David Mundell
Main Page: David Mundell (Conservative - Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)Department Debates - View all David Mundell's debates with the Scotland Office
Public Sector Pensions
David Mundell Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers; believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair; further believes that the changes announced since June 2010 by the Government are primarily for the purposes of deficit reduction rather than a move to secure the long-term sustainability of public sector pensions; notes that these changes are unfair on public sector workers who will have to work longer, pay more and receive less in their pension when they retire; further notes the findings of the National Audit Office that the 2007-08 pensions re-negotiation changes will generate estimated savings of 14 per cent. by 2059-60 and the conclusions of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts’ Thirty-eighth Report of this Session on the Impact of the 2007-08 changes to public sector pensions (HC 833), that the cost of public service pensions has reduced substantially because of these changes; agrees with criticism in both reports of the failure to develop a long-term strategy for the role of pensions in recruitment and retention to the public sector; condemns the Government’s threat to cut devolved administrations’ budgets if they do not implement the Government’s immediate levy on pensions contributions; and calls on the Government to reverse its unfair changes to public sector pensions.
The motion stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, and of Members from the Labour party and, I understand, from the Social Democratic and Labour party.
Last week, a day of action saw more than 2 million people across the UK join in protests against changes that will make those affected—mainly women—work longer, pay more and receive less when they retire. This year alone, bankers walked away with £7 billion in bonuses. As one constituent said to me last week:
“This is just a way of getting extra cash from public workers. And it is just not fair.”
We are proud to hold this debate on behalf of all those people across the UK who are directly or indirectly affected by the Government’s changes, and we note that despite having 36 Opposition day debates since the changes were announced in June 2010, the official Opposition have not seen fit to devote even one of those opportunities to debate the public sector pensions proposals. Whatever the evasions, the nods and the winks, and the ducking and diving of others, we are glad of the opportunity to show clearly where we stand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
This is characterised as a joint debate between Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, yet last week we saw SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament cross the picket lines to ensure that the Scottish Parliament functioned, while Plaid Cymru Members of the Welsh Assembly refused to cross picket lines and the Welsh Assembly did not function. Where is the coherent position in that?
Hywel Williams
It has clearly escaped the right hon. Gentleman’s attention that the SNP are in government in Scotland, while in Wales—alas—we are not.
David Mundell
I am afraid that I do not find that a tenable explanation. All SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament are not in the Government, although they may act like it. Those people crossed the picket lines and spoke in a debate on this very subject.
Hywel Williams
Honestly, I think we need to move on to the subject of the debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have time later to make those and other fatuous points.
Hywel Williams
My hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I was going to make, which will doubtless be made again by other nationalist party members. Anyone reading the popular press would imagine that public sector workers were driving around in this year’s model of car and enjoying two or three foreign holidays a year, but that is not, of course, the case.
We say “Let us have negotiations”, but is the 3.2% imposition itself negotiable? What the Government have announced today will merely shift the burden from one group of workers to another. They are trying to squeeze out some sort of deal, but we utterly reject that way of going about things.
David Mundell
I think it important for the hon. Gentleman to clarify whom he means by “we”. The Scottish National party is in government in Scotland, and a number of choices are available to it. For instance, there are funds that it could allocate to reduce pension contributions, but it has chosen not to do so.
Hywel Williams
Again, I do not want to go down that particular avenue—[Interruption.] I have some things to say that the Minister might like to listen to. My hon. Friends will be responding to his point later, but let me say now that the possibilities to which he alludes constitute a broad spectrum of theoretical options for consideration, and that the Scottish Government have expressed no preference. I am sure that others will say more about that later.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The weather in Scotland today is very stormy, and our thoughts are with those who are having to endure the consequences of that. I do not know whether this debate will be equally stormy.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will not think just about the people enduring travel disruptions, but will realise that the majority of those who will be working hard to resolve any problems that arise will be public sector workers.
David Mundell
I do realise that—and that may be the only point on which I agree with the hon. Lady.
I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and in that time he at least said exactly the same about Scottish National party policy on this issue as was revealed in a two-and-a-half-hour debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, which was precisely nothing. I will return to that subject.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has already mentioned, no Member would disagree with the following sentiments in the motion:
“That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers”
and
“believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair”.
Indeed, those sentiments form the foundations of our reform of public service pensions. Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable, sustainable and fair both to taxpayers and public service workers. Let us be clear: public service pension reform is needed. The costs have increased by a third in the last 10 years, to £32 billion, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, without reform, spending on pensions will rise by almost £7 billion over the next five years.
Understandably, this is a contentious issue, but fairness remains the cornerstone of our approach. We believe that public service workers deserve a good pension in retirement, as a fair reward for a lifetime spent serving the public. We recognise the vital contributions made by teachers, nurses, council employees and civil servants to the well-being of our society now and in the future.
That is why in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor commissioned Lord Hutton, a Work and Pensions Secretary in the previous Government, to take an unbiased and clear-headed look at public service pensions and make proposals for reform. His landmark report has set the parameters of the debate, and it has been rightly lauded for its depth and vision.
Lord Hutton set out an overwhelming case for reform. He said that
“the status quo is not tenable”,
that
“future costs are inherently uncertain”,
and that at present the public
“cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”
In his interim report, he found that there was a clear justification, based on the past cost increases borne by the taxpayer, to increase contributions in the short term to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members. We accepted that recommendation, and increases in member contributions will take place, starting next year. However, next year’s increase merely reflects the increase already planned by the previous Government. We remain committed to securing in full the overall savings of £2.3 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15 that we announced at the 2010 spending review.
In his final report, Lord Hutton produced a blueprint for a new landscape of public service pensions. It is based on retaining defined-benefit schemes but moving to a fairer career-average basis, and increasing the retirement age in line with the state pension age to protect the taxpayer against future increases in life expectancy.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
Presumably the Minister is talking about UK public sector pension schemes, whereas the motion seems to be specifically about devolved pension schemes. Does he agree that if there is a solution, it will be that the separatists in Edinburgh just say, “We won’t apply any changes”? Does he also agree that their excuse of continually saying, “The big bad boy in London did it” and then running away is wearing thin?
David Mundell
On that point, I can agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Government have considerable flexibility to make their own choices, but they have chosen not to do so.
Mr Weir
Will the Minister confirm that the Chief Secretary specifically said that if the Scottish Government did not accept these changes, he would fine them £8 million per month, which amounts to £100 million a year and half a billion pounds over the spending period? How are the Scottish Government supposed, effectively, to pay for this twice, and thereby pay £1 billion?
David Mundell
What I can make clear to the House is that as a result of last week’s autumn statement the Scottish Government will receive approximately £69 million extra in resource departmental expenditure limit funds, that as a result of the Budget they received an extra £112 million, and that between the Budget and the autumn statement they received an extra £90 million, which they had not budgeted for.
Mr Weir
However, will the Minister please explain what difference that makes, as we are still going to lose half a billion pounds over this spending period? There is still going to be a massive cut if the Scottish Government do not follow what this Government are imposing upon them.
David Mundell
The difference it makes is that the SNP will have the option to back up its words with deeds, but instead it fails to do so. Its argument is entirely based on blaming the Westminster Government. It has funds available to make these choices, yet it prefers to deceive public service workers in Scotland by suggesting that everything is entirely at the behest of the Westminster Government.
Mr Weir
Will the Minister therefore go to the Chief Secretary and say, “Take away this threat and allow the Scottish Government to do what they want to do for Scottish public sector workers”? Is the Minister happy that there will be this cut of half a billion pounds over the spending period?
David Mundell
I know the hon. Gentleman does not want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom—that is his policy—but he and his Government have the ability to make this choice, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) set out, yet they have chosen not to do so.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
We should look at what the SNP has actually done in this respect. It has responsibility for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, whose submissions to the Hutton review were far worse than what the coalition Government propose.
David Mundell
I will not presume that the hon. Lady was complimenting the Government, but she is correct in that all four of the suggestions the Scottish Government made to the Hutton inquiry would certainly leave Scottish public sector workers no better off than under the UK Government proposals, and a number of those suggestions would leave them distinctly worse off.
Pete Wishart
As an Under-Secretary, the Minister surely recognises the difference between a Government agency and a Government spokesperson.
David Mundell
I recognise the full ambit of the First Minister’s many responsibilities and I do not believe that such a submission would have been made without consultation with the Scottish Government.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I think we are getting to the crux of some of the issues. I would never agree with what the coalition Government are doing to public sector pensions in Scotland, but the Scottish National party did put in a report to the Hutton review that was far more draconian than what the Government are proposing. The SNP may be trying to say to the House that this was done by an agency, but why did the Scottish Government not contribute a proposal to the review?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It reinforces what all of us who are aware of day-to-day Scottish politics know, which is that the SNP Government in Scotland speak with one word but their deeds are quite different.
I return to what I was discussing before the interventions. The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations in full and can reassure the House that the reformed public—
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has made much of Hutton’s report and fairness, but does he not agree it seems odd that the Government jumped the gun by announcing the 3% increase before Hutton’s final report? How does that demonstrate fairness?
David Mundell
I know that the hon. Lady was not in the House at the time, but the 3% figure is broadly equivalent to the sum that her Government had identified in the pre-Budget report in 2009.
David Mundell
I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
The Government continue to engage actively with the trade unions to agree what the new pension schemes will look like. Discussions began in February and the Government remain fully committed to meaningful engagement. Scheme-level discussions are continuing with the trade unions, with meetings yesterday, today and tomorrow, which deals with a question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon. Significant progress has been achieved and the trade unions have welcomed many of the commitments that we made at the start of this process, including the one that public sector schemes will remain defined-benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement. That, of course, was one of the options not put forward by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.
David Mundell
I am going to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) once I have completed this section of my speech.
The unions also welcomed the commitment that all accrued rights will be protected. Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change they will keep, and it will be paid out in the terms expected, at the retirement age expected. Final salary means just that: that someone’s accrued rights will be based on their final salary, not at the point of change but whenever their career ends or they choose to leave the scheme. No public service worker need worry about the entitlements they have already built up.
Sandra Osborne
The Minister talks about public sector reform, so why is the 3% rise going straight to the Treasury? That has nothing to do with the sustainability of public sector pensions.
David Mundell
As the hon. Lady knows, the Treasury underwrites the scheme. The Treasury requires to be paid out whatever is required to be paid out in relation to the scheme. The scheme does not operate on a basis of contributions and pay-outs, because the Treasury is underwriting the scheme so that everybody is paid in full as is their entitlement.
David Mundell
May I just make a little progress and then give way again? I think I have been generous with my time.
Our reforms are not retrospective, nor do they seek to correct the past failure of the Labour party; they are driven by the need for fair, affordable and sustainable pensions in the future. We have reached agreement with the unions on the importance of transparency, equality impacts, participation rates and opt-outs, scheme governance and high-level principles to inform consultations on scheme-level pensions.
David Mundell
I will give way in a moment.
We have set out our proposals. When we make our reforms, the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the future risks arising from increases in life expectancy by the link between the scheme normal pension age and the state pension age. On 2 November, after months of negotiations with the trade unions, the Government set out a revised offer that was more generous by 8%.
The offer is generous. Most staff on low and middle incomes will retire on a pension that is as good as what they expect today, and for many it will be better. Lord Hutton has said that it is difficult “to imagine” a more generous offer. The offer includes generous transitional arrangements for those closest to retirement; those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. This approach mirrors the steps taken in relation to increases in the state pension age, and it is fair that the same applies here. Anyone 10 years or less from retirement age on 1 April 2012 can be assured that there will be no detriment to their retirement income. However, this enhanced offer is conditional upon reaching agreement. It is an offer that can inform the scheme-by-scheme talks which will continue until the end of the year. Of course, if agreement cannot be reached, the Government may be required to revisit our proposals and consider whether those enhancements remain appropriate.
Hywel Williams
Some time ago, the Minister referred to a meeting held yesterday, but will he clarify who was involved? Was a Minister involved in the discussions?
David Mundell
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have made it clear that the meetings are ongoing on a regular basis in respect of the specific schemes. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requires.
Our objective remains to agree reforms of the main schemes—those for teachers, health and the NHS, the civil service and firefighters—by the end of the year, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will update the House in due course. The Government’s preferred scheme would produce better pensions for those on low and middle incomes who have devoted a lifetime to public service. At the same time, public service pensions will remain considerably better than those available in the private sector, as my hon. Friends have suggested. A primary school teacher earning £32,000 per year could receive a pension of £20,000 under our proposals. To earn the equivalent pension in the private sector, an employee would have to pay in more than one third of their salary.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Several of my constituents who work in the private sector have told me that they totally agree that public sector workers should get sustainable, affordable and fair pensions, but they are concerned that for them to have a similar pension they would have to increase their contributions by a factor of three or four. They do not think that that is fair in the current circumstances.
David Mundell
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I empathise with it as the MP for a constituency that has some of the lowest private sector wages in the UK.
Only 10% of private sector workers have access to the type of scheme that I was describing, which is at a guaranteed level and is inflation proofed, while only one third of private sector employees currently get any contributions from their employers.
Jonathan Edwards
I come back to the issue of the divide-and-rule strategy of playing the public sector off against the private sector. Is the Minister aware that the average pension of a retiring teacher is £9,000 per annum, and that the figures for NHS workers, for civil servants and for members of the armed forces are £7,000 per annum, £6,000 per annum and £7,500 per annum respectively? Do those figures seem unfair to him?
David Mundell
It is a question not of playing the public sector off against the private sector but of setting out a fair scheme for public sector workers, and that is what this Government are seeking to do.
The motion mentions two reports, one by the National Audit Office and the other by the Public Accounts Committee, which do not provide us with sustainable and lasting models for the future. Pensions, as they stand, are not affordable. As Lord Hutton says,
“the status quo is not tenable.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest forecast demonstrates that long-term costs have continued to increase since March, so reform is now essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the past few decades. The fact is that we are all living longer; the average 60-year-old is living 10 years longer than was the case in the 1970s.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the points he is making. Does he agree that unless these reforms go ahead public sector workers will not be able to rely on anything, because there might not be any money to pay them anything? That is why it is so important that these reforms go ahead.
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. The speech from the hon. Member for Arfon seemed to me, particularly on Wales, to be very much an argument for the status quo.
Katy Clark
We already know that public sector pensions are, on average, less than £5,600 a year, so if they are going to be even lower what will people live on—state benefits?
David Mundell
There is no suggestion that those on the lowest pay will receive lower state pensions. The Labour party has been very keen to engage in such scaremongering, but the Government’s proposals specifically protect those on the lowest earnings of below £15,000.
Before I finish, I want to turn to some of the specifics about Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I hope that when the Minister comes to explain the protection for low-paid workers he will be able to clarify something about which many people in trade unions have been asking. Will part-time workers’ earnings and the increase in their contributions be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent wages?
David Mundell
They will be based on full-time equivalent wages. That point is clear. The difference on pensions between this Government and the Scottish Government is that we are clear on the points that people might not want to hear rather than pretending to people that they can have everything when that is not sustainable.
Dr Whiteford
The contributions of a woman who works part-time in a professional job—for example, as a nurse or a teacher—but takes home less than £15,000 a year will be increased not at the lower rate but at the higher rate of a full-time equivalent.
David Mundell
The hon. Lady knows that in all aspects of employment, the full-time equivalent applies. That is what will apply to pensions.
David Mundell
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I am about to come on to some of the issues about the Scottish Government. The point that has been underlined several times in this debate is that there are many issues on which the Scottish Government could make a decision but have chosen not to do so.
Susan Elan Jones
I am sure it could be. The Minister refers to transparency and clarity but yet again refuses to answer the question about ministerial involvement, or lack of it, in negotiations. Why will he use those words yet refuse to do that?
David Mundell
My understanding is that my colleague the Secretary of State for Health is meeting NHS unions as this debate is going on. There are significant ministerial discussions.
We have set out that the budgets of the devolved Administrations, who have these powers, would not be adjusted accordingly if they chose not to implement the reforms, because they have received higher settlements that reflect the proposed changes. If the devolved Administrations do not implement our public sector pensions reforms, Barnett consequentials will be reduced.
The Treasury wrote to tell the Scottish Government they had to apply the 3.2% increase in contributions or make up the shortfall and presented them with a choice. They could have chosen not to apply the increased contributions and make up the difference to the Treasury, but they followed a now familiar pattern: they failed to take any sort of decision and blamed Westminster at every turn. Their manufactured outrage is a smokescreen designed to cover the fact that they have no answers for the people of Scotland on how they would fund public sector pensions, never mind the wider state pension. We have asked them often enough—
David Mundell
I have already set out all the additional money that the Scottish Government have received since the budget settlement last year from which they could have made these choices. Sometimes, choices are difficult, but the Scottish Government prefer to pretend to people that they are on their side while not being willing to take difficult decisions.
Ian Murray
You are talking about choices that the SNP Scottish Government will make and one of the big choices they made was to cut capital spending far faster and far further than your own Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister and should refer to him as the Minister or “he”. “You” means the occupant of the Chair, and this is nothing to do with me, fortunately.
David Mundell
That is a phrase often used in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, by one of the—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I say to the Minister that I am absolutely aware of the use of “you”, but I think that in parliamentary debates we should stick to the convention here, as I am sure he agrees.
David Mundell
I will indeed do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The SNP Scottish Government have played fast and loose with Scotland on pensions. Rather than making responsible suggestions, they resort to scare tactics. In this motion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are frightening people by saying that they will receive less pension. The SNP’s submission to Lord Hutton, as we have heard, offered at best no better and in some cases a much worse deal. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency, an agency of the Scottish Government, headed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, made a number of interesting suggestions when it illustrated options for further change. It suggested reducing current employer contribution cap levels with members meeting all costs above that cap. Alongside that, it proposed to reduce the levels of benefits available without necessarily reducing the levels of contributions.
Pete Wishart
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose it should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House that there are now more giant pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs; listening to the Minister, we can see why. Will the Minister concede that there was no submission from the Scottish Government to the Hutton report, but there was a submission from an agency of the Scottish Government?
David Mundell
I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Gentleman might have got a laugh if he had thought that up himself rather than stealing it from the Twittersphere.
The Scottish Government’s proposals were a toxic cocktail topped up by suggestions to introduce later retirement ages, change accrual rates, apply changes to all members, not just new scheme members, and move to a defined contribution scheme, which places the risk of uncertainty over the value of the final pension on the member. All those proposals would mean a worse deal for public service employees than the coalition’s proposals.
David Mowat
I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s comments on the interaction between the Scottish Government and himself. Does he agree that one of the interesting features of the motion is the last part, which appears to concede the point that the Barnett consequentials should be reviewed and that certain types of expenditure should be taken out of them? If that is a principle that the SNP wishes to adopt, we should consider the Barnett formula more generally and the whole settlement and block grant for Scotland.
David Mundell
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because that is one issue on which there is an absolute divide between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Plaid Cymru wants significant change to the Barnett formula and, as I understand it, the SNP does not. That is part of the inherent illogicality that is at the heart of their argument.
I am surprised that we hear nothing these days about independence, which is relevant. Perhaps that is because Plaid Cymru does not promote independence. I look forward to hearing SNP Members set out exactly how an independent Scotland would be able to fund not only existing pensions, but provide enhanced pensions, without consequences for pensioners in Scotland. I am sure that we will hear calls for the break-up of the United Kingdom.
I also look forward to hearing from Labour Members. I understand that Labour MSPs chose not to take part in the debate in the Scottish Parliament because they were working in their constituencies that day. I know that the Labour party has not been an effective Opposition in Holyrood, particularly since the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) left, but not to turn up at all is taking that to an extreme. I look forward to hearing their contributions today.
Iain Stewart
Absolutely. It is just a smoke screen.
It would create an enormous muddle if we had to pull apart the pension contributions, and we have heard absolutely nothing from the Scottish nationalists about how they would do that.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I do not intend to repeat the statements about the importance of public sector pensions that have been made so eloquently by many of my colleagues.
I am surprised that SNP Members, who among others have called this debate, have apparently not wanted to speak in it, because only one has done so. However, some of the comments they have made in interventions need to be addressed. It is not true to say that Labour Members have not raised the subject of public sector pensions in this House. Perhaps SNP Members were not here on 30 November to hear what the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions and were not here during the Opposition day debate that followed, when several Members from my party made very strong speeches in support of public sector workers and on the pensions issue.
Moreover, in this week’s Opposition day debate on the economy, only one SNP Member was present, for a short time—the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr MacNeil). I will not attempt to pronounce the Gaelic name for his constituency because, as a lowland Scot, Gaelic is not native to me, and I am not going to pretend that it is. That was the extent of their interest in debating the economy and the issues that are so important in underpinning this debate on pensions, because unless we get the economy right, we will be in some difficulty. Today, several SNP Members left the Chamber early, presumably to put out their press releases to say how they had raised this important issue, but in reality they have not.
In the motion, SNP Members condemn the coalition Government for not being prepared to give them the money directly so as to be able to relieve some, but by no means all, public sector workers in Scotland of the contribution increase. They cannot have their cake and eat it within the system. They cannot have the Barnett consequentials when they like them and decide that they do not want them when they do not like them. Yes, it would be different if they achieved independence, although at that point we would have to ask, “How are you going to afford all the things that you say you are going to afford?”
David Mundell
Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that we have not heard a single mention of independence from SNP Members? As I understood it, that was their solution to all the pension issues in Scotland.
Sheila Gilmore
I suspect that in the fantasy world of the debate on independence, as it tends to be, SNP Members would indeed say that that is the answer, but they have to know how they would fund that and about issues to do with tax and making people as well off as possible.
During the SNP Member’s brief appearance in Tuesday’s debate on the economy, he kept talking about the Scandinavian economies. Of course, in the Scandinavian economies there is a very different view of taxation. It is disingenuous of the SNP to want to pose as a low-tax party and tell people that they can have wonderful public services and, at the same time, council tax freezes—which, by the way, are very regressive because they most benefit the people who are best off. The SNP has to decide where it wants to be. It deliberately put such a sentiment in the motion because it wants to be able to say that Labour Members will not support it.
We are in support of public sector workers. We do not think that what the Government are doing is right. We feel, very strongly, that we have to stop what this Government are doing, which is constantly to pit one group of workers against others. They are setting public against private, setting people in work against people who are out of work, and stirring up what I heard described on two occasions on Radio 4 at the weekend as an atmosphere of anger and bitterness. In the discussions on phone-in programmes about what is happening, all the clips were of people shouting at each other, saying, “Why should I, as a private sector worker, pay for your pension?” No commentator said, “Where is that anger being generated from?”, but it is being deliberately stirred up by this Government—
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
This has been a wide-ranging debate and I think that there is agreement across the House that pension provision in the long term needs to be affordable, sustainable and fair, not just for public sector workers but for all old age pensioners.
Although we agree on those long-term objectives, the central contention of the debate has been that the short-term measures to reduce the deficit will hit public sector workers but be of no benefit to them. The issue at the heart of the debate is that the proposed 3.2% increase to public sector pension contributions is a straightforward cash grab by the Treasury on public sector workers. It has nothing to do with building long-term sustainability into our pensions system, but is unequivocally a short-term measure to cut the deficit.
Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is not fair and not affordable for a public sector work force who are already feeling the full effects of austerity measures that have gone too far, too fast. Most public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze, a 1% pay rise in 2013, increases in VAT and national insurance, and inflation of more than 5%. The cost of their essentials, such as heating, food and fuel, is going through the roof. The pressure on household budgets is intense and is getting worse.
In that context, increasing pension contributions for short-term gain is just the wrong thing to do. It is being done at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. It carries the risk that large numbers of people, especially part-time workers, will drop out of schemes altogether because of the immediate financial pressures that they face.
I think, and most Members on both sides of the House agree, that public sector pensions matter. They matter to the one in five people who are directly affected. They matter to the rest of us who depend on public services and who realise that our public service work force are critical to the delivery of high-quality services. Above all, they matter to all of us who care about the welfare of older people in retirement. All of us want to enjoy a decent level of income. For parts of the country that have a high dependency on the public sector work force, the issue is even more acute.
David Mundell
What I do not understand about the hon. Lady’s logic is that the Scottish National party has said that it wants to have a referendum on independence for Scotland in the next four years. The area on which that would most significantly impact is pensions and pensioners, yet in her contribution and in the contributions of her fellow SNP Members, we have heard nothing about independence or about how pensions would be provided, guaranteed or sustained in an independent Scotland.
Dr Whiteford
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper and the motion that we are debating. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the House that I believe in independence—I am an SNP Member. However, we are talking about public sector pensions and the Government’s proposals. It might be a nice distraction for the Government to talk about other issues that are equally relevant to Scotland’s future.
One of the most disappointing things about this debate has been that the Government have tried to defend their proposals by constantly highlighting the disparity between public and private sector pensions. We owe a debt to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for pointing out the detrimental state of private sector pensions. When the Government responded to the interim Hutton report, my understanding was that they accepted its conclusion that pensions should not become a race to the bottom. However, speaker after speaker on the Government Benches has resorted to the argument that because private sector pensions are really poor, public sector pensions should be levelled down. That will not in any way address our pensions challenge. It is not sustainable and it is not fair to anyone in the private or public sector.
We have some of the highest levels of pensioner poverty in Europe. Currently, 30% of pensioner households and a massive 43% of single pensioners, most of whom are women, are in receipt of income-related benefits, whether that is pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Having large numbers of older people on means-tested benefits is not the way to do things. It is the price that we pay for poor pension provision. It is not an efficient way to support people in retirement.
The other big myth that has been well and truly blown out of the water today is that public sector pensions are gold-plated. Quite simply, they are not. Member after Member has pointed out that most public servants retire on modest incomes. The PCS points out that its average member’s pension is only £4,200 year. That is £80 a week, which is only £4 above the Government’s pensioner poverty figure. If such people’s pensions are reduced or they opt out because of the new conditions and contribution increases, it will simply put the burden back on means-tested benefits to keep people out of abject poverty in their old age.
In local government, in which 67% of the work force are women, the average woman’s pension is only £2,800 a year. Almost half of local government workers are on pensions of less than £3,000, and even in the NHS, in which salaries are much higher because of the professional qualifications involved, three quarters of members are still on pensions of less than £9,000 a year.
The Government have tried to sell us their proposals on the basis that low and middle-income earners will be protected from contribution increases, and may even be better off as a result. That is one of their key claims. However, because of the switch in indexing from RPI to CPI, all public sector workers will lose out in the longer term, and they will all be working longer. That indexing switch has been mentioned in the debate, and I am sorry that more Members did not vote against it when they had the chance to do so back in February. They have a chance to rectify that now, and I hope that they will support us in the Lobby today.
Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the Government’s approach to the contributions increases is that they have said there will be protection for low-paid workers. As the Minister admitted earlier, the contributions of part-time workers will be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries, which will have massive implications for women, who make up the vast majority of part-time workers. About 32% of the women in our work force work part-time so that they can combine employment with unpaid work in the home or looking after others.
The Government have said that workers on incomes under £15,000 will not pay increased contributions, and that other low earners on up to £21,000 will pay reduced contributions, but when we look at the small print, we see that those thresholds, calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries rather than their actual take-home pay, will mean that even professional people such as nurses and teachers who work part-time will have their pension contributions increased.