Superannuation Bill
Debate between John Hemming and Baroness Jowell(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Jowell
Let me come back on that point. When I was responsible for the negotiations, they were long, as the Minister outlined, and involved a serious and concerted attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. New clause 1 is a necessary way of dealing with the unexpected outcome of the judicial review earlier this year. Had we been returned at the general election, we would no doubt have had to amend the 1972 Act in the light of that, but the critical difference is that we would not have introduced legislation simply to impose a settlement in the absence of a clear commitment in the Bill to negotiation in good faith in order to try to achieve a proper agreement. That is why I stand by my description of the powers, as drafted in the Government’s new clause, as unbridled.
We recognise the need for an amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972. The High Court judgment made a clear case for ensuring that the Government are able to compel a settlement and that no union should be able to veto changes. That is a position that we would support.
John Hemming
The right hon. Lady’s amendment (a) would mean that the unions would have to consult their members in accordance with the rules before any new scheme could come in. Does she agree that that would provide the opportunity for a trade union to veto any changes merely by refusing to negotiate or consult its members?
Tessa Jowell
If the hon. Gentleman reads the amendment carefully, it will be clear to him that it is intended not to give the trade unions a veto, but to require a report to Parliament on the progress of the negotiations where the power is intended to be used, giving the effect of the imposition of a settlement in the absence of the agreement of all six unions.
John Hemming
The amendment states that the Minister must lay
“a report of the consultations that have taken place with the workforce and their recognised representative trades unions with a view to agreement”
and that the report should contain
“a statement that the representative trades unions have consulted their members in accordance with their rules”.
The report cannot include such a statement unless that has happened. That, in essence, would revert to a veto for the trade unions. I should think amendment (a) should not be moved.
Tessa Jowell
The approach is intended to ensure that what appears in the Bill when it receives Royal Assent represents a right and proper balance between the responsibility of the Government to secure a settlement and the entitlement of the trade unions to be properly consulted. However, as the hon. Gentleman may not quite be aware, in Mr Speaker’s wisdom he did not select that amendment for debate.
I return to our clear view that no one union should be able to veto a change to the civil service compensation scheme that is the result of negotiated agreement with the majority of unions. The Government’s ability to compel a settlement should be the course of last resort, once it is clear that common agreement cannot be reached—
John Hemming
This has been a rather depressing debate, because the Opposition have demonstrated “oppositionism” at its worst. Everybody recognises that there is a problem and, basically, we cannot afford to pay six and two thirds years’ redundancy payments to some senior civil servants. The Government are trying to look after the low-paid, and our proposals are better than the Opposition’s. The Opposition’s amendment, which admittedly has not been selected, would have reinstated a veto for the trade unions on any proposals for change, something that the Opposition disagreed with when they were in government.
Tessa Jowell
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the proposals in the Bill provide a better deal for low-paid civil servants earning less than £20,000 a year than the proposals in the February 2010 package?
John Hemming
I accept the shadow Minister’s point that the Opposition’s proposals are the same as those in the negotiations, but the whole point of the Bill is that it is not supposed to be the end result. Civil servants have not made any estimate of the savings as a result of the Bill, because it is not supposed to be the end result. This legislation is what the civil service has advised us to undertake in order to break the legislative logjam that the previous Government created. It is about making progress.
On the issue of how we manage the civil service, I think that we should try to look after our employees and aim to minimise redundancies. In the absence of the Bill, however, that would become harder and harder. One thing that must be recognised is that reorganisation has essentially come to a halt, because we will not be able to save money if we have to pay six years’ redundancy to somebody. Paying six years’ redundancy will mean that we increase the deficit.
John Hemming
The question is about what we add to the deficit—the actual cash costs. That is the key. The proposals that the previous Government tried to impose were struck down by a judicial review, so we have reverted to the original scheme.
In essence we are trying to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, and, if by making redundancies we increase borrowing, that will not get us anywhere at all. That is the reality of life. Underlying that, however, things can be done to reduce the full-time equivalent headcount without reducing staff—finding ways in which people can go part-time and so on. But, there is a legislative logjam that needs to be broken, and we need negotiations. Indeed, the 1972 Act requires them. The Public and Commercial Services Union argues in its briefing that there needs to be a trade union veto because there is no contract. However, those people who have contracts can find that their contracts are changed.
To be fair, I should take a very different view if there were any threat to pension rights. Pension rights are different, but an unaffordable redundancy scheme, in which we cannot reorganise organisations and save any money, is one that we cannot deal with in these circumstances—much that the priority has to be otherwise. To that extent, new clause 1 is the right way forward. I am surprised that the Opposition have taken the view that they would rather this were a money Bill than not, because their amendment would create the situation whereby it suddenly became a money Bill.
Tessa Jowell
We want the Bill to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.
John Hemming
I thank the shadow Minister for saying what her objectives are. In the past, the Opposition have often had objectives that they failed to achieve. Their objective was to remove the trade union veto, but the amendment would reinstate it. Their objective is for this not to be a money Bill, but by voting against new clause 1 they would, if successful, make it a money Bill. I accept that the shadow Minister has particular objectives, but what she does tends not to work; that is the reality of the situation.
We have to be effective in terms of running Government. We must do things that work—that achieve results. This Bill is about achieving results: it is about creating a situation whereby there can be negotiations with the trade unions in which we can deal with difficult cases where individuals are suffering particular hardship. In the Public Bill Committee, there was an attempt to negotiate through discussions with the trade unions. That was dreadful—it was almost impossible to get anywhere, and I find it rather sad that anyone tried. The reality is that negotiations have to work in a particular way; one cannot negotiate through a process of producing legislation. We need a blunt instrument that creates an environment in which a negotiated settlement can be arrived at. To that extent, I support new clause 1.
Superannuation Bill
Debate between John Hemming and Baroness Jowell(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Jowell
There is all the difference in the world between a settlement that recognises reasonably the proper expectation of the lowest-paid, and the proposals in the Bill. That is the difference that the hon. Gentleman needs to understand.
Tessa Jowell
I am going to make a bit of progress.
In the current environment in which many civil servants are understandably concerned about their jobs, it is even more important for any reform package to be achieved in full consultation and, wherever possible, agreement with the work force. As a result of the Equality Act 2010, which formed such an important part of the last Government’s legislative programme, the Bill is subject to an equality impact assessment, which I took the time to study.
Against the commitments to full consultation and transparent negotiation, we might look at some of the evidence in the equality impact assessment. It asks:
“Does this policy affect the experiences of staff? How? What are their concerns?”
For staff, the following answer is given:
“Exit terms are set out in Civil Service Compensation Scheme, to be capped at levels set out in the Bill.”
That is a perfectly fair statement of fact. The impact assessment then asks whether the policy affects the experiences of staff networks and associations. The answer given is: “As above”—for staff—but also:
“(no consultation due to urgent need for affordable provisions).”
The answer for trade unions is the same:
“As above (but no consultation due to urgent need for affordable provisions).”
When the equality impact assessment looks at the impact on voluntary organisations, the conclusion is that that is “N/A”—not applicable. The impact on race is also deemed not applicable, as are the impacts on faith, disability rights, gender, sexual orientation and age. The impact assessment also asks:
“What were the main findings of the engagement exercise and what weight should they carry?”
That, too, is said to be not applicable.
“Does this policy have the potential to cause unlawful direct or indirect discrimination? Does this policy have the potential to exclude certain groups of people from obtaining services, or limit their participation in any aspect of public life?”
That is not applicable as well.
“How does the policy promote equality of opportunity?”
That is not applicable also. I could go on.
That is not by any stretch of the imagination a proper assessment of the impact of the proposals on the work force, taking account of the obligations that sit on the coalition Government to recognise equality of opportunity.
Tessa Jowell
The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but it is his responsibility to test that. However, because compared with the existing situation these proposals in effect levy the greatest penalty on the longest-serving, and almost inevitably the oldest, civil servants, there is at least a prima facie case for considering whether they are age discriminatory. I draw no conclusions, but I say to the House that I consider that the equality impact assessment has not taken full account of the impact of the proposed measures across the work force. The Opposition consider the terms put forward to be both unfair and punitive.
John Hemming
The right hon. Lady often uses the word “unfair”. I assume that she employs her own staff in her parliamentary office and that they are subject to the statutory scheme, with a maximum of 30 weeks’ pay. How does she argue that that, which was set by Parliament, is fair compared with the scheme the Government proposed in February this year?
Tessa Jowell
For the very simple reason that, in order to meet the terms of the judicial review, the proposals in the Bill are removing entitlements, expectations and accrued rights from staff who have a reasonable expectation of receiving them. That is why they are unfair.
Tessa Jowell
No, I am going to make progress because many Members wish to speak in the debate.
We argue that no adequate protection is offered to the lowest-paid, with a junior official in a job centre receiving no more protection than a permanent secretary of a Government Department. In introducing the Bill, the Government have insufficiently consulted their employees. The scant information in the equality statement makes that very clear.