Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, I intervened in her final speech here to criticise the Tories for their record on wealth inequality. Predictably, she was unapologetic. It was her clear view that rising wealth inequality was not a problem so long as we were all getting wealthier: never mind about the gap.

Sadly, Labour adopted the same policy in practice. Rich people created wealth and they should be rewarded—for example, by cuts in capital gains tax—so that they could invest more of their unearned income in wealth-creating projects. I am afraid my colleagues never shared that view, and we do not share it now: I think we have been proved right. We have seen not greater redistribution but greater inequality between the rich and the poor. A very good OECD report produced in October 2008 entitled “Are we growing unequal?” shows that the top 1% in this country now own 14% of the national wealth. Department for Work and Pensions statistics covering the last decade or so of the Labour Government show that the average household income of the top 10% rose by almost 40%, whereas the average household income of the poorest 10% fell by just over 10% over the same period. That is not the way to make a just and fair society. Therefore, I think that it is right to return to these issues and remind colleagues that the figures continue to show some great inequalities.

According to the Office for National Statistics, bonus payments across the whole economy in the financial year 2010-11 totalled £35 billion, the same as the previous year, so there has been no reduction, despite the austerity facing the country. The total amount of bonuses paid in the financial insurance industry in 2010-11 stood at £14 billion, which is also identical to the figure for the previous year. Earlier this year, in order to justify Stephen Hester’s £7.7 million pay package, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland said:

“We need talented and motivated people and we need to be able to pay them fairly”.

That was after the company made losses of £1.1 billion in 2010. In 2009, at the RBS meeting in Edinburgh to discuss Sir Fred Goodwin’s £16.9 million pension, shareholders objected, but even though 90% of them voted down the remuneration report, they had no power to amend his pay because he had an advisory role.

There is a perverse logic to such bonuses: people at the top are rewarded in order to make the company do better, but even if it does not do better those people are still rewarded in the hope that that will turn things around. I think that people at the top sometimes forget that they stand on the shoulders of others—the people at the bottom, such as the administrative workers, electricians, cleaners and manual workers, without whom there could be no profits for those companies at all.

My party’s manifesto at the last election proposed that there should be fair pay audits for every company with more than 100 employees in order to combat discrimination in pay, and that all public companies should be required to declare in full the remuneration of anyone paid £200,000 a year or more. The coalition agreement states:

“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.”

We now have an opportunity, because there have been further reports that are very helpful. For example, the One Society report produced in September made it clear that the pay of low-paid workers in the UK is literally one third of 1% of the pay of their chief executives. The High Pay Commission report published a couple of weeks ago confirmed that last year executives of FTSE 100 companies awarded themselves a 49% pay rise.

The Government have just finished their consultation on executive pay, and I want them to be robust in the new year and to continue to drive forward change in our tax system. I want what the Prime Minister said about the public sector, which was that there should be a fair ratio between the highest and lowest-paid, to be reflected in the private sector. I welcome the fact that the salary of every civil servant earning more than £150,000 will be published. It should be similar in the private sector. Just as the Government have started well by reducing tax on the low-paid and increasing tax on those who earn more, I hope that we will see the transfer of powers, as the Prime Minister said, from the boardroom to the shareholder, and that people on the work floor will be involved in decisions on the salaries of people at the top. What people want this Christmas is not a multimillion pound bonus, but for everyone to be paid fairly, and to pay their fair share too.

Public Service Pensions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

For anyone who wishes to have a pension, these are among the best pensions available. It would be right for people to stay in their pensions or to join them, and I hope that no Member of the House will encourage anyone to opt out of their pension on the basis of this agreement.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I congratulate Ministers and the trade union leaders on what is clearly a win for the taxpayer, a win for the public sector workers and a win for the public. This is good news at Christmas, and it gives us the prospect of a much more prosperous and secure new year. May I ask what Ministers will now do to ensure that three key messages get down to the workers, and not just the leaders? They are that this is a better deal for the low paid, for women and for older workers; that this is a secure deal for the next century; and that everyone’s accrued rights are protected. The workers need to understand that, as well as the bosses.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words of praise. He makes an important point about the need to get this message across directly to public sector workers. I hope that the unions that have signed up to the heads of agreement, following consultations with their executives in many cases, will now be part of the process of explaining the new deal to their members. The Government will also continue with the efforts, which we started after my statement on 2 November, to communicate directly to nurses, teachers, civil servants and local government workers, so that they understand directly from the Government what the terms of the agreement are.