Air Passenger Duty

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on securing this debate and on introducing it in a speech which covered all points at issue. Each subsequent contribution highlighted some of those points with dramatic and significant effect. I thought that I would have a little sympathy for the Minister if most speeches were critical of the position which presently obtains. I am afraid that I have to inform him that every speech has been in that category. When one is on the Front Bench, one always thinks that one may be in a little trouble if one glances over one’s shoulder and sees not a soul behind. It is even worse if, as on this occasion, two privy counsellors and members of former Conservative Cabinets join in the criticism.

The Minister has a case to answer and that case has been very effectively deployed. The other place has of course been greatly exercised over this matter in recent months, having responded to a 100,000-signature petition by holding a debate. Again, scarcely a contribution was made there which supported the APD in its present form. It was also pointed out—the Minister would not expect me to ignore this fact—that the coalition agreement and the manifestos of the two contributing parties indicated that they intended to reform radically this tax.

The Minister has to realise that he has a major task ahead. I will make the most obvious point, which is that there clearly needs to be a review of a tax in circumstances where such a ridiculous anomaly as the Caribbean anomaly obtains. Several noble Lords emphasised that point with great force. My noble friend Lord Foulkes fitted into the category of not bringing on this occasion problems for Conservative Ministers but solutions for them with regard to the Caribbean position. We should not underestimate the degree of concern that obtains on that point in all parts of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, who is so familiar with the background of the Caribbean, emphasised how much this anomaly represented.

I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he does not simply reiterate that matters will be considered. Let us have a review. The case has been established that this tax is not working now in the way in which it was first intended, and it has also become increasingly onerous over the past two years. I therefore urge the Minister to take on board the representations that have been made from all sides of the House that a proper review is necessary and urgent.

Bank of England

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

There is no quick and easy answer to dealing with these issues, but the Government will listen very carefully to what Mr Carney says when he arrives.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, is it not abundantly clear that monetary policy can only do so much and that the whole question of the rate of inflation is marginal to our position in terms of the need for growth in the economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated? When will the Government realise that, as we tremble not on our fiscal cliff but on the brink of the possibility of a third recession, it is necessary to address the real economy and abolish plan A?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I do not think that people struggling to make ends meet think that inflation is irrelevant. Keeping inflation down is a central aim of government policy. In terms of what is happening in the broader economy, I remind the noble Lord that the CBI industrial trends survey published today echoes the views of the British Chambers of Commerce quarterly economic survey published a couple of weeks ago: namely, that there is an improvement in confidence; that orders are increasing; and that employment expectations are improving. The noble Lord should not overdo the doom and gloom.

Taxation: Tax Havens

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

Absolutely, my Lords. That is why the Government agreed to put another £900 million during the lifetime of this Parliament into this kind of activity and why we announced in the Autumn Statement that we would add to that another £77 million, which we reckon will bring in £2 billion. The other important thing, in addition to this equalisation of technical expertise, if you like, is that consumers should continue to shine a spotlight on companies that may not be paying the amount of tax that most people would think is reasonable.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, although I welcome the progress made with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord on what basis Crown dependencies and overseas territories could refuse information to the Government on this crucial issue.

[Lord Newby]

As the noble Lord knows, my Lords, any arrangement with any overseas territory or Crown dependency has to be a formal arrangement and agreement. We are not a dictator going into these countries. We are negotiating agreements with them on the FATCA principles and I hope very much that we will conclude those agreements relatively soon.

Finance: Peer-to-Peer Lending

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, these are critical issues. There is a fundamental trade-off between stability in the system, which clearly has to improve over what it was before the financial crisis, and the need to boost growth. The fact that the Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England is up and running in shadow mode and is identifying the counter-cyclical tools that it will need is a very important new step in this area. The Funding for Lending scheme is, I believe, the most important sign of what can be done with the strength of the Government’s balance sheet. Lower funding costs are already coming in to wholesale bank funding, declining by over 100 basis points since June. One indication of the impact on consumers is that quoted rates on fixed-rate mortgages have declined by 0.3 percentage points since the Funding for Lending scheme has come in. However, I certainly agree that we need to be very attentive to this issue.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, yesterday the Opposition expressed their best wishes to the noble Lord on leaving the Front Bench. In the Treasury team, that Motion was carried by seven votes to one, and I am not quite sure whether I should confess to being the one. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed the cross-Dispatch Box jousting that we have had from time to time and I appreciate the Minister’s skill in replying—often, of course, defending the indefensible. Will he, on this occasion, give us real hope for the future? There is a possibility of very rapid growth of peer-to-peer lending. Is he certain that what will be in place is rigorous regulation of this developing sector? We obviously failed with regard to the banks in the past and there are a lot of anxieties about the new scheme now. This one presents particular challenges and I would like some reassurance from the Minister.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I would not want, on an occasion like this, to point out that the previous Government did not take any policy on p-to-p lending, but it was very small then. These lenders only got into business in 2005. The critical thing is that now, having handed the challenge and the responsibility to the FCA, we will see a draft plan very soon, certainly in the first quarter of the new year, as to what the framework for regulation will be. Draft rules will come in later in the year and, as I said earlier, it is very important that we get the balance right in providing an appropriate degree of regulation, not something that kills off what is likely to be a very fast-growing and important area of activity.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson, I beg leave to take his place and make the initial response of the Opposition to the Minister’s speech, which I very much appreciated. We all recognise the need for further reforms to public service pensions. That does not detract in any way from the continuing need for public service employees to have good quality, sustainable pension schemes after what for many will have been a lifetime’s career in public service. In government, we established a framework to manage the changes in the demography of the UK—changes which inevitably impose a need for public sector pensions to reflect them. We all know of the increased longevity of our population and therefore we support the basic principle underlying this Bill.

The area of public sector pension reform has of course been recently and independently investigated in depth by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, who I am delighted to see in his place. I look forward to his contribution to this debate a little later. The report which he produced has been broadly welcomed and has substantial acceptance from this side of the House. It is regrettable that the many sensible long-term reforms suggested by my noble friend have been disrupted somewhat by the Government’s sudden imposition of a 3.2% increase in contributions and a crucial switch in the indexing from RPI to CPI, all without any prior negotiation and without the benefit of falling within any of the recommendations in my noble friend’s report. That has somewhat queered the pitch and made life very difficult for those representing public sector employees.

Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that we all recognise that this Bill is based upon sound principles and needs to be supported across the House. Of course, we understand the increasing cost of pension benefits caused by increased longevity. We also understand the range of proper concerns about the Bill raised by a number of trade unions and professional associations representing public sector employees. We share some of their concerns.

We are concerned that Clause 3 is couched in the broadest of terms that permit the Government to amend through secondary legislation public sector pension provision at any time of their choosing. I accept what the Minister said, that the complexity of public sector schemes and the differentials across them require amendment from time to time. In the Bill, there does not seem to be any clear limitation on the power that may be deployed by the Government and being carried through by SIs on negative resolution procedures. Clause 21(2) provides some attempt at control, but it is expressed as applying subject only to the negative procedure as a generality. We all know the limitations of the negative procedure.

That is hardly much of a fetter on the relevant authority, which will seek to make changes. Additionally, there is little to alert the many thousands of public employees who may be affected by the use of such a power. That does not sit easily with parliamentary scrutiny on what could be very significant issues for people in receipt of public sector pensions. The capacity of Clause 3 to enable amendment, by secondary legislation, to future pension statutes, not yet enacted, is providing an extraordinary measure of discretion to the Executive in an area where the goal, we are told by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is apparently

“no more reform for 25 years”.

Those changes, which will inevitably be necessary over a period of time, will be subject to limited scrutiny. Governance in this vital area of people’s lives requires a sturdier safeguard than the one that the Minister has identified, which is in the Bill. That is why, when we get to Committee, we expect considerable debate on this issue.

Furthermore, the capacity of Clause 3(3)(b) to allow retrospective change to pension schemes by way of secondary legislation is concerning. It raises real concerns that adverse changes may be visited on existing schemes, thereby undermining accrued pension rights. The Minister sought to give a categorical assurance that accrued benefits would not be affected. That is not quite what the Bill says, so we will again wish to press him in Committee on this crucial area. Although not wholly unprecedented conceptually, retrospective alteration sits a little oddly with the Government’s aspiration that there is to be no more reform for 25 years.

At Clause 21(1)(b) there is a degree of recognition by Government of the inherent undesirability of retrospection in this area in so far as retrospective regulation is subject to affirmative procedure where, in this limited area only, it,

“appears to the responsible authority to have significant adverse effects in relation to members of the scheme”.

The well-known problem with this approach, through secondary legislation, is that it is not susceptible to any amendment, leaving as the only possible response acceptance or rejection.

The Opposition do not see such a possibility of retrospection as either desirable or sound in this area. The Government will be aware that secondary legislation that serves to erode or remove accrued entitlements is very much the terrain where, among other grounds, Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be effectively deployed to challenge. Such a challenge would be based on the concept that the Government should not lightly interfere with individual’s property rights. That is what pensions are, of course; the accrual of pensions is the sacrifice of resources by the individual concerned and the placing of them in a pension. It is of the greatest concern that there should be any threat in this area. Surely public sector pensions should not be subject to the uncertainty and possible litigation that such retrospection invites. If the Government are opposed to creating such a situation, as one would hope, then this must be reflected in the Bill. The observations already made regarding the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny apply even more when the Government assume a power retrospectively to change or reduce pensions’ accrued benefits. Why, if no more reform for 25 years is intended, is such a power incorporated within the Bill without adequate safeguards? This is an issue that we are bound to address in Committee with considerable deliberation.

In relation to defined benefit schemes, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated in another place on 4 December:

“We do not intend to move away from defined benefit schemes in public services. Defined contribution schemes would not be the right kind of pension provision for many public servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/12; col. 770.]

That is a welcome commitment by the Government. Without appearing in any way to challenge the sincerity of such a statement by the Economic Secretary, though, is there not much to be said in favour of making that commitment clear in the Bill? It would demonstrate a resolve to support defined benefit schemes that the language of Clause 7 does not impart. We shall be looking to amend this aspect in Committee.

Similarly, regarding the provisions in Clause 11 relating to the employer cost cap, to which the Minister has made reference, that place this subject under Treasury direction, would it not be an improvement that consultation be a requirement prior to any such direction? The general obligation in respect of consultation at Clause 19 does not appear to cover this particularly significant part of the Bill.

Clause 9, in linking state pension age to normal pension age, which is set to rise to 68 years, is understandable in the light of improving longevity, and by and large makes proper exception for the Armed Forces, to which the Minister made reference, police and firefighters. Our concern is the insufficient flexibility in the clause to allow for those public sector employees, especially in the National Health Service, whose roles impose physical and mental demands well above the ordinary. Such staff should not always be obliged to accept an increasing retirement age, especially if independently reviewed evidence of capability shows later retirement to be inappropriate for specific groups. It is also desirable that reasonable notice be afforded prior to any rise in the pension age to permit proper planning for retirement. We hope to look closely at these aspects for amendment in Committee.

In relation to the local government pension scheme, Clause 16 creates possible unintended consequences. As the scheme is, unusually, a funded pension scheme, the use of the term “closure” could permit an interpretation with unfortunate consequences, such as the splitting of funds and crystallisation events. Smaller admitted bodies, normally with limited reserves, might similarly be affected, but potentially even more seriously, if the crystallisation of debt were to arise.

I appreciate that the Government have undertaken to look at this matter. It would be helpful to know whether the Government intend to tackle this issue in a forthright manner in the Bill, and avoid the potential for considerable instability within the Local Government Pension Scheme. We welcome the acceptance by the Government of the principle that scheme members should be kept informed of their pension rights and provided with an annual update.

We will want to scrutinise a proposed amendment that the Economic Secretary promised in another place earlier this month. Accurate and effective information is the objective to enable scheme members to know where they stand and to plan for their future.

On the issue of fair deal, the Government have stated a commitment to retaining the fair deal in respect of the pension rights of employees transferred from the public sector to the private. We do not, however, see any unequivocal reflection of that statement in the Bill. Clauses 22 and 26 are prayed in aid by the Government to support the fair deal policy, but it is very far from clear that those clauses offer any kind of firm commitment. Suggestions that contracts with independent contractors could incorporate the fair deal leave very much to be desired if the objective is its retention. Surely the best way is to make a stated commitment real by placing it in terms on the face of the Bill.

Ministers may argue that the fair deal need not be enshrined in statute, but in an area which can easily be the subject of litigation, we suggest that the time has come to provide both clarity and certainty. We do not, with respect, find ministerial assurances sufficient on this topic if those assurances are to form the basis of the next 25 years of public sector pensions. We shall seek to propose changes on this subject in amendments in Committee.

On the issue of Scotland, Scottish Ministers have been responsible for the negotiation and design of the LGPS in Scotland and have not been subject to Treasury approval. As the Bill proposes to extend provisions on normal pension age and the shift from final salary to career average benefits to the scheme in Scotland, should not the consent of the Scottish Parliament be sought for such extensions? I do not suggest that this is necessarily an issue of legislative competence requiring approval by the Scottish Parliament. Rather, taking account of the distinct approach of the Scottish scheme seems a reasonable means to proceed. We shall look also at this matter in Committee.

There remains one further issue, which as I understand it operates as an anomaly under the Bill. It concerns firefighters who are employed in defence establishments and who qualify for exemption from the normal pension age neither as firefighters nor as members of the armed services. If we are correct on this point, it would appear to be an oversight that we would want rectified. I would be pleased to hear any clarification the Minister might be able to provide, perhaps when he winds up in this debate.

To conclude, I wish to make clear that we accept the need for reform of public sector pension provision, as we expressed while in government. Where we differ from the Government’s proposals is that we consider that public sector employees deserve greater clarity and security than the Bill currently provides. It is for that reason that we look forward to a lively Committee debate on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief because I have been obliged to speak twice in this debate and I am quite aware of the tolerance of the House in that respect.

I have drawn sustenance from the debate in so far as it has been quite clear on all sides of the House that the basic principles of the Bill command assent and support. We certainly want to see effective legislation enacted but we have clear areas of anxiety. They have been reflected in several of the speeches made during the course of the debate. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for emphasising aspects with regard to governance. It is certainly an area that we need to look at quite carefully and there is no doubt that the Minister will be under considerable pressure to improve on the model that obtains within the Bill at present.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, have certain fundamental positions with regard to public sector pensions and the gold-plated nature and indulgence of the public sector in terms of provision these days. I think my noble friend Lord Hutton in his remarks indicated that in fact the average public sector pension is quite a minimal amount. It is not the case that we should point out to the private sector that there are enormous advantages in being in the public sector. There are not enormous advantages. One of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, emphasised was security. Where is the security when the Government are involved in several hundred thousand jobs being lost at the present time? Where is the security when in quite an arbitrary way the Government have indicated that the costs of pension contributions must increase? We all know the reasons for that, but that is not to deny the degree of reduction in resources that apply to those people, who are often on quite modest salaries in the public sector.

I was also grateful to my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady Donaghy for identifying crucial areas in the Bill about which there is real anxiety among those who know the representations that have been identified by trade union negotiators. We must take these points very seriously. I am sure that the Minister will do so. Of course they identify particular areas on which the Bill at present does not command a great deal of assent across the country, which is essential. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for emphasising the issue with regard to the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland.

As was pointed out, in the past all arrangements were on the basis of full consultation and participation. There is an arbitrary quality about the way in which this is expressed in the Bill, which the Minister has an obligation to respond to.

Most of all, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hutton for participating in this debate. He has proposed a report that has given us the basis on which to consider very seriously what we all recognise is a fundamental issue with regard to public finances and public provision. We are as one with the Minister in wishing to see aspects and principles of the Bill achieved, but my noble friend identified crucial areas in which the Bill falls far short of what is necessary to win the confidence of the nation, and it is on that basis that the legislation will become effective.

Taxation: Avoidance

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

The Government have yet to establish a good guys’ website but it is an extremely good idea. In the mean time, I suspect that the noble Baroness will just have to read the newspapers.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the worry would be that if the Government constructed a good guys’ website they would not be on it. The Minister is absolutely right: we need international action. However, the significant European countries taking action with regard to places such as Monaco point a very accusatory finger at the UK Government, with our plethora of regimes that are in fact tax havens. That is why the Government should be taking a lead, not following others.

United States Budget: Economic Impact

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

No, my Lords, the situation is quite the opposite. The fact that the Government took decisive action in 2010 to effect a fiscal consolidation over a number of years—and then flexed that, given the severe headwinds that we faced from the eurozone—means that we are not faced with a fiscal cliff and we are now looking to a period of growth next year that will be higher than that anticipated in, for example, the eurozone.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, it is all right for the Minister to wish the Americans well, but why do the Government not emulate them? Is he unaware of the fact that the American economy has been growing at 2%, while we are teetering on the edge of our own cliff towards a third recession?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I agree with President Obama on this.

Banking: National Savings & Investments

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, this raises many complex issues. I would simply say that a critical part of NS&I’s remit is to raise money for the Government on value-for-money terms. Secondly, I can assure the House that the Government are certainly not going to get into, in any way, unfairly competing in the savings market, which needs to be a vibrant, fair and free competitive market.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister has now indicated the conflict through two answers. He has just said that the role of NS&I is to raise money for the Government, and we all know its excellent reputation—but he also said earlier that it is there to look after the interests of savers, who are consistently getting a rate of return below the rate of inflation. How can that be fair?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, what is fair is that the Government have very considerable concern about savers. I have mentioned the ISA annual limit going up by inflation in April; consulting on whether AIM shares should be eligible to be in ISAs; introducing simple financial products; setting up the Money Advice Service; having a generous new single-tier pension; and raising the cap today on pension draw-downs from 100% to 120%. The Government take the interests of savers very seriously.

Banks: Funding for Lending Scheme

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

The important thing is that the big banks have got a very clear offer. RBS, for example, has launched a £2.5 billion fund for SMEs specifically under this scheme, with the rate of interest charged being 1% less than would otherwise be the case. Lloyds TSB has also reduced its rate by 1% and noble Lords will no doubt have seen the double-page ads that it has taken out in the papers to persuade small businesses to take out a loan. Barclays has introduced a 2% “Cashback for Business”. So the big banks are already absolutely on the case; the smaller banks, which have signed up over a period, are, indeed, developing their offers.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister is surely guilty of great complacency. Is this scheme not going the same way as Merlin and various other efforts under this Government? Will he not acknowledge that £500,000 is a flea bite in terms of investment in our society and in business at the present time? Will he accept the fact, which he did not mention in his figures, that lending for business over the past quarter as a whole decreased by £3.3 billion? What on earth the Minister is doing producing complacent responses to these questions, I do not know. Do we not quite clearly need a British investment bank, backed by the Treasury, that can ensure that funds are made available to industry and business in order to guarantee recovery?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, only a Labour Party Front-Bench spokesman could say that £500,000 is a flea bite. The figures show clearly that there is a realignment of activity in the lending market towards new entrants, which is exactly what the Government and, I think, the Opposition have been seeking to bring about. If we look at a bank such as Aldermore, it is just about the best performer in terms of increasing its size of offer. I am sure that noble Lords will be particularly pleased to see that the building society sector, with Nationwide very much in the lead, has significantly increased its lending specifically because we have the Funding for Lending scheme in place.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

It behoves me to say thank you to the noble Lord. It is hard to believe that the amendment that my noble friend and I tabled has now been accepted. I do not know what to say. Thank you is the only thing I can say.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, given the persistence of my noble friends in debates throughout the Bill as regards “may” and “must”, I imagined that their efforts would result in one signal victory, and this is it. We appreciate the Government’s movement on this point.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said about the public interest being considered before a matter is laid before Parliament, but that in normal circumstances Parliament should be informed. I am very grateful to him for the fact that the assurances which he gave in Committee have been amply fulfilled with these amendments.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, my remarks will change the atmosphere of “love fest” between the two Front Benches with regard to the “may/must” question. There seems to be a semantic problem here in that “must” appears in new Section (2) proposed by Amendment 107D, which one could interpret to mean must. Unfortunately, however, new Section (3) proposed by the same amendment converts “must” into “may”, because it says that if the measure is not in the public interest the “must” does not apply. That shows how difficult it is to draft Bills, particularly in circumstances such as these. I assume that lawyers will flourish when they read “must” in proposed new Section (2) and then discover that the Treasury has decided that it is not in the public interest to publish a direction, and therefore “must” no longer applies. I thought that I ought to add that to the otherwise very pleasant interchange to which I have been listening.