Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Stephen McPartland and Eilidh Whiteford

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I am anxious to make progress and conscious of the time constraints for this debate and the need to move on to consider further clauses. I am going to finish my speech shortly.

Increasing the regulatory burden on charities, which this Bill will do, will not improve transparency one jot, and it will not improve accountability. At best, it will add to and fuel the bureaucratic process, and at worst it will deter smaller organisations from engaging in public policy processes.

The purpose of my amendment 169 is simply to mitigate what I see as the worst potential side-effects of the Bill, but I believe that this part of the Bill needs wholesale redrafting, so I will be happy to support other amendments to that end.

The great irony of the Bill is that it fails to tackle the real problems in our culture of lobbying where certain parties have undue influence; instead, it creates a new layer of regulation on civil society actors who already operate with appropriate levels of transparency and accountability, many of which are already adequately regulated. This part of the Bill places obligations on some third parties that are not commensurate, proportionate or fair. I fear that it will be simply unworkable.

In speaking to amendment 169, I urge the Government to listen to those 200 organisations—not just to tell them that they are wrong, but to understand why they are concerned and accept that the drafting is well below par. Overwhelming concern has been expressed by civil society organisations about this Bill, which really needs a thorough overhaul.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I have been encouraged to speak to this part of the Bill. [Interruption.] I have not been whipped, although the Whips want to make progress. I have been encouraged to speak because some of the contributions have been very good. I am concerned, however, that there is a gap between the perception of clause 26 on controlled expenditure and the reality of that clause and what it does for controlled expenditure. My understanding of the law is that if a charity is engaged in an activity that might affect the outcome of an election, it needs to identify, first, whether that activity can be engaged in legally under charity law and, secondly, whether the activity would have an effect on the election. If it did have such an effect, the activity would, under current law, be considered to be part of controlled expenditure. I therefore think there has been a gap between the perception of the Bill and what it is actually trying to do.

I think that the contributions from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) were very pertinent, as they tried to drill down on the important points. I was pleased to hear that the Minister will attempt to give some reassurance on Report about helping some of these charities. I am a big fan of Christian Aid, for example, and have worked with it on a number of campaigns. I have worked with other organisations, too, and I do not want any charities to be concerned or worried about the policy issues with which they can get involved.

I am a trustee of two small local charities in my constituency, and Stevenage has over 400 local charities and community groups. None of them has come to me with any concerns about the Bill. The concerns seem to come from many of the larger national charities. I am a big supporter of a number of those national ones and contribute to a number of their causes. I am proud of that.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Stephen McPartland and Eilidh Whiteford

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland]

I genuinely believe that people should have the opportunity to make that decision and consult the Government and the trade unions. I do not want a broad-brush approach to this matter. It is not that I do not trust the shadow Minister, but he is trying to pull me into a political trap. I am not interested in politics in that sense; I am interested in representing my constituents and I do not want to accept an amendment that could technically make those fire and police officers worse off in the future. I would like to know far more about the details behind the amendment and what accepting it would mean.

The Minister mentioned a figure of around 8% that could be a reduction in net pay. If we accept such an amendment, and the mistake made by the previous Government in 2007 is reversed, I think we should negotiate with trade unions and fire and police officers so that we fully understand what its impact will be on their take-home salary at the end of each month, and how it will affect decisions in their careers and moving forward. I want everybody to have a fair opportunity, and as I have said, I am proud of the public sector and the work it does. Although the amendment seems fair, I do not feel that I can support it because of the broad-brush approach that could lead to MOD police officers and fire service personnel having a worse set of circumstances in a year or two, just so that party political points can be scored. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the amendment, but I urge the Minister to provide us with more detail in his winding-up speech about how he will encourage the MOD to sit down with the unions and ensure that the pension age will not rise above 65, and that any decision on the pension age will be about 65 and downwards.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I wish to make a few brief points in support of Lords amendments 78 and 79, which seem eminently sensible and seek simply to bring the normal pension age for MOD police and defence fire and rescue personnel in line with arrangements for other fire and police personnel who do broadly similar jobs. As others have pointed out, when the amendments were first debated in the other place, Lord Hutton seems to have acknowledged that the omission of MOD police and firefighters from his original considerations was an oversight. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks when he said:

“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

I support the Lords amendments because MOD police and firefighting officers need consistent treatment with other police and firefighters.

Lord Hutton’s conclusion in recommendation 14 of his report was by no means arbitrary. In recommending a normal pension age of 60 for uniformed services personnel, the Hutton report drew on a wide evidence base. It recognised that the nature of the job places intense physical demands on officers and requires them to maintain levels of health and fitness that are not necessary in other day-to-day jobs. That acknowledgment has underpinned the design of terms and conditions for police and firefighters for many years, and remains as pertinent and relevant as it ever was, even if the age at which those personnel will be eligible for retirement has shifted.

It is useful to remember that changing demographics and increases in life expectancy have underpinned the process of pension reform. However, although life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades, the increase in healthy life expectancy has not kept pace. People are living longer, but they are more likely to live with debilitating health conditions or disabilities. I made general observations on that in earlier stages of the Bill, but it is particularly relevant to the uniformed services, because it is imperative that officers are physically capable of meeting the demands of the job. Hutton implicitly acknowledged that when he called for the increase in normal pension age for the uniformed services to be kept under regular review.

We must be realistic about the physical limitations of mere mortals. Hard physical work takes its toll on human bodies. It is clear that people who work in heavier, more demanding jobs suffer more physical strain as they get older. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), I was struck by the briefing ahead of the debate from the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, which set out in some detail not only the physical demands placed on defence fire and rescue personnel, but the risks to officers, which increase with age—they rise exponentially for officers aged 50 and over. We must be realistic about what we ask people to do. We should not do the sums on paper without thinking of the real cost.

We need to be careful when we talk about the monetary cost. The Minister relied on the argument that the measure will cost too much, but we need to be careful if we assume that the higher pension age will save us money. All hon. Members know that staff retiring on health grounds can be an expensive business. It is all the more expensive when the reasons for a person leaving their job are linked to their occupation. That is an extremely expensive way to do things. We need to look at both sides of the balance sheet before we jump to the conclusion that treating MOD police and firefighters differently from other police and firefighters will save us money.

At the end of the day, this comes down to the fact that MOD police and the defence fire and rescue officers are, to all intents and purposes, uniformed service personnel. They need to be fit and strong, and physically and mentally capable of carrying out their duties in an emergency. We need to recognise that and treat them in exactly the same way—as far as possible—as we treat other police and firefighters.

Another important part of the context is that morale in those services has been put under considerable strain in recent times owing to changes to terms and conditions and proposed reductions to services. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who intervened earlier, I have MOD police in my constituency—they look after the St Fergus gas terminal. I am therefore very much aware of the great uncertainty that has overshadowed the service because of MOD reviews. I am also aware that a proposed voluntary early release scheme, for which, I believe, 600 officers applied, has been subject to a rethink. I am glad that the MOD has recognised the folly of rushing in with ill-thought-through cuts, but officers who had applied for early release have been left in a kind of limbo. The service needs to ensure that younger officers come up through the ranks, but the uncertainties of the past few years have undermined morale and the good will of officers, who take substantial risks in their day-to-day working lives, and who we expect to be on the front line during any crisis.

That is why I do not have confidence in the solution set out by the Minister. I know that some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition have accepted it—if I had not seen officers being mucked about by the MOD’s prevarication over the early release scheme, I would have more confidence in the Government’s proposals. However, having witnessed that, and seeing that the issue is still unresolved, I really do not have that confidence. In that context, I would be keen to see the amendments go through as they are, and I urge Liberal Democrats to come through the Lobby and make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents.