Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to highlight that issue, because that is exactly what is happening. It takes away from our efforts, because we are both opposed to HMRC office closures, but the Government are forcing people to go on older terms rather than the new, drastically reduced terms.

For the benefit of those watching these proceedings, let me provide some background. The civil service compensation scheme is a statutory scheme that provides compensation for loss of office for reasons including compulsory and voluntary redundancy. In July 2009, the then Labour Government set out proposals to reform the scheme in order to control costs and to address elements that may be age-discriminatory. In broad terms, the existing scheme provided severance for those under 50 and early retirement for those aged 50 to 60. The civil service unions opposed the proposed changes on the grounds that they represented a reduction in terms for most members; that they did not adequately compensate those faced with compulsory redundancy; and that they compared unfavourably with other public sector schemes.

In February 2010, the Cabinet Office announced a modified set of proposals on which it had reached agreement with five of the six civil service unions. That agreement limited the maximum payment on compulsory redundancy to three years’ pay, where that led to a payment of no more than £60,000, and to two years’ pay for high earners. Additional protection was provided for those who were closest to retirement. The civil service compensation scheme was amended accordingly. The largest trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, opposed the changes and applied for a judicial review. On 11 May, the High Court ruled in favour of PCS and the amendments to the scheme were quashed, with the exception of certain changes designed to address elements that were considered to be age discriminatory.

On 6 July that year, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government said that they would legislate to cap payments at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and 15 months for voluntary redundancy. They hoped to negotiate a permanent and sustainable agreement with the civil service unions, at which point the caps would be withdrawn. The trade unions objected to the proposed caps because they were less than those in other public sector schemes, where a limit of two years’ pay was normal.

The current announcement about changes to the civil service compensation scheme comes just five and a half years after the then Minister Francis Maude imposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme in December 2010, promising that those changes were fair, affordable and right for the long term. It is hard to see what has changed so radically since then to justify this fresh attack on civil servants’ terms and conditions.

The changes can be summarised as follows. There is currently one month’s salary per year of service, but after the proposed changes there will be three weeks’ salary per year of service. There is a cap of 21 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and voluntary exit, but there would be a cap of 18 months’ salary for voluntary redundancy and 15 months’ salary for voluntary exit if the trade unions were not to accept the offer that has been put to them. There is a cap of 12 months’ salary for compulsory redundancy, but the Government propose to change that to nine months’ salary. There is employer-funded access to the early pension option when individuals reached the minimum pension age of 50, but access to that option will now start at age 55.

The Government propose to cut the cash compensation payment, which means that they will reduce the rate at which compensation accrues for each year of service from one month’s salary, as it is currently, to three weeks’ salary. That will affect those with short and medium service, cutting redundancy payments by 25%. The Government also propose reducing the cap on payments, as I have said, which will drastically reduce payments, for some by as much as 30%.

In addition to changes to compensation payments, the Government propose restricting employer-funded access to early pension. That option is currently given to staff in voluntary redundancy situations who have reached minimum retirement age, which is 50 in the classic and premium schemes and 55 in the nuvos and alpha schemes. Staff are offered a compensation payment based on their salary and length of service, or they are offered the option to take their pension, with the employer buying out any actuarial reduction resulting from drawing the pension early. Cabinet Office statistics show that the average value of compensation for the 50 to 54 age group will fall dramatically, by more than 50%, under the new proposals. That demonstrates the profound impact that the reform could have.

Early access to pension has been a popular alternative to the cash lump sum compensation payment for those with long service who are nearing retirement, because it provides a level of security. That is important, because it has been shown that those aged over 50 often find it harder to get a new job, and that if they do, it may be for fewer hours and/or lower pay. We are all concerned, therefore, that restricting that option will create hardship and distress. In some cases, it will result in people relying on benefit payments.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that civil servants in admin and assistance jobs—the ones who are on the front line doing the UK Government’s dirty work—are already paying a high price for Government austerity, having seen pressures rise while headcount has fallen by 37% since 2010?

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is clear that the civil service is reducing. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, is now half the size it was 10 years ago, which is important to note when it is dealing with tax avoidance and all those other issues.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted to hear that, because after 10 years it is about time that the Scottish Parliament started to invest in closing the educational attainment gap and in public services. That intervention by the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the Scottish Parliament has powers to make a difference in people’s lives, but in his speech to begin this debate he said that the Scottish Parliament has no powers whatever. Indeed, he even mentioned the tugboat that was taken away, as if the Scottish Parliament meets to discuss what it cannot do rather than trying to change the lives of people in the ways that it can.

Let us get back to this debate about the Claim of Right. It is worth just reading out the start of the declaration of the 1989 Claim of Right, which was indeed re-emphasised in the Scottish Parliament and voted on in 2012. It says:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

We have heard much from the hon. Gentleman, who is the mover of the particular motion that we are debating today, about the importance of respecting Scottish sovereignty. Respecting the popular will is important, not only in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. Let us not forget that, as the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned, the Scottish National party, along with many Scottish Tories, did not participate in the constitutional convention; the SNP did not participate in that conversation with civic Scotland, politicians, groups, universities and business about what the future of devolution should look like. Moreover, the SNP did not accept the wording of the Claim of Right that that convention was founded upon. Indeed, it is only the Labour party and the Scottish Labour party that have been entirely consistent in upholding the words of the Claim of Right, because it pledged:

“To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland; To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme”.

It went on to say that it also pledged:

“To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.”

When the Labour party was elected to Government in 1997, one of its first Bills delivered the referendum on devolution, mobilised popular support for its approval, asserted the sovereign right of the Scottish people, delivered on the result of the referendum and created the Scottish Parliament that we have today. There was no mention of all that from the hon. Member for Glasgow North; there was no mention of how we said to the Scottish people that we would deliver something, got into power and then delivered it, on the basis of what the Scottish people were telling us they wanted to happen.

To be fair, when the SNP was elected in 2011 on a manifesto that pledged an independence referendum, we respected the mandate for that referendum, too, because the Scottish people had voted for it. Consequently, in 2014 we had that referendum and that time the Scottish people voted to stay in the UK. So, taking the word of the Claim of Right as our guide, if we can, we acknowledged

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”.

The Scottish people voted for a powerful Scottish Parliament, but with Scotland being an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Claim of Right was put into practice: it was voted on in 2012 in the Scottish Parliament; the referendum happened in 2014; the Scottish people spoke; and

“the sovereign right of the Scottish people”

is to stay within the United Kingdom, but with a much more powerful Scottish Parliament. That was the spirit and the substance of the Claim of Right that we are discussing today.

I want to go back to the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow North. The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. It is about time that the politicians elected by the people looked back at that Claim of Right and said, “We were elected to deliver for the Scottish people with a powerful Scottish Parliament” and got on with the day job that they were elected to do. But every single day since the polls closed on 19 September 2014, the SNP has looked for any single trigger to get a different result in the referendum. That is surely the complete antithesis of the Claim of Right.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that during the independence referendum campaign, it was made very clear that one of the major benefits of being in the UK was remaining part of the EU? That is now simply not the case.

[Ian Murray]

The evidence shows that people did not vote on that particular basis. What the SNP is now telling us is that because the UK has turned away from a market worth £12 billion and 250,000 jobs to the Scottish economy—I was on the same side as the hon. Lady in wanting to stay in the European Union—the solution is for Scotland to turn away from another Union that has 1 million jobs and £50 billion worth of trading. That is surely not in the best interests of the Scottish people.

We have supported the SNP and the First Minister to make sure that the UK and Scotland can get the best deal from Brexit, but if the solution to Brexit is to turn away from an even bigger partner, to mount on top of one disaster—this constitutional decision at UK level—another disastrous constitutional solution, we are surely in the wrong place. That goes to the hub of the argument.

[Deidre Brock]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in the case of Scotland’s becoming independent, England would be so petty-minded as to turn away from its nearest neighbour and not continue to trade in any meaningful way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I wanted to start with a sentence about respect, but I am sad to say that I have heard precious little respect today, from the Members who have spoken, towards Scotland or its elected representatives. I am very sorry about that. There has been a lot of mention of the independence referendum, and I have wondered about the promises made by the people who galloped up over the border in the closing weeks before the referendum. There has been a lot of talk about grievance and gripe, but I wonder what Members make of the many people in Scotland—not simply the SNP, although that makes up a considerable part of the population—who are annoyed and upset about the promises made to them in the run-up to the independence referendum. They included the protection of jobs at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; staying in the EU, as I mentioned earlier; the protection of shipbuilding jobs; and a vow that falls far short of what is commonly meant by home rule. Those promises were sold to the people of Scotland, and I urge Members to bear that in mind when they are addressing SNP Members.

[Michael Gove]

Will the hon. Lady enlighten us as to the view of Lord Smith of Kelvin, the keeper of the vow, about the decision of the Westminster Parliament to honour it? Did he agree that it had been honoured?

[Deidre Brock]

There were certainly members of the commission who were unhappy. None of the SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill were accepted for consideration until it went through to the unelected House of Lords, which is laughable.

To get back to the issue of respect, politicians, monarchs and bureaucrats need to understand and accept that powers lie with the people we serve, not with us. It is about knowing that the colossus that bestrides the world stage is people power and that those who lead are servants of the people, not masters. That is what the Claim of Right is. It is a declaration that the people are sovereign, as has been mentioned, and that it is in their gift to decide how that sovereignty should be used. Governments and Parliaments rule only with the consent of the people, and they exist only because the people allow them to. That is a reality that politicians forget at their peril.

It is important to note a clear difference between the attitudes struck towards Parliament in Scotland and in England. I understand that that point of difference is also noted in the legal concept of sovereignty in each nation. In England there is a belief in, tradition of, and historical precedent for the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, but there is no such belief in Scotland. The Scots’ attitude, and our constitutional law—which perhaps my learned friends will confirm—is that sovereignty rests with the people. That principle is embedded in the 1320 declaration of Arbroath, in which the King and future kings were warned that if they displeased the people, the people would elect another king—more like a president than a king, I suppose. That principle is embedded in the Claim of Right.

It is not quite right to say that no Conservative has ever acknowledged that principle, because it was acknowledged by the current Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), when he said in a debate in the House on 22 May 1997:

“The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want”.—[Official Report, 22 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 872.]

It took a bit of time from the publication of the Claim of Right to the interim solution—the creation of a devolved Administration—but 10 years is nothing in the great scheme of things, and in the march of nations it is but a blink of an eye. I have to say, though, that the Conservatives have a lot to thank the Claim of Right and Scottish devolution for—they saved their party. In fact, the current Scottish Secretary owes his political career to the Scottish Parliament. There had been few opportunities for Tory politicians in Scotland, even those who had previously been Social Democratic party councillors. The proportional representational element of the Scottish electoral system revived a party that was frankly dying, and which had ironically opposed its creation in the first place. Democracy, properly energised, gives some strange, interesting and unexpected results.

The Claim of Right was democracy in action. It emerged from civic Scotland, the Churches, the trade unions, small business and organisations the length and breadth of the country as a demand to address the democratic deficit that arose from being governed by a Government who could not command support in Scotland. It is interesting to note that John Major’s Government had 14% of the Members representing Scottish seats while the current Government have a bit less than 2%, so there is work still to be done in removing that democratic deficit from Scotland and rendering those of us who are Scots MPs redundant.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not want to rush the hon. Lady, because she has been waiting patiently and was kind enough to write in to request to speak, so we can extend her speech to 3.34 pm and bring the Front-Bench speeches down to eight minutes each.

[Deidre Brock]

You are very kind, Mr Bone.

Independence, in our view, is the logical end point for the journey that the Scottish Constitutional Convention set out on, and it is interesting that the original convention refused to countenance that possibility—there has been some mention of that. I am told that that is why the Scottish National party stepped away from the convention. It was some years before my time in the party, but I am told that the prospect of devolution caused great debate about whether it was good for Scotland, and that the refusal even to discuss independence in the convention was the final straw. My much older and more grizzled colleagues will be able to correct the record if I have misspoken in that respect—they have long and detailed memories.

The Claim of Right, resting on the principle that the people are sovereign and imbued with a notion of changing the form of government to address a democratic deficit, has an increased resonance now. In June, the UK voted to leave the EU. Scotland did not. Some 52% of UK voters voted leave, and 62% of Scottish voters voted remain—untimely ripped from the European Union were we. The democratic deficit remains stark, real and unrelenting. The conditions that necessitated the Claim of Right and the creation of the devolved Administration and Parliament in Edinburgh remain.

There is but one answer that will address that deficit and Scotland’s needs; one simple, elegant solution—the dissolution of the UK, Scottish independence and the creation of good neighbours as separate nations. No one has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. No one can tell a country, “This far and no further”. The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Scotland’s march goes on, and independence beckons.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I remind the Front-Bench speakers that they will now have a maximum of eight minutes each, and I remind the Minister that under the new procedure he should allow at least two minutes for the proposer of the motion to sum up. I call Patrick Grady—I am sorry, Peter Grant.

Centenary of the Battle of the Somme

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Somme: the first time this world had seen mechanised warfare and the industrial destruction of human life. “Lions led by donkeys” it was said of the British forces in the Crimean war, but that was never more true than at the Somme. We cannot see the war that those who were living a century ago saw, nor can we hope to understand the horror, the pride, the loss and the patriotism that they felt. It may be a disservice to them for us to try. Current serving personnel and veterans of our modern wars will have some understanding, but we do not. Soldiers, sailors and air crew are now trained before being thrown into the hell that is the killing theatre. Precious few of those who fought in the last century had anything resembling military training. Theirs was not an easy task, nor an easy billet, nor an easy death.

My own constituency remembers most keenly the Edinburgh Pals battalions, encouraged to join up with people they already knew to fight alongside them and to die alongside them. Whole communities were devastated as their sons died on France’s fields. People on the other side of Edinburgh from my constituency tell of an entire professional football team, Heart of Midlothian, which joined a Pals battalion, along with players from other Scottish professional sides. They fared no better—youths who were sent to die in the mud. War is always loss and grief and pain, but the first world war stands out starkly as a reminder of how cheaply the lives of ordinary soldiers were held, and how little regard their leaders had for them, even after the guns fell silent.

I am Australian, so I will take a few moments, if I may, to talk about the forces who came from Australia and New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand soldiers—the Anzacs—fought first at Gallipoli in April 1915. In July 1916, they were in France, at Fromelles, as a diversion for the Franco-British offensive on the Somme. In September, they were sent to rest, but were back at the Somme in October, where they suffered a very severe winter. About one in seven of the New Zealand division died in the battle, and 40% were wounded. Two thousand graves and 1,200 names engraved on the memorial to the missing mark New Zealand’s sorrow. New Zealand’s population at the time was about 1 million. At the Battle of Fromelles, there were just over 7,000 casualties in the British Expeditionary Force, and 5,500 of them were Australian.

“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”

may be a fine epitaph, but it does not wipe away the hurt, or ease the grief, or help to rebuild the community.

After the war, Ataturk spoke to the mothers of the Anzac soldiers who died at Gallipoli, and the sentiments he expressed apply across the world and across the decades:

“You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”

Wherever they came from, whatever side they fought on and whoever we are now, we should embrace all those who have lost their lives fighting in wars they never started. We should remember them as human beings. In the chaos and cacophony of battle, these boys died painful and frightening deaths, lonely even as their friends died alongside them.

Some say that wars are crimes committed under the cover of patriotism, necessity and self-defence. It is sometimes found necessary to commit such crimes, but they are crimes none the less. It is said that we sleep peacefully because others stand ready to do violence on our behalf, but that does not make it right. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who served and those who continue to serve, but we owe them more: we owe them our best efforts to avoid waging war in the first place.

[Graham Evans]

As this debate is about the Somme, I thought the hon. Lady would like to join me in paying tribute to the Australian armed forces that fought so superbly at Pozières. Not only is there a fantastic memorial there, but soil from Pozières was used for the burial of the Australian unknown soldier in Canberra.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I appreciate his raising it at this time, but I hope that I have already paid tribute to the Anzac soldiers in my comments.

Those who fought in previous wars should be remembered, and those who defend us now should be honoured and paid well. Those who come back from the battlefield injured should be looked after, and their rehabilitation and long-term care should be shouldered completely by the Government, not simply by charity. A century after the carnage of the Somme, we still send young people into harm’s way. The very least we can do is to treat them well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend obviously has huge experience in this area, personally and because he represents a constituency that has given much to the defence of our nation. He is right: as well as the LIBOR fines, which we use for specific one-off causes to help military charities, we have the armed forces covenant and the annual commitment to support our veterans. I am always happy to look at either specific projects in which we can invest or ongoing concerns we can deal with.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

T2. The collapse of UK manufacturing has in fact been going on for some 50 years—it has gone from 30% of the economy in the 1970s to less than 10% today, and from more than 20% of all jobs in the 1980s to only 8% today. Given the scale and length of this decline, why have the Government not made manufacturing and exports one of their top priorities?

[Mr Osborne]

We have backed our manufacturers and exporters. We have cut corporation tax and other taxes that affect those businesses, and we have reformed UK Trade & Investment. As a result, the manufacturing sector accounts for a larger share of our economy than when I became Chancellor, but there is still a huge amount more to do. One thing I would say to the hon. Lady and the Scottish Government is that we want to work more closely with the Scottish Government on overseas trade missions, where we can promote Scottish businesses. We do not always get that co-operation, but we hope it will be forthcoming in the future.

Tax Credits

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

We all want a better future. We all want more jobs, and better-paid jobs. But the point is—the point that we cannot get away from—that you do not do that by punishing those who are in work, and who will be pushed into poverty. As the Government have often said, work must pay. You cannot do what you are doing and be consistent with your own objectives.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is of course indefensible for the Government to pick up the tab for employers who refuse to pay their staff decent wages, cutting the support from the working poor will not force wages up? A strong labour market will, as will rigorous enforcement of a genuine living wage and ending zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. I hope that we will go on and have a robust debate about productivity in this country and about skills and innovation, because driving investment into the economy will drive wages up and negate the need for tax credits. None of us has a fundamental desire to see the long-term existence of tax credits, but they can only be removed when wages are driven up. What we cannot do is what the Government are doing and cut tax credits ahead of increases in wages.