Road Pricing
Lord Dubs Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, over the years, Ministers frequently say that they have no plans to do anything, and then, within a short period, they change their minds. This may well be one of those instances. Does the Minister agree that road pricing would have another benefit, in that it could be used to ease congestion on motorways? There would be different charges for peak times and for off-peak times. Would that not be helpful?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said in my opening remarks, the Government have no plans to consider road pricing. I really cannot say more than that.
Home Office: ODA-funded Support
Lord Dubs Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the reduction in ODA spending has had important consequences and we are, as I say, committed to returning to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. In various international development strategy documents, we have also set out how we will prioritise spending to the lowest-income households in humanitarian efforts, while aligning our programmes further with our ambitions on supporting women and girls in order to address the issues that the right reverend Prelate has set out.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has twice cited the Illegal Migration Act in defence of government policy. Can she say which part of that Act is working?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that Act is only in the process of being brought into force but it is an important part of our approach to reducing the pressures of illegal migration, so that we can better address the needs of legitimate asylum claims in this country.
Premium Bonds
Lord Dubs Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, that is for a debate, not a Question. I am not a fan of hypothecation. The Government raise premium bonds to fund government expenditure, as I have explained, and obviously there is nothing to stop anybody giving their tax-free winnings to charity as they see fit. We do not have any plans to introduce a direct transfer to charities, which would require stakeholder consultation and a systems change. The product is a good part of the portfolio of savings products that we have and, as I said, it is very popular.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, would not more people buy premium bonds if there were not such a miserably low rate of interest?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We try to make sure that premium bonds are a reasonable deal in the market for savings. The noble Lord will probably know that we delayed reducing the rates on premium bonds until quite recently. They continue to be popular, and it makes sense to look at them in the round, aiming for a balance for savers and taxpayers, as well as stability in the sector, obviously, in which they have a role as part of NS&I’s work.
Income Tax: Top Rate
Lord Dubs Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is important to have competitive corporate tax rates, which is why we have reduced them, although it is obviously the case that you reach the point as you are reducing taxes when you lose revenue. The trick is to get the balance right, which is what we have done by reducing corporation tax, for example, and by putting capital gains tax up very significantly from the level it was under the Labour Government.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Could the Minister explain how it is that some wealthy people—leaders of our big companies—manage to get themselves domiciled abroad, in places such as Hong Kong, as the senior management of HSBC has done? Surely, that is the real tax dodge.
Lord Newby
My Lords, we have taken a number of measures to make sure that non-doms pay more per annum and have introduced a new charge on non-doms of £90,000 a year for those who are in the UK for a long time.
Wealth Inequality
Lord Dubs Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, domestically, we have invested heavily in HMRC to ensure that the wealthy pay the tax they owe. We have led efforts through the G20 and the OECD to reform the international tax rules to tackle the issue of multinationals artificially shifting their profits to avoid paying tax. Since 2013, we have been the first G7 country to meet the UN commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development aid.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, will the Government give their full support to the Private Member’s Bill on Friday which will ensure that we continue to meet the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNP on development aid into the foreseeable future? Secondly, is it not shameful that the world is still so unequal? We should all be ashamed that the richest 1% have all the wealth and that 99% should have very little. Is it not bad for governance and bad for the future of the world that that should be the case?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the absolute assurance that the Government support the Bill that will be debated on Friday. As to global inequality, noble Lords might like to contemplate the fact that to be part of the 1%, the wealth threshold is just over £500,000; so we are all part of the 1%.
Income and Wealth Inequality
Lord Dubs Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, according to the latest ONS statistics, income inequality in the UK is lower than when this Government came into office. Recent ONS data have also found that wealth inequality has remained unchanged since this measure began in 2006.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, there may be some dispute about those figures, but for the moment let us go along with them. Is the Minister aware that today, or yesterday, the Institute of Directors, hardly a hotbed of left-wing views, denounced a pay package for a senior executive as being “excessive and inflammatory”? The chief executives of our leading companies have seen their average pay go up from £4.1 million to £4.7 million. That is at a time when the largest network of food banks says that increased demand for food bank services has gone up by 38%. Is that not a gross condemnation of our society?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that many directors have had pay increases which bear no relation to either pay increases that other people have had or the performance of their company, and that is why this Government have introduced a raft of measures to make firms more accountable to their shareholders for the pay packages that directors get. However, I remind the noble Lord that those people who are in the top 1% of wage earners and whose pay has gone up now contribute some 28% of the total income tax collected.
Income Tax: Top Rate
Lord Dubs Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord has a better memory than I have. I am very happy to take credit for the Government’s achievements. The proportion of income tax collected from the top 1% has gone up from about 26% to 28% during the lifetime of this Government. Certainly, income tax take from high earners is extremely resilient because they are prepared to pay it at the levels we now have.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, is that not a fairly small sum of money compared to what we lose every year through people who dodge and evade taxes?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is a very considerable sum of money, but we are taking steps across a range of areas to tackle evasion and avoidance, whether by individuals or firms. There is a measure in this year’s Budget specifically designed to get tax upfront from individuals who are engaged in schemes that might subsequently be found to be avoiding tax. That will generate a considerable amount of income. A number of other measures that we have taken are bringing in hundreds of millions of pounds from people who previously were able to avoid taxes.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Dubs Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will refer to two issues: Northern Ireland, and then Moldova in relation to Ukraine.
First, on Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned about dealing with the past. It seems quite a long time since the Prime Minister was cheered outside the Guildhall in Derry when he accepted the report of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday. In fact, to many people, the idea that a Conservative Prime Minister would be cheered in Derry in that way was quite remarkable.
Of course, other aspects of the past have not been dealt with. I fully accept that the British Government have less of a direct responsibility since some of their powers have been devolved. Nevertheless, we still have a real responsibility, together with the Irish Government. We have got to deal with the past. There are too many unanswered questions.
We have had the Eames Bradley Consultative Group on the Past, which has been referred to in earlier speeches, with its suggestion of a legacy commission. We have had the Haass report; I refer in particular to the section contending with the past. These are important. They have not yet been accepted. What is clear is that there is still a great deal of pain in Northern Ireland on the part of people who have suffered through the Troubles: people who have had loved ones killed or are still suffering from injuries.
I will refer to two matters which are quite contentious. The Ballymurphy families, whom I met some time ago, still have a serious grievance about what happened and they want some sort of resolution. Of course, there is also the stalled inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. However, there are those on the other side of the disputes in Northern Ireland as well. I have just referred to two involving the British authorities, but of course some of the issues may refer to state action while others refer to actions by paramilitary organisations. Indeed, one of the suggestions in the Haass report is that people have to acknowledge what they did, and that that process is part of dealing with the pain of victims.
This is not the time to go through the Haass findings in detail, but they talk clearly about the need to provide more support for victims and survivors, including the mental health aspects of what the victims have gone through. The Haass report talks, as I said earlier, about the need to acknowledge past acts. It suggests that, although we have a number of different institutions or mechanisms for dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, they have not actually worked all that well. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Haass report suggests that there should be a new historical investigations unit which would encompass the other processes and procedures for dealing with the past. That is quite an interesting and persuasive idea. The report also has a number of other suggestions of how to deal with it. Yet some very difficult issues remain, such as the difficulty of immunity for people who may wish to come forward to give evidence, and the difficulty of anonymity. All those issues have to be resolved. Indeed, the Haass report acknowledges that it has not resolved all those issues; it has not even been able to decide on how to define a victim, which is itself a contentious issue. It is absolutely clear that the British Government have to move forward and encourage the parties, with the Irish Government, to deal with this issue, otherwise it will be like a cancer in that society.
On Moldova and Transnistria, I had the chance to visit the former in March, one of several visits I have paid as a member of an all-party group, lately facilitated by our excellent ambassador in Chisinau, Phil Batson. It was clear in March, as it is now, that events in Ukraine dominated thinking in Moldova, whether on the part of the Moldovan Government or the part of the Transnistrian regime, which we also visited. It is quite an eye-opener to visit the Supreme Soviet in Tiraspol, which is a throwback to a bygone age. The people there were adamant, saying that they had had a referendum in 2006 which wanted independence for Transnistria with a view to eventually joining Russia. They had just written to Moscow to say that they still thought that.
On one occasion during a previous visit as a parliamentary delegation we suggested, both in Moldova and to the Transnistrian people, that an element of devolution might be a possible way forward. We referred to what had happened in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and they were quite surprised at the extent of the powers that had been devolved. Nothing much came of those discussions, although they all said that they were interesting. However, I have noticed that recently the Russians have said that they would like some element of devolution in Ukraine. We cannot tell the Ukrainians what they should be doing, but on the other hand devolution does not seem to be an impossible way forward for Ukraine, just as it would not be impossible for Moldova.
One of the other things we were able to point out to the people there apropos of events in Crimea was that the process of giving devolution here—save the recent, rather nasty incidents that my noble friend Lord Reid and other noble Lords have referred to—was agreed by two Governments, which has taken more than two years, and that the question was agreed. It was not a matter of sending troops in, but a proper democratic process. Perhaps they should think of taking that way forward.
Finally, I will refer to another, quite different issue. We shall shortly debate the Assisted Dying Bill, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I support that Bill, and hope that the House will not end up being out of line with what most people in this country want.
Inequality: Income and Wealth
Lord Dubs Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, fairness underpins the Government’s plans to reduce the deficit. Universal credit will allow people to keep more of their income as they move into work, while the personal allowance increases announced by this Government will benefit 25 million individuals. As a result of this Government’s actions, the richest pay more tax on capital gains, more stamp duty on their homes and more tax on their pensions, and they are less able to avoid or evade tax.
Lord Dubs
Listening to that Answer, one would not be aware that the disparities in wealth and income in this country have reached record levels. Will the Minister confirm that 1% of the top earners earn 10% of income? The Government are being criticised on the grounds of their inequality policies by everybody from the bishops to the anti-poverty lobby—people who know what is going on. Further, does he not agree that when inequalities in a country get beyond a certain level, as they have here, our social cohesion is seriously damaged?
Lord Deighton
With respect to the 1% of the top taxpayers, the first point I would make is that actually they are responsible for paying 24% of income tax. The top 10% pay just under 50% of income tax—I think it is 44%—so their contribution to our revenues is the greatest in proportion. As for the development of inequality since this Government came into office, the commonly accepted measures of income inequality have in fact decreased.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Lord Dubs Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Amendment to the Railways Act 1993
(1) The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 11 (pensions), after paragraph 11 there shall be inserted—
“11A (1) This paragraph applies if an insolvency event occurs in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person.
(2) Where this paragraph applies, the Secretary of State shall become liable to discharge any liabilities in respect of relevant pension rights, to the extent that they are not discharged by the trustees of a new scheme in which the employer was a participating employer.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) “insolvency event” has the meaning set out in section 121 of the Pensions Act 2004;(b) “relevant pension rights” means the relevant pension rights referred to in paragraph 6(3) above.11B The duty referred to in paragraph 11A also applies if an insolvency event has occurred in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person on or after 1 October 1994.””
Lord Dubs
My Lords, the amendment stems from the situation that arose on 31 March 2010 when Jarvis, a rail maintenance company, went into administration. The amendment is not intended to make any new demands but simply to close what I think was an unforeseen loophole in the Railways Act 1993. Schedule 11 to that Act was intended to provide railway workers employed by British Rail at the time of rail privatisation with the right to a protected pension. This amendment is intended to restore that right.
In other instances where rail companies collapsed or gave up contracts, the workforce had always been transferred to other companies, but this did not happen with Jarvis, due to complex reasons related to the application of the transfer of undertakings regulations. Nevertheless, many of the Jarvis workers who had been employed by British Rail at the time of privatisation rightly expected that at least their pensions would be protected by the 1993 Act. It was then discovered that the Act does not cover cases of companies going into administration, which meant that these workers simply lost out. It is estimated that some 650 former Jarvis workers have been affected, and that the cost of meeting the pensions shortfall that would arise from accepting this amendment would be in the region of £400,000. The amendment would also honour the spirit of the Railways Act 1993 and ensure that in the unlikely event that another successor company to British Rail went into administration and the work was not transferred to another company, any affected workers who were also employed by British Rail in 1993 would have their pensions fully protected.
I am seeking to put right something that was not foreseen and which clearly represents an unfairness and an injustice. Jarvis’s former BR employees are not receiving the protection that was promised at the time of privatisation. The major flaw in the protection order is that it is an obligation on the employer, but where the employer disappears it seems that there is no entity to take up that obligation. That is obviously a serious gap in the original privatisation process, and the former BR members employed by Jarvis were misled by the UK Government as a result. They expected to get the pensions to which they were entitled, instead of the much lower one they ultimately received.
I do not think that this amendment was debated in the House of Commons because it was not reached. If it was passed, it would mean that the British Government had honoured an obligation and a promise made at the time of privatisation that employees’ pension rights would be protected so that they were at least as favourable as the rights they enjoyed under the BR pension scheme. The new clause would provide the protection sought.
However, I understand that there is another option which the Minister may prefer. Under the terms of the Railways Act 1993, the Government could introduce an order to rectify the situation. The Minister therefore has two options. He can either accept the amendment or he can achieve the same end in another way. This is a matter of honour and integrity, and I think it is only right that several hundred workers should not be penalised due to something that was really only an administrative oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, his concern relates to a situation that has arisen for people covered by the railways pension scheme, which is a very different kind of scheme from those covered by this Bill. That scheme was created as a railway industry-wide pension scheme for the multi-employer railway industry following privatisation. It is a unitised fund made up of a number of different sections, only one of which is underwritten by the taxpayer. Moreover, the scheme focuses predominantly on those working for private sector employers in the rail industry. Conversely, while some of the public service pension schemes in scope of the Bill may admit certain private or third sector organisations, they are predominantly focused on workers in the public sector. I will attempt to respond briefly to the points raised in the noble Lord’s amendment, but I am afraid that the primary focus of his attention should be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The amendment would create a liability for the taxpayer to underwrite any shortfall in a railways pension scheme section. This underwriting would be required if the section develops a shortfall as a result of the insolvency of a participating employer or former employer who is the employer or former employer of a “protected person”. Protected persons are beneficiaries of the section who still retain certain rights deriving from British Rail days and enshrined in regulations made under the Railways Act 1993 in relation to their pension: for example, if their employer is obliged to provide pension scheme rights “no less favourable” than the relevant pension rights in their former designated pension scheme from British Rail days.
Let me set out the current position. As I have said, the railways pension scheme is a unitised fund that is divided up into sections. There tends to be one section for each employer. Most participating employers in relation to sections of the pension scheme are private sector railway operating companies. Only two sections of the scheme benefit from a solvency guarantee from government. The first of these is the “1994 Pensioners Section”, a closed section that deals primarily with the residual, deferred and pensioner members of the former British Rail pension schemes at the time of privatisation. The second is the “BR Section”, a section comprising a small category of contributing members and beneficiaries deriving from the former British Rail pension scheme. Even if the amendment were within the scope of the Bill, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to amend the existing legislation in relation to railway pensions, as set out in the Railways Act 1993 and regulations made under it, and create a further liability for the taxpayer, as the amendment seems to propose.
The noble Lord has tabled the amendment specifically because of the Jarvis case. One employer, Jarvis, made use of the railways pension scheme, but has become insolvent. In a situation where the sponsoring employer of a section of the railways pension scheme no longer supports the pension’s scheme, there are complex legal requirements affecting how the scheme should operate in the future. The trustee of the RPS has been working with the Pension Protection Fund to understand whether the three sections of the RPS affected in this case are eligible for support from the Pension Protection Fund. The three sections are currently still in an assessment period. In the mean time, the trustee retains responsibility for paying benefits, although the Pension Protection Fund provides guidance on how the trustee should do this.
I hope that my explanation has provided some clarity for the noble Lord, although I appreciate that he might not have got the help he seeks. However, I hope that he will understand me when I say that the railways pension scheme is not a public service pension scheme in the same way as those being legislated for here, and that this is not the appropriate place to deal with the very important matters he has raised.
Lord Dubs
The Minister has given me a fairly complicated explanation and I think I would not be out of order if I said that I want to study it in Hansard rather than comment on it directly, particularly since I am not an expert on the intricacies of this issue. However, the outcome is disappointing. No one is challenging the principle that these Jarvis workers should have been better looked after than they were, given the commitments that were made at the time of railways nationalisation, so what has happened is rather unfortunate. This does not seem to be a fair outcome, whatever the technical process by which the Minister has reached his conclusion.
I should like to make two comments. The Minister has suggested that I should address my comments to the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will be helpful to me if I redirect my arguments to the Secretary of State. I have no Bill under which to do that, although there may be other ways. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s help. Also, under the terms of the Railways Act 1993 maybe the Government could introduce an order to rectify the situation. The Minister did not comment on that suggestion, but I wonder whether he could take it away as an alternative to the other option he put forward. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.