Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us how many young people have now been out of work for more than six months, and how that compares with the figure of a year ago?
Mr Hoban
I would have thought the shadow Chief Secretary would have welcomed the fact that youth unemployment fell last month. That demonstrates that the Government are taking action to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment—a problem that did not emerge under this Government, as youth unemployment also rose when her party was in government.
Rachel Reeves
The Minister failed to answer my question, so let me tell the House that 170,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months. That is an increase of 114% since just a year ago. Does the Minister think it is fair that families with children are being asked to pay a higher price for deficit reduction than the banks, and if not, will he reconsider reinstating the bank bonus tax to support young people back to work—especially as his Budget has given a tax cut worth £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires?
Mr Hoban
I just point out to the hon. Lady that the last Labour Government ruled out introducing a bank levy. That levy is raising £2.5 billion, and it will raise £10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. I think it is right that banks should pay a fair contribution for the risks they have posed for the UK economy, and I would have thought she would have welcomed both the bank levy and the fall in youth unemployment last month.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 65, page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, page 3, line 5, leave out
‘was born after 5 April 1938 but before 6 April 1948’
and insert
‘is 65 or over at some time in the tax year, but under 75 throughout the tax year.’.
Amendment 67, page 3, line 17, leave out
‘had been born after 5 April 1948’
and insert
‘is under the age of 65 throughout the tax year’.
Amendment 68, page 3, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 69, page 3, line 26, leave out
‘was born before 6 April 1938’
and insert
‘is 75 or over at some time in the tax year.’.
Amendment 70, page 3, line 38, leave out
‘had been born after 5 April 1948’
and insert
‘is under the age of 65 throughout the tax year.’.
Amendment 71, page 3, line 40, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 72, page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment 73, page 3, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment 74, page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (7).
Clause stand part.
Rachel Reeves
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo.
I rise to speak to the amendments and to oppose clause 4, which will freeze age-related allowances for those who are receiving them and abolish them for those who are approaching retirement. I hope that Members from all parts of the Committee will join us in our opposition this afternoon. Defeating the clause would prevent a real-terms increase in tax for millions of older people in this country, which will cost £83 a year for 4.4 million people on modest incomes and as a much as £322 for 360,000 people who will reach the age of 65 next year.
We are seeking to reverse the Government’s freezing and abolition of age-related allowance for three simple reasons: first, that tax increase adds to the financial pressure already felt by older people on modest incomes facing rising costs; secondly, it picks the pockets of pensioners to fund an irresponsible tax cut for millionaires; and thirdly, the way in which it has been introduced adds insult to injury, breaking a promise made by the Chancellor just a year ago and using the language of tax simplification to cover up what is clearly and simply a tax grab.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The hon. Lady is expressing opposition to the freezing of the age-related allowance. Did she express the same opposition when the last Chancellor did exactly the same in the Labour Government’s last Budget?
Rachel Reeves
This is a permanent freeze, and the allowance is being abolished entirely for people coming up to retirement next year, so it is very different from a one-year freeze.
Rachel Reeves
I will make some progress.
For the reasons that I have given, pensioners from the National Pensioners Convention have come to Parliament today to lobby MPs to vote against the change. Let us take each issue in turn and consider who will be hit, because there has been some myth making by defenders of the granny tax about how only well-off pensioners will be affected. The truth is, those who will be hit have very modest incomes.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Lady refers to the “granny tax”. I know that she, like me, would really like to see older women retiring with the same income as men over time. Does she therefore accept that 60% of the effect of the freezing of the age-related allowance will be on men and 40% on women, so it should not really be referred to as a granny tax?
Rachel Reeves
The money involved will not alleviate the pressure on women in retirement. It will all be used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. The hon. Lady talks about women in retirement, and it was Government Members who voted to increase the state pension age for women with just five or six years’ notice, hitting them by up to £15,000 in lost retirement income. We will not take any lectures from them about the matter.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I notice that we have not heard much about fairness or about the big tax cuts being given to millionaires in the interventions by Government Members. Is it not true those retiring next year with personal or occupational pensions of as low as £67 a week could be affected by the change to age-related allowance? The Government are attacking a group of pensioners with modest incomes, which will be a particularly devastating blow in the most deprived areas such as Halton.
Rachel Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend sticks up for pensioners in his constituency, unlike Government Members, who want to grab the incomes of pensioners in their constituencies.
My hon. Friend points out the evidence that we have commissioned from the House of Commons Library, which shows that a small personal or occupational pension of just £67 a week, or little more than £3,000 a year, would be enough to put someone in the firing line of the additional tax. People with such pensions are not the privileged few, living a life of luxury in retirement. The measure will hit millions of people who have worked hard in ordinary jobs and managed to set aside just enough to give them a small pension that relieves them of reliance on means-tested benefits and allows them to have some security in retirement.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Can the hon. Lady tell the Committee how much tax somebody getting an occupational pension of £67 a week would pay under the new arrangements?
Rachel Reeves
If they were being taxed at 20%, that would mean tax of about £13 a week on their pension. Such pensioners will be hit hard by the changes.
We know how hard it already is for many people to save enough for a modest pension, so why have the Government picked on pensioners to pay more? As the chief executive of Saga has put it:
“Amid all the talk of tax cuts…the main tax-raising measure”
in the Budget
“consisted of a stealth tax increase on older people who did actually work and save hard for their future.”
Gransnet has warned that
“this tax change offers no incentive to save”,
and the National Association of Pension Funds has stated that it will
“come as a blow to millions of pensioners who have paid in to the tax system throughout their working lives. Pensioners with modest amounts of pension saving stand to be the biggest losers.”
Let us be clear that the change will hit people with small pensions who have made sacrifices to save and are now being penalised for doing the right thing.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Putting aside the fact that people on incomes such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned would pay zero in tax, which makes the hon. Lady’s argument purely academic at best, is it not true that she is referring to the same group of people who have just had the biggest ever increase in their pension? That is much different from the previous Labour Government’s 75p insult.
Rachel Reeves
The people who will be hit by this tax are those who have an income in retirement of between £10,500 and £25,000 a year. They will pay tax at 20% on any income over £10,500 a year. That is why 4.4 million pensioners will lose out by an average of £83 next year. People retiring next year will lose out by up to £322. That is the reality of the change that we will vote on this afternoon.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I understand that age-related benefits were an idea put forward by Winston Churchill. Does my hon. Friend think that George Osborne knows better than Winston Churchill?
Rachel Reeves
Government Members would do well to look to Churchill rather than to their current leaders when deciding how to vote today.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Winston Churchill, a very great man, took us back on to the gold standard as Chancellor. If we were to follow every proposal of Winston Churchill’s as Chancellor, we would find it very difficult to run the economy.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman. His constituents have had a hard time in the past few days. Older people will be hit by the changes to pensioners’ tax allowances, and of course the pasty industry in Cornwall and the south-west will be hit hard, so there is a double hit for his region.
We need to remember the situation that most pensioners face. They do not have ways of making up for a loss of income by going out and finding work. That is what it means to be retired. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to rises in the cost of living and to unanticipated changes in their financial circumstances. The Office of Tax Simplification report notes that the current age-related allowance was
“introduced to reflect potentially higher costs of living of older people.”
That was why Winston Churchill introduced it in 1925. As the OTS has stated:
“Older people can struggle to meet living costs. They are often on a fixed income once they have retired, or perhaps on a declining income in real terms where flat annuities have been purchased”.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I understand that one reason why the age-related allowance was originally introduced was the higher cost of heating when people are older. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is particularly important now given the rising cost of fuel, and even more so in parts of the country where the weather is worse, such as the north and Scotland?
Rachel Reeves
It has been pretty cold in my constituency in Leeds this winter, as well. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, because people face many extra costs as they get older, such as in heating their home.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech, and she is being extremely generous in allowing hon. Members of all parties to intervene. To continue her point, pensioners now face an increase in the cost of not only gas and electricity, but of a decent, healthy meal that will sustain them. As people get older and more frail, they need to ensure that they eat proper, decent, balanced meals. Costs are going through the roof all the time and constituents such as mine will look at their weekly household bills and be horrified. To add this insult to that injury is simply a disgrace.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, Citizens Advice said that the change
“has to be considered in terms of the cumulative impact. Fuel prices continue to rise, and that is a key worry; 43% of the people who come to us are worried that they will not be able to meet their fuel bills. We have examples of people coming into our bureaux who do not heat their homes because they are worried about not being able to afford it... This group of people very often have to rely on their savings in order to live in their retirement, and they are getting very low interest on them.”
My hon. Friends have therefore made good points, which represent their constituents’ very real concerns.
Moreover, pensioners have already been hit hard by the Government. The winter fuel allowance has been cut; pensions have been indexed to a lower measure of inflation; the raising of the state pension age for women has been brought forward, and last year’s VAT rise has added £275 to the costs that an average pensioner couple faces. Evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the Treasury Committee confirms that, as a result of the tax and benefit changes that the Government have implemented, the incomes of pensioner households have fallen by 1.4%, and most have little prospect or opportunity of making up that loss.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I have a very simple question: will the hon. Lady reverse the policy on the allowance?
Rachel Reeves
We do not know what the economy will look like in three weeks, let alone in three years. The Government’s choices are making our economic prospects worse and worse. In the past year, the Office for Budget Responsibility has had to revise down its forecast for UK growth three times. It is now expected to be a third less than it was a year ago. We will publish our manifesto before the next election, but it will be very different from Government Members’ manifestos because we prioritise hard-working families, not a tax cut of £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. That is why we will vote against the provision this evening.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
On the Government’s treatment of pensioners, the hon. Lady mentioned uprating the state pension. She will know that we have introduced a triple lock so that the state pension increases by the higher of 2.5%, CPI or earnings. She will also know that, according to the plans we inherited, pensions would rise in line with earnings. As a consequence of the increases by CPI rather than earnings, the state pension has increased by £127 more a year than it would have done under the plans that we inherited. Does she accept that?
Rachel Reeves
Not many Governments would want to take credit for the fact that inflation has reached 5.3%. Pensions have had to rise by just over £5 to compensate for the increase in the cost of living for pensioners. The Government increased VAT and took no action to tackle excessive gas and electricity bills, and that is why inflation is so high for ordinary working families and pensioners.
Rachel Reeves
That is like suggesting that if inflation was 10% and the Government had to increase pensions by £10 a week to keep pace, pensioners should celebrate and thank them. Of course they will not thank them because the increase in pensions only keeps pace with the rising cost of living. If the Government want to take credit for record high inflation, be our guest.
Rachel Reeves
No. Cuts to vital services such as the NHS and to social care and local transport also hit pensioners hard on top of the increases in VAT and the cuts to their pensions.
Many of the worst cuts are still to come. Analysis of the 2010 spending review showed that, on average, pensioner couples would be hit hard by cuts to services, amounting to £1,275 a year or 6% of their household income, while single pensioners stood to lose services worth £1,300 a year or 11% of their income. As we heard from the Treasury Committee yesterday, many pensioners are also paying a price for the Government’s failure to get the economy moving because the Government are relying on the Bank of England to undertake more quantitative easing to prevent the economy from sinking deeper into recession. That means that annuity rates and returns on pensioners’ savings are lower than they would otherwise be.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady referred to the increase in the pensioners’ allowance and linked it to inflation. How high would the Labour Government have moved it in the current circumstances of inflation? How would they have paid for that with council tax rises elsewhere?
Rachel Reeves
I return to my earlier point: if inflation was 10% and pensioners got a £10 increase in their pension, would Government Members celebrate and say that that was huge largesse for pensioners? It is not; it just keeps pace with the cost of living. The increase in VAT, and the increases in gas and electricity prices, which the Government have done nothing to tackle, and the rise in petrol prices, mean that the cost of living for pensioners and other families has increased enormously because of the Government’s choices.
There is a further hit to pensioners’ incomes, buried in the detail of the Budget documents. This year, an estimated 300,000 pensioners stand to lose their savings credit, while others stand to lose as much as £276 a year as a result of reduced rates of savings credit. Under the Chancellor’s latest plans, the savings credit will be abolished completely, costing more than 100,000 new pensioners as much as £897 a year: another stealth tax that the Chancellor tried to slip past pensioners; another slice taken from the constrained budgets of ordinary families.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I support my hon. Friend’s comments. Rather than speculate about what the next Labour Government will do after the next election—I like to think that Government Members have already conceded defeat—what about the Government’s backing off now and reversing the dreadful decision?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on hosting the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament today. It came to make the very point that my hon. Friend just made, and that pensioners made to us in the Committee Room earlier. Some Government Members would do well to listen to some of the pensioners in their constituencies.
It adds insult to injury for the Prime Minister and other Government Members to tell pensioners that they should be grateful for a rise in the basic state pension that merely matches the rate of inflation. It is not a rise—it simply keeps things level. If Government Members do not know the difference, they should get out into the real world, where the costs of food and fuel are going up and it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet.
Rachel Reeves
The idea that pensioners have been protected from the squeeze on living standards is simply not true. It is divisive and distorts reality when Government Members try to make that point, and conceals the fact that many older people are under genuine pressure. We should do what we can to help them, not see pensioners as a soft target for stealth taxes, as the Chancellor so clearly does.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The increase in pensions has not actually kept up with the cost of living, because if the Government had not been so mean as to change to CPI, but had used RPI, pensioners would have an amount of money that kept in touch with the increasing cost of living.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All hon. Members know that the average rate of inflation for pensioners is often very high—higher than it is for ordinary families—because they spend more of their income on gas, electricity and food, the rates of inflation for which are going up at a higher rate.
Fiona O'Donnell
In constituencies such as mine, many pensioners live in rural communities without access to public transport, so we need to add into the mix the cost of running a car, which is essential to their quality of life.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend sticks up for pensioners in her constituency, where, as she says, there are many pressures on their costs and standard of living.
In fact, the only people insulated from the Government’s unfair choices and economic failures are the wealthiest. The richest 10% of people over the age of 65 will be wholly untouched by the tax increases that we are debating. Indeed, those with incomes over £150,000, including, we might note, some members of the Cabinet, will benefit from the cut in the 50p rate of tax that we debated yesterday.
Richard Harrington
I am so extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—I hope she will forgive my perseverance. Having listened to her argument in some detail, I should like to ask her a question. Principle is very important to her. Does she believe that under-65s should have a lower personal allowance than over-65s as a point of principle?
Rachel Reeves
Winston Churchill was right in 1925 when he introduced that measure. People who are retired have fixed incomes, as a result of which there are more pressures on them and they cannot make up the additional changes. That is why the Opposition will vote against the Government’s change. We do not think it is the right priority or the right thing to do at this time, especially because the money is not being used to help young people to get back to work, to help the poorest pensioners or to help families of children who are struggling with the rise in the cost of living. Instead, the money is being used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my principle is: we should prioritise ordinary families, ordinary pensioners and young people who are out of work, not those on multi-million pound salaries. That is my principle and those are my priorities. I am sorry that Government Members do not share them.
That is the second reason why the Opposition are opposing the tax increase on millions of modest-income pensioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) so eloquently expressed on Monday, the measure is unfair and unnecessary when the Government are spending £3 billion on a tax give-away for the richest 1%. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, the Government said that the 50p tax cut would be paid for by a mansion tax and a crackdown on tax avoidance. However, the cut costs 10 times as much as is raised by the new measure on stamp duty—the Chief Secretary’s sorry substitute for a mansion tax—and more than three times as much as is raised in the Budget by reductions in tax avoidance. In fact, cutting tax avoidance should be part of every Budget anyway, and the money raised by measures to tackle tax avoidance in this Budget is less than the average reductions in tax avoidance achieved by Labour’s Budgets. In addition, we have since discovered that the Government’s definition of tax avoidance includes donations to UNICEF, Macmillan, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that do fantastic work in our communities. That the Government cannot see the difference between tax avoidance and giving money to worthwhile causes again shows how out of touch they are.
Meanwhile, the single biggest revenue raiser in the Budget is the measure before us. More than £3 billion over the next five years will be raised from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. Where does it all go to? Does it go towards paying down the deficit? No. Does it help young people to get back to work? No. Does it help poorer pensioners? No—they have been hit too by VAT rises and service cuts. Instead, the money, which is being taken from those with pensions of just a few thousand pounds a year, is being spent on a tax cut for people for whom this tax grab would have counted as mere small change.
The Government were said to have been surprised by the anger that the measure has aroused, but that again goes to show how out of touch they are with the reality faced by most people, and how far they have strayed from the values and priorities of the British people. It goes to the heart of the problems that the Government face and the problem with their conception of fairness, and the callous arrogance with which they have abandoned the pretence that we are all in it together.
Age UK responded to the Government’s measures by stating:
“we feel it is disappointing that the Budget offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes who are already being squeezed”.
The chief executive of Saga said:
“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”
The National Pensioners Convention, which I met earlier today, stated:
“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax…whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced. This is seen by many as the last straw…Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich…and it’s simply not fair.”
Age UK, Saga, and the National Pensioners Convention have hit the nail on the head. It is just a shame that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so blinded by the demands of the super-rich that they fail to see it.
Finally, it is worth recognising that the measure is not the only reason why people are so angry. It is not just the blatant unfairness that has offended people, but the way in which the change was announced. Most people believe that our older generation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, yet this Government and the Chancellor tried to get away with going back on a previous promise by dressing up a tax grab as a “simplification”. Just one year ago, on page 35 of the 2011 Budget Red Book, people were told:
“For the duration of this Parliament…the age related allowance will be over-indexed”
according to
“CPI and will increase by the equivalent of the…RPI”.
What the Chancellor said then was clear and unmistakeable, but that is another broken promise by the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends. The Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees. It says that the Chancellor
“should have avoided dressing up what is clearly a tax increase as merely a simplification”.
In the same letter from Age UK to the Chancellor that I have quoted, it also states:
“We are concerned that you announced the change to age allowances as a way to simplify the tax system and indeed the Budget Report lists the change under…‘Simplification’... rather than under ‘Personal and Property taxes’”.
The Chancellor also attempted to hide behind the Office of Tax Simplification, but its director has told the Treasury that attempts to use its recommendations as a cover for his tax grab are “not 100% accurate”. The relevant report by the Office of Tax Simplification states clearly:
“we would stress…that the Office of Tax Simplification has not reached any conclusions as to the best way forward with age-related allowances, nor have we formulated detailed recommendations”.
It is all too clear why the Chancellor did not bother to wait for the final OTS report: he was not really interested in simplifying taxation for older people. Rather, his single-minded focus and overriding priority was getting his millionaires’ tax break through, and he was willing to fund it by cutting the incomes of pensioners.
In conclusion, we all know what an embarrassment this Budget has become to Government Members. We know how it has shaken their confidence in the strategic genius of the Chancellor and that many of them have heard from constituents who are anxious about the impact that the measure will have and angry about how the Government have treated people who deserve better.
Therefore, today, the Opposition are glad to be giving Government Members an opportunity to make amends and a chance to dissociate themselves with this disreputable raid on the incomes of older people. They have a choice. Do they stand with the millions of people who have worked hard and saved what they can? Or do they stand with the Chancellor and his friend, the Chief Secretary, who see pensioners as a soft touch ripe for a sneaky tax grab? The Opposition know whose side we are on. We are about to find out whose side Government Members are on.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in this important debate. It is important because it touches on perhaps the greatest challenge facing politicians and representatives in this Chamber. She is a luminary of the new Labour party and one of the stars of her intake, and it is always a pleasure to hear her in the Chamber and on the television. No doubt, at some point, she aspires to high office not only in her party but in government. [Interruption.] There is no punch line. The hon. Lady is no joke. It is important to remember that, at some point, Labour will form a Government. I hope it is not too soon, but it is in the nature of our democracy, and a fine thing, that we swap sides now and again.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman, too, is welcome to intervene on me again and say what he thinks the proportion is if he thinks the BBC is wrong. He said it might be 10% or 20%. No? Okay.
Rachel Reeves
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that hon. Members will vote on the matter today without having any idea what proportion of older people it will affect? She is correct to say that 40% of pensioners will be affected, and I am pleased that Opposition Members know their facts, unlike Government Members.
Rachel Reeves
If the hon. Gentleman is such a strong advocate of saving, will he join me in expressing disappointment about the fact that this Government have abolished the savings gateway and the baby bond, and have watered down automatic enrolment so that it will be introduced at a later date, and for people earning higher incomes than envisaged under the last Labour Government?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to remind the Committee of that.
We must ask ourselves whether pensioners are disproportionately affected by Government policies. The answer is clearly no. The evidence is very clear on that. After the reforms, does the tax system treat pensioners unfairly? No. By definition, having one personal allowance across the board, regardless of age, is not unfair on pensioners. Is there a strong, principled case for different personal allowances based on age? We have not heard that case made today, other than the fact that Winston Churchill thought it was a good idea in 1925. The official Opposition’s policy is to tell everyone under 65 that they should have a lower personal allowance than those over 65.
Clause 4 supports the Government’s long-term aim of simplifying the tax system by creating a single personal allowance. It removes the complicated tapering system, making personal allowances easier to understand. In the longer term we will have a single, generous personal allowance for everyone while ensuring that no one is a cash loser. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to withdraw the amendment.
Rachel Reeves
If you believe what the Exchequer Secretary said, Mr Williams, you would think that pensioners would have come to Parliament today to thank the Government for everything they have done for them. The reality is that pensioners up and down the country feel seriously let down by the Government. In contrast to the out-of-touch speech we heard from the Exchequer Secretary, we have heard concerns from Opposition Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), and we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). They stick up for their constituents, listen to them and understand their concerns that pensioners will lose £83 this year and those who will retire next year will lose £322, with very little notice, and that is after many other hits, including the increase in VAT, and despite the fact that pensioners face additional costs, such as heating, compared with other people, and that the Government have done so little to consult on these changes before they are introduced.
The fact is that this tax raid on pensioners is being used to fund a tax cut for millionaires—a tax cut worth £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. That shows where the priorities lie for Government Members. The priorities for Opposition Members lie with ordinary families, young people and pensioners, who are feeling the full impact of the Government’s policies. All Members now have a chance to show where their priorities lie; are they with millionaires or with pensioners? Will Government Members listen to the leadership of their former leader, Winston Churchill, who introduced the age-related allowance in 1925, or to their current leadership, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who are making a tax grab on pensioners? It is up to Government Members to decide how they will vote, but pensioners up and down the country will be watching this afternoon to see where their priorities lie, because the reality is that the Government are introducing these reforms because they want to help millionaires and hurt pensioners. We will vote for amendment 65 and against clause stand part.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My right hon. Friend is right that the single most significant measure in the Budget was the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance. I will dwell on that in detail in a moment but his point—
Danny Alexander
I shall finish my response to the previous intervention before gladly taking another one.
By far the largest measure in the Budget was the £3.5 billion tax cut for people on low and middle incomes through the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance—a massive support to 24 million working people across the country—and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to it.
Rachel Reeves
Will the Chief Secretary confirm the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ numbers showing that with the changes to the personal allowance and other changes—for example, to tax credits—the average family with children will be £511 worse off from this month?
Danny Alexander
No, I will not confirm those figures. According to my figures, 23 million individuals will be better off as a result of the personal allowance change—[Interruption.] A number of families are affected by our tax credit changes but many more benefit from our income tax changes.
Danny Alexander
No, I want to make some progress, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has already intervened on this point.
Danny Alexander
I certainly can confirm that, and I shall bring some proposals before the House in due course. The hon. Gentleman may recall that it was the case of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company that brought this issue to light. We have conducted an investigation into this practice in and across government, which has highlighted the fact that this process is far too widespread. As I say, I shall announce the details in due course, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government take this issue very seriously indeed.
Debt buy-back measures announced last month will raise more than £500 million from banks that tried to avoid paying their due tax. In addition, the introduction of the UK-Switzerland agreement into legislation will help to ensure that we can tackle the tax loss from those who put their money into Swiss banks to evade paying tax.
Through the anti-avoidance measures in this year’s Finance Bill, we are already increasing revenue over the next five years by around £l billion and are protecting a further £10 billion that could have been lost. Going even further, we will consult on the potential for a general anti-avoidance rule—a new rule that will at last put the Government one step ahead of the tax avoiders. It is because of these far-reaching reforms that we will raise £500 million more each and every year from the wealthiest in our society. That is five times more than we lose by cutting the ineffective and uncompetitive 50p tax rate.
The 50p rate raised just a fraction of the amount that the previous Government said it would raise, but by cutting the rate to 45p, the direct cost to the Exchequer is only £100 million—a figure certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which I thought the Labour party welcomed, which described the figure as “central and reasonable”. Instead, the measures we have announced in the Budget will raise considerably more from the wealthy—five times more in total—allowing us to help millions of people on lower incomes to keep more of their earnings through the largest ever increase in the income tax personal allowance.
Rachel Reeves
Figures released by the Treasury today show that of those people earning more than £10 million, 72% pay the full top rate of tax, so can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that they will be receiving on average sums amounting to tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds because of the cut in the top rate of tax?
Danny Alexander
As the report from Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, showed, the cost of reducing the rate was small, precisely because the tax did not yield the amounts we were promised by the previous Government. Instead, by putting our measures in place—the cap on uncapped tax reliefs, clamping down on stamp duty avoidance, the general anti-avoidance rule and many other measures I have mentioned—we will get more money from the wealthiest, who are precisely the people the hon. Lady talks about—
Danny Alexander
No, I want to make some progress. The hon. Lady has intervened twice on this subject, and her colleagues intervened once, and they have not said anything new.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
This Finance Bill is so flawed, so unfair and so inadequate a response to the problems now facing the country that I am surprised that the Chief Secretary does not show a little more embarrassment in presenting it to the House this afternoon. This Government are presiding over an economy beset by rising unemployment, a slump in private sector investment and billions of pounds of unplanned extra Government borrowing, yet he comes to this House with a Finance Bill that does nothing for growth, nothing to get more young people back to work and nothing to help small businesses struggling to stay afloat, and which instead asks millions of hard-pressed families and pensioners to pay more so that millionaires can pay less.
It is less than two years since this Government took office, yet they have already sent our economy into reverse. Business and consumer confidence have drained away, and growth has sputtered and stalled with no net increase in our national output over the past 15 months, and with wages and incomes stagnant or falling even as the cost of food, fuel and fares rise and rise. The Office for National Statistics confirms that last year saw the sharpest annual fall in real disposable income for 35 years. The private sector has been unable to fill the gaping hole left by deep and painful public sector cuts, and as a result overall redundancies have been running at a rate of one a minute since this Government took office.
Mr Redwood
What tax cut does the hon. Lady think would do most to promote economic recovery?
Rachel Reeves
I believe that a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% and a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers are the way to put the economy back on track to recovery.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
How would the hon. Lady pay for those pledges, and how much they would cost?
Rachel Reeves
This Government are borrowing an extra £150 billion because of the costs of their economic failure. The reality is that, with more people out of work and therefore claiming benefits, and with fewer businesses succeeding and paying taxes, this Government are ending up borrowing more, because their risky gamble with their economic policies has failed.
Instead of continuing on the downward path begun under the previous Government, total unemployment has mounted to new highs. It is now at the highest level since 1997. Some 2.67 million people are out of work. More than 1 million young people are out of work. We have the highest level of youth unemployment on record. That is a cruel fate to be inflicting on people leaving school, college and university. Instead of going on to get a job or training, they are being left to rot on the dole queue. The truth is that—just as we on this side of the House, along with numerous independent economists, warned—the Government’s attempts to cut too far and too fast have choked off the economic recovery, squeezing households and businesses and sending unemployment soaring, with the result that, as I said to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), the Government are now forced to borrow £150 billion more than they had planned.
This lesson is being learned around the world, as over-ambitious austerity plans founder. Last year the OECD warned credit rating agencies which press for rapid fiscal consolidation but
“react negatively later, when consolidation leads to lower growth—which it often does.”
Sure enough, Standard & Poor’s decision earlier this year to downgrade nine of the eurozone’s 17 member states was accompanied by the warning that
“fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating.”
The International Monetary Fund’s sharp downward revisions of its global growth forecasts—including for the UK—for 2012 was accompanied by a call to “reconsider the pace” of fiscal consolidation. Indeed, the IMF’s chief economist has said:
“Substantial fiscal consolidation is needed, and debt levels must decrease. But it should be…a marathon rather than a sprint”
and cited the proverb
“slow and steady wins the race”.
Our economic performance did not have to be this way. We need only look across the Atlantic to see the benefits of a more balanced approach to deficit reduction, with the US now enjoying steady falls in unemployment and accelerating economic growth. Let me quote the opinion of Adam Posen of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. His forensic comparison of the US and UK experiences concluded:
“Fiscal policy…played an important role as well. Cumulatively, the UK government tightened fiscal policy by 3% more than the US government did…and this had a material impact on consumption. This was particularly the case because a large chunk of the fiscal consolidation in 2010 and in 2011 took the form of a VAT increase, which has a high multiplier for households.”
In other words, by hitting households as hard as they did, sapping confidence and sucking demand out of the economy, the Chancellor and his ready accomplice, the Chief Secretary, have got the UK stuck in the slow lane while other key players in the global economy are overtaking us.
Mr Graham Stuart
On the subject of others overtaking us, the hon. Lady will be aware that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Finance Minister at roughly the same time as the Finance Minister in Australia, but whereas at a certain point the right hon. Gentleman lost the plot and spent money that this country could not afford, Australia paid down its national debt. Thus, when the financial credit crunch came, Australia was able to stimulate its economy, whereas this country had overspent in the good times and was not able to do so.
Rachel Reeves
Between 1997 and 2007 this country’s debt ratio fell from 42.5% to 36% of GDP, so the debt burden fell; in 2007, our debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than when we came to power in 1997.
What hope did the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor offer in this Budget for the future of our economy? The answer is precious little. The Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility predicts another year of low growth ahead; it predicts just 0.8% growth in 2012, followed by 2% growth in 2013. That is well below what was promised when the Government took office. According to this morning’s forecasts from the Ernst and Young ITEM—Independent Treasury Economic Model—club, even those dire outlooks now seem optimistic. Ernst and Young predicts just 0.4% growth for 2012, followed by 1.5% growth the year after. Meanwhile, on any prediction, including the Government’s, we will still have at least 2 million unemployed people by the end of this Parliament.
Even those figures conceal deeper failures and more disturbing trends. Some may remember the Chancellor’s promise of a new economic model for Britain, based on lower levels of borrowing, and higher levels of saving and investment. In reality, the promised renaissance of business investment has been repeatedly postponed. An 8% increase in investment was promised for 2011, but investment actually fell by 2%. A further 10% increase was predicted for this year, but an increase of less than 1% is now forecast. The role of investment in driving growth for future years has been significantly revised down, too. Ernst and Young said this morning that business spending
“has picked up nicely in the US”
but that UK plcs remain “extremely reluctant” to invest. It continues:
“Consequently, the economy is bleeding cash into company coffers at an alarming rate…This haemorrhage is sapping the strength of the economy, keeping it on the critical list.”
They are not my words, but those of the Ernst and Young ITEM club.
Meanwhile, figures from the OBR reveal that the Government have increasingly become reliant on household consumption for their growth forecasts. That consumption is not being financed by growth in real disposable incomes, which, as I said, have stagnated and which the OBR confirms are set to stagnate for at least another two years. The household consumption growth is being funded by a fall in savings every year from now until 2016 and by a rise in total personal debt of almost 50% over the next few years; it will reach a staggering total of £2.12 trillion by the end of this Parliament.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
If the hon. Lady is so doubtful about an increase in consumption leading to economic growth, why does she advocate a cut in VAT, which would serve only one purpose: to increase consumption growth?
Rachel Reeves
The point I am making is that the consumption growth forecast for this Parliament is being funded by increased indebtedness. A VAT reduction would boost the spending power of households without their having to take on extra debt. With incomes stagnating and, in many cases, falling, many families are resorting to taking on more debt because they cannot afford to make ends meet—that is the point I am making. That is why a reduction in VAT would help put money into the pockets of ordinary families, who are struggling so much with rising gas, electricity, train, bus and petrol prices.
Simon Hughes
Has the hon. Lady seen the OECD reports, which make it clear that raising tax thresholds is a far more effective way of getting money back into the economy than changing VAT? Such an approach benefits poorer people much more, whereas VAT changes benefit the rich just as much as the poor.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which shows that the increase in the personal tax allowance most benefits those who are in the second highest income decile. Increasing the income threshold is not a progressive policy; in fact, pensioners do not benefit from it at all, and nor do people who are on such low incomes that they do not pay income tax—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says something from a sedentary position. I am happy to take another intervention if he wants to dispute the analysis of the IFS.
Simon Hughes
Of course some pensioners will not benefit, but some will. Some pensioners receive an income on which they pay tax and the rise in the threshold will benefit them. The hon. Lady has avoided my question about the OECD study, which makes it very clear that if one is choosing between reducing VAT and increasing the threshold and if the aim is to help people on lower incomes and to get money into the economy, one should go for the increase in the threshold.
Rachel Reeves
That is just not true and it is not accurate. A reduction in VAT helps people who do not pay income tax, which includes the poorest people, and benefits pensioners. The increase in the personal tax threshold does not benefit pensioners one jot, nor people who are not earning enough to benefit from a change in personal allowance. A cut in VAT helps all those people, however, including the lowest paid who will not benefit from the changes to the tax threshold. The right hon. Gentleman is just wrong.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of the IFS’s analysis is that it says that increasing the personal allowance just like that would benefit the most well-off, but it does not take into account the fact that the threshold at the 40% rate is reduced down so that the most well-off do not benefit. That is a slight flaw, by my reading, in the IFS analysis.
Rachel Reeves
The analysis of the measures in the Budget shows that the changes to the personal threshold are not a progressive policy, as hon. Members seem to be claiming. In fact, they benefit those dual income households on higher salaries much more than they benefit the poorest people in society, many of whom do not pay tax. Of course, the changes do not benefit pensioners at all as they are seeing their tax allowance frozen. As a result, many pensioners will lose out by up to £83 whereas people who are coming up to retirement will lose out to the tune of more than £300 a year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s new economic model—this idea that we will have a rebalanced economy with lower borrowing, more saving and more investment—has failed to materialise. Indeed, the precise opposite is predicted. Their plan has failed: the policies are hurting, but they are not working. This Finance Bill, which was a chance for the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to learn the lessons and to start to repair some of the damage that they have done, has been a huge missed opportunity.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Lady agree that at the moment business confidence is key? I was surprised that at the start of her speech she did not welcome GlaxoSmithKline, Nissan, Sahaviriya, Jaguar and the other international investors that have made a commitment to Britain because of this Government’s policies. Is she not pleased that those companies are bringing jobs and investment to Britain?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman said that investment is coming to Britain, but business investment fell by 2% last year, whereas a year ago the OBR predicted that it would grow by 8%. The reality is that the economic data show that investment is falling and the OBR says that nothing in the Budget will materially affect the economic forecast. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the numbers show that things are moving in the wrong direction. I find it incredibly out of touch for Government Members to try to speak about the economy as if it is booming and creating jobs and as if businesses are investing when all the economic data show just the opposite. Jobs are being shed and investment is falling, rather than rising.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that although the investments mentioned by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) are welcome, increased growth in jobs will come from the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, where there is a complete depression in confidence and job growth? It is all very well to comment on the large investments, but the stimulation should come from those small and medium-sized enterprises, and they do not feel at all confident.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. It is good to hear from a Member who is a little more in touch with the realities facing businesses up and down the country. As she points out, many small businesses are being starved of cash because the Project Merlin agreements for bank lending were not worth the paper they were written on, and at the same time the Government have done nothing in this Budget to help small businesses. The Opposition have proposed a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers. That would go a long way towards trying to relieve some of the pressure on the small businesses that are struggling so much right now. The Opposition hope to see measures in the Finance Bill and the Budget to get the economy moving again, to give hard-pressed businesses and hard-working families a break and to give young people who are looking for work some hope for the future. We would be cutting national insurance contributions for small businesses taking on new workers, we would be cutting bills for hard-pressed families by reversing the Chancellor’s badly timed VAT increase, and we would be funding new jobs for young people and new investment in affordable house building by taxing excessive bank bonuses.
Hon. Members do not have to take our word for it—the damning judgment of the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility should really worry Members on the Government Benches. Box 3.1 on page 46 of its latest economic and fiscal outlook, headed “The economic effects of policy measures”, says that the only policy measure with a measurable economic effect is the cut in corporation tax, which it says will lead to an
“increase in the level of GDP of 0.1 per cent by the end of the forecast period.”
So in the whole Budget there is just one measure that will have any impact on growth whatever, and that is an impact of 0.1% in around five years’ time. Beyond that, the OBR says in its policy costings document:
“We have made no other material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result of Budget 2012 policy announcements.”
When it comes down to it, the measures in the Bill will do nothing to change the gloomy growth forecasts, nothing to ease the squeeze on living standards and family budgets, nothing to get businesses investing at the rate required to regain our place in the global economy, and nothing to create the new job opportunities that are so desperately needed by today’s younger generation. No, instead of taking serious steps that might help to make up the ground our economy is losing, the Chancellor and his Chief Secretary have turned from their failed experiment in expansionary fiscal contraction and resorted to the notorious Laffer curve as their latest excuse for an economic policy which hits hard-working families and rewards those who are already very wealthy. It is the last refuge of a Government who have lost any sense of purpose beyond the protection of privilege.
Those who are unfamiliar with the obscure corner of esoteric economic theory that is the Laffer curve might like to take a lesson from the Business Secretary who recently explained it. He said it was
“an all purpose, but weak, rationale for cutting the taxes of rich people”
which has
“been correctly dubbed ‘voodoo economics’.”
Indeed, he told his party conference—perhaps some hon. Members on the Government Benches remember this—that some people believe
“that if taxes on the wealthy are cut, new revenue will miraculously appear. I think their reasoning is this: all those British billionaires who demonstrate their patriotism by hiding from the taxman in Monaco or some Caribbean bolt hole will rush back to pay more tax but at a lower rate.”
As he said to his conference, “Pull the other one!”
Perhaps we should instead take a lesson from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who warned:
“We should remember that in 1981, President Reagan based most of his policies on the drawing of the Laffer curve done on a serviette…President Reagan used that as the basis for his policy of slashing taxes, and the United States Treasury went into huge deficit…The evidence to support the Laffer curve is weak.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 May 1999; c. 66.]
I agree, but those lessons are now being forgotten and we have the same old Tories dusting down the same old trickle-down economic theories. It did not work in the 1980s and it will not work today either. People will see it for what it is: out of touch and the same old Tories.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about the protection of privilege but this Government are increasing stamp duty on homes worth more than £2 million. Does she support that change or would she repeal it?
Rachel Reeves
I support cracking down on tax avoidance, but let us stick with the policy of cutting the 50p rate. The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that 300,000 people who are currently paying the 50p tax rate will get, on average, a tax cut next year of £10,000. For 14,000 millionaires, there will be an average tax cut next year of £40,000. That much we know. What we do not know is whether people putting their money in Monaco or a Caribbean bolt hole, as the Business Secretary described, will indeed rush back to the British Isles to pay the 45p rate of tax. If they do, perhaps some money will come in, but if they do not, we will lose out to the tune of £3 billion. The reality is that the stamp duty changes will affect only the people who are moving home, so the vast majority of millionaires who are happy in their mansions will not be affected by the changes. In fact, numbers published by the Treasury this morning show that tax avoidance measures will bring in around £300,000, but the changes to the top rate of tax will cost £3 billion. That is not fair; it is not the right priority to give millionaires a tax cut while asking millions of ordinary hard-pressed working families to pay more.
Once upon a time, some people argued that the Prime Minister needed a clause IV moment to fully detoxify the tainted Tory brand, but the Government have gone one step further; they have got themselves a clause 1 moment. Clause 1 of the Bill confirms once and for all that the Tory party will never be for the many, but always for the few. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the Government’s perverse priorities than the fact that when ordinary families are going through the toughest times in living memory, part 1, chapter 1, clause 1 of the Finance Bill gives a £3 billion tax cut to the richest 1% of the population, and the rest of the Bill is peppered with dubious means for making other far less fortunate people in our society pay for it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The House has already divided on the 50p rate and the Labour party abstained. Was that a deliberate abstention?
Rachel Reeves
The Labour party voted against the entire Finance Bill, including the cut in the 50p rate. On Wednesday and Thursday, we will have an opportunity to vote on the tax cut for the wealthiest 1%, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will join us in the Lobby to vote against a tax cut for the very wealthiest in society at a time when ordinary families are being asked to pay more.
Rachel Reeves
I look forward to hearing how the right hon. Gentleman will be voting later this week.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Lady was not a Member in the last Parliament, and she used a phrase that I find a bit rich. The Labour Government regularly failed to close the loopholes to deal with tax evasion and tax avoidance, and only in their last weeks in office put income tax rates up to 50p in the pound, yet the hon. Lady now comes to the House saying that she would prefer not to change the top rate of tax even though it might be far less effective than a range of measures that would make the wealthy pay five times more. Does she want the wealthy to pay more? If so, is she willing to support measures that would deliver that?
Rachel Reeves
I want the wealthy to pay their fair share in the deficit reduction, which is why I shall be voting this week against a cut in the taxes for 14,000 millionaires. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that in Budget 2002—a Labour Budget—anti-avoidance measures were worth £1.7 billion. In Budget 2003—a Labour Budget—there were £1.7 billion of tax avoidance measures, and in Budget 2004, £1.7 billion-worth of tax avoidance measures—I could go on. The point is that in the Budget this year—a Conservative Budget, with a little bit of help from the Liberal Democrats—tax avoidance measures are worth £0.8 billion, lower than in all but two of the last 10 years. The idea that it is a tax avoidance Budget just does not stand up in the statistics. The Institute for Fiscal Studies knows it, so perhaps Members on the Government Benches should look at those numbers. Of course we should cut down on tax avoidance, but we should not then compensate the rich by giving them a tax cut worth £3 billion. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to cut down on tax avoidance and ensure that the wealthy pay more, I hope he will join us in the Lobby to vote against a tax cut for the richest in society.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The hon. Lady will be aware that in last year’s Budget, there was a measure to tackle tax avoidance through disguised remuneration. She will also be aware that her party voted against the measure in a Finance Bill last year. Does she regret that?
Rachel Reeves
In Budget 2011, there was £1.1 billion-worth of tax avoidance measures, which is less than half the amount spent on such measures in Labour Budgets. We want more wealthy people to pay their fair share, but nothing in the Budget ensures that. The Government need to tackle tax avoidance, but they should not compensate for that by giving a tax cut to the wealthiest in society.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said about the 50p rate:
“The idea that we are going to shift our focus to the wealthiest in the country at a time when everyone is under pressure is just in cloud cuckoo land”,
but it turns out that the Liberal Democrats have joined their Conservative coalition partners in cloud cuckoo land. I hope that the Chief Secretary is enjoying himself there, but I am sure he had hoped to cover his humiliating climbdown by pointing to the benefits to lower and middle-income earners from the increase in the personal allowance. However, as I said in my intervention on him, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made it clear that the gains from the policy are cancelled out many times over by the losses suffered by ordinary families as a result of the Government’s tax hikes, benefit cuts and tax credit changes. The Government are giving with one hand and taking much, much, more from ordinary families, pensioners and young people with the other.
The cover story that the wealthy will pay more in other ways is unravelling day by day. We have already seen that in the House this afternoon. The cost of the cut to the top rate of income tax is 10 times higher than the amount of money raised by the cap on tax reliefs. I hope we all agree that more must be done to reduce genuine tax avoidance, but that should be a standard feature of every Budget and every Finance Bill. I direct the Chief Secretary to slide 9 of the assessment that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made of the Budget. It shows that between 2002 and 2009, the Labour Government reduced tax avoidance by over £12 billion, while this Budget reduces tax avoidance by a mere £800 million—less than Labour’s annual average, and less than all but two other Budgets in the past decade. That is before one takes into account the fact that included in the Government’s definition of tax avoidance is tax relief for donations to charities including UNICEF, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Oxfam and many others. The fact that the Government cannot tell the difference between that and real tax avoidance shows how incompetent and out of touch they are.
Mrs McGuire
Does my hon. Friend agree that it might have been more appropriate for the Chancellor to discuss with the charity commissioners whether bogus charities were taking part in tax evasion schemes than to have come up with an ill-considered tax proposal?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right: instead of the Government making up policy as they go along, without bothering to talk to anybody who is affected by it, they should have consulted the Charity Commission and the charities affected. The Press Association reports that the Government are doing a U-turn; perhaps we will get clarification on that from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, if he is bothering to listen to anything that is being said this afternoon. Will he confirm what the PA says—that there is a U-turn on charities tax relief? The fact is that nobody knows: the Government and the Prime Minister do not seem to know what is happening with their own policy, and we have had no clarification in the House this afternoon.
Rachel Reeves
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a clue what is going on with the Government’s policy on charities tax relief.
Charlie Elphicke
It is clear that we should crack down on tax avoidance, but I want to know whether the hon. Lady is serious about doing so. Will she condemn the tax avoidance of people such as Ken Livingstone, or is this just more crocodile tears from the Labour party?
Rachel Reeves
We are serious about cracking down on tax avoidance, but tax avoidance is not the same as giving donations to UNICEF, Macmillan nurses, the Red Cross, the National Trust and thousands of charities in this country that rely on the money they get to do their important work, often supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society. If the Government cannot tell the difference between tax avoidance and doing the right thing and supporting valuable charity work, it shows the extent to which they have lost their grip on reality.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that before people give money to charity, they must also fund their obligation to society? They must do that first, before they start funding charity.
Rachel Reeves
If the hon. Gentleman extended that logic, there would be no tax relief for giving to charities. I am not sure if that is what the Government are proposing. People who give money to charities should be supported. We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister about the big society, but all those words about philanthropy and giving seem to have gone out of the window. It would be interesting to know whether the Chief Secretary thinks he has performed a U-turn this afternoon in the Chamber, as is being reported.
As the British Red Cross said, “Not only is such a measure at odds with the Government’s own announced agenda of increasing and facilitating philanthropy, it would reduce our ability to achieve our charitable objectives and reduce our help to people in a crisis.” Is that really what the Government intended when they announced these changes to tax relief in the Budget? Indeed, after the performance of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on the radio this morning, it seems that, along with “expansionary fiscal contraction” and “we’re all in this together”, the latest casualty from the Conservative lexicon is the big society.
Christopher Pincher
Earlier the hon. Lady was extolling the virtues of the United States. She will know that even the US, which is possibly the most philanthropic society in the world, has a cap in place on philanthropic donations, so is she opposed to the principle of what the Government are doing, or does she accept that there is a role for a cap?
Rachel Reeves
In the US there is much more generous tax relief for legacies, for example, so it is a very different tax system. In many ways it is more generous than the system in this country. What I would like to see is policy being made in the proper way, which is by consulting the people who will be affected by it—consulting the charities, which stand to lose tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds and which do such good work. Like the Red Cross, they say that their ability to do their work will be hampered by the changes in tax relief. That consultation should have happened before, rather than after, the Government’s policies were announced and the financial changes to Treasury revenues were introduced.
Calling people who give to charities tax dodgers, as this Government imply, and referring to charities as dodgy, when those charities include Macmillan, Red Cross, UNICEF and Oxfam, is unhelpful. If the Government truly want to increase giving, the language should be tempered and people who try to do the right thing and support worthwhile causes should be encouraged, not insulted, for what they do.
Because the Government have been so keen to gloss over the real revenue-raising measures in the Bill, it is right that we take time this week to examine and evaluate them. This week Labour will give Members an opportunity to debate and vote on specific aspects of the Budget. We will give Members an opportunity to explore the effects of extending VAT, as has been mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon, and putting VAT up to 20% on the price of haircuts, hot snacks, and caravan holidays, although not on the price of ski lifts. VAT has been increased on the regular purchases of millions of ordinary families and is a heavy blow to many small businesses, manufacturers, retail employers and churches caught out by these changes.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of consultation with business. Businesses want to plan and are trying to grow, but the sudden imposition of VAT on the caravan manufacturing industry is causing real problems and potentially the loss of thousands of jobs.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks from her knowledge of her constituency in Hull and of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which will be particularly affected by changes to the caravan tax.
I was in Leicester on Thursday last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), speaking to small businesses which will be affected by the changes to VAT on hot snacks. Many businesses are worried, about both the additional tax they will have to pay and the additional bureaucracy of form-filling. As hon. Members said, it is not at all clear at which point VAT will stop being charged. What temperature does the food have to be, or by how much must it have cooled down before the tax rate goes to 0% from 20%?
We will also have a chance this week to debate and vote on important tax simplification measures. Given the generous decision of the Chancellor to simplify the tax arrangements of 4.4 million pensioners, I am surprised that they are not more grateful. That tax simplification will cost pensioners £83 a year on average and will cost hundreds of thousands of people who are coming up for retirement next year up to £322 a year.
The Chief Secretary referred to the Office of Tax Simplification. Its tax director has registered his concern about the changes to the tax allowance for pensioners and has said that the Government’s claim that they were only following its recommendations
“was not 100 per cent accurate”.
Meanwhile, Age UK was moved to write to the Chancellor about the change to tax allowances for pensioners. It stated:
“Age UK supports the OTS review of pensioner taxation and was very pleased to have been invited to be represented on the consultative committee. However given the OTS was set up with the aim of providing”
the Chancellor
“with independent expert advice on simplification we are very surprised and disappointed that”
he has
“announced a change to simplify the system without waiting for that advice.”
Contrary to coalition spin, this tax simplification will hit not those with big pension pots, but people with personal or occupational pensions that pay around £5,000 a year. It will hit people who worked in ordinary jobs for modest salaries, and who made sacrifices during their working lives to put away just enough to give themselves a small pension, which means that they do not need to depend on means-tested benefits in retirement. It is simply not true that they have been insulated from the effects of the current economic climate and other changes to taxation. Pensioners have been hit hard by VAT, quantitative easing, cuts to services that they rely on—not least the national health service—and massive increases in the heating and electricity bills for their homes. Older people deserve better than this mean-minded, penny-pinching measure. If Government Members agree, they will have a chance to vote down the granny tax later this week.
It tells people all they need to know about this Government’s priorities and the balance of power in the coalition that when the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would agree to cut the 50p rate if it was paid for by a mansion tax and the Opposition said that we would support a mansion tax if it was used to relieve the pressure on ordinary hard-working families, the Chancellor forgot the mansion tax, cut the 50p rate anyway and paid for it with a raid on pensioners’ incomes and a raid on charities.
Finally, we will offer the Chancellor a last chance to make good the great omission of the Bill—its failure to offer a shred of hope to the 1 million young people who are desperate to find work and its failure to do anything about the fact that long-term youth unemployment has more than doubled in the past year. Our amendment will open the way for the funding of a guaranteed job for every young person who is out of work for more than a year—a job that they would have to take up. That is the kind of measure that our country is crying out for. It would change the lives of thousands of young people and transform the prospects for our economy. It could easily be funded by raising new resources from the banking sector, which still squanders billions on bonuses while doing little to support British businesses and families. We will therefore offer Members a chance to vote for the reinstatement of the tax on bank bonuses to fund the creation of 100,000 new jobs for young people and the construction of 25,000 new affordable homes.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the 50p tax rate was such a painless revenue raiser, why did the Labour Government take 13 years to implement it?
Rachel Reeves
As the Chancellor once said, we are all in it together, and if we have a deficit to reduce it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear a little more of the burden. That was why the former Chancellor increased the top rate of tax to 50p. This Government have reduced it and are instead asking millions of ordinary families and pensioners to pay more so that millionaires can pay less. That is their priority; the Opposition’s priorities are very different.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Is it not true, though, that the Labour Government were running a deficit before the recession? Why could the tax rate not have been raised then, to contribute to reducing it?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman was not in the House earlier when it was mentioned that between 1997 and 2007, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 42.5% to 36%. The debt burden fell in the first 10 years of the Labour Government. I was not in the House in the last Parliament, but I wonder whether any Members can remember the Liberal Democrats asking for lower Government spending then. I do not remember it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten me about when he opposed Labour’s spending on schools and hospitals in Bradford and elsewhere.
Mr Russell Brown
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Government Members talk about the Labour Government’s overspending, but I cannot recall a single occasion in the time I have been in the House when any of them talked about not wanting a hospital or school built in their constituency. They were four-square behind us.
Rachel Reeves
My understanding is that the Government parties matched us on spending and often called for additional spending, but the Liberal Democrats have changed their mind so often that it is sometimes difficult to keep up.
The fiscal challenges that this country faces are real, and we need to deal with the deficit and get our debt on a downward path, but the choice before us is how to do that and on whose backs. The Opposition’s priorities are to get unemployment down, to get our economy growing and businesses investing so that we can reduce the welfare bill and bring in more tax revenue, and to ensure that the biggest burdens of deficit reduction are borne by those with the broadest shoulders.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to Labour’s idea of increasing jobs for the young through a tax on bankers’ bonuses. Does she agree that that would make a huge difference to young people such as those in my constituency, where long-term youth unemployment has risen by more than 200% in the past year, and send a message to all young people that Westminster and politicians across the country were on their side in these tough times?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks on behalf of the thousands of young people in Feltham and Heston who have been hit hard by the Government’s policies. The Opposition think it would be much fairer to tax bank bonuses at 50% and use that money to create jobs and opportunities for young people, but the priority of the Chancellor and his friend the Chief Secretary is a tax cut for the richest 1%, paid for by ordinary families, hard-pressed pensioners, struggling small businesses, charities and young people. All that pain is not even getting the deficit down. The Government are borrowing £150 billion more than planned—the cost of their failed economic experiment.
Members of all parties have an opportunity tonight to dissociate themselves from this disgrace of a Finance Bill. We have given the Government a chance, and we have also given them a choice. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will go down as one of the most flawed and unfair Finance Bills in history—one that makes millions pay more so that millionaires can pay less, based on a Budget that gives a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires while ordinary households fall further into debt and our economy falls further behind. It was not the Budget that Britain needed, and this Finance Bill should be sent back to the drawing board. The Opposition will vote against it, and I urge those with a proper sense of our country’s priorities to join us in the Lobby tonight and vote down the Bill.
Amendment of the Law
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
This has been an important debate—one that will prove, I believe, to be a turning-point in the history of this Conservative-led government, in the reputation and standing of this Chancellor and most of all in the ongoing national debate about how we as a country meet the economic challenges we face and how we ensure that the burdens of doing so are fairly shared.
It is a privilege for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). We have also heard powerful contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who spoke of the challenges facing young people out of work, from my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and from many more of my hon. Friends. It is a privilege, too, to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who argued forcefully that the tax cut for those on more than £150,000 a year is not and could not be the priority right now.
I could not help noticing one phrase that we did not hear from the Government side this evening—that “we’re all in it together”. It has been forgotten—at least by Government Members. I rather agreed with a man who told us in April 2010:
“When the Tories say we’re all in this together, what they really mean is you’re on your own. Their agenda is to take away help from those who need it, and offer it to those already at the top”.
He was right then, which is why it is so disappointing to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury defending this disgrace of a Budget today, when he would have opposed it two years ago.
But let us try to be fair to the Liberal Democrats tonight. It is true that they played a big role in the Budget, and they deserve congratulations on winning the inclusion of one of their long-standing policy priorities, to which they have been committed for many years and which will be recognised as one of the Budget’s most important changes. I do not mean the mansion tax or the tycoon tax: the Chancellor cannot stomach those. No, I am speaking of a different policy, a stroke of genius for which the Chancellor should not be allowed to claim all the credit. According to The Daily Telegraph, since as long ago as 1998 it has been Liberal Democrat policy to abolish age-related allowances for pensioners. So there we have it: the granny tax, a Liberal Democrat policy since 1998, has finally been delivered by this coalition Government. I look forward to seeing that in the Liberal Democrats’ leaflets.
It is hard to know where to start with a Budget which contains so much that is wrong, but the big story about this Budget is not what is in it, but what is missing. I am talking about its utter failure to do anything in connection with the major task that faces our country: the need to get unemployment falling and the economy moving, which is essential to dealing with the deficit and securing our long-term economic future. In that regard, the judgment of the Government’s own independent Office for Budget Responsibility is clear. It has stated:
“We have made no other material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result of Budget 2012 policy announcements.”
There is nothing in the Budget to make the Office for Budget Responsibility reconsider its view that the economy will bounce along the bottom, and that unemployment will continue to rise month after month after month.
This is a Budget that fails on growth, but it is also a Budget that fails on fairness. It pilfers £500 million from the health budget at a time when the NHS is under pressure and needs every penny that it can get, and it introduces badly designed changes in child benefit which mean that a one-earner family on £55,000 will lose most of their benefit while a couple on as much as £99,000 can keep all theirs.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
While my hon. Friend is dealing with some of the measures that are not specified in the Budget, would she care to comment on the £10 billion additional cuts in the Department for Work and Pensions’ budget for benefits, which may well cause severe harm to her constituents and mine, and those of many Labour Members in particular?
Rachel Reeves
I said earlier that the big story about the Budget was what was missing from it rather than what was in it. My hon. Friend has identified another thing that is missing, namely an explanation of how the Government will balance the books after the last two years of the current Parliament. We all know that the Government are now borrowing £150 billion more because of the failure of their policies and their decision to cut too far and too fast, which choked off the economic recovery. As a result, deficit reduction will have to continue well into the next Parliament, but we have not heard how.
The Chancellor said that the Budget was about rewarding work. A Budget that takes tax credits from low-paid working couples with children, plunges them into poverty and leaves them better off if they leave their jobs is not a Budget for work, is it? As for the notorious hit on pensioners with modest incomes, springing it on people with no notice and then dressing it up as a simplification was not only ill-judged, but profoundly disrespectful to the millions of pensioners who made sacrifices to save during their working lives.
Alun Cairns
Did the hon. Lady make the same protests when her right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) introduced a granny tax in preparation for the financial year 2010-11?
Rachel Reeves
This is not just about freezing an allowance; it is about freezing an allowance this year, next year and the year after, and for many years to come. It is also about getting rid of the allowance, because it is disappearing for people who will retire next year. Next year people will receive not a reduced allowance but no additional allowance at all, and as a result they will be £323 worse off because of the choices that this Government have made.
I am sure that in a moment we will hear protestations from the Chief Secretary about his great triumph in raising the personal tax allowance for working-age people, but families with children have already lost £450 on average from the VAT increase, and another £530, starting on 6 April, through cuts to tax credits and the freezing of child benefit. Does the Chief Secretary really expect families to be thankful to be getting less than half this back in 2013? Is it not more likely that they will see this for what it is?
Ian Lucas
My hon. Friend rightly stresses the importance of VAT. Charities are among the types of business that are affected by a VAT hike. Chariotts in my constituency provides services to disabled people, and it will have to hike its charges by 20%. That will have to be paid by those disabled people, because of the VAT increase that this Government are pursuing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace?
Rachel Reeves
I agree. These are hard times for the charitable sector, and the VAT increase has hit it hard. That is one of the many reasons why charities, as well as ordinary families and businesses, would benefit from a reduction in VAT to 17.5% until the economy recovers. Charities are also affected by changes in tax allowances, and many have expressed fears that that will also create a big black hole.
Ian Swales
VAT cuts most benefit those who spend the most. Does the hon. Lady think that now is the right time to propose a policy under which the biggest winners would be pop stars, bankers and premiership footballers?
Rachel Reeves
I suggest that after this debate the hon. Gentleman should sit down and read an economics textbook. It is well known that VAT is a regressive tax. The VAT increase has hit those on lower incomes particularly hard, as they have lost the most as a share of income. The evidence for that stands up to scrutiny. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand economics, that is his look-out, not mine.
Returning to my point, is it not more likely that families will see this measure for what it is: giving a little with one hand, while taking much, much more with the other? Warm words from the Government parties will not help families pay the bills, and fine words about fairness demean the very concept of that word.
This month, the Chief Secretary told his party conference:
“It’s only the Liberal Democrats who are brave enough to tell some of the wealthiest people in the land that—at a time when millions of families are struggling to get by—they will have to pay more.”
He seems not to have been so brave when it comes to standing up to the Chancellor. Perhaps I am wrong, however. Perhaps the Chief Secretary is making an even braver choice, in telling families that they will have to pay more while he spends £3 billion on a tax cut for the richest 1%, with a tax cut next year of more than £40,000 each for 14,000 individuals earning £1 million a year.
The people are not fooled, however. They know that they are worse off under this Government. So tonight we will vote against this Budget. It is a Budget that fails the biggest tests: on jobs and growth, a gaping hole where there should have been a plan for action; and on fairness, where millions were asked to pay more so millionaires could pay less.
Is not the truth that this Government have been listening to the wrong people? They have been listening to those who are struggling to get by on more than £150,000 a year, but they should have been listening to those who are suffering from the consequences of their failed economic policies: working families on modest incomes, about to be hit by a tax credit bombshell; small businesses looking to invest, but struggling to balance their books; young people applying for every job going, desperate to start working. These are the people whose lives the Prime Minister needs to understand. Perhaps he should have had some of them round for dinner.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
I certainly agree, and my hon. Friend will know, just as other Members of this House do, that that measure would take more than 1 million low-income earners out of tax altogether, which is a healthy start and a step on the path to our economic recovery.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
We have heard incredible complacency so far from the Minister about couples in receipt of working tax credit, who are desperately worried. Liz, a low-paid worker in Suffolk, told her union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that
“two weeks ago my boss informed me that the likelihood of finding the eight extra hours I need was next to none, at least for another three months. I have been looking for another job to boost my hours, but so far have had no joy”.
What advice would the Minister give to Liz and thousands of families in her position, who stand to lose up to £4,000 in just a month’s time?
Miss Smith
Liz from Suffolk might like to listen to Rachel from Leeds, who says that
“we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility. If we don’t get this right, it doesn’t matter what we say about anything else.”
Rachel Reeves
The Minister offers Liz cold comfort, especially as the Government’s own figures show that families are likely to be £728 better off out of work, rather than in work, as a result of these crazy changes. The Minister could not answer my last question, so let me ask her about another family. Let us imagine that a single mum with three kids who is earning £42,000 a year is offered a promotion that would take her pay to £43,000. If she takes the pay rise, she will lose almost £2,500 in child benefit—every single penny of it. What is the Minister’s advice to her? Should she turn down the promotion to keep her child benefit, or should she reduce the number of hours she works?
Miss Smith
It is absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Lady is unable to deal with any aspect of her own challenge on fiscal credibility. May I ask her whether she voted for the welfare cap that highlights the average family’s earnings within the example that she just gave?
Living Standards
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that next month’s Budget should include a real plan for jobs and growth in order to boost the stalled economy, help hard-pressed families, pensioners and small businesses, bring down unemployment, and so ensure that the deficit is brought down and done so in a fair way; notes that while the banks are receiving a tax cut this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that families with children will lose an average of £580 per year from tax and benefit changes coming into effect in 2012-13; further notes that up to 200,000 couples with children who work part-time face losing all their working tax credit of up to £3,870 per year from April 2012 if they cannot increase their working hours to 24 hours per week, further squeezing family living standards; further recognises that, in addition to ending the principle of universal child benefit, the Government’s unfair and ill-thought-through changes to child benefit will mean that a family with two earners each earning £40,000 would keep all its child benefit, but a single-earner family on £43,000 would lose it all, at a cost of £2,450 per year for a family with three children; and calls on the Chancellor to use extra revenue from tackling tax avoidance to cancel his changes to eligibility rules for working tax credits and announce in the Budget an immediate and urgent review of his changes to child benefit, to report before they come into effect in January 2013.
The Opposition have called this debate to draw attention to the injustice of ill-considered changes to benefits and tax credits, which are about to hit hard-pressed hard-working families across the country. We urge the Government to take this chance to review and rectify the pressure they are piling on families who are already under huge strain.
The debate takes place against the backdrop of the biggest squeeze in living standards in a generation, which is made all the more painful because of the Government’s failure to generate jobs and growth, and to deal with the deficit fairly. This year, they have chosen to take more from women and families with children than they are taking from the banks—they are refusing to repeat the tax on bank bonuses that the previous Labour Government introduced, with banks benefiting instead from a cut in corporation tax. At the same time, the average family with children faces a £580 cut in their annual income next month, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Those families will get a Budget bombshell from the Chancellor this year.
Today the Opposition are calling attention to two ways in which the Government are clobbering families with children. The Government’s lack of competence or care when it comes to fairness for families includes a crude cut to child benefit planned for 2013, meaning that while two-earner families with incomes up to £84,000 will keep all their child benefit, a single-earner family with an income of more than £43,000 will lose all theirs. Families will be asking: “Is that fair?” We are also about to see a punitive withdrawal of working tax credits for couples with children, meaning that unless a family on £17,000 can increase their working hours from 16 to 24 by 1 April, they will see their income fall by almost £4,000. Families will be asking the Government: “Is that fair?” I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that in Liverpool, Riverside alone, more than 520 children from families who are working, but in low-paid jobs, will suffer as a direct result of that measure?
Rachel Reeves
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point about her constituents. All hon. Members will have heard at our surgeries from people who are beginning to realise that in just a few weeks’ time, they will lose all their working tax credit, despite the fact that they are working and doing the right thing.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend put it to those on the Treasury Bench that when child benefit came in, it replaced family allowances and child tax allowances, and therefore played a crucial part, because whatever level of income people with children were on, we in some way maintained equity with tax-free income? The Government are abolishing that for the sake of higher rate taxpayers. How can they maintain that the tax burden is being shared between single and childless people, and those with children, if they abolish child benefit?
Rachel Reeves
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. This country will be one of the few that does not support families with children across the income distribution. Having children is expensive, and it is right that when people bring up a family, and when they retire, the state is there to provide that bit of extra support when they need it. The Government’s changes go entirely in the wrong direction.
That is a shocking illustration of the Government’s failure to come to grips with the crisis that our country faces—the crisis that is putting families under strain is the crisis in jobs, incomes and living standards. The cost-of-living crisis does not hit the headlines like a banking crisis or a currency crisis perhaps because it is a crisis from which those with the loudest voices can too easily insulate themselves. For the vast majority of people, however, trying to keep going and keep their heads above water is one of the toughest challenges that they have ever faced. Every day is a battle in a long war of attrition.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those at the top of the income scale do not mention the crisis because they are not facing a crisis? The RBS bonus pool was £785 million.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right to say that those on the lowest incomes and modest and middle incomes are being hardest hit by the changes to taxes and benefits that the Government have instituted.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government’s proposals to take more than 1.1 million people out of tax, through the personal allowances, represents a tax cut for more than 25 million people? On the motion, will she confirm that the Budget is this month, not next?
Rachel Reeves
The changes come into effect next month, but the Budget is in 16 days. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is a Liberal Democrat, says that he was going to vote for the motion. Perhaps he was thinking of before the election, when he agreed with progressive policies.
Every day, families are struggling, while the Government demand more from them, and there is no end in sight, no light at the end of the tunnel, just the fear that one day, sooner or later, they will not be able to pay the mortgage, rent or gas bill. We have called this debate because the Government seem unaware of what is happening, unable to understand what people are going through, unwilling to do what it takes to get our economy growing and unemployment falling, and uninterested in taking the trouble to find out what impact their decisions are having.
The choices that the Government are making are hurting but not working. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Taunton Deane says that we are wrong. It is the Government who are wrong because they are hitting hard-working families harder than anyone else, and giving the banks a tax cut while penalising families and young children trying to do the right thing and stay afloat. The choices that the Government are making are hurting but not working. They are penalising those trying to do the right thing. In response to the crisis in living standards hitting families, the Government are piling on the pressure with badly designed and badly targeted cuts to benefits and tax credits.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Although, of course, it is desirable to lift more people on low wages out of tax, is it not the case that this is not a particularly well-targeted measure in difficult times because it applies exactly the same tax advantage to higher paid people?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge, having formerly worked for the Child Poverty Action Group, and what she says should hold great sway with the House.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about people being taken out of tax, will my hon. Friend agree that more people are being taken out of tax—and put on the dole? What is that costing us? Some 700,000 public sector workers have gone on the dole in this country. Not only will they not be paying tax but they will not be paying national insurance, which will make things even worse for this country.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we all know, unemployment is at a 17-year high and youth unemployment at an all-time high. That is taking more people out of tax and costing taxpayers more and more every day, as the bills of this failed economic policy add up.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend consider the point that the people affected by the change to working tax credit who work 16 hours a week—probably on the minimum wage—already fall well below the tax threshold, so however desirable it is to raise the tax threshold, it will not help those people at all?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most by which someone affected by the changes to working tax credits could benefit from next month’s increase is £125. That pales into insignificance compared with the £3,800, which is the amount by which these families will be worse off because of these changes.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Having highlighted the anomaly with one and two-earner families regarding child benefit withdrawal, does the Labour party have a suggested solution to sort it out?
Rachel Reeves
I am looking to the Government Front-Bench team for their solution, given the words that we have heard from Ministers over the past couple of days. The Labour party supports child benefit as a universal benefit. At the very least, the Government must iron out the anomaly that means that families earning £84,000 a year can still get child benefit, while a one-earner family on £43,000 cannot.
One month tomorrow, on Good Friday, 212,000 families stand to lose up to £4,000 because of changes to the working tax credit. The Government will say that people need only to increase the number of hours they work from 16 to 24. If they were in touch with working families and businesses, they would know that this is simply not an option for many people because the jobs are not there, and employers are laying people off and cutting hours, not increasing them.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
The hon. Lady is demonstrating to the House that she is a very good Opposition politician. What exactly would she do to address the problem that she is highlighting?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that I am a good Opposition politician; I hope, in due course, to be a good Government politician, so that we can put into practice measures to help families, pensioners and businesses facing the squeeze. But it is this Government’s mistakes and wrong-headed policies, which are callous, incompetent and unfair, that are penalising families trying to do the right thing. As I said to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I would like child benefit kept as a universal benefit to help all families with the cost of bringing up a family. At the very least, however, the Govt must address the anomaly.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this devastating cut in tax credits, which will take £800 million away from families in Wales alone, is not only a tragedy for each family but economic madness, because these are the very families who have to put the money immediately back into the local economy? That money will be sucked out of the local economy, resulting in fewer opportunities for growth and economic recovery.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. Government Members would do well to listen to her point. We also know that because of the changes to working tax credits, many families will be in the crazy situation whereby they would be better off on benefits than in work, as the Government’s own figures show.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is moving on to some of the complexities of the benefits system. Does she support the coalition Government’s policies for a universal benefit as a way of simplifying this process? Did she vote for that?
Rachel Reeves
This has nothing to do with universal credit. Those changes take effect in about one and a half years. In the meantime, families will be £74 worse off a week because of what the Government are doing, and would be better off on benefits. That is totally inconsistent with what universal credit is supposed to do, which is to ensure that everyone is better off in work. This policy goes in totally the opposite direction.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) mentioned universal credit. That is designed to ensure that work pays in 18 months, but what would my hon. Friend say to my constituents, the parents of 1,700 children in Slough, who currently work between 16 and 24 hours and who will lose £3,800? That is in no way compensated for by the measly £200 resulting from raising the tax threshold.
Rachel Reeves
I will come to that very point. Hours are being cut at the moment, so many people working part time who will be hit by these changes to working tax credits are working part time because they cannot find full-time work. Numbers from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of people working part time because they cannot find full-time work is at a record high of 1.35 million—a 13% increase on a year ago. It is therefore not the case that families can simply increase their hours to keep their tax credits. They are being penalised, first because of the lack of economic recovery, and secondly because of this Government’s decision to cut working tax credits.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Government Members keep asking what a Labour Government would do. I was a Social Security Minister when the Labour Government put together effective welfare-to-work policies. What is needed to make them effective is a macro-economic policy that creates jobs and allows people in part-time work to increase their hours. Under the Labour Government, the number of jobs in York increased from 40,000 to 57,000, many of them in retailing. It is precisely those people—1,600 in York—who look set to lose family income as a result of this Government’s policy.
Rachel Reeves
Like my hon. Friend, many of us will have spoken to constituents in jobs whose hours vary—for instance, those working in retail or call centres, or those working as cleaners. However, at the moment, their hours are varying in one direction: downwards, because employers are cutting hours and cutting staff.
In addition to the changes to working tax credits, next January more than 1.5 million families will lose every single penny of their child benefit. The Government are saying, “Well, we’re only cutting child benefit for rich families.” However, if they talked to working families, they would realise that many families are heavily reliant on a single earner, because there is only one parent or because one parent is staying at home to bring up the kids. Those families are being hard hit by the changes.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech carefully, and she has made several references to the crises in various parts of our society. The greatest crisis facing the Government, I hope she would agree, is the debt crisis, a huge contribution to which was made by the previous Government. We would all appreciate it if the hon. Lady told us whether the response to the issue being raised today is simply to add to that debt crisis or to find some other way of dealing with it.
Rachel Reeves
I would like to know how the hon. Gentleman would explain to the 348 kids in his constituency who will be affected by the changes to working tax credits how it makes sense for their families to be better off on benefits than it is for their parents to be in work. That will surely add to the debt, not reduce it. It is this Government who are borrowing an extra £158 billion, because of the costs of their failed economic policies; it is they who are adding to the debt.
A Government who believe in fairness—a Government who say, “We’re all in this together”—are straining at the leash to cut tax for individuals with incomes over £150,000, while one-earner families on £43,000 stand to lose £2,500 of child benefit and families struggling on just £17,000 stand to lose around £4,000 because of changes to tax credits. Instead of worrying about the top 1%, this Government should start thinking about the other 99%.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The hon. Lady says that she cares about our children. Those of us on the Government Benches also care about our children and our grandchildren. Does she think it right to saddle them, generation on generation, with debt, racked up by the previous Administration?
Rachel Reeves
As for caring for children, the Government’s own figures show that child poverty will increase under this Administration. As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is nothing helpful about throwing more people out of work and on to benefits, either for those families or for taxpayers, who have to pick up the bill of extra benefits and lower tax revenue.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady has had her chance; I will carry on.
When it comes to child benefits, a Government who say that they believe in rewarding work are creating a perverse and damaging incentive for people near the higher-rate tax threshold to limit their hours or pay, because of the crude cliff-edge effect that their policies will create. At the same time, changes to the rules for working tax credits will mean that some families could end up £728 better off on benefits than in work, according to a written answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Chancellor said when he took office that he did not intend to balance the books on the backs of the poor. Is that not now exactly what he is intending—and failing—to do? That is the real answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
Rachel Reeves
It is even worse than that, because the Chancellor is not even balancing the books.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1,200 people in Stoke-on-Trent earning just under £17,000 a year who will be worse off under these changes desperately need the Government to listen to this debate and do something in the Budget about the comprehensive spending review, so that they do not have to pay the price for these unacceptable changes?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right when she sticks up for the people of Stoke, who, like many of our constituents, will be hard hit by the changes, which do nothing to encourage people to go back to work, and instead encourage people to stay on the dole, because they will be better off on benefits than in work.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I hope I can add some weight to what my hon. Friend is saying. I was contacted by a local small business owner in my constituency—Keith Bannister, who runs Harley’s pub, which people in Staveley will all be aware of. He told me that three women on his payroll are threatened with the loss of their tax credits. They have told him that they will have to give up work if that happens, but he knows that if he increases the hours of two of them, he will have to lay off the third. It just does not make sense, does it?
Rachel Reeves
It would be better if he was advising the Treasury, rather than the people who are currently doing it, because that is absolutely right, and it gets to the heart of the problem.
Indeed, that seems symptomatic of a wider problem with this Government: rushing out announcements to generate headlines before the costs have been counted; dreaming up the next big idea, when they should be focusing on the impact of their policies in the real world. We heard over the weekend that the Prime Minister had lost his blue-skies thinker. However, it might not be such a bad thing, because in tough times such as these, our constituents need a Government with their feet on the ground, not with their head in the clouds. I hope that this debate gives the Government a much needed reality check, because it is not too late to change course and protect hard-pressed families from further hardship and strain, inflicted on them by this Government.
It is the job of this House to ensure that our constituents’ voices are heard and their struggles taken into account, and that the impact of Government policies on their lives is fully understood. Labour Members hear every day from our constituents, and from the people we talk to around the country, about how hard it is to make enough money to pay the bills, find work or keep businesses afloat. It is not too late for the Chancellor to correct the mistakes that he is making with child benefit and working tax credits. I urge the Government to commit now to an urgent review of the child benefit changes and to use the money from a crackdown on stamp duty avoidance to cancel the damaging cut to working tax credits.
There is still time to listen to the families who will be hit by the restrictions on working tax credits, 78% of whom said in a survey for USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—that they would be unable to find the additional hours needed to keep their tax credits. There is still time to listen to the many families hit by the change who cannot work extra hours because they have disabled children or other caring responsibilities. The Government have refused to exempt those families where one parent is a full-time carer. There is still time to listen to the Child Poverty Action Group, which warns that the change will
“cause a surge in child poverty of hundreds of thousands”.
There is still time to listen to the children’s charities and organisations speaking up for hard-pressed families—including Barnardo’s, Carers UK, Citizens Advice, the National Children’s Bureau and Working Families—which today wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to think again. There is still time to listen to one woman—Mary, from Belfast—who said:
“I can’t get my employer to give me the extra hours I need to qualify. There are people in my work who have had to take redundancy or cut their hours from 36…to 12 hours a week…Where does he think we are going to pluck the extra hours from? It’s a joke.”
Frankly, Mary is right.
On child benefit, there is still time to listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that the Government’s proposals will
“create a bizarre and economically damaging set of incentives”.
There is still time to listen to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who said that the Government’s plans would lead to
“a lot of unfairness and injustice”.
He is right. There is also still time to listen to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who said that the Government’s policy was “barmy, tokenistic and unfair”. He, too, is right. I look forward to both of them, and others on the Government Benches, joining us in the Lobby this evening to tell the Government what they think of their policies.
All day, we have been getting smoke signals and spin from the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister says that they are thinking again, yet the Secretary of State for Justice says that they are not. Who is right? I look forward to getting an answer on what the Government’s policy on tax credits and child benefit actually is. It is a shame that no member of the Cabinet is in the Chamber tonight to give that answer and to talk about Government policy.
With 16 days to go until the Budget, the families that are about to be hit by the changes need certainty and commitments. The motion gives Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to dispel any doubts about the seriousness of our commitment to families and to fairness, and to show that we have listened to our constituents and our consciences. We have an opportunity this evening to stand up for fairness in tough times and to vote to protect family incomes by supporting the motion.
Rachel Reeves
Can the Minister tell us whether the measures introduced by his party are progressive or regressive?
Mr Gauke
All the measures that will be put in place in 2012-13 are being implemented by this Government. That is the point. It is impossible to disaggregate those measures. They are all going to be put in place, and we are responsible for all of them. If we had wanted to reverse some of them, we could have done so, but we did not.
Of course, none of what we are doing ignores the fact that this will be a tough year for households across the board. We know that that is the case, and it is our reason for going even further to support families and businesses throughout the country.
Banking (Responsibility and Reform)
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
I will not give way. We need to be careful that we do not vilify people whom we entrust with such positions—we should not vilify wealth creators, because they are the very people we need to get UK plc back on to its feet.
That brings me on to regulation. The tripartite system given to us by Labour clearly failed; we had banks that were thought too big to fail, with no proper checks or balances on their activity. I am pleased to say that the Financial Services Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday unopposed, will change that situation of ring-fencing banking, so that we no longer have banks that are considered too big to fail.
That leads me on to other issues, particularly the bailing out of the banks, state ownership of banks and state guarantees for banks. They are all probably undesirable for the taxpayer and it is important that we work to try to reverse the unsustainable position that the taxpayer has been put in. We need to consider carefully how we facilitate our banking and finance industry to ensure that we can try to right the wrongs. One way of doing that is through the regulatory framework, which we are dealing with, but we can also do it through competition. We must be well aware of global competition.
I did not take part in last night’s debate on the Financial Services Bill, but spent some time listening to speech after speech from Opposition Members saying that regulation of our banking system needed to take into account the global situation that our banking industry found itself in. I totally agree, but they must therefore acknowledge in tonight’s debate that our banks must be competitive within that global market. Vilifying our banking and business sectors with an unbalanced argument and approach and putting excessive taxes on those sectors will move us away from having banks that are competitive in that global environment.
That brings me, quite neatly, to the bankers’ bonus tax, which is mentioned by the Opposition time after time. They seem very keen on that tax, which they mentioned before the Government put in place the bank levy, which raises £2.5 billion a year, rather than the £2 billion that the bankers’ bonus tax would have raised. The goalposts seem to have moved again and the Opposition seem now to be advocating that it should be an additional tax for the banks to pay.
Mr Jones
The Opposition’s position is interesting, as we are now trying to encourage our banking sector to lend, particularly to small businesses, to put their balance sheets in good order and to keep bank branches open—we expect them to do an awful lot of things as well as pay additional taxes. We need to be careful about how we approach this matter.
Richard Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for what will appear in print as a helpful intervention.
I turn to the mishmash of observations that the Opposition have called a motion. It might, to them, make a motion, but it certainly does not make a policy.
On the key issues, the coalition Government have already taken sensible steps towards reform: they have found an answer to the mess of regulation by centralising it under the Bank of England; they will implement the recommendations of the Vickers report; and they are introducing changes to the compensation culture so that it can get back to supporting enterprise and rewarding merit, which is what we all want.
The shadow Business Secretary did a good job of holding back the hostile anti-business rhetoric. I just hope that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury can restrain herself in her usual anti-business rhetoric when she winds up for the Opposition.
Richard Fuller
I would like to give way very much, because the hon. Lady did not get a chance to comment earlier.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman is much more generous than his colleague the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). With long-term unemployment up 157% in Bedford since the start of 2011, does the hon. Gentleman think that the priority should be a tax cut for the banks this year or a programme to invest in youth jobs?
Richard Fuller
That is a very good point. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be interested to know that I am leading the establishment of an enterprise investment scheme fund in Bedford to get local people to invest in jobs and create businesses in Bedford. Government Members believe in practical action to support entrepreneurs and jobs, not the empty rhetoric that we get from Opposition Front Benchers. I invite her to Bedford to see the successes that we are having and from which perhaps her party can learn. The shadow Business Secretary made some interesting points, and I only wish that he had had time to speak more about his idea for moving forward with a UK equivalent of the small business investment company in the United States. That is an interesting direction of travel from the Labour party.
It is always hard in a free society to explain or justify why some people earn more—sometimes fantastically more—than other people. That justification can be secure only when clearly based on merit—the merit that comes from taking a risk that works out or from delivering exceptional performance. It is clear, however, that throughout large swathes of the economy, those two forms of merit have been losing hold in the setting of compensation in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke eloquently about that disconnect between the financial sector and our entrepreneurs. I know that the Government are committed to changing that.
It is sensible to look for measures that focus remuneration more on merit, but that is precisely what the Government’s recommendations seek to do. The problem with the speeches from Opposition Members was that they could not define the problem that they were trying to solve. Were they trying to solve the problem of compensation in state-owned enterprises? Were they trying to solve the problem of compensation in banking? Were they just hostile to high compensation generally in the economy? They could not define the problem owing to the different points of view among Opposition Members. Some call for a return to the rhetoric of the 1980s, attacking people for earning too much money and trying to draw false and upsetting comparisons between people who get paid a lot and those who cannot find a job.
In this country, we need to support the risk takers and the entrepreneurs to create the jobs that people in my constituency and constituencies around the country want. The promotion of an anti-business rhetoric will be harmful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said, the reaction to Mr Hester’s bonus sent the unwanted signal to business that this country was anti-business. As many have said today, Members on both sides of the House have a responsibility to make it clear that that is not the case and that we all want business to be strong in our communities.
Strengthening shareholders’ responsibilities will be central to that. One of the perhaps unintended consequences of the raid on pension funds by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was to weaken the ability of shareholders, particularly pension fund holders, to hold boards to account over remuneration. There was a change in the ownership of shares, which increasingly went offshore, while those custodians of long-term interests—our insurance companies and pension funds—had their voices and representation weakened on boards. It is right, therefore, for the Government to consider in detail how to strengthen shareholder representation and control over compensation in general.
Several speakers made the connection between banks and support for small business. I ask the Government to be bolder in looking for alternatives to banks in meeting the challenge of financing our small businesses. We need to consider ways of growing bond markets for small business, and we need to go even further than we already have by adopting innovative schemes for promoting equity financing for our small and medium-sized businesses. There is no more honourable a thing for people with money today to do than putting it into equity and our small businesses, and the Government have already provided tax incentives for them to do so. I only encourage the Minister to do more.
On credit easing, will the Minister be cautious about the ability of Governments to stimulate the economy in the short term? By the time that Governments get round to deciding what to do, often the problem has passed. However, credit easing presents another opportunity, which is to use financing, through a credit easing facility, to reduce some of the long-term debt obligations in this country. As the Minister knows, I have spoken before about the possibility of using either some or all of the credit easing financing to create a future fund and unburden the next generation of taxpayers of some of the tax that would otherwise be needed to meet the unfunded public pension liability. We must look to the long term when considering how to fund our small businesses, and not always think that the Government have the answer in the short term. They rarely do.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is right and proper that we have had this debate in the House this afternoon. Today, we have shown that the concerns of the country are the concerns of this House. But I am sorry and disappointed—notwithstanding the fact that the Business Secretary is at a funeral—that no member of the Cabinet has been willing to attend the debate. I am disappointed—[Interruption.] Oh! I am sorry! The Education Secretary has arrived. I am not sure how long he has been here—[Interruption.] Five minutes, apparently.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The Education Secretary has been here for some time, actually, and he has been heckling, even though I have asked him not to. He is also still a member of the Cabinet, and he is in the Chamber.
Rachel Reeves
I am disappointed that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has not been willing to explain the Government’s failure to follow through on the Walker review’s recommendations on transparency and high pay. I am disappointed that the Chancellor has not been willing to explain why they oppose the inclusion of ordinary workers on remuneration committees. I am also disappointed that no Cabinet Minister has been willing to come to the House to defend the tax cut that this Government are giving to banks this year.
People up and down the country are amazed when they read about individuals receiving bonuses in a single year that amount to more money than most people will see in their entire working life, especially at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, when small businesses are finding it hard to access finance, when people are finding it hard to get a job, and when many young people are struggling to get their first job.
The “Oxford English Dictionary” tells us that a bonus is
“a sum of money added to a person’s wages as a reward for good performance”.
It goes on to say that a bonus is
“an extra and unexpected advantage”.
It is clear, however, that for a few, bonuses have come to be expected, an automatic part of their pay. Whatever their performance or that of their businesses, bonuses can be cashed, year in and year out. That seems to be the case even when the share price is falling, even when thousands of jobs are being lost and even when lending targets to small businesses are not being met. And this is happening in an industry that is significantly supported by us, the taxpayers, and that risks rapidly losing the trust and confidence of those it is supposed to serve, because of the actions of a few at the top.
Let me speak plainly. Labour Members recognise the importance of the financial services sector to our economy. A high proportion of jobs in my constituency are directly or indirectly dependent on the continued success of Leeds as a financial hub. Private sector employers whom I meet tell me time after time of the critical importance of bank finance to their ability to grow and employ more people.
The financial services industry is, and must remain, a strong part of the British economy. It offers an opportunity for Britain to play a positive role in the global economy and it plays a critical part in supporting the small businesses that could be and should be the driving force of our economic recovery. That makes it all the more important that Members are not afraid to approach the banking sector as a critical friend—not afraid to deliver home truths or the views and perspectives of the people we represent.
In expressing public concerns about excessive bonuses, we must remember that the vast majority of people who work in banks earn modest salaries. Those I know in Leeds are on salaries of £20,000 or £30,000 a year, and they find these six or seven-figure bonuses as shocking and alien as the rest of us do—especially a few years after failures in the banking sector brought the global economy to its knees.
These are the concerns we have heard in contributions to today’s debate. It must be a matter of regret that throughout this afternoon, save for the Education Secretary, no Cabinet member has been here to hear them. It is a shame that no Cabinet members were present to hear the passionate speeches by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), whose constituents are fearful this evening for their jobs. It is a shame that no Cabinet Minister is going to respond to the concerns expressed in the passionate speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) or of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Those Members spoke about the increasing disconnection between a small number of people at the top of the banking sector and the experiences and values of the rest of the country. This disconnect must be repaired if we are to strengthen the national purpose and shared interest that we need to get through these tough economic times.
It is a shame, too, that no Cabinet member will respond to the contributions about struggling businesses—especially to the thoughtful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who spoke about the dysfunctional relationship between banks and industry, which grossly impedes our ability to grow out of the recession, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who forcefully rebutted an intervention suggesting that the banks are lending. That suggestion was totally out of touch with the experience of small businesses in all our constituencies. The reality is that many businesses are being refused the loans they need to tide them over or to keep people in work. We all need a banking sector that lends, supports small businesses and acts as a sector that we can trust and rely on.
We also heard contributions from the hon. Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), which I thought added important dimensions to today’s debate. I want to pick up on the contribution by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), as he would not let me intervene when I tried to do so earlier. Both he and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) seem to disagree with the decision of the RBS chief executive to hand back his bonus, when I had thought that every Member of every party would welcome that. The fact is that the chief executive of RBS earns a salary in excess of £1 million a year—46 times more than the average worker. That should be reward enough for doing his job; he should not be getting a bonus of £963,000 on top of that when few others could expect to earn that sort of salary in a lifetime.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady explain the Opposition’s policy on creating growth in the financial sector? We have heard a great deal of criticism about everything, about how dreadful bonuses are and all the rest of it. That is fine, but what is Labour’s policy for growth, for being creative and for going forward?
Rachel Reeves
We have argued a five-point plan for jobs and growth—to put money in the pockets of ordinary families with a VAT cut and a national insurance holiday for small businesses that are struggling to take on new workers. Those are the sort of policies that will get the economy moving again and will protect jobs in all our constituencies.
We should welcome the RBS chief executive’s decision to hand back his bonus. The reality is that, over the last year, the RBS share price has fallen, it failed to meet its lending targets and it laid off workers. As I said, I would have thought a salary in excess of £1 million reward enough.
Today’s debate, however, is not about one man or one bonus or one bank; it is about the need for an overhaul of the way in which bonuses and pay are structured. As my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary has spelled out and as many contributions have highlighted, issues of pay and performance—of individuals and of the banking industry as a whole—cannot be separated.
Banks need to show that they recognise the need to change, the need to reform their business models, the need to rebuild their relationships with small businesses and customers and, most of all, the need to restore public trust. The British people deserve a banking system that they can believe in and respect—a banking system that inspires trust and is seen as a responsible custodian of our earnings, our savings, and our pensions. I know that the majority of people who work in banks at all levels also want to feel proud of the job they do, so today’s debate is about beginning to restore that trust and integrity.
Opposition Members have set out clear, constructive proposals in three key areas: transparency, accountability and fairness. [Interruption.]On transparency, the Labour Government legislated for the implementation of David Walker’s recommendations on high pay, including for rules to disclose the numbers of employees paid over £1million a year. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but Members are holding conversations in the Chamber, but they expected others to listen to them when they made their speeches. I expect Members who want to conduct private conversations to do so outside the Chamber and not in it.
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that some Members do not want to hear the truth.
Transparency would give shareholders the vital information they need to rein in excessive remuneration, but what have we seen from the Government? No answers and no action. On accountability, the High Pay Commission has recommended the inclusion of an employee on company remuneration committees. We have called on the Government to legislate, but what have we had? No answers and no action. Yet again, on the matter of fairness, when banks continue to award bonuses beyond most people’s imagination at a time when everyone else is being squeezed, why will the Government not do what is right and tell the banks that if they continue to pay out large bonuses, they will impose a tax to ensure that some of that money comes back to the taxpayer? Hundreds of thousands of young people have been looking for work for months and even years now, struggling with the consequences of a crisis that was caused by the financial services sector for which they are paying the price. That is the real crisis our country is facing—the crisis of more than 1 million young people out of work, but what do we see from this Government? We see no answers and no action.
On transparency, on accountability and on fairness, our constituents want answers and they want action, so why do the Government not take responsibility? At the end of the day, it comes down to priorities. Labour’s priorities are those of the British people: of families facing a squeeze in living standards, of the 1 million young people trying to find work and of the thousands of good businesses trying to stay afloat.
By contrast, this Government’s priorities are increasingly clear: a tax cut for the banks and a quiet life for the Cabinet. Well, we can tell the Government that this issue will not go away. We will continue to raise the concerns of voters and if this Government will not take the necessary action, the public will draw this conclusion—that this out-of-touch Prime Minister just does not get it, that his Cabinet colleagues do not get it either and that the Labour party is the only party that does.
Mr Prisk
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 45 minutes, which meant that Back Benchers did not have a chance to contribute to the debate.
I understand—we understand—that to the 25% of SME employers who do not obtain that loan or overdraft, the fact that 75% do will be no consolation. That is why the Chancellor is taking decisive action to provide some £21 billion, £20 billion of it under the national loan guarantee scheme, which will be available over two years and will allow banks to offer lower-cost lending to smaller businesses. [Interruption.] Notwithstanding the chuntering of Opposition Members, that scheme is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI. The details will be made clear in the next few weeks.
Mr Prisk
No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. We heard a diatribe of clichés from her, but we heard no policy, no original ideas and no original thoughts.
We are also making available an initial £1 billion through a business finance partnership that will allow small businesses to invest through non-bank channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford was absolutely right to say that we should not just consider the bank channels, but should ensure that other players in the market can come forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis—who, unlike many Opposition Members, has actually run a business—was also right to draw attention to the importance of choice and competition. I agreed with the shadow Business Secretary when he said that we should think about the business model and the return of relationship management. I hope that we shall hear some positive contributions about that from Labour, and not just the usual flannel.
The Opposition motion refers to the need for a reform of banking, and to the need for more regulation and responsibility. The motion is right to refer to responsibility; it is just a shame that that was not one of Labour’s policies when it was in government. However, I suppose that it is nice to have a convert, even if the conversion is late in coming.
Yesterday the Chancellor introduced the Financial Services Bill, demonstrating that we would overhaul the regulatory environment that we had inherited. The Bill’s principles are important: responsibility, prudence—I think we may remember that word—and sustainability. That means addressing the old system of excessive and irresponsible levels of pay.
As we have heard this evening, under the new FSA remuneration code we have ensured that bonuses will be deferred by at least three years and linked to the performance of employees and companies. Through the disclosure regime, we are providing more transparency than we ever saw from the Labour party when it was in government. Bonus levels are already starting to fall. As we heard earlier, last year they stood at £6.7 billion, just half as much as when the shadow Chancellor was the City Minister in the last Government.
This evening’s debate has also dealt with the wider issue of executive remuneration. The Government strongly believe that successful people who work hard should be properly rewarded. It is vital that, in a debate about the excesses of a few, we do not give the impression that enterprise and endeavour are unwelcome in Britain; but, sadly, quite a few Opposition Members simply do not understand that. We need to make our message clear. The Government are determined to work with businesses to reform executive pay, and to do so in a way that strengthens business in Britain in the long term. As was alluded to but never actually examined by the hon. Member for—
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
Of course, as the hon. Gentleman says, I cannot and will not comment on ongoing individual cases, but he is right to say that the wealthiest need to pay their fair share. That was why we announced in the spending review an extra £900 million of funding for tackling tax avoidance and evasion, which has helped to set up a new specialist unit, which became operational last year, targeting offshore evasion. High-profile tax evasion cases could become more commonplace in future, and our message to tax dodgers is: “No matter how well known you are, how clever you think your accounts are or how far away you hide your money, we are coming to get you.”
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary says that the Government’s fiscal plans are working and that only the eurozone has thrown them off course. Tomorrow, we will know by how much the UK economy grew in 2011, so let me ask him a simple question. In its last forecast, did the Office for Budget Responsibility revise up or down its estimate for growth in the eurozone in 2011?
Danny Alexander
The Office for Budget Responsibility made significant changes to its forecasts for the UK and for other countries. It made a significant change to its forecast for how much damage was done to the UK economy during the time when the hon. Lady’s party was in government, suggesting that our economy is now about 13% smaller than it otherwise would have been.
Yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the shadow Chancellor’s now infamous Ken Dixon lecture, when he rightly said that long-term interest rates were
“the simplest measure of monetary and fiscal policy credibility”.
Then, 10-year gilt rates were 4.76%. Yesterday, they were 2.16%. Case closed.
Rachel Reeves
Given that the Government went to the trouble of setting up the Office for Budget Responsibility, one would expect that the Chief Secretary would read its forecasts. The reality is that it revised up its forecast for growth in the eurozone in 2011 and revised down its forecast for growth in the United Kingdom. The Government like to blame everybody except themselves for the economic troubles. First they blamed the snow, then they blamed the royal wedding, now they are blaming the eurozone. When will they take responsibility for their own actions, which choked off the economic recovery a year ago by cutting too far and too fast? As a result, they are borrowing an extra £158 billion. That is the cost of this Government’s economic failure.
Danny Alexander
Once again, the hon. Lady is wrong in her economic policy pronouncements. The Office for Budget Responsibility has the UK growing more slowly this year, but faster than countries in the eurozone in the next few years. That is a testament to the Government’s economic policies. If she wants to know who is at least partly responsible for the mess that the country is in, she should just look immediately to her left. It has come to something when Katie Price’s tweets make more sense about the economy than Labour Front Benchers.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that unemployment has risen to its highest level for 17 years, youth unemployment has now reached a record level of 1.04 million and the number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for over six months has more than doubled since January 2011; believes that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast has choked off the recovery and pushed up unemployment and that it was a mistake for the Government to abolish the Future Jobs Fund; recognises that rising unemployment and the Government’s failing welfare to work programmes are leading to a higher benefits bill, which is contributing to the £158 billion of additional borrowing announced in the Autumn Statement; further notes reports that multi-million pound bank bonuses are set to be paid out this year, even in banks where the share price has almost halved; and in view of the most recent figures on unemployment, calls on the Government to take urgent action to kickstart the economy to promote jobs and growth and to reconsider its refusal to introduce a tax on bankers’ bonuses this year, in addition to the permanent bank levy, to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.
We have called the debate to raise the alarm on a crisis that is now on the verge of becoming a national disgrace—the disgrace of a few getting rewarded for failure while many more pay the heavy cost of the failure of the Government’s economic policies. However, the motion is not just a critique. It is also a call for action, a reminder to the Government that, despite the damage that has already been done, they still have a choice. There is an alternative—Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth could get people back into work, get our economy moving and get the deficit down in a balanced and sustainable way.
Every hon. Member who is present will have met victims of the unemployment crisis in their own constituency. They are families devastated by the arrival of the dreaded redundancy letter and afraid of what the future will bring, and parents determined to do the right thing and provide for their children but unable to make ends meet.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions unemployment in Members’ constituencies. Does she recognise that, based on the claimant count, unemployment in Leeds West has fallen by 106 since the election? Which of the Government’s policies would she recommend as being to blame for that?
Rachel Reeves
Youth unemployment in my constituency, like in most of our constituencies, is rising fast, whereas it was falling at the time of the last election.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
May I share with the hon. Lady the figures for her own constituency? Youth unemployment rose by 625 between 2005 and 2010, which was a 103% rise, yet rose by 25 between 2010 and 2011, which was a 2% rise. Can she explain why it rose so much between 2005 and 2010?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman might be aware of the global financial crisis that took place. Between 1997 and the start of the financial crisis, unemployment and youth unemployment were falling in my constituency and nationally, and at the time of the last general election unemployment was falling. Now, it is rising.
Government Members are in denial about what is happening. The reality is that, over the past year, long- term youth unemployment has more than doubled. It is a reality that the Opposition recognise and would do something about, whereas Government Members ignore it.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Is it not clear that what we have heard in the first moment or two of this debate is Conservative Members saying, “It’s all right, everything’s going great”? We have record youth unemployment, and all we hear from Government Members is laughter and complacency.
Rachel Reeves
I think many of our constituents watching this debate will say exactly that. The Government are in denial. Youth unemployment is at a record high, and Government Members say, “There’s not a problem. We don’t need to do anything about it. Everything is fine.” That is not the reality for our constituents.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Even if this is a laughing matter for the Government, it certainly is not for us. My constituency has among the highest levels of youth unemployment. It is a tragedy—there is no other way to describe it—when young people are simply unable to find work. I have been in touch with Jobcentre Plus, and there is no doubt about the difficulties and hardships for such young people. Yet for the Government, it is a laughing matter.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks for the many families and young people in all our constituencies who are experiencing a crisis, and I give him credit for recognising their challenges.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady feel at all positive about the Government’s steps to create new apprenticeships for young people to get them into real jobs that will endure?
Rachel Reeves
The reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has examined all the Government’s plans and predicts that unemployment will continue to rise all the way through this year, and the OECD predicts that it will rise next year as well. That is their verdict on the Government’s economic policy.
Rachel Reeves
I will make a little progress, because we know that many Members want to speak. I will try to give way again later.
Although many of our constituents are very fearful about the future, not everyone is looking to the future with fear and trepidation—not for all the question of how their money will last until the end of the month, or whether they can afford to heat their homes and eat three meals a day. For the past week, we have been hearing stories of banks preparing to pay bonuses to a few hundred senior employees amounting to hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds in another multi-billion pound bonus season.
The Opposition believe in rewarding hard work and encouraging enterprise that contributes to the prosperity of the economy, but this is about fairness, responsibility and proportion. It is about the difference between rewards for success and rewards for failure.
When millions of families are struggling to find work, businesses are having their loan applications turned down and banks are continuing to rely on taxpayers’ hard-earned money for their very survival, the vast majority of people in all our constituencies find the idea of such sums being paid to a small number of individuals unacceptable. People rightly feel that we did not bail out the banking system to perpetuate a business-as-usual model or to pay big bonuses when ordinary workers are losing jobs. Surely we bailed out the banks to protect the businesses and families that depend on banks serving and supporting the wider economy.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour Ministers accepted and approved such grotesque contracts for RBS, so that they now personify payment for failure?
Rachel Reeves
We introduced a bank bonus tax to get some money back from the banks. The Government refused to go ahead with it and, instead, gave the banks a tax cut this year. That is not acceptable, and that is what the motion is about.
While banks seemingly return to the business-as-usual model, aided and abetted by the current Government, last week the Office for National Statistics published another set of dreadful unemployment numbers. Total unemployment is now at its highest since the summer of 1994. Women’s unemployment is the highest it has been since autumn 1987. Youth unemployment is now the highest since comparable records began. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for six months or more has doubled in just 12 months.
Those figures on their own are shocking enough and should be sufficient to end all debate and drive the Chief Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), to urgent action. However, most worrying is the fact that, on every measure, and according to every forecast and to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, unemployment is set not to fall, but to get worse.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection, alongside last year’s autumn statement, showed unemployment rising to 2.8 million this year. The OECD expects unemployment to rise to 9% in 2013. If unemployment continues to rise at the rate that it has done in the past six months, it will reach 3 million this summer. The economy may well be headed back to recession—we will hear the grim reality on Wednesday.
However, it is clear that, although the situation is now perilously close to tipping point, and the Government’s failures are mounting, they could still take action. Yet since taking office in 2010, the backfiring of their attempts to cut too far and too fast has added a shocking £158 billion in extra borrowing.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the growing trend of extended unemployment—more than six months—for young people creates the real worry that we will have a lost generation unless the Government act?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that long-term youth unemployment has a scarring effect, which affects more and more people throughout the country. It is similar to the situation in the early 1980s and early 1990s—the last two times a Conservative Government presided over a recession.
With more people out of work and fewer businesses succeeding, the Government end up paying out more in benefits and getting less in through taxes. They are filling that gap with the £158 billion more borrowing. The inheritance that that leaves for the next Government will mean more tough decisions about taxation and spending—the unnecessary and avoidable cost of the Government’s failure.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Unemployment among all 16 to 24-year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance in the Bridgend constituency is 8.8%. Would one way forward be to grant a one-year national insurance holiday, so that small businesses could take on young people, give them employment and the opportunity to experience work?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why, as part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, we include a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers—a policy that would help small businesses and the more than 1 million young people who are desperately searching for work.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept responsibility for the failure to skill up our young people to take on jobs? For example, after the Labour party’s 13 years in office, we had the smallest proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds studying maths of any OECD country.
Rachel Reeves
People are not getting jobs at the moment not because they do not have skills but because the jobs are not available. In all our constituencies, five or 10 people are chasing every job. That is why unemployment is rising. Until the Government take responsibility for that, the numbers will get worse, not better.
The price that families struggling with the consequences of redundancy and young people forced to abandon their career plans pay is incalculable. We cannot go on like that. Maybe some hon. Members—we have already heard from many of them—greet the prospect of rising unemployment with a degree of fatalism, perhaps resignation. They may feel that the punishment being inflicted on innocent families and young people is the sad but inevitable consequence of austerity and economic adjustment. Indeed, as I said earlier, there is a grim familiarity about the figures, which bear a depressing resemblance to the record of previous Conservative Governments.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about a grim familiarity. Does she acknowledge that every Labour Government in history ended with higher unemployment than they started with? After a 40% rise in youth unemployment under the previous Government, some humility is required on both sides of the House, but not least on hers.
Rachel Reeves
Unemployment has reached 3 million twice, both times under Conservative Governments. At the last election, unemployment was falling; today, it is rising.
Rachel Reeves
In the 1980s and early 1990s, unemployment reached 3 million. Was that because Conservative Governments were clearing up a Labour mess? Really? I think it was because of the policies that Conservative Governments always pursue—policies that hurt young people and put more people out of work. That is the reality of Conservative Governments.
Labour Members are not complacent. We do not say that it is inevitable, that it has got to happen and that 3 million unemployed is a price worth paying. Labour Members are not prepared to give up on young people and we urge the Government not to give up on them, either.
In the coalition agreement, the Government said that a fundamental goal would be to
“sustain the recovery and to protect jobs.”
Before the election, the Prime Minister told voters that jobs would be his top priority. He said:
“I understand if you leave people unemployed, and short term unemployment becomes long term, then it becomes a lifetime of unemployment. It’s a waste of life. I must stop it happening.”
He was right then, but he does nothing now. The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier this month that
“supporting people into work is my priority for 2012”.
He is right, yet he does nothing.
We must—and we will—hold the Government to their promises because we cannot allow the next generation to be denied the chance of expanded opportunities that has always been the promise of Britain.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that long-term youth unemployment is falling—and, indeed, has fallen by 5%? Will she also acknowledge that half a million new jobs have been created in the private sector in the past year? Currently, there are 90,000 vacancies in retail, 44,000 in hospitality and 11,000 in construction. What matters is that the Government, through the Work programme and so many other interventions, are maximising the skills and training for young people to get them into work.
Rachel Reeves
In the hon. Lady’s constituency, long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 25% in the past few months. I do not know what she says to her constituents—“There’s loads of jobs out there. Just go and get one”? More people are chasing jobs than there are jobs available. That is because the Government are pushing more and more people out of work. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know the numbers for her constituency, but we know.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The hon. Lady talked about the scarring effect of the fast-buck culture. Will she condemn the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) for taking a consultancy with private equity?
Rachel Reeves
I will not condemn my right hon. Friend for taking a job. I am talking about the reality of the challenge that people in our constituencies face. More and more people are out of work. We should listen to them. They are saying that they are getting degrees, A-levels and vocational qualifications but that they cannot find work. As I have said, many would be shocked that many MPs say, “That’s just inevitable—it’s just what happens, and nothing can be done about it.” That is not acceptable. Our constituents see unemployment rising. The House should be taking action to address that challenge.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I would have intervened earlier, but I was trying to work out the arithmetic of Government Members. We are constantly told that 500,000 jobs were created last year, but we have been told about them for the past 20 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members cannot constantly refer to those same jobs, which were largely the result of the stimulus applied by the previous Labour Government?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have to look only at the forecasts from, for example, the independent OBR, which says that unemployment will continue to rise this year, or at the OECD numbers, which say that unemployment will continue to rise into 2013. That is the reality.
I am sure we will hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others defend the Government’s inaction and talk about their various half-baked and half-hearted solutions. We look forward to hearing a report on the progress of those initiatives, and in particular what difference the Government expect them to make to future unemployment. As I have said, the OBR has said that there is no reason for it to revise its unemployment projections as a result of the Government’s measures.
The Government’s response is inadequate for the scale of the challenge. When the Prime Minister was challenged last week on his performance on unemployment, all he could do was admit with regret that youth unemployment is a problem. However, the Opposition are asking the Government not simply to acknowledge they have a problem—we all know that—but to do something about it. The Prime Minister says he takes responsibility for everything that happens in our economy, but taking responsibility means taking action.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Unemployment in my constituency is creeping upwards and long-term unemployment is coming down, but in both my constituency and the hon. Lady’s constituency apprenticeship starts are increasing at an incredibly rapid rate. Can she and I agree on one thing: that the best way to get young people into work is to get them such opportunities with the private sector, and relentlessly to support them, as this Government are doing?
Rachel Reeves
I expect the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, regret that the Government cancelled the future jobs fund, which was helping young people back into work. Since that cancellation, long-term youth unemployment in her constituency has gone up not just by a little bit, but by 36%. That is the reality that her constituents face day in, day out.
I hope we will not hear the usual hand-wringing—although I might have to give up that hope—or the usual shoulder-shrugging or blame-shifting. The jobs crisis is not a fact of life or a force of nature, and the Government cannot play the innocent bystander, as they have tried to do. The jobs crisis is a result of the choices they have made. They chose to cut too far and too fast; to abolish employment programmes that were working; and to destroy job opportunities in both public and private sectors.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The hon. Lady approaches such matters very thoughtfully indeed, and as a future Labour leader I would expect nothing else of her, much to the shock and horror of the shadow Chancellor.
Does the hon. Lady accept that the economy needs to be rebalanced and that we need more tax producers than tax consumers? Surely we can all agree on that.
Rachel Reeves
I am not sure how the Government will rebalance the economy by throwing more people on the scrapheap. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will just have to disagree, but that does not seem to me to be the way to rebalance the economy and to get it growing again.
Despite the Government’s mistakes, they still have choices open to them.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
None of the automated Government Members mentions the VAT tax bombshell, because they must know in their heart of hearts the absolute disgrace of the VAT increase for small companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that when Labour Members speak of a VAT cut for home improvements, we are speaking up for jobs in construction in a way that some Government Members will never understand?
Rachel Reeves
The cut in VAT to 17.5% is part of Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth. It would put £450 in the pockets of an average family, which is desperately needed to help people who are struggling with the rising cost of living—the rising train, energy and petrol prices.
We have rising unemployment and excessive bank bonuses, but it does not have to be that way. While millions of families up and down the country struggle with the effects of redundancy and millions of young people lose the hope of fulfilling their potential, very little is being asked of those with the broadest shoulders. Despite his pre-election promises to tackle the bonus culture, the Prime Minister will not take the measures recommended by the High Pay Commission to make a difference. Despite the Government’s call for more shareholder activism and engagement as a check on excessive remuneration, they wash their hands of the reported decision to award more than £1 million to the chief executive of RBS, in which they are a major shareholder.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady express some degree of regret, because bank bonuses under this Government are 40% lower than they were under the previous one? She must tell the House who it was who gave Sir Fred Goodwin his knighthood.
Rachel Reeves
The Leader of the Opposition has said that the knighthood for Fred Goodwin was not warranted, but I do not remember hearing Conservative Members saying that he should not get a knighthood when it was awarded.
Bank bonuses were taxed at 50% in the last year of the Labour Government. That brought in £3.5 billion, which was used to help to support families and to support young people back into work. Unlike Labour, which introduced a tax on bank bonuses, the Government are introducing a tax cut for banks this year. That tax cut is unwarranted and unjustified as unemployment and youth unemployment continue to rise.
The Opposition proposal is simple. While banks are still not doing their job—they are not supporting jobs or growth—the Government must step in to ensure that resources are put to better use. A 50% tax on bank bonuses above £25,000 would, on a cautious estimate, raise enough revenue to support the creation of 100,000 jobs for young people.
We know that such a measure would work because it has worked before. Labour’s 2010 bank bonus tax raised £3.5 billion, according the OBR. The future jobs fund, which was created by the previous Labour Government, supported more than 100,000 people back into work. That is a record of which Labour Members are proud. By contrast, the Government have chosen a tax cut for the banks and a belated, half-hearted and ineffective response to rising youth joblessness.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on Labour’s proposal to create 100,000 jobs for the young from a bankers’ bonus tax. The north-east is bucking the national trend in manufacturing, which is in the doldrums in the rest of the nation, but 7,000 private sector jobs were lost in the past three months of 2011, whereas 4,000 public sector jobs were lost. Given that clear disparity, what does my hon. Friend make of the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on the creation of private sector jobs?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks passionately about his region of the north-east, and I know he does a huge amount of work for businesses, young people and families in his constituency.
The reality is that northern towns and cities are paying a particularly high price for this Government’s policies. In my city of Leeds, the local authority is losing more than 25% of its grant over the next four years. As a result, more people are losing their jobs and fewer services can be provided. It is people in the poorest areas who are paying the highest price for this Government’s policies.
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who can perhaps try to justify the cuts in the grant to Leeds city council over the next four years.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about cuts to Leeds city council, but does she not remember that it was her Government who took away neighbourhood funding, stripping the city council of £118 million and, funnily enough, giving the money to Sedgefield?
Rachel Reeves
In Pudsey, which is my next-door constituency, long-term youth unemployment has increased by more than 20% in the last few months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the cuts that Leeds city council is having to endure over the next few years are out of all proportion to any reduction in the neighbourhood grant under the Labour Government. His constituents and mine are the people paying the price.
I hope that we can show in this debate that the House is in touch with the problems of those who are paying the highest price for the failure of this Government’s policies. Hon. Members will know from their own constituencies the heart-breaking stories behind some of the statistics that we have already gone through today, and I am sure that we will hear some of those stories in the debate this evening. Most of all, I hope that this debate will be focused on action—effective and practical measures that can make a difference for the millions at the sharp end of this crisis. The Government have no excuse for inaction. A tax on bank bonuses would be fair and proportionate, and would enable us to address the immediate, pressing and growing challenge of getting young people back into the jobs that are so needed.
Danny Alexander
I have heard nothing coherent from the Opposition, and I have heard nothing from the business community in this country but support for our policies to deal with the deficit and restore this country’s economic credibility. The coalition has never shirked its responsibility to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions to tackle the deficit and pull the country out of the hole that the previous Government dug. Because we did not delay, and because we took action to get ahead of the curve, we can cut the deficit on our own terms and shelter the UK from the debt storm that has engulfed our nearest neighbours.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are tackling the deficit, but will he confirm how much extra borrowing there will be during this Parliament, compared with the prediction when they took office? Is that not a cost of their failed economic policies?
Danny Alexander
I can confirm that according to the latest forecast, there will be significantly increased borrowing compared with the previous one. The hon. Lady should have explained in her opening speech that her policies involve substantial further increases in borrowing, which would destroy this country’s economic credibility and the hard-won low interest rates that we have achieved.
As a result of our action, we have record low bond yields that feed through to record low interest rates, which benefit households paying mortgages and businesses refinancing loans right across the country. Whereas our bond yields are just 2.1%, those of Spain have risen to 5.5%, those of Italy remain over 6%, and those of Greece have climbed to a staggering 34%. Even a 1% rise in our market interest rates would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments. A 1% rise in effective mortgage rates would result in an extra £10 billion for mortgage payments.
The Opposition have had 18 months to come to terms with the mess they created, but they still do not get it. It has taken them 18 months to move from the wrong place to all over the place. The Leader of the Opposition called the pay freeze an
“ideological attack on the public sector”,
but he now accepts it. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury called the uprating of pensions with the consumer prices index an “ideologically driven move”, but it is a move that the Opposition have now accepted for their party’s own pension scheme. So let us be clear—financial discipline is not ideological; it is a necessary condition for effective government. In the past 10 days, members of the Labour shadow Cabinet have succeeded in proving that they cannot even convince themselves of the credibility of their economic policy.
Danny Alexander
I do not think that those on the Opposition Front were trying to shout the apology that the country wants from them. They should say sorry, too, for letting the deficit and the country’s debt get out of control. Instead, all we have heard today is the apology of a speech made by the shadow Chief Secretary.
Rachel Reeves
I wonder when the electorate might get an apology from the Liberal Democrats for trebling university tuition fees and imposing a VAT bombshell.
Danny Alexander
I am sorry that the shadow Chief Secretary did not take the opportunity to offer an apology for the terrible mess made by her party and the Government of which the shadow Chancellor was a leading member.
It is the coalition Government who are investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation to create new opportunities in the recovery. It is this coalition that is reforming a broken financial sector to entrench greater stability and embed long-term sustainability. It is this coalition Government alone who are determined to face up to today’s economic challenges to build tomorrow’s fair, prosperous and sustainable economy.
Public Service Pensions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
Opposition Members never have any answers, so they chunter from the sidelines instead.
At the same time, by offering transferred staff the right to remain members of the public service scheme, we are no longer requiring private, voluntary and social enterprise providers to take on the risks of defined benefit that deter many from bidding for contracts in the first place. Replacing so-called bulk transfers of pensions with continued access to public sector schemes means that we continue to protect public service workers’ pensions, manage the risk to the taxpayer and forge ahead with our ambitious plans for public service reform.
I have made the commitment that these reforms will be sustained for at least 25 years. The Government intend to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming public service pensions Bill to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes.
What does this deal really mean? For our work force, it means that they will continue to receive the best-quality pensions available in this country—and rightly so. In the private sector, these pensions could be bought only at a cost of one third of salary. This is a proper reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public. The new scheme is fairer to women too. By moving to career average, we will give a better pension in future to those, mainly women, who have low or steady salaries throughout their careers.
The Government have been clear that because we are living longer, public service workers must work a bit longer and pay a little more for their pensions. But in return we have also made an important commitment—that at retirement, those on low and middle incomes will get at least as good a pension as they do now. I can confirm today that we have met that commitment. For people who depend on our public services, it means that most unions will be asking their executives to lift the threat of further strike action while work is done to conclude the final agreement, and I hope that the remaining unions will do the same. For the taxpayer, it means that tens of billions of pounds extra that would have been spent on unreformed pensions over the next 30 years is now available for other pressing demands. These are reforms that significantly improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country, and reinforce the credibility of our fiscal stance.
The Office for Budget Responsibility will provide a forecast of the savings in its next fiscal sustainability report. For industrial relations, I believe this shows that it is possible to reach agreement through negotiation in good faith, based on clear objectives. That is the right way to approach relations between government and the trade unions. Sometimes the talks have been difficult, but it has been right to stay at the table. In these difficult times, it is important to show that people can come together to achieve genuine reform, preserving the best of the past, but recognising the realities of the future. This is a fair deal for public service workers, an affordable deal for the taxpayer, and a good deal for the country. I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Families and businesses who rely on public services, as well as the millions of public service workers worried about their finances and their future, will be relieved to see that real progress is finally being made in these talks. Labour has been clear from the beginning that the Government and public service employees would need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. We said in response to the Chief Secretary’s previous statement on 2 November that any resolution to the dispute needed to be fair to taxpayers, fair to public service employees and genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of party political games.
The vast majority of public sector workers, including dinner ladies, community nurses and police community support officers, retire on very modest pensions; moreover, they are already being hit hard by a pay freeze and worried about mounting redundancies. It was clear to us that tearing up decent public service pension schemes or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases would be entirely counter-productive if it resulted in lower savings and inadequate retirement incomes that only left more people retiring into poverty, dependent on state benefits in their old age.
We will be looking at the detail of these proposals on the basis of the tests that we have set out. In particular, can the Chief Secretary offer clarification on the following points? Can he set out the timetable for further consultations and negotiations for each of the four schemes discussed today? When will he come forward with details for the police, armed forces, judiciary and fire service pension schemes? For each scheme, can he give us the new schedules for contribution increases across the schemes, the timetable according to which they will be introduced and how he will ensure fairness and affordability for lower-paid employees, especially those who work part time?
For each scheme, can the Chief Secretary give us the new accrual rates and methodologies for uprating pensions, and say what the timetables for introducing them will be? What assessment has he made of the impact of the changes on the number of public sector employees opting out of the schemes, and the implications of that for future scheme income and viability, as well as future pensioner poverty and the demands on state benefits?
How will the Government ensure that older workers, especially those in physically demanding jobs, are not forced to work beyond a point that would be detrimental to their health, or their ability to do their job? What will the Government do to maintain the morale and engagement of public service employees doing vital work for our country at a time of falling real pay, heightened job insecurity and significant changes to their pensions? Although we are pleased that there is agreement on a fair deal, there is a genuine fear across the public sector that the Government intend to use that deal more as they privatise parts of our NHS and schools, as well as other parts of our public sector. Crucially, how will the Government make good on their promise to deliver a deal that is secure and sustainable for the next 25 years, so that in future we do not face the uncertainty, anxiety and disruption that we have seen over the past year?
The Chief Secretary has made much of Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions. We have always said that Lord Hutton’s report provided an important starting point for negotiations, and we have always recognised that change is needed. However, Lord Hutton has also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower-paid public service workers, and to avoid fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. However, the Government have made it much harder to make progress on many of Lord Hutton’s sensible long-term recommendations by seeking to impose, prior to any negotiations, a steep 3.2% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the way in which pensions are uprated—from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index—neither of which formed part of Lord Hutton’s recommendations.
However, it is good to see that the Chief Secretary recognises that he needed to do more to address the genuine concerns about his plans over the last 10 months—concerns about the need to do more to protect lower-paid public service employees from unaffordable increases in contributions; about the need to reassure older employees worried about how long they will have to work; and about the need to ensure that people who dedicate their working lives to our public services can expect a decent income in retirement. However, it must be a matter of regret for everyone in this House that it took 10 months of stalemated negotiations and strike action that resulted in closed schools, cancelled operations and disrupted lives for families and businesses around the country, for us to reach this point, just five days before Christmas.
The last Government agreed and established a framework to negotiate reform and manage long-term costs; this Government chose to tear that up and take an aggressive and provocative approach to this serious and sensitive issue. For months the Government have refused to engage in constructive talks to address the issues concerning public service employees, engaging instead in unhelpful megaphone diplomacy. Major changes to public service employees’ current contributions and future security have been announced without warning and imposed without negotiation. Last month’s strikes could and should have been avoided. In short, the Government have displayed negotiating skills similar to those that we saw at the European summit, being more interested in going for the cheap headline than putting in the hard graft necessary to get an agreement that works for everybody.
Clearly the Government still have a lot of work to do over the next few weeks. Ministers and employers will need to clarify the details of their latest proposals, and trade unions will rightly want to inform and consult their members. Reaching a final agreement will be a difficult and delicate process, and we must hope that it is not jeopardised by provocative tactics or inflammatory rhetoric, as we have seen in previous months. We hope that further progress will be made and that early in the new year the Chief Secretary will be able to return to the House and report that a fair and sustainable agreement has been reached, and that we will not see further industrial action. That is what the Opposition want to see, and it is what the country wants to see as well.
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that the hon. Lady was listening to anything that I said in my statement, because I have already answered almost all the points that she raised. She certainly seems to have forgotten that this is the season of good will. She said that the Opposition’s position was clear, but she did not say what it was. As she and her party have opposed most of the reforms, perhaps they should have the good grace to admit that they got it wrong. It is no doubt uncomfortable for the Labour party that many of its union paymasters have been willing to come to an agreement in the interests of their members—and, indeed, in the national interest.
Lord Hutton’s contribution was significant; indeed, he is the only Labour Member—or former Labour Member—who has made a contribution. It is worth telling the hon. Lady that he welcomes the deals that we have announced today. She asked a question about the agreement put in place by the previous Government, so let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about that cap and share deal:
“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”
That is why we could not rest with the position agreed with the previous Government.
The hon. Lady asked a few questions about the timetable. As I said in my statement, the timetable for reaching heads of agreement is finished. Negotiations on the heads of terms have finished, and as I said in my statement, those heads of terms are agreed by most unions in all schemes. That is a good result, which I hope she would welcome. The other schemes—for the judiciary, armed forces, police and so on—will be agreed in due course. For the firefighters the deadline is 20 January; for the police service the second round of the Winsor report, due at the end of January, will take forward that process.
I think that the hon. Lady still opposes the increase in member pension contributions, but I have to tell her that, as a consequence of today’s announcements, that is continuing. She asked a question about the relationship between accrual rates and revaluation factors. I listed the precise accrual rates and precise revaluation factors for each scheme in my statement; I do not propose to repeat them now, but they will certainly be available in Hansard later. As for older workers, one of the reasons why the trade unions favoured the relationship in question between accrual rates and revaluation is precisely that it works more strongly to the advantage of older workers. We will bring forward legislation, I hope in the next Session, that will include the changes that we want to make to ensure the 25-year guarantee.
The truth about this exchange, as with so many others, is that there are two parties on this side of the House acting in the national interest and one party on the other side that seems to find it increasingly hard to see even its own self-interest. While we on this side of the House are working together to build confidence in the future of the British economy, Labour Members are fighting with each other, as they lose confidence in their own leader. As a result of this statement, at least the hon. Lady can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he falls on his sword there will be a good pension available to him. All that the British people will see is a party that has not a shred of economic credibility left.