Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Alison McGovern and Kate Green

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. Does she agree that one crucial value of the future jobs fund intervention was that it broke the trend into long-term youth unemployment—a trend about which we should be particularly concerned? The lesson of the 1980s recession was that if young people did not get a start in the labour market at the very beginning of their working lives, they never really got themselves established. That is what the future jobs fund successfully intervened to disrupt.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having grown up on Merseyside in the 1980s, I know it was only when I studied economics later in my life that I found out that there was a word for the thing I always knew happened—that people got punished throughout their lives for being unemployed when they were young. The economic word for that is hysteresis. The labour market has memory: if someone fails to get a job early in life, it stays with them, scarring not only the person’s career prospects, but the economic prospects of the locality. We know all about that and the previous Government worked to stop it happening when the economic crisis hit. I would like to see this Government take that problem seriously, introduce measures that will bring real work to young people and deal with some of the problems we face, which are getting worse.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alison McGovern and Kate Green

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Like colleagues throughout the House, I welcome putting the Office for Budget Responsibility on a statutory footing and the opportunity that it offers for independent forward financial forecasting. That will enable us to see clearly the impact of policy decisions on the public finances, and it will set the context for, and inform, future policy choice. However, as has been pointed out, the OBR and its forecasting mechanism do not of themselves correct or reshape policy mistakes. It is the Government who set the fiscal mandate, and the OBR is there to say whether that mandate has been met. There is no requirement on the OBR to offer any critique of that mandate, or to judge whether it is fair.

We cannot examine only whether the Government have achieved their forecasts. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who suggested that there was a larger context to address—whether the Government’s policies reflect the right policy ambitions and produce the right social outcomes, and whether the spending on them is effective. To that extent, I am particularly interested in Ministers’ comments on the relationship between the OBR and the other organisation highlighted in the Bill, the National Audit Office.

Like my hon. Friends, I am concerned about the Government’s current mandate to eliminate the deficit within four years. We are concerned to critique not just the mandate but the policies that will bring about the achievement of it. We are extremely concerned that those policies will have a harsh impact on the lives of the people across the country whom we represent, and we are concerned about their impact on growth, employment and intergenerational fairness. That last point is specifically highlighted in the draft charter, and I would be interested to hear the Exchequer Secretary explain how the OBR will judge and assess long-term intergenerational fairness. It is not sufficient simply to say that we cannot pass on to tomorrow’s children the deficit of today, because today’s children are bearing the burden of the policies that the Government are adopting to address that deficit. I would welcome an explanation of exactly what Ministers mean by intergenerational fairness and how the OBR will assess it.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend think that in addition to that, the Government ought to consider the effect of unemployment on a person’s long-term career, and therefore on their family, as part of intergenerational fairness?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some superficially appealing terminology has been bandied about in relation to the Bill, but we need to know the substance of what Ministers understand to be fair.

Members in all parts of the House welcome the opportunity for transparency that lies within the Bill, but as others have pointed out, that transparency is potentially undermined if the OBR does not secure the resources necessary to ensure that its independence is not compromised. The OBR needs to be adequately resourced to carry out a full and proper analysis. In that context, looking at the full impact of policy includes modelling imputed behavioural change, about which the Government have so far shown themselves to be casual, including in their analysis on the introduction of the universal credit, which is one of their major policy proposals. Great claims have been made for the universal credit’s impact on increased benefits take-up and labour market participation, but the Department for Work and Pensions’ analysis of such behavioural changes to drive such outcomes is remarkably thin. How deep can the OBR dig when departmental analysis apparently does not do so?

There is two-way traffic in policy making and in analysing the impact of policy initiatives. The OBR has been set up specifically to reflect in its forecasts what we might call policy “knowns”, but as was pointed out, there are opportunities to allow for dynamic forecasting so that we can judge the impact of new policies on the public finances in future. I believe strongly that the creation of the OBR offers an opportunity to tie those two aspects of policy forecasting together, so that it is possible to verify departmental impact assessments at the time when policy is being considered—prior to its implementation—and as part of the process of legislative scrutiny and approval by the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South pointed out, there are tensions involved in ensuring that the OBR has a role in scrutinising policy making as it develops and emerges, but there is an important opportunity to enable Parliament effectively to critique, to challenge and to improve. How do Ministers see the OBR’s role in the context of iterative policy making, and how do they think that tension will be resolved?

I look forward to the ongoing process of the passage of the Bill to implement the OBR, and to its independent reports and analysis. However, it is important to understand that the Bill is a step on the way to better policy making and scrutiny rather than a job fully done. Of course, the OBR offers great potential to aid our understanding, but I am clear that it is just one element of how we judge policy cost and impact, and most importantly, policy success.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Alison McGovern and Kate Green

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

This is an incredibly serious debate and I would like to address what I believe are important points raised on both sides of the House. I shall deal with all three elements of the Bill—the health in pregnancy grant, the child trust fund and the saving gateway proposals—in the context of what I understand to be important drivers for this Government, such as reducing inequalities, improving social mobility and improving child outcomes. I shall also consider the extent to which the proposals meet the Government’s own fairness test.

I start with the proposal to abolish the health in pregnancy grant. There is considerable evidence to show the impact of poor maternal nutrition—during pregnancy and, importantly, prior to conception—on low birth weight, and the impact of that on a series of outcomes for child development down the line, including educational attainment and health outcomes. I certainly agree with the Conservative Members who said that a grant in the seventh month of pregnancy was not sufficiently early to achieve everything we would want to improve the well-being of pregnant women and their unborn children.

For women on low incomes, affording a healthy diet is a challenge. Indeed, women reliant on safety net benefits will, if they are under 25, have an income of £51.85 a week; and if they are over 25, £65.45 a week. Those amounts are sufficient to meet the minimum income standard determined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—£44 a week in order to afford a healthy diet. However, once we take into account other expenditure that has to be met out of those benefit payments—fuel, clothes, travel, personal items, insurance, utilities and so forth—it means in practice that women conceiving and bearing children on benefits could find themselves with as little as £10 a week to spend on food. Clearly, none of us could eat a healthy diet on that.

It is right, as Opposition Members have repeatedly pointed out, that despite its perhaps unfortunate name, the health in pregnancy grant has the potential to achieve much more than simply help with a healthy diet. It helps to meet a number of the costs associated with preparing for and coping with the arrival of a new baby. Obviously, parents across the income spectrum will be grateful for any help. Although I was rather pooh-poohed by the Minister when I suggested that such a grant is likely to be spent pretty readily so it will also help the economy, there is lots of evidence to show that if we give money to parents at a time when their costs rise, they will go out and spend it quickly—they need to; there are items that they must buy. This will make a modest contribution to our economic regeneration, although that was hardly the overriding reason for introducing the grant in the first place.

[Alison McGovern]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is similar to other kinds of grant such as the winter fuel payment, which we award in cash terms to get people through what is an expensive time? It is most efficient not to cross-question what it is actually spent on, but these grants are important in recognising that people go through difficult and expensive times.

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely right on a number of fronts. First, as my hon. Friend says, this sort of grant is designed to help with specific expensive times in the course of people’s lives. It is important to recognise that specifying what it gets spent on is not necessary to ensure that it does good. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to show that if we give more money to parents, particularly to mothers, they will spend it on things that will help their kids.

I understand the concerns of Government Members about universal benefits, but this is a universal benefit. It goes to people who are financially better off as well as to those in greater need. As Opposition Members have repeatedly sought to explain, universal benefits are the most effective for reaching the poorest. They are the easiest to administer and the easiest to claim; there are no complicated cliff edges or recalculations. As such, I believe it is important to retain a range of universal benefits within the totality of support for families with children. I therefore think that the health in pregnancy grant has a useful role to play.

Even if we accept for a moment Government Members’ concerns that the benefit has been poorly targeted, that is hardly a case for scrapping it outright, especially when basic benefits are too low for the poorest women to be able to afford to eat healthily before their child is born. Surely, far from seeking to abolish the benefit, an ambitious Government who were keen to improve the outcomes of the poorest families and children would want to extend its scope or consider other ways of improving the adequacy of out-of-work benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I hope that Conservative Members and the Minister will hear that contribution in the spirit in which we all feel it. This country has a poor record on outcomes for looked-after children, who enter adult life singularly poorly provided for financially. The child trust fund was a small step towards beginning to rectify that. As my hon. Friend says—and I hope the Government heed this—if the child trust fund is no longer to be the mechanism through which looked-after children are given some sort of nest egg with which to embark on adult life, I hope that Ministers will look for another way to secure the financial futures of such children. It is not sufficient to say that we will improve education, health and Sure Start support, important though those are. Plenty of evidence shows the importance for young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—and looked-after young people most of all—of having a financial asset behind them.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I am sorry is no longer in the Chamber, cited the briefing that some Members had received from the Save Child Savings alliance. I was struck by the numbers he shared with us: 4.5 million child trust fund accounts are open; £2 billion is under management; and £22 million a month is saved in those funds. That is a lot of money being saved and set aside for our children’s futures. I strongly urge the Government to take note of that success. The vast majority of families saving are on modest, medium or lower incomes, certainly of less than £50,000, and many of them on much less. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, I think, 24% of families were not saving at all. He is right to draw attention to the position of those families, but I question what they will save with instead, if we remove the child trust fund. If the Government do not save on behalf of the poorest children, I very much doubt that a tax break, for families who probably do not pay tax anyway, will suddenly magic up savings for the poorest children. I ask the Government to address that point.

The child trust fund is well targeted for its purpose, which is to deliver an asset to young people as they start out on adult life. Better-off families can afford to support their children with university fees, renting their first flat, buying their first car, perhaps starting a business, having a gap year—all markers of social stability, and therefore at the heart of what the Government rightly want young people from low-income backgrounds to be able to participate in. I am genuinely at a loss to understand why a Government who repeatedly, and unjustly, lambast Labour’s record in relation to social mobility and inequality, should totally dismantle a savings vehicle that has the potential to reduce inequalities, and instead propose a savings vehicle that will widen those inequalities by benefiting only those who are better off.

I am just as puzzled by the Government’s attitude to the saving gateway. Pilots in different parts of the country have shown that, coupled with outreach and money advice, it helped to support a savings habit, provided low-income families with a cushion enabling them to cope with crises, allowed them to build up modest assets over time, and made possible additional savings that would not have been possible otherwise.

I am surprised—more than surprised; indeed, I am shocked—that a Government who are happy to extend tax breaks to savers and to maintain them on ISA savings, pension contributions and inheritance tax will not provide support to boost the savings of the poorest. I ask Ministers how that can possibly be fair.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. She is making a comprehensive and excellent speech. Does she agree that what the financial services sector needs now are additional deposits, and that offering tax breaks to those who are already saving will not be half as effective as continuing programmes which, according to all the evidence, produced those additional deposits and improved the savings culture?

[Kate Green]

I think that the Government should be very wary about dismantling a scheme that has generated additional savings, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend has given.

What concerns me most is the impact of the Bill on the Government’s commitment to reducing inequality. We already have a significantly unequal distribution of assets. Up to 20% of households have no assets at all. The highest-earning 10% hold half the assets, and two thirds of households have savings of less than £3,000. I accept that we are not handing on a proud record to the incoming Government, but I would have expected them to conduct a rigorous equality impact assessment of their own proposals as a result of their determination to do a little better than that.

The equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill is thin in the extreme. It fails in any way to recognise the lower earning power in the labour market of women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities: a lower earning power that translates into a lesser ability to set money aside in savings, and ultimately, therefore, into lower asset holding. Its analysis of the saving habits of members of ethnic minorities is scanty, although research from the Runnymede Trust would have informed the Government quite quickly that at least 60% of Asian and black British families have no savings at all. The fact that that is twice the number of white households in the same position should concern us greatly.