Home Affairs

Daniel Kawczynski Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd]

My hon. Friend’s suggestion sounds as though it has the virtues of brevity and simplicity, but unfortunately, given the technicalities of such a Bill, I do not think that it would get through the private Members’ Bill procedure. I speak as one who was responsible for the Government’s private Members’ business for a number of years. If that were the only route that could be adopted, however, such a Bill would deserve as much support as possible and the Government should give an undertaking to give it whatever support they could, perhaps along the lines of the support that they gave to the European Union (Referendum) Bill last year. The signatories to my early-day motion come from all parts of the House, and I am sure that it will generate support.

Although it does not feature in specific legislation, the economy features prominently in the Queen’s Speech and it would be churlish not to admit that the recent narrative on the economy has moved in the Government’s favour. It is easy to forget, however, that the Chancellor’s original five-year plan said that by now the deficit would have disappeared and we would be paying off debt. Of course we are not doing either. Debt is growing at an unprecedented rate; the Government are now borrowing more money than the Labour Government did in the previous 13 years. The old five-year plans in the Soviet Union were rewritten every year, and that is rather what the Government have done.

Even what economic good news there is has been based on a couple of questionable propositions, not the least of which is quantitative easing, as it is now called. It used to be called printing money. It has robbed savers of millions of pounds, the full effect of which we will not see for some time. These are unorthodox fiscal measures. The housing bubble is not an unqualified good either for people in London and my constituents or people in other parts of the country. It is a huge problem for the children of my constituents who are trying to buy property in London for the first time, and it is skewing the economic recovery.

Beyond the measures that I have mentioned, the Queen’s Speech is thin, bordering on anorexic. That is because the most significant political developments in the next nine months or so will take place not just outside this Chamber but outside this building. I highlight just three. The first is the referendum in Scotland. However it turns out, I am certain that there will need to be a major reconsideration of how the United Kingdom is organised. If the result is against the nationalist case, we will need as a minimum to resolve the West Lothian question in a durable and sensible fashion. I do not wish to intrude, but my position is rather similar to that of David Bowie and Barack Obama, although as the President said the other day, it is a matter for the folks up there.

The second political development is EU reform. I am glad that all three major party leaders in the House have agreed that Mr Juncker is not an appropriate appointment as President of the EU. My fear is that he represents a strain of Eurocrats—I am never sure whether the phrase is derived from bureaucrat or aristocrat, which is certainly how they behave—who fail to understand the feeling of a large swathe of people right across the nations of the EU. They have the gravest disillusionment and doubt about the efficacy and efficiency of the organisation, and those who simply swing on as if nothing has happened and behave as if the project has an inevitability and momentum entirely of its own fail to understand what we need. I hope that we will have a candidate who will more readily reflect those priorities.

I will be candid, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am a member of the Labour for a referendum campaign. I do not accept the artificial timetable that the Conservatives have instituted of 2017. I think there should be a reform process and once it has reached a decision, whenever that might be, a package should be put to the British people for their approval. After all, the only referendum we have ever had on membership of what was then the European Economic Community was provided by a Labour Government.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the artificial timetable. When would he want to have a referendum on our membership of the EU?

[Jim Dowd]

Once the process is complete; once progress has been made and it has been established that there is no further progress to be made. Putting down the finishing line before you have described the course is a ridiculous proposition and it was designed wholly and solely—I sat on the European Union (Referendum) Bill Committee—to keep Conservative Back Benchers happy. That is all it was.

As everyone knows, the other facet of the coalition Government is that the Prime Minister has spent more time rowing with his Back Benchers than he has ever done with the Liberal Democrats. That is the point that I want to come to now—the separation of the coalition. It has already unravelled so we will just see how the parting of the ways occurs.

In the European and local elections of the week before last, the biggest losers by a mile were the Liberals. I am delighted to say that in my constituency we also resisted firmly, as they did across London, the blandishments of UKIP. There are no Liberal councillors now in the London borough of Lewisham or the London borough of Bromley, and no Tory councillors in the London borough of Lewisham for the first time in history, but that is another consideration. So we feel that we did quite well in our small corner.

The reason why the Liberal Democrats were almost wholly obliterated in large parts of the country is that people do not know what they stand for any more. They used to be the party of “a plague on all your houses”. UKIP has supplanted them in that, so what purpose do they have? The answer in most people’s estimation is precious little. I heard a defeated Liberal councillor say, “We need to get out and get our message across more clearly.” I think it is the other way round. I think they went out with their message and people understood it and rejected it. That is the truth of where they are. There is no automaticity about recovery between now and the election. I shall miss some of them, though. There was a fabulous anti-war song by Roy Orbison back in the ’60s called “There won’t be many coming home.” When I look at the Liberal Benches now, I think to myself that after the next election there won’t be many coming back.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I have been desperately trying to think of something that I could agree with him on at the start of my remarks, but we will just have to let that pass.

I support the provisions in the Queen’s Speech. There is a great deal in it about modern slavery, about child protection, on which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), and about trafficking. In particular, there is a great deal about cybercrime and strengthening the legislation around disabling IT systems. We need a reorientation in the criminal justice system to address that issue, which is a massive and growing problem that threatens not only financial loss but organisations’ economic stability.

Of the 11 Bills in the Queen’s Speech, I want principally to address my remarks to those on pensions tax and private pensions, and the Bill on infrastructure and what it means for our energy security and for fracking. The pensions legislation was described by the Prime Minister as the centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech, which in many ways it is. It is hard to think of an issue that affects so many people so much as what they will have to spend in retirement. We have systematic under-provision of retirement income throughout the country. There is a rule of thumb that says that pensioners are divided into three slugs of a third each. One third broadly has some kind of public sector pension, possibly not enough, but nearly always more generous than the next third, who are broadly in some kind of private sector scheme. Increasingly, the gold-plated private sector schemes have been closed, but even those people are better off than the final third who have no provision at all. The pension reforms in the Queen’s Speech, and lately in Parliament, have addressed those last two-thirds.

In the comparison between public and private pensions—this is not a dig at public pension provision; we need good and generous provision—it is worth reflecting on the fact that a pension that is inflation-proofed at around £15,000 per annum would cost £400,000 to purchase in the private sector. Virtually no one can do that. The average pension pot in the private sector is about £35,000. A problem is about to hit us.

The structural issue in the UK comes of a policy point versus the EU. We have chosen to pay relatively low pensions to people on the assumption that they will be topped up by the private sector. Nearly every other country in Europe has chosen not to go down that route but has higher provision. The Pensions Minister has made some progress in addressing that. We have paid £40 billion per annum tax relief into the pension system to mitigate this problem, but it has not worked and it is not working. There is a massive distrust of the pension system among the punters out there. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they would rather bite off their right arm than invest in a pension. Typically, that is because there is a view that so much goes in charges. There has been a market failure. For a pension pot, about 30% or 40% can go on charges, and the provisions need to address that.

The same is true of annuities. Until quite recently, pensioners have been buying annuities without going on the open market. There have been inconsistent and inappropriate products. In my constituency, about 1,200 people per annum are buying an annuity, of whom more than a half are buying the wrong product. That is just wrong. This is compounded by the auto-enrolment initiative and its success, making the need for action even stronger.

The Government have introduced legislation to allow small pots to be combined; they have provided a cap on pension charges at 0.75%, half the amount the Opposition had in terms of stakeholder provisions; they have dramatically and structurally changed the annuity rules so that annuities no longer need to be taken out, which has burst the whole market wide open; and they have removed many of the abusive features of pension funds, such as active market discounts whereby pensioners who remain in a pension fund having left the company pay more in charges. Most interestingly, in this Queen’s Speech they have brought forward a collective defined contribution idea, which is a paraphrase of the Dutch solution, to try to make progress on costs. Broadly, the assumption there is that there is a collectivisation of risk with pension schemes coming together with the idea that costs will be reduced, which I very much hope happens. There is evidence that in Holland the average pension is 20% to 25% higher than in the UK. The collective schemes may be one reason for that, and another is a much higher propensity to use passive investments. I very much welcome what is going on in that area.

It is worth pointing out that in Holland these collective schemes, which are brought forward in the Queen’s Speech, tend to be industry-specific. Pensioners share the risk, but there is also an element by which pensioners can be penalised, even after they have retired, something which is not currently allowed in UK law. There is therefore an intergenerational issue to be fixed there, but it is an important first step, which I support.

In summary, the Government have addressed some of the issues in the pensions industry, including under-provision in the private sector, but there will remain a massive problem, which I have not talked about at length. The £40 billion of tax relief that we have put into the pension system is to a large extent misdirected, and at some point some Government will have to address that and make progress on it.

The Infrastructure Bill, and the encouragement it gives to the exploitation of unconventional gas, either coal gas or shale gas, is important in relation to the three tenets of our energy policy—decarbonisation, lower cost and security of supply. We hear a lot about whether we should frack. Is it important that we do so? We talk as though it is an option, as though no one else is fracking.

The world has changed when it comes to fracking. It changed about five years ago when the United States went into the industry at great velocity. That changed our entire energy supply market. It is now a net exporter of energy and gas, as opposed to an importer. That has implications for its foreign policy—what it does in the gulf of Arabia and all that goes with that—but even more important in terms of how it relates to us is the fact that now its chemical feedstock and electricity costs are one-third of what ours are in the UK. That is a massive competitive change; it is a game-changer. The consequence of that is not necessarily whole businesses immediately moving from here or from Germany to America; it is rather that a new unit or distillation plant in Teesside or the north west will now be built by global companies in America to take advantage of costs that are one-third—not 10%—cheaper than ours. We have to address this situation.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I do not know about my hon. Friend’s constituents, but this week alone I have received more than 100 letters from mine who are concerned about fracking. Does he accept that the Government need to do more to convince British people of the need for fracking, and what is his constituents’ perception of fracking?

[David Mowat]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I accept that we need to do more to convince people that we need fracking; that is one of the reasons I am making a speech about it. It is a little bit about leadership—if we think something is the right answer, we go with it.

I do not want to say that there are no environmental issues associated with fracking, and of course it is important that we frack in the right areas; there will be some places where we should not frack and some places where we should. All that is true, but it is not a reason to turn our backs on this industry. The case that I am putting to my hon. Friend and to other Members is that the world is already fracking. This week, Germany gave the go-ahead for fracking; it had been reluctant to do that, but did so under pressure from its industry. We need to decide as a country how competitive we wish to be, but one of the vehicles of being competitive is cheap prices for energy and chemical feedstock, and fracking is one of the ways in which those cheap prices will be delivered.

There are three tenets of energy policy, the first of which is decarbonisation. Fracking—or gas, I should say—is an element of any decarbonisation strategy that we seriously wish to pursue. In this country, something like 50% of electricity comes from coal and oil. Replacing that coal and oil with gas is the single quickest and most effective way of reducing our carbon footprint. Indeed, of all the countries in the OECD, the one that reduced its carbon by the most in the last five years is the USA. It has done that because it has reduced its coal expenditure and usage, and instead used gas.

The UK—perhaps slightly counter-culturally—already has one of the lowest amounts of carbon per capita and per unit of GDP in the EU. A strategy based on replacing our coal with gas, and doing so more quickly, would lead to even more progress in that regard.

I have talked a little bit about cost, but it is self-evident that there is a correlation between GDP and energy usage. We cannot rebalance our economy on differentially high energy prices, particularly if we are rebalancing it towards manufacturing, and part of the solution is cheaper gas prices.

It has been said that our having unconventional shale gas in the UK does not necessarily reduce prices, and to an extent that is true. However, it is rather like saying we should not have exploited North sea gas or oil 30 years ago because there is a world market for North sea oil and we cannot guarantee that lower prices would—