Interview: Gregg McClymont

Striding around the halls of Westminster as we struggle to find a quiet spot for a chat, Gregg McClymont is constantly stopped and chatted to by various ministers and whips. During the photoshoot, even pensions minister Steve Webb pops over to poke fun at McClymont’s poses before exchanging pleasantries.

Outside of Westminster, he’s not as well known. Having entered the world of politics just last year, he is the current MP for Cumbernald Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch. After a brief stint as the assistant whip for Labour, McClymont ascended to the shadow minister for pensions role in October 2011.

“Ed [Miliband] called me the weekend after the shadow cabinet was announced, and on the following Monday I was confirmed as shadow minister for pensions,” says McClymont, once we finally find a quiet corner of Portcullis House’s canteen. “There are very few bigger issues than pensions so I jumped at the opportunity. No one can deny that it’s a very serious beast.”

McClymont will be working alongside Liz Kendall, who holds the newly created post of shadow minister for care and older people. McClymont also knows Andrew Dilnot (of the Dilnot report into care), as he was the principal at St Hughes college, Oxford, when McClymont taught there. “I’ll certainly be talking to Andrew more widely,” he hints.

Beneath the soft Scottish accent, McClymont is a determined man who understands the need to be well-briefed for this all-consuming role. Unlike his predecessor, he willingly donates over an hour to our discussion and is confident enough to tackle most of the day’s pressing issues.

 And towards the end of our chat, he even drops the rather irritating habit many new MPs pick up of speaking in terms of “we, the party, believe” in favour of a more human, “in my opinion”.

Under Rachel Reeves’ tenure Labour appeared to be a one-trick pony on pensions, focusing solely on how the increase of the state pension age badly affected a significant number of women. McClymont agrees with Reeves’ stance, but acknowledges that since the pensions bill has now achieved royal assent, there is little he can do in opposition to continue the campaign.

“We consider the policy to be unfair, and disproportionately so, on that 500,000-strong cohort, [but] now that it’s got royal assent, we can’t chop and change pensions policy – it’s one of the criticisms of previous administrations. We know there’s a need for consistency,” he says.

“The government never came up with an adequate explanation as to why that cohort had to be the victim of what seems to be a birthday lottery. These women are generally not living in great wealth or luxury and, for many, the state pension is their only pension. But the bill has royal assent, so while never forgetting this, we have to think about what comes next.”

McClymont says there are three major issues he wishes to concentrate on for the foreseeable future; costs and charges, auto-enrolment (“…and whether it will be encompassing or watered down, vis-a-vis Beecroft”) and the single-tier pension.

If the government can make a single-tier pension work, it will be an important step forward, he says, but at this stage it’s “a declaration of intent rather than a policy proposal”.

He dryly refers to the idea as Webb’s “holy grail”, but stresses the government has yet to determine who the winners and losers will be.

He highlights research from the Pension Policy Institute, which suggests there may be seven million winners from a single-tier pension, but as many as five million losers. “And of course, the Treasury will have a significant role to play in all this,” he adds.

“I imagine the Treasury will be asking some very tough and specific questions about the cost and whether [a single-tier state pension is cost neutral]. It’s entirely possible it won’t be cost neutral and then there will be a real departmental contest; and we all know the Treasury has a record of winning these contests.”

In a week where the Beecroft report is still on everyone’s lips, McClymont offers an interesting perspective. He says Webb’s oft reported “2012 will happen next year” soundbite “set alarm bells ringing”.

“One has to be aware of the political balance of power in the coalition. Rightly or wrongly, the pensions minister is not a position within the cabinet and that means the pensions ministers’ influence is limited,” he says.

“I am anxious about what Beecroft means for auto-enrolment – especially when you look at the broader context. The government has got into a bit of a panic about growth. Its plan A isn’t working and it knows unless it improves growth it won’t meet any of its deficit reduction targets. That could create a political context in which auto-enrolment is seen as a negative.”

At this point, McClymont goes to great pains to stress that he is in favour of auto-enrolment, and rubbishes earlier media claims that he’d voted against it during the second reading of the pensions bill.

Website theyworkforyou.com, where government statistics are collated, has an open disclaimer on it warning that all information should be considered in the round. In this instance, Labour voted against the pensions bill because it disagreed with the impact raising the state pension age had on the 1955 cohort. This was misinterpreted by some as McClymont voting against everything in the bill, including auto-enrolment.

Having criticised the government’s current economic plans, McClymont says a Labour government would be able to juggle the need for the country to develop a savings habit with the need to clear our collective debts.

“If the economy doesn’t grow people aren’t going to be able to pay down their debt or pay for their retirement. They’re in a difficult situation. I don’t have all the answers, but step one has to be growth in the economy,” he says.

“The government made a political decision in May 2010 by trying to oversell the difficulty the UK was in. They claimed we were on the verge of becoming the next Greece and were nearly bankrupt. Having talked down the economy, it got worse, and now we see the prime minister writing in the FT saying we must not talk down the economy! Unless we get the macroeconomic situation sorted out it’s going to be very difficult.”

On costs and charges, McClymont says while he doesn’t want to lump good pension providers in with the poor ones, he believes investment and administration charges are currently too high.

“I was struck by was how clear the NAPF [National Association of Pension Funds] was on this. It came out very strongly in favour of greater simplification of the charging system and lower charges. If the NAPF is clear there is a problem… it’s incumbent upon us all to take this seriously.

“I will be having a look at this area and I’ll happily read any submissions I receive. I’m looking forward to seeing what Webb comes up with. He’s made a strong statement that he’s prepared to regulate in this sphere, and my job is to look closely at the proposals the government brings forward.”

For the remainder of the interview we touch on a number of subject areas which McClymont is clearly aware of, but is hesitant to speak at length on until his knowledge is sufficient.

On enhanced transfer values, for example, he says he agrees with Webb that negotiations should be on a level playing field with transparent, clear communications about what’s being offered to employees.

“The [government’s] one-in-one-out policy [for introducing new legislation] generates a good headline but I’m not sure how viable it is in practice. If the government is serious about making sure this process is a fair one then it sounds like there may need to be legislation. Can a pensions minister get that through the quad?”

McClymont confesses his knowledge of active member discounts is slim – “It’s an issue in my inbox that I haven’t yet looked into in enough detail” – and struggles to come to a decision on whether the shift from RPI to CPI is the right thing – “There’s some doubt as to whether CPI is a good measure for schemes to use. That’s going to be one for me to watch,” he says.

But to be fair, we have been talking about pensions for more than an hour. And he’s not yet had any lunch. As PW packs away its notebook, McClymont leans back and audibly exhales, adding: “That was a comprehensive interview.” We aim to please, Mr shadow minister.