PMQs: Vince Cable critical of ‘Harriet’s law’ (Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen Liberal Democrats)

Cymraeg
English

Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen Liberal Democrats <Brian.Thomas@blaenau-gwent.gov.uk>

PMQs: Vince Cable critical of ‘Harriet’s law’

March 5, 2009 5:06 PM
Originally published by UK Liberal Democrats

Lib Dem Deputy Leader urges the Government to use existing law rather than make new ones to stop public sector fat cats' generous pensions

With Gordon Brown in America and Harriet Harman deputising, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, Vince Cable, stood in for Nick Clegg at Prime Minister's Questions this week.

Vince criticised the Government's handling of the Sir Fred Goodwin pension fiasco. He emphasised the folly of Harriet Harman's eccentric proposal to create new laws to stop Sir Fred Goodwin's pension. He advised the Government to make use of existing legislation that permits pensions to be forfeited in cases of employee negligence.

In his supplementary Vince turned to the bigger picture of public disenchantment with the entire culture of public sector fat cats, senior civil servants and even ministers, receiving excessively large and generous pensions.

Read the full exchange below

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): May I add my condolences to the families of Marine Laski, Rifleman Gunn, Lance Corporal Upton and Corporal Gaden, who all died serving their country on 25 February; and also to the victims of the Sri Lankan atrocity.

As the Leader of the House is a former pensions Minister and Law Officer and, I believe, a trained solicitor, she is exceptionally well placed to understand pensions law. Instead of the rather eccentric proposal for a "Harriet's law" to stop Sir Fred Goodwin's pension, would it not be more sensible for the Government to use existing legislation under which pensions can be forfeited in cases of employee negligence, which is surely the case with Sir Fred Goodwin, Adam Applegarth of Northern Rock and the others who bankrupted their banks?

Ms Harman: Perhaps I can update the House on this matter. The Government have asked United Kingdom Financial Investments to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the contract for Sir Fred Goodwin's pension, including the extent to which it was discretionary and including whether or not the people who took the decision had all the facts on which they could take it. That, too, bears on the enforceability of the contract. We are absolutely clear that it is not acceptable and we are taking all steps to challenge the enforceability of the contract.

Dr. Cable: I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is missing the point. The issue is not whether the pension is £400,000 or £700,000; the issue is why it is being paid at all. Is this not part of a much bigger issue? There is growing anger in what she calls the court of public opinion not just about the pension and remuneration of those who are now public sector employees, but about other public sector fat cats, including senior civil servants and, dare I say it, Ministers, and their very lavish and generous pensions. Does she recognise that anger, and what is she proposing to do about it?

Ms Harman: I think that we do recognise that concern. In particular, there is concern about the question of remuneration in the financial services industry because it has been part of encouraging short-termism and risk-taking. As well as looking at the contractual basis of Sir Fred's pension, we have also asked the Financial Services Authority and the Walker commission to look at how we tackle and improve the remuneration regime as part of corporate governance.

4 Mar 2009 : Column 845

When it comes to the banks squandering their customers' money, there is one thing that perhaps I ought to add. I discovered that it was not only Sir Fred who was getting money off RBS; it was also the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who got £30,000 off the Royal Bank of Scotland, it turns out, for just two after-dinner speeches.