Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

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

1. What recent estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published its latest tax gap estimates on 16 October 2014. In 2012-13, the tax gap was estimated at £34 billion, 6.8% of total tax due.

[Katy Clark]

The Government’s own figures suggest that the tax gap has increased by £3 billion. Independent experts say that the tax gap could be up to £120 billion. In North Ayrshire, the local tax office has been closed by this Government, and since 2010, 10,000 people in the Treasury have lost their jobs, despite the fact that every tax inspector brings in far more—in taxes—than they cost. Do the Government believe that they should rethink their strategy?

[Mr Gauke]

The reality is that the tax gap for 2012-13 was lower than in any year under the previous Labour Government. As for the yield—the money that is brought in by HMRC as a consequence of its activity—that has gone up by £9 billion since 2010-11, and is forecast to be £26 billion this year. That is a very good record.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.

( ) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2014-15 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—

(a) £150,000 per year; and

(b) £1,000,000 per year.’.

Clause 1 stand part.

I should inform the House that due to an administrative error some names in support of new clause 4 were omitted from the amendment paper. A revised version is available from the Vote Office with all names correctly reproduced.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to you for that clarification, Ms Clark.

New clause 4, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, would have the effect of requesting the Treasury to commission a report into reinstating the 50p tax rate for earnings above £150,000 a year, or £3,000 a week, as I prefer to explain the policy to my constituents. I look forward to pressing the new clause to a vote at the appropriate time.

This is an example of bad timing, as I understand that the President of the Republic of Ireland is about to address Members of the Commons and the Lords in the other place. I am disappointed to be missing that. However, there is little doubt that the decision in the 2012 Budget to scrap the 50p top rate and reduce it to 45p is the signature fiscal policy of the current Administration. However, I recognise that the 50p rate existed only for the dying weeks of the previous Labour UK Government, even though they were in power for more than 13 years with a top rate of only 40p. That of course leaves the impression that it was merely an election gimmick for the 2010 general election rather than a matter of deep principle.

Labour’s 13 years of the 40p rate reflected what Lord Mandelson said on behalf of the Blair Government about being

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

None the less, it was expected that the 50p rate, which existed for the first half of this coalition Government, would be set in stone while the UK Government maintained their plan A fiscal strategy of cutting the deficit. Despite disagreeing with the UK Government’s fiscal strategy since entering the House, I accept that the “We’re all in it together” slogan coined by the Chancellor was politically very successful. It was based on the notion that all parts of society were equal partners in a moral crusade to reduce the annual fiscal deficit of the state; that rich and poor, young and old would have to feel the pain as the only remedy for the excesses of the past—or so the story went.

The decision to cut the 50p rate was therefore a political miscalculation in my mind because, whatever way it is dressed up, the Chancellor offered a tax cut for those earning more than £3,000 a week. The notion of “We’re all in it together” was blown apart with one act. How can the Chancellor and the Treasury expect the most disadvantaged in society to stomach reductions in their social security support while the richest get a tax cut? It was an act that confirmed that we are not all in it together.

Let us not forget that in the 2012 Budget a further cut of £10 billion in the social protection budget was announced from 2013 onwards, on top of those announced in the 2010 emergency Budget. Those are the cuts that we are living with today, leaving the clear impression that the tax cut from 2013-14 onwards for the highest earners in society was being paid for by cuts in welfare provision for the poorest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we are debating a possible 50p income tax rate. Could they try to focus their arguments and interventions on that?

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will do my best to abide by your ruling, Ms Clark—you probably want me to do more than my best.

Reference has been made to the fact that an historic event is taking place elsewhere in Parliament. I am sure that my colleagues will represent the Democratic Unionist party very well, but I have to attend this important debate. As a Unionist, I would have loved to see the President of the Irish Republic giving a speech to both Houses of Parliament with King Billy looking over his shoulder—I understand that King Billy is somewhere behind him while he gives his speech. Even better, tomorrow a republican will sit down to dinner with the Queen.

Things have changed in Northern Ireland, but the debate on the 50p rate has not changed. It is again a political football between Labour and the Conservatives. I want to make something clear at the outset. I do not wish to engage in a debate with some kind of class motive, or from the point of view of bashing the rich by imposing taxation on them. My party and I believe in lower taxation. Our record in Northern Ireland, where we have very limited power over taxes, has been one of keeping tax low. My basic philosophy, which may differ from that of some on the Opposition Benches, is that we should allow people to keep as much of their income as possible and to spend it as they see fit. That is the first point I want to make.

--- Later in debate ---

One thing I have found in the context of Northern Ireland is that headline rates of taxation can have a very important psychological impact. In a previous occupation, I had many discussions with the Minister about a reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland. The problem we faced was that there was a 12.5% rate in the Irish Republic and we had a much higher rate in Northern Ireland. In fact, however, with all the concessions, firms in Northern Ireland probably paid less corporation tax than those in the Irish Republic. That was not the important thing, however. The important thing was that when businesses looked at corporation tax—

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the 50p tax rate. A number of Members still wish to speak so perhaps he would address himself to the amendment before us.

[Sammy Wilson]

The point I was trying to make, perhaps at too great a length, was that the important thing was the headline rate when people were looking at places to locate their businesses. It is the same with income tax. While there may have been other tax changes that have affected the rich, when people make a judgment on the Government’s sincerity about austerity, they will look at the headline rate, and what they see when they look at the headline rate for those on middle incomes, for those on lower incomes—not in terms of the headline rate of income tax, but in terms of what has happened to their income—and for the most well-off in society is that there is a disparity, and that breeds cynicism. I believe an amendment such as this one will at least help to restore some confidence that when this House looks at what lies ahead, it is genuinely trying to make sure the burden is shared equally.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you very much for calling me to speak, Mrs Riordan. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I expected more Members to put their names forward to speak in this debate, and I would have liked to have seen more Members from the Scottish National party. I know that they have complained about lack of time, but this is the third debate on Scottish issues in the last week in which the SNP has not put many speakers forward. I have been in this place since 2005—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Katy Clark]

I am very grateful to you, Mrs Riordan. As I was saying, I have been a Member since 2005 and I am very aware that, frankly, it is often far easier for a member of one of the minority parties to be called to speak than someone from one of the larger parties, because of the way that the rules in this place operate.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

On a point of order, Mrs Riordan, I am very sorry to interrupt the flow of the debate, but it would be helpful if you could clarify something. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made serious allegations about the conduct of this debate. Could you clarify whether any hon. Members from the SNP asked to speak in it? Have they been prevented from speaking in it? Have they ever even requested a debate on the issue of the currency in Scotland?

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order. I call Katy Clark to speak.

[Katy Clark]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan. As I say, I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie): I would have liked a longer, more detailed debate. I hope that this is just one of a series of debates in this House on these kinds of issues.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is a fair and reasonable woman, and she has accepted that we have very little time to address the other side of the argument. This really important debate must, of course, be heard in the House of Commons; will she work with us to try to ensure that when we debate these issues in future, we get a more equitable division of the time, so that both cases are made?

[Katy Clark]

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the first step would be for his colleagues to put in requests to speak.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that yesterday, we had a six-hour-and-four-minute Opposition day debate, promoted by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, in which all these issues could have been aired?

[Katy Clark]

Indeed, and we had a debate last Thursday on Scotland’s place in the Union. Those were the kind of events that we should use to explore these issues.

There is a great deal of debate on the subject in Scotland, but the decision taken there in September will have massive implications for the whole United Kingdom. I regret that in the two and a half years that we have been having this debate in Scotland, the quality of debate has not been higher. I hope that getting more people involved in the discussion, and getting more information and facts on the table, will improve the debate’s quality. I hope that today the UK Government will give their perspective on some of the questions, because that is part of what is required to continue the debate, which should be taking place here, in the Scottish Parliament, and communities up and down Scotland.

One of the most important decisions that an independent Scotland would take, if we voted for independence in September, would be on the currency, so I strongly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on his choice of subject for debate, but currency is only one of the many economic issues that will be central to people’s decision making. To be honest, I never believed that I would see a referendum on Scottish independence in my political lifetime. It was not something that many people in Scotland argued for, historically. It is really only as a result of the electoral success of the Scottish National party—we can perhaps discuss the reasons for that on another occasion—that we are in this position. I also honestly do not believe that colleagues from the Scottish National party in this room ever believed that they would have a referendum on independence in their political lifetime.

Many people in Scotland are in the same position: when we go from door to door and speak to people, many genuinely have not finally made their mind up on the issue—particularly, I think, because of the economic turbulence that we have been living through in the past few years. It will not be simply an emotional choice that people make in September. Historically, many people who are sympathetic to independence have made that choice on emotional grounds, and grounds to do with identity and culture, but in the coming months, economic issues will be central to people’s decision-making processes.

I welcome the debate and some of the statements that have come forward in the past few weeks from people at UK level. I am a member of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills; we had the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills before us last week, and he gave some of his views on the issue. We still need to get a lot more information to make decisions.

I have always looked at things from an economic point of view, and considered decisions on the basis of how I think we can improve the democratic accountability of our economy. I have always considered how we can take economic decisions that are more central to how we run our economy in the interests of ordinary people, rather than elites. That will be central as we go forward.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order.

National Minimum Wage

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Of course an increase in wages among other things increases demand, and that is one factor that has to be taken into account. That leads me on to the next point I want to make, which is how this year I have approached the issue of the mandate of the Low Pay Commission. Opposition Members have been questioning that and saying, “Why don’t you change the way we look at it?” I have done that, while respecting its independence. I have said the Government want a faster increase in the minimum wage, reflecting the fact we now have a real recovery, and in order to achieve that the LPC should look at a wider range of factors governing low pay. They include the fact that at the national economy level, the Governor of the Bank of England has now said that if unemployment falls to 7%, he would want there to be some tightening of monetary policy, as the environment will have changed. We would want to see what impact that will have on the cost of employment, which has been cushioned by the Chancellor’s decision to bring in the employment allowance—£2,000 for the first employee—as it significantly changes the cost of employment. We also need to look at the impact it would have on the Government, because there is an interaction with tax credits, tax yields and corporate taxation. There is the impact on take-home pay, too, and therefore we have to factor in our tax policy.

I have therefore asked the LPC to look at this problem in a much more holistic way. I do not know what it will conclude, and I will be respectful of its independent advice, but that is the way we are approaching this and we do now recognise that in a recovering economy low-paid workers should derive benefits, and that is how we are approaching this matter.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Vince Cable]

I have taken several interventions already.

Finally, let me say a few more words about enforcement. Clearly the minimum wage is only effective if it is properly enforced and has the force of law. It is important not just for its own sake but to give workers confidence that if they complain, those complaints will be followed through. There are several levels as enforcement is a complicated process. First, it is a problem of securing arrears and then imposing fines. We then have a name and shame system, and ultimately there is prosecution in court, but that has hardly been used either under the last Government or this one because it requires a demonstration of proof of intent, which is very difficult to demonstrate.

Let me explain how these various levels are now operating. In the last year, arrears of about £4 million were paid, compared with an average of about £3 million over recent years. About 26,000 workers benefited from that. Fines are crucial, because under the last Government and this one, that is where the main enforcement action has been taken. Last year 700 enforcement cases were taken to the level of fines. The amount paid was seven times as much as was paid under the last year of the Labour Government. One can argue about this from one year to another, and these things fluctuate, but any suggestion that the regime has become easier is simply not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

I concur entirely.

When we want to improve the efficiency of businesses, we say that we must pay those at the top as much as we can to reward their energy and enterprise and that we must reduce the pay of those at the bottom because it is in their own best interest. There is one rule for the rich and one for the poor.

[Katy Clark]

Of course, we did not hear from the Secretary of State this afternoon about the fact that although most people in this country face a cost of living crisis and although wages are going down for the vast majority, those at the top are doing very well, thank you very much. The salaries of chief executives and those at the top are soaring. At the time of the 1997 election, we heard time and again that we could not afford the national minimum wage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the arguments we are hearing now should be treated in the same way as those arguments were then?

[Chris Ruane]

Absolutely. The Conservatives were whingeing when I raised these points, but it is obscene that the Chancellor of the Exchequer scurries off to Brussels to protect the multimillion pound bonuses of British bankers at the same time as he is reducing workers’ rates by £1,600 a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

The Opposition motion mentions that the Liberal Democrats were all against the minimum wage. I do not think that many current Liberal Democrat Members were here 14, 15 or 16 years ago. As a Liberal Democrat, I was always in favour of the minimum wage, and the engineering company that I owned always paid well over the minimum wage. If companies want really skilled people to work for them, they find that the minimum wage is far below what skilled workers are paid today.

I was a little bit offended by the attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She should apologise for the fact that she did not understand the reasons why he was not in the House at the time. I accept that she is new and probably inexperienced, but hon. Members need to know the reasons why someone did something before attacking them in the House.

As has been said many times by the Secretary of State, we went through an appalling crash. There is no getting away from the fact that the Labour party and the bankers drove the country virtually into bankruptcy, and we have had to do something about it. We have managed to maintain employment. As has been said, 1.5 million people are now working who were not expected to work. The Opposition’s hope for a triple-dip recession has not happened. We have managed to drag the economy round and things are moving on, but these things need to be explained.

What can the Government do about the minimum wage? I agree that the Low Pay Commission should look at the minimum wage. I believe that it should be given the right and the power to decide what the minimum wage is, and it is quite right, as the Secretary of State said, that we should not have political interference in things of that nature.

What have the Government done to try to mitigate what we have got? By the fact that the Government have been doing what they have with the economy, we have managed to keep interest rates really low. Let us imagine what would have happened if we had gone along with the Labour party’s proposals on the economy. What would interest rates be now? We have mitigated the effects of a lot of the low salaries by keeping interest rates and mortgage rates down to a very low level. If we look across the rest of Europe, we see interest rates in Greece and similar places that have climbed to as much as 20%. Let us imagine what would have happened in this country if we had allowed that to happen. We have mitigated those effects.

All right, the country has not been able to increase the national minimum wage, and I for one would like that to happen. As the Government’s apprenticeship ambassador, I would certainly like the minimum wage for apprentices to increase, because we should be investing in young people and delivering jobs of the future, and we are now doing so. If I had the authority to speak to the Low Pay Commission, I would ask it to look at that issue.

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues who sit alongside him like to say that we are all in this together, but he will know that those with the highest earnings, such as the chief executives, are doing very well and their wealth is increasing, and the profits of many companies have risen considerably. Should not those factors be taken into account along with the cost of living crisis when looking at the level of the national minimum wage?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

The very profitable companies, such as the big engineering companies and the major multinationals, invariably pay well over the minimum wage. Many minimum wage payments occur, for example, in the care industry and those industries where low pay is accepted. I agree that if a company is profitable and doing well, it should recognise that its employees are creating not only wealth for the chief executive but wealth and security for themselves and for the country. I agree that companies should recognise what employees do, and the vast majority that do so pay a lot more than the national minimum wage.

Multinational Companies and UK Corporation Tax

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of multinational companies and UK corporation tax.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate the important issue of corporation tax and the avoidance of tax by multinational corporations. I was keen to see this debate take place, not only because of the gravity of the issue but because of the efforts that two local retailers, Frances and Keith Smith of Warwick and Kenilworth Books, have taken to raise the profile of the matter. They have launched a petition, which has gathered 170,000 signatures, calling on Amazon UK to pay UK corporation tax, and I would like to pay tribute to their public spiritedness and determination in pursuit of this cause. Individuals can make a difference in politics, as I am sure hon. Members would agree, and we should encourage more citizens to take similar action.

The issue that I would like to put at the heart of the debate is tax avoidance, rather than tax evasion, which is illegal. I think all Members would strongly condemn any kind of tax evasion. However, tax avoidance, sometimes euphemistically called “tax planning”, is also a matter of serious concern. The case that Frances and Keith have raised illustrates the problem. Amazon made £4.3 billion in sales in the UK last year, but its subsidiary Amazon UK paid only £2.4 million in corporate taxes. It does this by classifying itself as a service provider to its Luxembourg business Amazon EU Sarl in order to reduce its tax bill, yet its UK business employs over 4,200 people, compared with the 380 based in Luxembourg. Given the size of the UK market, it is laughable to believe that Amazon UK is somehow serving the Luxembourg portion of the business, but this is perfectly legal and Amazon UK is not an isolated case.

However, this avoidance is not without its victims. It is businesses such as Warwick Books in my constituency and ordinary people who pick up the bill. Through this creative tax planning, the burden of taxation is shifted on to individuals and businesses that do not have the resources to spend on reducing their tax bill and on hiring expensive accountants to find loopholes in tax law.

I understand that there are some who believe that businesses have a moral duty to pay only the absolute minimum of tax that they are legally obliged to pay, but I cannot believe that that is the case. Businesses, even multinational companies, are still members of society. They benefit from a strong education system, a functioning health care system, decent roads, a transport infrastructure, the police and our armed forces. The reason we raise taxes is in order to produce public goods. We can argue whether the Government spend that money wisely, or whether the Government should provide this or that service, but that is the basic principle behind taxation.

Businesses have a moral responsibility to play a full part in our society, and structuring their businesses in order to avoid taxation and to make it harder for tax authorities to monitor their business is not fulfilling that responsibility. Voluntarily paying tax is not a long-term solution to this issue. What is needed is for multinational companies to take responsibility for their actions and respect the fact that they need to structure their businesses to reflect the way they are operated, rather than merely to avoid that taxation.

If a company is legitimately servicing another company in another country, or needs to pay royalties as part of a franchise or needs to borrow money from its parent abroad, I believe we can all understand that this should be respected in the tax system. We do not wish to crush enterprise, nor do we wish to penalise international businesses that invest in our country, but multinational companies still need to play their part. The endless game of cat and mouse, with tax authorities having to plug gaps and investigate subsidiaries, and multinational companies developing ever more complicated legal structures to avoid paying tax, is simply unsustainable and destructive.

Many of these companies depend on individuals and businesses buying their services, but as they avoid taxation, the Government have to find this revenue from other sources, reducing the profits and incomes of others and leaving them with less to spend on other goods and services. The regulatory arms race between multinational companies and states seeking to raise revenue is also distracting. It is distracting the corporations from focusing on productivity and creativity, and one wonders what marvels or products might have been created if multi- nationals had put the effort they put into avoiding tax into developing new ideas, services and products.

Tax avoidance does not benefit our economy in the long term; that can only come through making our economy more productive and more efficient. We need to encourage businesses to focus on the real economy rather than on trying to enhance their profitability by avoiding taxation.

The sheer mechanics of the situation make it clear that action purely from the Government is unlikely to be the solution to the problem. There are hundreds of thousands of multinational companies, and only a handful of tax regimes capable of monitoring their information. It is always a game of catch-up, and while reforming tax codes and greater enforcement may help, they will not reach the nub of the problem. That is why I believe that we need to focus on the culture in international business, on the structure of these businesses and the codes of conduct they abide by. Fundamentally, businesses are staffed by people, and if we put in place the right frameworks, I believe that we can appeal to the better angels of their nature. This is the only long-term solution.

I am realistic, however, and I appreciate that there will always be corporations that are unwilling to contribute to the public good and wish to shirk their responsibilities. That is why I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been given additional resources in order to clamp down on tax evasion, but HMRC also needs to be more robust in the way it holds these companies to account.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris White]

I would like to, but if the hon. Lady does not mind, we are very short of time.

These companies need to be held to account and we need to feel free to investigate fully the accounts of any company that we suspect might be seeking to avoid paying taxation. This highlights another issue, one that is close to my heart and to that of many colleagues— the future of our independent retailers. Warwick and Leamington is full of many excellent independent businesses, which give our community its distinctive character, and not only provide incomes for the owners, but hire local residents and often give young people the chance to get their first experience of work.

Times change, and I do not think any of us would support or even want a situation where multinational companies were prevented from entering the workplace, but I think we all recognise the need for a mixed economy. We need independent, smaller businesses and large multinational companies working together. We need to recognise that in the 21st century, the idea of the capitalist as some profit-making machine, uncaring or unthinking about the effects of its business on wider society is completely outdated. For the most part, I believe that businesses recognise that.

International progress is essential, and the Prime Minister should be applauded for his efforts at the G8 last week and the agreement that he secured. Britain cannot take unilateral action without significantly damaging our economic position, and while changes such as the general anti-abuse rule are welcome, real progress will only come from companies themselves.

A model that we need to look at more closely is that of social enterprises, but a successful 21st century global economy needs to be one that combines equity with entrepreneurship; principles with profit; responsibility with reward. We are taking the first steps forwards by talking about this issue, but I hope that we can move towards action in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I strongly welcome the cross-party will among Back Benchers to bring this incredibly important issue to the House.

The estimates of how much is lost to the British economy through tax avoidance in its many forms go up to in the region of £120 billion. Lots of people have different figures, but there is no doubt that if we could get on top of the issue—not of tax evasion, when people illegally do not pay their taxes, but of tax avoidance—many of our other debates in this House about the deficit and so on would be skewered. We face a major challenge, as over decades we have reached a situation in which we do not collect the taxes we need to pay for the services we want to provide in the communities we represent. We need to reach some sort of solution so that we can collect those taxes.

It is interesting that in this Back-Bench debate we have heard people from different political parties speaking with one voice. One of the problems in the debate is that for a long time the leaderships of the parties have not had the political courage to take on the multinationals. If we reflect on the speeches we have heard today and read Hansard tomorrow, we will see that it is notable that these companies are household names. They are not the kinds of companies that would move out of Britain. To suggest that Starbucks, Amazon, Vodafone, npower, Google or HSBC will pack up their bags, move away and stop making profits out of our constituents is ludicrous. The reality is not that progress will be made only by the companies themselves. Yes, we need to change the culture in companies. Yes, we need to name and shame. But as politicians we have to change the rules of the debate. That means changes in law so that we are far tougher on those who avoid taxes but also tackle those who evade taxes.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use our influence within the European Union to, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, sort out the cuckoos in the nest who provide effective tax havens? Will she join me in congratulating Senator Philippe Marini, president of the French Senate finance committee, who has been in the vanguard in Europe of pressing for concerted European action?

[Katy Clark]

I congratulate all those who are working to get international agreements to tackle this problem, including the British Government.

The reality is that we also have to look at what we are doing here and now. Since 2005, we have lost 37,000 jobs in HMRC. We expect to lose another 10,000 tax inspectors by 2015. No doubt the Government will come back and say that there are slight increases in the numbers of staff in specialist and criminal investigations, but they are only one part of the team that looks at all these issues. We have to highlight clearly the use of tax havens by FTSE companies—98 out of the top 100 use them. We have to say that roughly one in five of the world’s tax havens are the responsibility of the UK and that the use of those tax havens is estimated to cost the UK £18.5 billion a year. These issues need to be tackled internationally, but we have a lot to do at home.

We need to build a consensus in all political parties that we need tax laws which ensure that multinationals pay their due in this country. Unless we do that, a lot of the other debates in this place, whether on legal aid or how we fund hospitals or education, are nonsense. We need the money to go forward. Perhaps one of the things that comes out of this financial crisis will be a recognition that all parts of society must make their contribution. Some of the companies that we have been talking about today should be at the top of the list for ensuring that we all pay our way.

Investing in Britain’s Future

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the A303 and those road connections. The south-west is a vital part of our economy and needs to be properly connected to the rest of the country, and this investment will do that. With regard to the specific points on schools, I will ensure that they are brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education.

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

Is it not a shocking indictment of this Government that since 2010—[Interruption.] I suggest hon. Members listen to what I have to say before responding. Is it not a shocking indictment of this Government that since 2010, 84,000 construction workers have lost their jobs and construction output is down by 12%? Is not this statement just another example of smoke and mirrors that will do nothing to improve investment before 2015?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the problems in the construction sector, but those problems started in 2008 when her Government were in office. They saw a major drop in output. By investing more in affordable housing, in both this Parliament and the next, we are giving companies in the sector certainty so that they can plan for the future and we are providing Government investment to help ensure that jobs are maintained in a vital part of our economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

This is the Government who have found £1 billion to support HMRC in dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance. This is the Government who have provided resources in that area. Yes, we can find efficiency savings in HMRC—just as the previous Government did, to be fair—but we are putting more into those parts of HMRC that get the money in. We are making dramatic progress, with HMRC’s yield hitting record levels.

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

Q12. If he will introduce a statutory code of conduct for the banking industry.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was established to consider and report on professional standards and culture in the UK banking sector. The Government look forward to considering the commission’s report and we will make decisions on the need for further action in the light of its recommendations, including on whether there should be a code of conduct.

[Katy Clark]

A recent survey by Which? showed that 87% of the public wanted an independent code of conduct for bankers. Does the Minister agree that such a code would restore trust? Does he also believe that he should look again at the amendments on banking reform tabled by Labour proposing a licensing system that would enable bankers who broke the rules to be struck off?

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Lady knows—her colleague the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) might also like to comment on this—the commission has been hard at work considering various representations, including those from Which? and the British Bankers Association, on whether there should be a code of conduct. I am sure that the House would expect us to wait for the commission’s recommendations and then to respond to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Does the Minister think that HMRC losing an extra 10,000 staff will make it harder or easier to tackle tax avoidance and evasion?

[Mr Gauke]

It is important to focus on the number of HMRC staff working on tax evasion and tax avoidance. Let me give two statistics: between 2005 and 2010 that number fell by 9,000, but between 2010 and 2015 it will increase by 2,500.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I thank him for the excellent contributions he made in Committee and the tremendous experience he brought to it. His point about opt-in is absolutely right. We all heard it in the evidence session. There has been barely any change to participation in public sector pensions, despite some of the changes the Government have already introduced.

We have committed to ensuring that scheme regulations provide for members to be regularly informed of their pension benefits, so that they understand their value and can better plan for their retirement.

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

Given that these changes will reduce the average value of the benefit for all scheme members by more than one third and that many individuals’ contributions will increase, is he not concerned that many will consider opting out, whatever the advice given by people here and by trade unions?

[Sajid Javid]

As I said, in many cases, increased contributions have already taken place, and there is no evidence of increased opting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) said, one very good reason given for that in the evidence session was that, despite the changes the Government have had to make in order to put public sector pensions on a sustainable footing, they remain among the best pensions available. That will ensure that people continue to take part.

Although we have not managed to reach a shared view on the exact protections that should be extended to members’ rights, all sides have recognised the common objective that rights should not be allowed to be unlawfully eroded. I strongly believe that the Bill we are sending to the other place is in very good shape. I give a commitment that the Government will return to each of the issues on which I have given assurances, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am not aware of any technical reason why a time gap should occur, but I know that officials in the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel discuss this regularly with my officials in the Treasury. If there is any evidence of such an occurrence, I will be happy to consider it in the normal way. There have been regular discussions on these matters, not least in our Finance Ministers quadrilateral. We will meet again in a couple of weeks in Edinburgh, when this subject will be on the agenda, so we can discuss it then.

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

The Chief Secretary will be aware that several of the Bill’s provisions will affect Scottish pension schemes for the first time. There is a debate in Scotland about whether a legislative consent order is required, so will he address that point in detail in his speech?

[Danny Alexander]

I certainly will, when I come to it.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

We have taken great care to work with the TUC. We have taken it through the text of the Bill, listened to its concerns and made adjustments where necessary. This has not just been done through the scheme negotiations; we have also been open by sharing the Bill with trade union colleagues. Given the long-term nature of the reform and the fact that it affects so many people, it was important to engage properly. My departmental colleagues have engaged closely with representatives of the relevant work forces to ensure that that has happened.

The Bill sets out a framework for the schemes, with some restrictions, and in due course we will have to produce regulations to set out the design of each scheme. There are well-established processes within Departments for working with employers and employees on such details. My experience is that those processes work pretty well, and there is a pretty good co-operative spirit among the pensions experts around the table. I therefore do not foresee any problems but, of course, if the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) does, I would be delighted for him to bring them to my attention so that I can try to resolve them.

[Katy Clark]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will make some progress and give way to the hon. Lady later.

I return to Lord Hutton’s four key tests for the future design of public service pensions: affordability, fairness to public service workers, fairness to the taxpayer and transparency. Those objectives have prevailed throughout the process and remain the cornerstones of the Bill. First, on affordability, it is clear from Lord Hutton’s report that the new scheme should be affordable and sustainable. The Bill represents a significant proportion of the total of more than £430 billion of savings that our reforms of public service pensions are estimated to save over the next 50 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the link between the state pension age and the normal pension age is fixed in the legislation. That is a matter that was discussed in the negotiations, including the detailed negotiations with health service unions. The point I was seeking to make was that, as Lord Hutton recommended, we have agreed to review how that link operates at each stage at which the state pension age is increased, to enable those issues to be debated.

[Katy Clark]

rose—

[Danny Alexander]

I will give way one more time, then I must make some progress. There is a lot of detail to get through.

[Katy Clark]

Clause 9(2) means that firefighters would not be able to retire with a pension until they were 60. Many in the industry believe this is unworkable. What would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to firefighters who cannot work until they are 60?

[Danny Alexander]

In that case, we followed the recommendations of Lord Hutton—and, indeed, previous practice. The point I made just a moment ago—I am sure the hon. Lady was listening carefully—is that the provision does not stipulate the date to which people must work. Clearly, if people wish to retire earlier, they can do so and take an actuarially reduced pension or, indeed, retire later and take an actuarially enhanced pension.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

[Katy Clark]

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

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

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

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

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katy Clark]

I was about to conclude, but I am happy to take an intervention.

[Mike Freer]

In actual fact, the Audit Commission report on the local government pension scheme, which is by far the largest scheme, says that it can meet only 75% of its future liabilities. Far from being sustainable, it has a shortfall.

[Katy Clark]

My understanding is that there will be a review of the scheme. Having spoken to some of those who are directly involved in the negotiations on the scheme, I am firmly of the view that we need to look carefully at those figures. On the basis of the financial information that we have, which is, of course, dated, because there has not been an up-to-date review, the reality is that the scheme is viable and there is no reason to believe that that will change.

[Andrew Gwynne]

May I advise my hon. Friend of a successful local government pension scheme, namely the Greater Manchester pension scheme, which is administered by my own local authority—Tameside metropolitan borough council—and is fully funded? Is it not the case that best practice therefore exists, and should not other local government pension schemes utilise it?

[Katy Clark]

I am interested in the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, and I might get more information about it from him later.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is worth putting on record that under the deal negotiated by the Labour Government, if there were increased costs with regards to longevity, there would be a cap on the employer’s contribution and the additional cost would be borne by the contributors—the scheme’s participants. The issue of longevity was therefore dealt with by agreement with the unions.

[Katy Clark]

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and I can say to him that while there needs to be a review of the local government scheme, I understand that the current position is that it is perfectly viable. This proposal has been made because Government Members take the view that public sector schemes are too generous and form too large a part of the employment package in the public sector. We actually need to use the public sector schemes as a model to ensure that pensions are a much greater part of everybody’s employment package. If we do not do so, we will simply end up paying in other ways, whether that is because people opt out, or because people will rely on the state as they are living in such poor circumstances. We should have a debate about how we can move towards a situation whereby, collectively, we save more for retirement, so that people have decent pensions that they can afford to live on and do not need to rely on the state in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will try to keep my remarks to the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and enable other Members to get in.

We have heard a lot about some of the changes that have already started to take effect, but one aspect of the Bill that is undoubtedly causing most concern, and proving a sticking point in negotiations with the public sector work force, concerns the equalisation of the normal pension age with the state pension age, and the implications of that for those who may have to work until they are 68.

Although I welcome the exemptions that have been conceded for some of the more obviously physically demanding public sector occupations—police officers, firefighters, members of the armed forces—that is by no means an exhaustive list of public sector jobs that can be extremely physically challenging. Most people would struggle to do many of those jobs into their mid and late-60s, and I hope the Government will listen carefully to employee representatives, and look again at the proposal and at what it might mean for nurses, paramedics, auxiliaries, prison officers and teachers, and others who do stressful and physically demanding jobs. That was one of the principal issues raised across the spectrum of trade unions and other employee representative groups, and the Bill does not currently seem to contain any flexibility to look at the issue in the context of overall negotiations, which is a particular issue in the devolved context.

We need to look at the normal pension age and its alignment with the state pension age in a slightly wider contextual framework, and inject a bit more practical realism into our actuarial spreadsheets. It was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the issue of life expectancy that he mentioned is important. We all acknowledge that life expectancy is increasing, but that top line trajectory masks great and very marked divergences on a range of demographic and geographic indicators. At this point, may I add my tribute to those of other hon. Members who have mentioned the late right hon. Member for Croydon North, (Malcolm Wicks)? It was he who raised some of these important points during previous debates.

People who have worked in heavy industry, for example, tend to die younger than those who have worked in professional occupations. People in deprived neighbourhoods live shorter lives than those in affluent areas, and on average women tend to live several years longer than men. One aspect of that divergence that does not receive nearly enough attention yet is pertinent to the debate is healthy life expectancy—the number of years in which we can expect to enjoy good health. Healthy life expectancy is rising, but it is not rising as quickly as life expectancy.

In Scotland we have one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, and men and women can expect to live almost two years less than the UK average, at just over 76 years for men, and just over 80 years for women. The key point, however, is that healthy life expectancy is only 61.9 years for women and 59.5 years for men. The health of many men has already been seriously compromised several years before they reach the current retirement age. Those figures come from the Registrar General for Scotland; they are official Government figures.

Last month, the TUC published research indicating that in the UK as a whole, only 54% of men aged between 60 and 64 are actually in work, which, on the face of it, seems fairly consistent with official figures on healthy life expectancy. Women can obviously claim their state pension at an earlier age so they fare a bit better, but even then only 62% of women between 56 and 60 are in work. We as legislators must be a lot more realistic about how long we can expect people to be fit for work. Furthermore, those figures do not include people who have moved into part-time work because of their health, or taken on unpaid caring responsibilities for a spouse whose health has been compromised. Many people also leave the workplace to look after grandchildren.

I am sure all Members know people who work into their 70s and beyond with robust health and enviable levels of energy, and thanks to equality legislation fewer barriers are now in the way of older people who want—or need—to continue working beyond the state pension age and are able to do so. However, we cannot just cross our fingers and hope that older people will be able to continue in their jobs until they are 68. All the evidence tells us that most people will have developed some serious health problems by that stage in their lives, which may well affect their ability to work. That is not just in heavy occupations, but across the board.

Even if we allow for continued improvement in health outcomes, which I am sure everyone aspires to, and if life expectancy continues to rise, we need to factor in the realistic likelihood that a significant proportion of people will not be fit for work in physically demanding jobs by the time they reach 68. My worry is that those who are forced to leave their jobs early because of ill health face having to live on actuarially reduced pensions. That might well save the public pension schemes money, but it will significantly reduce their standard of living and quality of life in old age. It might even force some to rely on state benefits. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) alluded to that. We currently spend about £13 billion a year in means-tested benefits for older people, most of whom have worked hard all their lives, often in low-paid jobs or in unpaid caring, and do not have occupational pensions. Supporting those people through means-tested benefits is probably the least efficient way we could ensure they have a dignified old age.

As other hon. Members have said, today is not the day to debate the chronic problems with, and abysmal state of, private sector pensions and the reasons for them, but the warning is there: we should not pull the public sector down to the base level—the absolutely inadequate level—of private and voluntary sector pension schemes. That would be a recipe for spending a lot more on means-tested benefits in the long term.

I was struck by the briefing from the Prison Officers Association, not least because the proposed reforms will affect hundreds of prison officers in my constituency who work at Peterhead prison. The POA points out that, although the average age of prison officers in the UK is rising, prisoners are getting younger, and, in its words, “more dangerous”. It is concerned that many prison officers in their 60s might struggle to pass the physical fitness test that all prison officers undertake to ensure they have the physical strength, stamina and stability to, for example, use control and restraint techniques in the course of their duties. Prison officers make the case that there is a direct parallel between their job and that of police officers, and cannot understand why the recognition that police officers might not be able to do their job effectively beyond 60 has not been extended to them. Will the Minister offer some clarification on the Government’s thinking? Is there scope to reconsider the situation for prison officers? Prison officers point out that, if people are forced to leave their job early through ill health, they could put greater financial strain on the system. For example, it could cost a great deal more if they retire on work-related medical grounds than if they retire normally at a sensible age.

Nurses are another group who do heavy work, so the pension age has potentially significant implications for them. The Royal College of Nursing has formally rejected part of the Government’s proposal, but it makes the point that the Government need to keep the link between the normal pension age and the state retirement age under review, as recommended by Lord Hutton. It has asked that that commitment is made explicit in the Bill, and that the review process is conducted independently. I hope Ministers take that on board.

The RCN has also asked the Government to postpone making a decision on the equalisation of the normal pension age and state pension age until the working longer review in England has reported and the Government have had time to consider its recommendations. In the light of what I have said, I hope the Government take that point seriously, because it would be a sensible approach—the review will help to inform good decision making in the longer term.

Another major concern of trade unions and employee representatives—hon. Members have made points on this, so I will not repeat them—is that the retrospective powers in the Bill allow the Government to amend it with limited consultation. Trade unions and employee representatives are legitimately concerned about instability and uncertainty for scheme members. The consequences of people losing confidence in the pension system and dropping out of it are much bigger—that has happened in other sectors when pensions have become unsustainable. I hope the Government consider that in Committee.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran raised specific aspects of devolved pensions regulation. I am by no means a spokesperson for the Scottish Government—I urge hon. Members to direct their questions to the Ministers responsible—but I hope I can shed some light on certain parts of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s opening remarks. I also want to ask questions for clarification from him and the Minister who will wind up the debate. My understanding is that occupational pensions policy is largely reserved, although Scottish Ministers have Executive responsibilities for the NHS, teachers, firefighters, police and local government pensions schemes, subject to a number of constraints. The major constraint is budgetary—the Treasury controls the purse strings, and Barnett consequentials have a knock-on impact on a Government who are working on a fixed budget and have no borrowing powers.

Will the Minister confirm that formal approval is needed from the Treasury for any legislative changes to the NHS and teachers schemes? What is the Government’s thinking on the Treasury approval required in relation to the firefighters and police schemes? My understanding is that the Government are trying to introduce a Treasury approval requirement for those schemes. Will Ministers confirm what they are doing? Are they seeking a memorandum of understanding to claw back powers from the Scottish Government on police and firefighters’ pensions? Scottish Ministers have had discretion to determine the design of the police and firefighters schemes, although the settlements have always mirrored agreements in other parts of the UK. So far, the benefits of consistency have been thought to outweigh any benefits of divergence. I am not sure whether that balance of opportunity will be seen in the same light if the proposals are implemented.

I believe Scottish Ministers have responsibilities in relation to the local government scheme, provided the powers are exercised within primary legislation. In practice, that scheme, too, has mirrored that of the rest of the UK. To return to points made earlier, I understand that the local government scheme has been reformed, and that “cap and share” arrangements are in place. It is funded differently from other public sector schemes, and decisions on it are made in Scotland by those who manage it. It is worth pointing out that, in Scotland, the public sector local government scheme does not seem to have any financial problems. There is no immediate shortfall—in fact, it is currently running a surplus—and neither the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nor trade unions are of the view that there is any need for reform. The Government could helpfully clarify why they believe that scheme needs to be reformed. Is this the right time to do so? Public sector workers are in tight financial situations. Most have seen their contributions increase dramatically, and many had their incomes squeezed.

I cannot with any confidence answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran on the legislative consent motion. My understanding is that there is no need for a legislative consent motion for most of the Bill, because pensions policy is largely reserved. However, I believe legislative consent would be required for some of the reforms to non-departmental public bodies and some judicial offices. I am guided by the Bill’s explanatory notes, so perhaps the Minister could explain if the situation is different. The Unison briefing asserts that further legislative consent is required with regard to the local government scheme, but I have not seen the legal arguments that back that up or substantiate it. Perhaps UK Ministers are in a position to clarify the UK Government’s understanding of the situation.

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for going through the detail as she understands it. The Bill will have massive implications for our constituents. Does she agree that, if the Unison legal advice is correct—that a legislative consent motion is necessary in relation to the local government pension scheme—everything should be done by the Scottish Government to ensure that the negotiations taking place in Scotland between them and trade unions take precedence in terms of the outcome for our constituents?

[Dr Whiteford]

I certainly agree that it is important that we get a fair and equitable solution in the local government pension scheme. I cannot speak for the Government, but I know that some of the negotiations have been very difficult. From speaking to trade union representatives in recent weeks, it is clear that they recognise the constraints within which the Government are working—and they value the tone of some of the negotiations that have taken place so far—but Ministers in Scotland have been negotiating with one hand tied behind their backs. Greater flexibility, especially on age, would go a long way to helping to reach an equitable conclusion.

Underlying this debate is the need to maintain confidence in public sector pensions, which are really very modest. They keep people just above the poverty line, especially women who have worked in low-paid jobs most of their lives and have very modest pensions that keep them just above the level of means-tested benefits. People are not unreasonable in their expectations, but asking them to pay more, work longer and receive less is not a reasonable proposition to put to our public sector workers. I hope that the Government can and will do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is why in many of the schemes, particularly those where that might be a bigger issue, the rules try to take it into account. I hope that she will welcome that.

I do not have much time left and I wish to address some of the specific points that have been made. Some questions were asked about the cost cap embedded in the Bill. That cap is designed as a backstop only, and it will be triggered in unforeseen circumstances that lead to large potential changes in costs. It ensures that cost increases do not go unchecked again, as they did for decades before the introduction of this Bill.

A number of Opposition Members talked of the “cap and share” arrangement put in place by the previous Government as though it meant that no further changes were required to public sector pensions. Let me remind hon. Members of what Lord Hutton said in his report:

“cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer.”

Had we kept the arrangements introduced by the previous Government, these questions would not have been answered.

A number of hon. Members also talked about opt-outs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) explained well, the incidence of opt-outs as a result of the changes to payments that have already been introduced has had no discernible effect on the use of these pension schemes, but the Government will continue to monitor opt-outs and take opt-out data fully into account before making any decisions on individual schemes.

A number of Opposition Members also raised the issue of public sector pay. Again, Lord Hutton’s commission examined that, and said that public sector workers, on average, had higher pay if account was taken of different qualifications, ages and experience levels. That was also borne out in a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

We also heard some questions about the devolved parts of this Bill, with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asking a number. I will not have time to go into them all, but she is right to say that for parts of the Bill we will require a legislative consent motion, and we hope that that will be forthcoming. For the small parts of pension legislation where there is some flexibility for Scotland, Scotland has the flexibility to do something differently, but that would involve a change.

[Katy Clark]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sajid Javid]

I am afraid I do not have time.

In conclusion, we believe that the changes we have made are generous. They provide a fair settlement and deal with public sector pensions in a manner that is sustainable in the long term. The pensions allowed for under the Bill will continue to be among the best available, providing levels of retirement income that many in the wider economy cannot hope to achieve. There will be tapered protections. Public servants will know how much money they can expect to retire on and will have a greater say in the scheme. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.