Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend for that, for the work she does in chairing the Treasury Committee and for her previous work on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right about the damage of speculation ahead of Budget. It led last year, for instance, to a large number of people cashing in pension pots, but the speculation was entirely unfounded.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the National Wealth Fund, we have capitalised it by over £200 billion, and the challenge is to ensure that we get good value-for-money decisions, but decisions made quicker, so that we can get investment into local areas to see private investment bring the growth that we need.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I have known him for a long time—I wish him well. He has a huge task ahead of him. Earlier in the summer, the Prime Minister said that walking the streets of Makerfield lodged in his mind that so many working people want to see the personal allowance raised. In Reform, we want to do that as well; in fact, we want to raise it to £15,000 a year and to make work pay. Is it still the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s ambition to raise the personal allowance?
John Healey
At the Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) continued the freeze in the personal allowance, which was first brought in by the Conservatives, in order to help fund the improvements in health and schools that this country needs that the people voted for at the election just two years ago. We will keep all of this under review, as we always do. Reform is making promises that it simply cannot keep. The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have known him a long time; I say to him and to the country that he is also a man whose own party leader described as
“a man that believed in nothing”.
Economic Growth
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(3 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
I profoundly believe that we have to drive a win-win. We can deliver good infrastructure and good jobs and limit the number of consultations, and have an eye to the impact on the environment. I will come back to my hon. Friend on her specific question.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Imagine that you are a worker at JLR worried about your future, and you have the misfortune of watching the Chancellor’s speech, which contains searing economic insights like,
“I want to see businesses make a profit.”
There was nothing about scrapping electric vehicle mandates, bringing down energy costs by getting rid of net zero targets, or bringing down the cost of employing people by getting rid of the increase in employers national insurance. Is it not the truth that it is the Government who are killing the British car industry, and they need to wake up and take action?
Middle East: Economic Response
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My only worry with this package is that it will mean children badgering their parents even more for days out over the summer—I slightly worry about what I have unleashed in my own household. I am pleased to announce today that trips to Alton Towers and other activities, whether it be soft play, funfairs, zoos or museums—if many kids want to go to them; not mine probably, sadly—will be cheaper this summer because of the action that this Government are taking.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor’s approach to the cost of living crisis is to find small ways to subsidise people’s costs, but is not the best solution to build a strong, abundant economy by doing the hard yards of supply side reform? In that economy, there would be better jobs and higher wages, people would be richer and the state would have less bearing on their lives, yet under the Chancellor, the benefits bill is ballooning, unemployment is rising, particularly among the young, and taxes are at their highest ever level. In the spirit of giving people some relief today, will the Chancellor confirm—assuming that she intends to stay in office for the rest of this Parliament—that she will not be increasing taxes on working people at all for the rest of this Parliament?
Rachel Reeves
I will take absolutely no lessons from the man who was part of a party that took our economy to its knees—inflation at 11%, working people worse off at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the beginning, and the worst Parliament ever for living standards—or from a party that has opposed all our reforms to make it easier to get things built in Britain, to increase the wages of working people with the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and to increase the rights of working people, including through statutory sick pay from day one and by ending abusive zero-hours contracts. If we want a lesson on economics, I certainly will not be taking it from the Reform party.
Middle East: Economic Update
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a couple of things we are doing today to make it more cost-effective to get an electric vehicle. First, the decoupling of gas and electricity prices will mean that electricity prices will not be set by high gas prices. That reduces the costs of filling up an electric vehicle with electricity. We are also making it easier for people to install electric vehicle charge points, including on their streets and in their homes. We are making solar panels more available, including in high street shops, to enable people to benefit from that cheap electricity, which they can use to power their homes and their cars.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Kevin Brewer is a domiciliary care worker from Northern Ireland. He says that he loves his job, but he drives 70 miles every day. He told the BBC this week that for the first time he considered phoning in and saying that he could not do his job. In the end, he decided to put the cost of the fuel on his credit card. Chancellor, people are suffering across the country. I invite her to meet people such as Kevin at the national fuel tax protest on Whitehall on Monday, where motorists, white van men and women, care workers and many others from across the United Kingdom will come together to ask her to take action now to cut VAT on fuel and to say that she will not increase fuel duty in September.
Middle East: Economic Update
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and the group of rural Labour MPs for contacting me over the weekend with their stories and suggestions. That is why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be meeting MPs on Wednesday this week. The National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank are already investing heavily in renewables, and we increased their budget for them to do so. I also recognise the important opportunities in Cornwall, not just the South Crofty tin mine in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but other energy projects, including geothermal energy, and I have asked the National Wealth Fund to look again at those opportunities.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The British people are being clobbered. The Chancellor could have come here today and scrapped her hike in fuel duty. She could have come here, ended the insanity, and got drilling again in the North sea. Instead, she offered nothing—absolutely nothing. This crisis deserves a proper response. When will she finally understand that for now at least she is the Chancellor, not just a bystander?
Rachel Reeves
The freeze in fuel duty—Reform opposed it. The energy profits levy—the right hon. Gentleman introduced it when he was in the Conservative Government. I will take no lectures from him and the Tory tribute act sitting up there.
Spring Forecast
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
In last year’s spending review, we set out a record settlement for the Scottish Government, as well as for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. I can tell the House and my hon. Friend that, because of the decisions that we are making, I am able to announce an additional £900 million in resource departmental expenditure limits spending, and £20 million in capital departmental expenditure limits spending, for the Scottish Government over the spending review period between 2026-27 and 2028-29. Like her, I very much hope that it will be Anas Sarwar and a Labour Government spending that money, rather than the SNP wasting it and presiding over longer NHS waiting lists.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.
Rachel Reeves
May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role? I know that it was not the first job that he wanted, or indeed the second, but he makes a spirited intervention none the less. I am not sure whether he shared that one with George Osborne. I can offer one piece of advice: the thing about betraying your party is that you have to stop asking your old friends for advice. Perhaps, given that the right hon. Gentleman called his new colleague “Zia Useless” a couple of months ago, he needs all the friends he can get. It might have been a couple of weeks ago, but he used to be in a party that, just three months after losing office, was going to get rid of the fuel duty support. That was in the plans that we inherited, and we scrapped them. [Interruption.] Conservatives Members say that is rubbish, but it was in their last Budget. Indeed, it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget and manifesto.
Public Spending: Inheritance
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Chancellor is like a dodgy car mechanic. She says she has done all the searches, she gives you a fixed price, you hand in your car keys and then, a few weeks later, she has found all these new problems. The price has doubled, but it is too late—you have given her your car and you both know that this was her plan all along. Trust and credibility are critical to a Chancellor. Why has she been so careless and so quick to throw hers away?
Rachel Reeves
If the right hon. Gentleman has any chance of fixing the mess that his previous Government made, he might want to start with an apology.
Economy Update
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
There were two tasks for the Chancellor today. The first was to provide support for the poorest households, who are facing a period of extreme hardship, and on that front I think he has made all the right judgments. Direct payments are simple, easy to administer and non-recurring; the experience of doing something not dissimilar in the United States was generally positive. The second task, however, is to inject some confidence into the economy, which is facing a recession or a long period of stagnation. On that front, does he agree that we need a steady hand from the Bank of England, so that there is no further quantitative easing, with its inflationary pressures? We urgently need the supply-side reforms that he alluded to, we need delivery of the energy plan he and the Prime Minister have set out and we need to think about the tax burden in the years ahead. The Chancellor’s announcement today is heavily redistributive; that is a good thing for hard-working families and the vulnerable, but it is being paid for by higher taxes on higher earners and businesses, and in the long term we need to address that.
Rishi Sunak
I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. He makes excellent points, and he can expect me and this Government to deliver on all the things he thinks are important.
Financial Statement
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak
I think it wrong to suggest that there has been a VAT windfall. If the hon. Lady looks at the numbers in the OBR forecast, she will see that its projection for VAT receipts in the forthcoming year is lower than its previous projection in October. We are helping working families, with a £6 billion tax cut which will put £330 into the pockets of 30 million workers across the United Kingdom.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I think that when my right hon. Friend gets back to his office, that portrait of Nigel Lawson will be looking down at him admiringly. This is a Conservative plan that we can all get behind. It rewards work, it gets the deficit down, and it incentivises investment from businesses rather than penalising them with windfall taxes.
As my right hon. Friend knows, energy prices are very volatile, so he is right to stand by the £9 billion package that he introduced previously and wait until the next update on the energy price cap in the late summer. If it does indeed show that energy prices are going to rise substantially, that will have a big impact on the poorest households. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will keep this matter under review, and will consider further measures if necessary to protect those households?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words of support, and I can reassure him that we keep everything under review. We have stood by the British people over the past few years, and we will continue to stand by them. It is thanks to the responsible decisions of this Government that we are able to provide the support that is required when the times call for it.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]
Robert Jenrick ExcerptsTuesday 22nd February 2022
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 February 2022 - large print - (22 Feb 2022)
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which is in my name. The new clause empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance to authorities that administer public sector pensions schemes that they may not make investments that conflict with the United Kingdom’s foreign and defence policy.
The new clause will resolve a long-standing issue that arose out of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2016. The issue was whether the Secretary of State had, under their general power to issue guidance provided under the 2013 Act, the ability to guide those who administer pension schemes, particularly local government pension schemes, away from making investment decisions that were contrary to the United Kingdom’s foreign and defence policy.
In 2020, the Supreme Court found by a split decision that the 2013 Act did not confer on the Secretary of State the necessary power to issue that guidance. The purpose of the new clause is to change that by explicitly laying out in law the Secretary of State’s power to offer the guidance to administrators of pension schemes within the public sector, including the local government pension schemes, that investment decisions—by which I mean both investments into a position and divestments from a position—should not conflict with UK foreign and defence policy.
There are multiple reasons for doing that. First and foremost, public service pension schemes that are paid for by the taxpayer by one means or another and underwritten by the state are clearly the preserve of the UK Government and, as such, it is perfectly legitimate that the UK Government have a say in regulating how public pension schemes manage the money that is provided to them by we the taxpayers of the country.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
May I just probe the right hon. Gentleman’s last point a wee bit? My bank account is stuffed full of what was previously taxpayers’ money. Neither I nor my wife have had any significant income for years that did not come one way or another from the taxpayer. Is he suggesting that the Government should have some say as to how the bank can invest my money to make sure that I get it back when I need it? Is he suggesting that the private pensions that I am lucky enough to have should be subject to Government direction as to where they do and do not invest?
Robert Jenrick
I shall come on in a moment to my own personal views with respect to boycott, divestment and sanctions, but this new clause has no bearing on the actions of private citizens. This is about public sector pension schemes. The broader issue, which I will mention in a moment with respect to tackling BDS within public institutions and the public sector, is all about the public sector; it is not about limiting the freedom of speech or action of the individual.
Dr Offord
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, only this morning, Hertfordshire County Council was considering a petition submitted by individuals to ask it to divest from its pension scheme? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to ensure that pension schemes have the best and most profitable outcome to allow the members of that pension scheme to receive the best possible income?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I do, and I will give some other examples of local authorities considering the same actions that my hon. Friend describes.
The argument that I wish to advance is that, for too long, we have seen public pension schemes pursue pseudo foreign policies.
Robert Jenrick
I will make a bit of progress and then I will return to the hon. Gentleman.
All too often, the foreign policy of these public pension schemes is, I am afraid, exclusively focused on re-writing the UK’s relationship with the world’s only Jewish state, Israel.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Robert Jenrick
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his interest.
The latest example of the politicisation of public pension schemes is by Wirral Council, which is currently considering realising almost £5 million-worth of investments in seven companies. This pet project of a small minority who seek to hijack the money of hard-working taxpayers for their own political ends is of no interest to the public pension scheme holders of the Wirral, or indeed, I suggest, to the public pension scheme holders and rate payers of Hertfordshire.
The politicisation of public sector pension schemes, such as that seen by Wirral Council, is also to the detriment of the UK Government’s relations with states abroad. Supreme Court Justices Lord Arden and Lord Sales established in their judgments that, because the schemes are managed by councils that are part of the machinery of the state, receive taxpayer funding and are underwritten by state regulation outlined in the 2013 Act, they are liable to be identified with the British state. It is perfectly reasonable for an individual, an organisation or a nation abroad to look to these decisions and believe that they are the British state’s intentions. It would be wrong that, owing to a minority of an extreme and well-organised clique, the UK Government’s relationship with an ally has the potential to be undermined. Ultimately, central Government must reclaim their constitutional responsibility for the conduct of the UK’s international affairs. It is for this House to be the place in which those decisions are debated, as I am sure we will see later today. Public service pension scheme trustees must return to their primary duty of achieving maximum returns for scheme members.
Andy Slaughter
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that this is public money. He will be aware that the Supreme Court, in making a judgment on the previous guidance, specifically said that it is not public money when it is employee or employer contributions; it comes from the rightful employment of the employees themselves. Why does he think that his new clause is different from that? As he has gone on to the specifics, while I am not talking about BDS here, does he think there is a possibility that decisions on investments, say, in illegal settlements, which the Government advise against on economic grounds, could also be caught by his new clause?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Supreme Court raised two central arguments. One was whether the 2013 Act explicitly gave the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance with respect to investment decisions that conflicted with UK foreign and defence policy. The second point that some Supreme Court Justices raised was whether it was within the remit of the Secretary of State to speak to all public service pension schemes, including those that are funded and unfunded, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme.
This new clause explicitly provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue that guidance. Were it to pass, and were this ever to be litigated and reach that court, I expect that the Supreme Court Justices would see clearly the intention of this House, which is that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance and that that guidance should be applicable to all public service pension schemes. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is an important one for us all to be clear on if the new clause is passed.
The new clause does nothing to stop private individuals making individual choices about their consumer habits. They remain at liberty to invest in or divest from, purchase from or boycott whichever companies they wish and for whatever reason they so choose. It does, however, make a distinction between the liberties of the private individual and the obligations of public bodies in receipt of public money, and it is grounded in the principle that public money should be spent in accordance with the wishes of the UK Government as expressed by this House.
Christian Wakeford
I am one of those fortunate Members who sit on a local pension board. One of the issues that is often feared, particularly by smaller Jewish communities, is that, rather than focusing on community cohesion, it is about bringing in foreign policy matters that often bring division, when they really want to be settled and to be able to progress and thrive within their local community. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the worst thing that could happen would be for the BDS movement to have a say within pension boards and pension funds, and that the best thing we could do is to accept this new clause and bring stability to Jewish communities across the country?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this new clause, as I am to all those hon. Members across the House who have indicated theirs, and for his long-standing interest in the issue. He makes an extremely important point.
Let me be clear: it should not be assumed that someone expressing their support for Palestine is antisemitic. Of course that is not the case. Many are genuinely moved by the cause of Palestinian statehood and are concerned at Israeli settlements and the actions of the Israeli Government. It is the policy of this Government to pursue a two-state solution. However, one does not have to look very hard to find a pattern of antisemitic behaviour in connection with campaigns promoting a boycott of Israel.
Successive studies have shown that the single best statistical predictor of anti- Jewish hostility is the amount of BDS activity, which comes as no surprise when one inspects the ethical inconsistency within the movement. Why does its concern for humanity, and for the welfare of Muslims in particular, expire at the Jordan river? The BDS movement is mute on neighbouring Jordan or Lebanon, where the Palestinian minority really are second-class citizens, and fell silent when thousands of Palestinians were killed at the hands of the murderous Assad regime.
There has been no call for a boycott of ICICI Bank in response to the egregious human rights abuses being committed against Muslims in India, or for divestments from Huawei following the verdict by an independent tribunal in London that a genocide is being committed against the Uyghur Muslims. That selective concern for humanity, and specifically for the welfare of Palestinians, poses some alarming questions. Why is Israel held to a higher standard than every other country in the world?
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and I commend him on how he has gone about bringing forward this new clause to close a specific loophole on public sector pensions. In the context of his point about the wider boycott, divestments and sanctions movement, does he agree that it is a pernicious movement that singles out Israel time and again, to undermine the UK-Israel bilateral relationship and the very notion of the integrity of the Israeli Jewish state? I very much hope the Government will accept his new clause, but does he also accept that there is a need for a broader piece of work by the Government to address the BDS movement in its entirety when it comes to public sector choices?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes a series of powerful points, which I entirely agree with. In particular, I agree that, were this new clause to pass, it should merely be the beginning of a wider effort to tackle BDS within the public sector and that we as the Government should make good on our manifesto commitment to a full BDS Bill, which I hope will be in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech.
Andrew Percy
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The founder of the BDS movement is, of course, somebody who denies the right of Israel to exist—an antisemitic act in and of itself, given that Israel exists in international law. My right hon. Friend says that BDS is the biggest single indicator of antisemitism in this country; I take him back to last year, where we saw the highest number of incidents of antisemitism ever recorded in the UK. The biggest month for those was May last year, following the flare-up of the Israel-Gaza issues. That is a worrying trend, and one that is in part promoted by those who do exactly as he says: single out Israel for treatment they do not apply to other countries and support the BDS movement. That is why we must see this new clause passed and why the Government must move forward quickly on those other issues.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the work he does on antisemitism. He is absolutely right that we cannot stand idly by and see levels of antisemitism in this country continue to rise. We must take every opportunity to tackle the issue, and this is one way that we can do so—there are many others. None of us wants to see month after month pass with the Community Security Trust reporting ever higher numbers of egregious antisemitic attacks in this country.
I will make two final points. First, the BDS movement does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of peace. It is because it sees Israel as a colonial endeavour that it views the Israel-Palestine question as an insurmountable framework of conflict between the occupiers—in their eyes—the Israeli Jews, and the occupied—in their eyes—the Palestinian Muslims. That is why it apportions blame for the conflict entirely at Israel’s door and denies the agency of other actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which we as a country have rightly chosen to proscribe. The sad reality is that many who practise BDS have no intention or interest in brokering a two-state solution.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I commend him on tabling this new clause. Does he agree that the BDS movement has consistently opposed efforts from Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a peaceful settlement? He referred earlier to Wirral Council and its pensions committee; does he agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for a local authority to be judge and jury on such complex matters as where businesses should and should not invest in contested territory in the middle east?
Robert Jenrick
I agree strongly with both my hon. Friend’s points. On his second point, the motion before Wirral Council is to ask its pensions officer to be the arbitrator of which business it should or should not be investing in within Israel and within settlements. Pity this poor individual, who, instead of going about his normal work as a respectable, hard-working local government officer, must suddenly spend hours, days, weeks or months attempting to understand the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine question and provide advice to a committee of local councillors. It is frankly an absurdity and an abuse of that individual. We should not be seeing this. These questions should rightly be taken forward by the United Kingdom Government.
BDS is ultimately yesterday’s war. In the middle east today things are rapidly changing, and thank goodness for that. As a result of the Abraham accords, we see Arab nations—Gulf states—coming forward to recognise the state of Israel and work with it through science, technology, education and commerce. If Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and other nations can do this—even those countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that have not explicitly recognised the state of Israel but are none the less working with it on security matters and other issues—then we as a country should not be tolerating this kind of activity, and certainly not within the public sector. I urge hon. and right hon. Members across the House to support the new clause. I am grateful to the Government for indicating their support. I hope that in the Queen’s Speech later in the spring we will see a wider BDS Bill that makes the UK one of the first countries in the world to really grapple with this issue.
Peter Grant
As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the SNP supports the intention behind this Bill and we will support it on Third Reading. The intention is to clear up a mess of the Government’s making. I also repeat that, as I said in Committee, I do not have any doubts at all about the sincerity of the Ministers who have led for the Government at various stages of the Bill. I am convinced that they want to get it right and to finish up with an Act that is as fair to everyone as it is possible to be. However, my concern with the Bill currently before us is that even after the Government’s amendments are added in, sizeable numbers of current or former public sector employees will lose out. Given where we have been forced to start from and the scale of the mess that the Government made of this previously, I am not sure that it would ever be possible to produce a Bill that would be fair to absolutely everyone, but the Bill as it stands can still be improved. To that end, we will support such amendments as Opposition Front Benchers want to press to a vote, particularly new clauses 8 and 9.
One of the issues I raised on Second Reading has certainly come to pass: the extraordinary number of amendments the Government had had to table to their own legislation during its passage through the House of Lords. We now know that including the 61 amendments they tabled in Committee and the 28 further amendments tabled today, by the time the Bill gets its Third Reading later on the Government will have had to amend their own legislation no fewer than 212 times. In fact, Members who attended the Bill Committee will have seen the spectacle of the Government tying themselves in knots trying to remove two entire clauses from the Bill and replace them with two entirely new clauses. It was only the speedy intervention of the Clerks and the Chair that prevented the Government from presenting us with a Bill that had all four clauses included despite the fact that some of them were completely contradictory to the others. Eventually the Government had to whip their own Members to vote down two clauses that the Minister had already moved, presumably by mistake.
That incident served only to highlight what many of us on the Opposition Benches have been saying from the beginning—that the Government still cannot reassure us that they are genuinely fully in control of this Bill. I worry that they are very quickly running out of last chances to put it right. There is still a danger that the Bill that receives its Third Reading later today will have flaws and weaknesses that neither the Government nor anybody else have spotted yet. Most of today’s Government amendments are part of the process of picking up flaws or ambiguities in the original Bill, and we will not oppose them. We have some concerns about new clause 7, which provides for a lessening of parliamentary scrutiny in some cases. The Minister has not yet convinced me that that is an appropriate thing to do. I hope that when he winds up he will explain why new clause 7 is appropriate and why, in some cases, parliamentary scrutiny should be diluted in any way.
As I indicated earlier, we will support new clauses 8 and 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). New clause 8 would provide a means of compensating scheme members who, through no fault of their own, stand to lose out as a result of the Bill. The Bill rights a wrong for a very large number of people in public pension schemes but goes in the opposite direction for some, and we should not forget about them. The new clause does not commit the Government, or indeed the scheme employers, to any additional expenditure, but it would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least to recognise that this is an issue and to look at whether there are realistic and reasonable ways of resolving it.
New clause 9 would require the Government to review how the Bill operates in the real world—as opposed to the assessment, as with any Bill, before discussions on it began—with regard to equalities. Given how many substantial changes the Government have already had to make to the Bill, it is prudent to accept that, once it comes into force, it might have consequences that the Government have not foreseen, which the new clause would attempt to protect against.
New clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is a different matter altogether, and the SNP is minded to oppose it. We have heard some of the arguments in favour of it—they are similar to comments made on Second Reading—which simply do not wash. I will not get into an argument now about the BDS movement. If the Government genuinely think that that organisation is a threat to peace and stability in the middle east or elsewhere, they could bring forward legislation to address it—they have had over two years of this Parliament to do so, and they still have time—but this is not the Bill for that.
Peter Grant
I certainly cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I have made perfectly clear, how the British system works is that Ministers have the authority to take policy decisions, and Parliament is right to hold Ministers to account for that. Parliament has the ultimate right to decide what becomes law. If nobody else is allowed to discuss it, and councils are not allowed to express views in the interests of the people they are there to represent, the whole system starts to fall flat on its face.
It is as plain as the nose on my or anyone else’s face that decisions on foreign policy can easily have a disproportionate impact on residents in some parts of these islands. Certainly, decisions on defence policy can have a significantly greater impact on some places than others. Remember that councils are directly democratically elected by local people to represent their views. Are we suggesting that they should not be allowed to debate matters of foreign policy simply because they do not have the right to take the final decision? If that is what Government Members are saying, why is it that almost every Tory MP who pops up on their hindlegs at Prime Minister’s questions to ask a planted question invites the Prime Minister to interfere in local democratic decision making? We have had two examples today, with the right hon. Member for Newark expressing his views on possible decisions by councils that, with respect, are nothing to do with him, because they are not the council area he represents.
I do not know whether Wirral Council or Hertfordshire will take the right decision, but I am happy to trust the good people of the Wirral and Hertfordshire to sort out councillors who get it wrong too often. That is what local elections are about. I do not like to see the Government, having substantially stripped back the powers of local authorities, then deciding to give local authorities the power to take decisions they agree with, but taking away the power for local authorities to do things that might go in a different direction.
Among all this, we are losing sight of the vital fact that as a matter of law, the trustees of a pension fund are a completely different organisation and a completely different entity in most cases from the organisation whose current and former employees are members of that fund. My wife has for many years been a trustee of the Fife Council pension fund, as well as having clocked up nearly 30 years as a councillor. The decisions that the trustees of the pension fund make are completely different from the decisions many of the same people will take as members of Fife Council. Nobody believes that the decisions of the pension fund reflect the views of the council; the council is not allowed to try to whip pension trustees, for example.
Robert Jenrick
As a matter of law, what the hon. Member is saying is not correct. Pensions within the public sector, as elsewhere, are regulated. They were regulated by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, and they will be regulated by this Bill. He has been speaking for more than 15 minutes, and it is not clear to me whether the SNP is in favour or against BDS. It is important that he makes clear his position.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am keen that we do not just have a whole debate about BDS. I want the amendments to be addressed, and there are a few other speakers trying to get in.