Budget: Household Impact

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, I do not want to bore Members of the House by repeating things I have already said but the distributional analysis shows that the biggest burden has been on the highest quintiles. Let me highlight another important factor: this morning, we had the latest employment and earning statistics. In addition to the rather pleasant news that unemployment has fallen further, we have reached a new level of record full-time employment and, very encouragingly for all members of our earning and working society, average earnings have accelerated now to a level of 2.9% year on year, making it clear that the benefits for those in work are starting to increase more and more.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of tax credits was to make work pay, and 8.4 million people have lost income through the Government’s changes. The Minister said that his way of showing the analysis—his publication—is the preferred way. It seems to me that the only people who prefer it are the Government. Does he understand that it would be right to commit to the public being able to see the impact of the individual measures of the Budget, and that it should be published alongside the Budget at the same time?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, the much-quoted research of the IFS is to be complimented, as it offers an independent judgment on the Government’s fiscal policies. The Government’s own fiscal measures are presented in great detail in the Budget report and assessed independently in many details by the independent ONS. The distributional analysis that has been requested and tabled here has now been presented in the traditional format that was agreed by the previous coalition.

Budget Statement

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, much of the commentary we have heard since the Budget—but not, I am pleased to say, in your Lordships’ House—has been a caricature of an economic debate between two harshly polarised views: one political party wants a strong economy and the other does not. Clearly, that is a fiction and a nonsense. There is a dividing line, but it is not on whether it is a right and worthy objective to seek a strong economy; it is on the how and the why—how we can achieve a strong economy, and why we want it. For me, any debate about the economy also has to be a debate about the quality of life. My noble friend Lord Layard made the point that it is about the purpose behind wanting a strong economy.

I know that it suits the government parties to seek to justify their damaging and harmful austerity programme by blaming the last Labour Government, but let us be clear. We did not have a recession because we built too many schools and hospitals. We did not have a recession because too many people used their bus passes. We did not have a recession because there were too many doctors, nurses and teachers. We did not have a recession because too many people had hip replacements. The recession did not start here in the UK; it was world-wide and global. The inconvenient truth for the Government is that the economy was growing in 2010 because of the measures taken by the Labour Government in 2008 and 2009 to ensure that we did not fall into recession.

I refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord McFall that government has to be about more than just the economy. To use his expression, it is about more than just the dry currency of figures; we want a strong economy for a purpose. At one point it seemed that the Prime Minister agreed with this when he launched what was quickly nicknamed the “happiness index”. It was a bit like the “big society” in that we do not hear much about the index any more, but in 2010 it was the new big thing for the Government. The Prime Minister made a speech about the happiness index and said that,

“we’ll start measuring our progress as a country, not just by how our economy is growing, but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life”.

He went on to say that he would,

“make sure those government decisions on policy and spending are made in a balanced way, taking account of what really matters”.

We need to judge whether decisions have been made in terms of quality of life and whether they have been made in the light of what really matters.

It seems to me that one of the things that really improves the quality of life for people the most is a sense of well-being that arises from feeling safe and secure, whether in their jobs, in their homes or in society. Yet we have seen an unprecedented level of cuts in policing and community safety, while police morale is the lowest that I have ever known it to be. Police sickness rates, often related to stress, are the highest they have ever been. Across the country we have lost 17,000 police officers—8,500 of those on the front line—4,000 police and community support officers and 15,000 police staff. The Association of Chief Police Officers says that there will be 30,000 more losses in the next Parliament.

Last year, almost 100,000 crimes were reported, but the number being solved has fallen to less than 28%, which means that not even one in three criminals are being charged. Reported rapes are up by around 30%, but there has been a drop in the number of cases being referred to the CPS and a 14% fall in prosecutions. Some 9,000 fewer crimes have been solved. Prosecutions are down, and yet violent crime is up by 16%. That is not a record for the Government to be proud of and it is due to the unprecedented level of cuts in policing.

In my own county of Essex the Government have cut police numbers by almost 600, with another £46 million-worth of cuts being planned. The police mounted section has been axed, the dog section has been cut by 20% and in a coastal county the marine section has lost both officers and equipment. Through tabling Parliamentary Questions I have uncovered the fact that, as the number of people being killed or seriously injured on Essex roads has risen to 750, with the most significant increase among those aged under 18, the number of traffic police has been dramatically cut from 257 officers in 2010 to only 76 last year. There are no longer any 24-hour police stations in Essex and more station closures are planned. My nearest police station is in Laindon. The bright road signs are still directing the public to what is a fairly new police station—but do not ever knock on the door, because it is not open to the public at any time, day or night.

The Government’s answer to all this is that crime is falling, but is it not also the case that crime is changing? How many of us have received emails that are in fact online scams? We have seen increasing rates of cybercrime and fraud as well as internet sexual abuse. The Office for National Statistics has said that, if all of these crimes were fully reflected in the annual crime survey, they could increase the crime figures by around 50%. So that 2010 speech about improving the quality of life rings pretty hollow to me.

Today outside Parliament, I met a number of local residents from Essex and Kent who were protesting about cuts being made by their local councils which have led to their street lights being turned off at around midnight each and every night. Residential areas are then plunged into darkness. Let us recall the Prime Minister’s comments about the quality of life for those who will not go out at night in case they cannot get home before the lights are turned off. There are shift workers, council workers and hospital cleaners who now have to walk to and from work in the pitch dark. They told me that they do not know where the kerb ends and the road starts, or if anyone is lurking in the darkness. There are people alone at home or with their families. They hear a noise outside and look out of the window to see what is happening and whether someone needs help, but they can see absolutely nothing. I have to say that I am utterly appalled by what I regard as a tacky election gimmick cooked up by local Tory MPs who are worried about the huge number of complaints from the public. “We should not be turning the lights off at midnight because it is dangerous; let us leave them on until 1 am.” We can be plunged into darkness at 1 am, not midnight.

I was disappointed by the Minister’s opening speech because I thought that it was rather complacent. He talked about the number of extra people in work. Yes, more people are in work, but why are tax receipts from employment down by so much? It is because many people cannot get the jobs they want, so they take lower-paid jobs that offer fewer hours. The average household is losing £1,600 a year. The Government’s austerity programme has not brought the economic success that was promised. It has led to unprecedented cuts across public services, services which matter to the public, and public confidence has been lost. When we look back at what was said in 2010 about the happiness index and the quality of life, the Government really do have to think again. It is time to make way for a new Government to make the changes that are needed.

Coins

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs to local government and business of preparing for the new coinage, in the light of reports that the new size cannot be used in existing parking meters and vending machines.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the Treasury published a full impact assessment on this measure last February, which is available on the Treasury website. The impact assessment was compiled after consultation with representative industry groups and estimates the overall net benefit of the conversion of 5p and 10p coins to nickel-plated steel to be about £40 million. The Royal Mint has been working with the industry for more than two years in anticipation of this change.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think the gap in the Minister’s Answer is that, although the Government will save money, there will be a cost to the industry in changing vending machines, payphones, parking meters, et cetera, because the new coins are marginally thicker. The cost to the vending industry will be about £25 million. The fear now is that if the £1 coin was changed, it would cost the vending industry more than £100 million to adapt. I seek assurances from the Minister that if any change is considered, there will be full consultation with industry, a two-year period in which the industry can make the changes needed and consideration of compensatory payments, given the very high cost involved to the industry.

Impact of Government Policies on Family Budgets

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we owe my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth a debt of gratitude, not just for bringing forward this debate today but for his passionate comments. I like to think that when I am winding up a debate I can say how much I have enjoyed the contributions. While these have been very valuable, I regret to say that “enjoyable” is not the word that I would use on this occasion, given the depressing and serious impact that government policies are having on families, whatever their shape and size.

I was particularly interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. He expressed concern over the political nature of the comments of my noble friend Lord Knight. While he paid great tribute to my noble friend’s political skills, we have to understand that economics and politics are inextricably linked, and that it is political judgment that has led to the economic decisions that the Government have made.

At the previous general election the economy was the key issue. There was little disagreement over the need to tackle the deficit. Where there was a real divide was on the issue of how that should be done. The Labour Party took the view that it could and should be reduced alongside economic growth, while the Conservative view was that cuts had to be harder, deeper and faster to have the kind of impact on the economy that the party wanted to see. In the event, no political party won an outright majority. In fact, more people voted against all three major political parties than voted for them. Eventually, a Conservative-led coalition Government was formed with the Liberal Democrats and those hard, fast and deep cuts that were promised by the Conservatives became a reality.

As we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Knight, at the 2009 Conservative Party conference the Chancellor in waiting, George Osborne, promised that everyone would play their part in a deficit-reduction plan. He said:

“Everyone must pay their share”.

The famous and now discredited, “We’re all in it together”, was repeated three times in his speech, and then again by David Cameron. It is an excellent soundbite; it was attractive, understood and believed by many to be a commitment. It appealed to that very British sense of fairness. Everyone in the country would suffer equally in the pain that was to follow, no section of society would hurt more than any other, and all would pay their fair share. However, in their impact the Government’s actions have achieved precisely the opposite, as we have heard today. The noble Lord shakes his head but I urge him to talk to people who are feeling the impact of this Government, and not just read the brief that he has received from civil servants.

That impact has achieved the opposite of what the Government said that it would. The evidence that some people have been hit harder than others is overwhelming. We have heard something of the pressures on families from my noble friends Lord Knight, Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Stevenson. We have heard real examples of real families. My noble friend Lord Knight read out what he called a long and painful list of cuts that are hitting the poorest hardest. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s examples of particular families highlighted not just the suffering that they face but the invaluable role that the voluntary third sector plays and how hard charities are being hit as local authorities cut their funding. That issue was raised with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Question Time. He said that local authorities should recognise the value of charities before they cut their money. I have to say to Mr Cameron that they do recognise the value, but when their funding is being cut and they are under pressure local authorities are often left with little choice.

The comments of my noble friend Lord Stevenson were particularly useful to this debate. His experienced observations from supporting those in debt via a charity add a significant contribution to the matters before us today. However, it is also very worrying that this will just get worse. I welcome my noble friend’s constructive comments about what would help and hope that the Government will take them on board.

My noble friend Lord Knight referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that was published earlier this month, which forecast the biggest drop for middle-income families since the 1970s, pushing 600,000 more children into poverty, taking the figure up to more than 3 million within two years. That is alongside 2.5 million working-age parents and 4 million working-age adults who do not have children being forced into poverty. However, for those not in poverty but who are struggling to make ends meet—the squeezed middle, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley—the IFS predicts that average income will fall by 7 per cent after inflation. That is the biggest fall in living standards for 35 years.

This is not just about numbers. As the chief executive of Barnardo’s, Anne Marie Carrie, said:

“This isn’t just about statistics as every day thousands of families are being forced into making choices between heating or eating”.

Unfortunately, that is not an exaggeration. The most startling increases in energy bills are forcing people to go cold or face alarming bills, which they may not be able to pay. The increase in energy prices of around 18 per cent in the past year—more in some cases—is crippling for families.

The Government’s response, with Chris Huhne complaining that people can not be bothered to switch energy companies, is an insult and is also inaccurate. It proves how out of touch he and the Government really are on this issue. In a Which? investigation, a third of calls to energy companies failed to elicit the lowest tariff, as requested by the customer. If an energy company is unable to identify the lowest tariff, how can the Government possibly expect the customer to do so? Why do the Government not ensure that the energy companies reduce the number of tariffs and automatically offer the lowest to the customer? Am I right to be curious about why any company would want such a confusing and complex system of tariffs, which it does not apparently itself understand? Whose side are the Government on in this argument?

Given the dramatic increases in energy prices, the Government must take action to stop those who have the least paying the most. Individuals with pre-payment meters are not eligible for any discounts, so they end up paying more and often, in effect, disconnect themselves as they just cannot afford it. As prices rise to their highest ever, the over-60s will get £50 less winter fuel payment this year than last year, and the over-80s will get £100 less. Warm Front, the Labour Government’s scheme for over 10 years, of which we are extremely proud, has brought warmth to the homes of pensioners, those with disabilities and the vulnerable. It is now being wound up. Having helped more than 2 million people with their bills, insulation and energy efficiency, the budget has been drastically cut this year and next, and will be ended altogether by 2013. The Government’s answer is the Green Deal. I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about energy efficiency, particularly in private sector homes, but in principle the Green Deal is a good scheme which can make a contribution to making homes more energy efficient and reducing bills, as energy efficiency measures can be installed and paid back over time through energy bills. However, given that it is not to be available initially to those in some of the coldest, most energy-inefficient homes in the private rented sector, there is a lost opportunity to support those most in need.

I turn to feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. The best reasons for feed-in tariffs are an increase in energy supply, thus making a contribution towards energy security, and to help those on lower incomes and local communities reduce their bills. But the Government have changed and cut the scheme so that the main beneficiaries will be private households that can afford the initial capital cost, knowing that they can recoup this in time. That is great for them but, despite today’s announcement, the restrictions placed on the scheme have greatly reduced the benefits when just some relatively minor tweaks could have achieved the Government’s objectives in reducing costs without losing so much capacity and limiting those who can benefit.

Although VAT on domestic energy bills remains at 5 per cent, the Government have increased VAT on energy bills for business customers from the Labour Government’s reduction. This really hurts businesses, especially when prices are so high, and the increase just gets passed on to the customer in consumer prices. So we have higher costs at a time when unemployment is rising. In the quarter from June to August 2011, the average weekly pay increased by 2.8 per cent, compared with last year. However, bonus payments are up 28 per cent. In that same three months, 178,000 fewer people were in employment than in the previous three months. ONS statistics show that the two constituencies in my home town of Basildon are suffering a 12 per cent and 10.9 per cent increase in those who are unemployed and claiming JSA. That is just one side of the equation and I want to come back to my opening remarks and those of my noble friend, Lord Knight.

The Government said, “We’re all in it together”, and that everyone would take their fair share of the pain. The Government promised to tackle bankers’ bonuses. It was reported earlier this year that the chief executive of Barclays said it was time for banks to stop feeling remorseful—as he wallowed in his £9 million payout. Labour’s plans for greater disclosure were rejected and, despite the Government’s levy on banks, the bonus culture continues unabated with an estimated £7 billion to be paid out this year. In 2009, before the General Election, George Osborne said that the Government should act in the light of the unacceptable bank bonuses and that we could not wait for the “promised land” of “responsible bonus culture”. Does that mean that the Government now think these bonuses are responsible and acceptable? We are told that the best the coalition Government can now hope for is a declaration that bonuses are less than they would have been, despite reports that salaries will increase by up to 40 per cent in some cases to compensate for the so-called cuts or deferral of bonuses. So no fairness there.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, said he would crack down on the pay of council chiefs. Yet it is reported that even in the council next door to his in my home town of Basildon, the chief executive is to work for just three days a week from 2013 on a salary of £100,000 a year, and the council still has not cleared up the mystery of whether he will receive his pension at the same time. This is what really hurts people—when unemployment is rising, energy prices are soaring, those travelling to work face an average 8 per cent increase in their fares, supermarket prices are increasing, and the Government fail to act. Yet others are completely immune from pain, or at least from the fairness that the Government said they were so keen on.

It does not have to be like this. My noble friend Lord Knight read out to your Lordships’ House the five-point plan proposed by the shadow Chancellor. The Government are cutting too far, too fast and too deep. They are cutting jobs and choking off economic growth. That is the choice the Government have made; but it is the wrong choice. It is not just bad politics—it is bad economics, because it is hurting people and the economy. This includes people such as Caroline O'Brien to whom my noble friend Lord Knight referred; Shirley the carer to whom my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley referred; and it includes my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s charity that is helping people with debt.

The Government need to start thinking about such people as individuals and take action that will support them and their families—and the economy. I urge the Minister to take on board the comments that have been made today.