Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-03-09
Topic: Macroeconomics
Frederick Ponsonby (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation, and I shall speak first to Amendment 48, on the cost control mechanism. We agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, reiterated and added to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Janke. In the Commons, we raised these concerns over the introduction of what the Government call the "symmetrical economic check" and voted that this particular reform of the mechanism should not be added to the Bill. I will not repeat the background, which has been expertly put forward by my noble friend, but will just echo the concern that this breaks the Treasury’s 25-year guarantee that there would be no further fundamental reforms In 2011, the Government’s Paymaster-General said that those reforms represented a settlement for a generation, and they arose out of the 2011 Hutton review. Further, does the Minister recognise our concern that these reforms risk undermining the faith of public service workers in their pension schemes? What does the Minister expect of future reforms? Since the Government are clearly set on pushing ahead with the economic check, what would be most helpful now are answers to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Davies on how that would work in practice We raised concerns in the House of Commons that the check was insufficiently transparent and gave too much room for ministerial interpretation. As has been said, the Government’s answer is that discretion will be limited as the check will be linked to objective and independent figures from the OBR, although that particular element is not set out in the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. I am hopeful that he will be able to provide some more detailed answers on the process that we should expect and how the OBR figures will be used—a point made by my noble friend Lord Davies Turning to Amendment 54, it is fair to say that it is an unexpected addition to what is in reality a technical Bill. It causes one to reflect on the Government’s lack of control of their own Back-Benchers in the House of Commons. The Labour Party supports the broad thrust of the new clause but shares concerns over its wide scope and possible unintended consequences. We also agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Janke, that there is a huge element of government overreach here and we are mindful that the amendment represents directions, not guidance We in the Labour Party are unequivocal in our opposition to the divisive and discriminatory use of BDS against the State of Israel. We do not believe that such an approach is appropriate or would enhance the prospects of peace through a negotiated settlement to the conflict, based on a two-state solution. However, regrettably, the clause is poorly worded, too broad in scope and, as we have heard, could cause difficulties for local authorities wanting to take a principled stance on, for example, China’s treatment of the Uighurs. Many other examples have been given in the debate. It is clear that the Government have chosen to progress the Bill with this additional clause but also intend to introduce further legislation in the Queen’s Speech that will be more detailed in this area. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified what comes next and how concerns raised in today’s debate will be considered. What ongoing engagement are the Government having with the Local Government Association, which has raised concerns, and many other bodies interested in this area? I understand that a full consultation process is required before any guidance or directions can be issued under the new clause. What will that consultation process look like? Are there plans to launch a consultation, or will that not be entered into until further legislation is brought forward at the Queen’s Speech Finally, I repeat a question on Russia asked by a noble Lord. If schemes want to divest quickly, for example because of links to Russia—Gazprom was mentioned—would anything in the directions under this clause of the Bill put that ability to act in jeopardy in the future? Can the Minister talk to this specific point? It is obviously extremely pertinent right now but there may well be similar issues in future Just to be clear, if my noble friend were to press his amendment to a vote, we would abstain.