Debates between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Monday 3rd November 2014

(10 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

A point of order will come after questions. If it relates to these matters—[Interruption.] No, there is discretion. Exceptionally, I can take it after Question Time if it relates to these matters.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

It relates to the Secretary of State’s answer.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is fine: I can take it after this questions session, most certainly.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I indicated earlier, I will take the point of order because it relates to these matters.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State criticised me for not turning up to vote on an Opposition day motion last week. He knows nothing of why I was not able to attend last week. I kindly ask him to withdraw his criticism and apologise for the aspersion that I could not be bothered to turn up to vote in the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. We cannot have a protracted exchange on this one matter. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to add anything further, I am content that she should do so.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not in Rochester last week. I will give the Secretary of State one last opportunity to withdraw the aspersion and apologise. He knows nothing of the reason why I was not here last week, so I ask him to withdraw the aspersion and apologise.

Points of Order

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Tuesday 8th July 2014

(10 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code of conduct makes it clear that Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest possible opportunity.

On 11 June, I asked whether the Department for Work and Pensions’ business case for the implementation of universal credit had been approved by the Treasury. In her reply, the employment Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) said:

“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement (5 December 2013, Official Report, column 65WS)”—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]

When asked yesterday whether the Treasury had signed off the business case for universal credit, Sir Bob Kerslake told the Public Accounts Committee:

“I think we should not beat about the bush. It has not been signed off.”

This morning, in response to a parliamentary question asking whether the Treasury had signed off the business case, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:

“The Treasury have approved funding for the Universal Credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15.”——[Official Report, 7 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 124W.]

In other words, the straightforward answer to the question whether Has the Treasury approved the DWP’s business case for the implementation of universal credit is no. That is the reverse of what the employment Minister said.

Mr Speaker, will you explain to the House the process whereby a Minister can correct the record?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Every Member of the House is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in it. As she will be aware, and other Members will know, there is a procedure available to Ministers if they need to correct the record. It is open to them to do so by coming to the House and setting the record straight if they judge that appropriate. In so far as issues appertaining to the ministerial code are concerned, the House will be aware that I am not responsible for compliance with the code. That responsibility rests elsewhere. I think it is best to leave it there for now, and I am happy to see whether there is any development that causes the matter to be brought before the House again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Monday 24th February 2014

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Yes, we have put in a freedom of information request, because we did not think that the Secretary of State’s numbers were correct, and, as it turns out, they are not. The FOI request shows that with 194 out of 346 councils having responded so far, a staggering 21,500 people have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax, including 4,198 in Tory local authorities, so perhaps they have got their numbers wrong too. There are 275 in Tory Chester, 200 in Tory Peterborough, 234—

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. I am sorry, but the question is too long. I have got Back Benchers to accommodate, so I know that the final sentence, which will be a short one, is on its way.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Instead of trying stealthily to close the loophole, will the Secretary of State now do the right thing and scrap the cruel and hated bedroom tax?

Housing Benefit

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Tuesday 12th November 2013

(10 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

First, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government’s policy is retrospective whereas in the private sector it is not. Also, the discretionary housing payments are not nearly enough to cover this. In my constituency in Leeds—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked the question; perhaps she will listen to —[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. There is far too much noise—a complete cacophony of noise—on both sides of the Chamber, such that the Chair cannot even hear what is being said. I recognise the strength of feeling on both sides, but I appeal to Members, as I have said many times before, to have some regard for the way in which our proceedings are viewed by people outside this place, who would hope for some seemly conduct.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In Leeds, where I am a Member of Parliament, two thirds of the budget has been used with less than half the year gone, despite the fact that the council has topped up the discretionary housing payment pot to help as many people as possible, so that money is not nearly sufficient to help all those who are hit, particularly disabled people.

Income Tax

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Wednesday 28th November 2012

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen Portrait Andrew Bridgen
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will not the hon. Lady be honest with this House and this country? This was a Trojan horse of a tax brought in at the very fag end of the Labour Government as part of a scorched-earth policy that has been shown to have cost the Exchequer almost £7 billion already—something else that the previous Government messed up and that this Government have to put right.

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. In using the word “honest”, it should be taken as read that Members are always honest in the Chamber.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The increase in the top rate of tax from 40p to 50p was introduced to help to reduce the deficit because the last Labour Government thought that it was right that those with the broadest shoulders paid a little bit more towards achieving that. The fact that this Chancellor has reversed that and is reducing the top rate of tax shows that he thinks exactly the opposite—that his priorities are not with ordinary working people but with the richest 1%. [Interruption.]

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Thursday 28th June 2012

(12 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I start by thanking the Chancellor for advance notice of his statement, which was handed to me at 12.19 pm—two minutes before he delivered it. [Hon. Members: “Where’s Balls?”] As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor is addressing the Local Government Association’s annual conference in Birmingham, I am responding for the Opposition.

Nine months ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about “irresponsible, predatory capitalism”, of which this is one of the worst cases yet. The public had been assured that the banks had cleaned up their act. Ordinary borrowers and savers were told they could trust the banks again, but these unfolding revelations shine a new light on shocking practices in one of Britain’s most important banks. What should have been an impartial process of reporting independent interest rate statistics became an exercise in cooking the books, cheating the system and fixing the market.

Financial stability and the effective regulation of our banking and wider financial services industry are vital for stability, for consumers to save and for businesses to invest. Getting the balance of regulation right is an important task for the Government, especially when hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the industry and when all of us and small businesses in all our constituencies rely so much on the financial services sector.

There are three areas in which I have questions for the Chancellor, the first of which is dealing with the people who are responsible. Are those responsible in the banks being held—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. This is an extremely serious matter which warrants serious consideration. Let it be absolutely clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they want to shout out, they will not be called to ask a question on the statement. They should not shout, but if they think they are going to shout and then be called to ask a question, I am afraid they are rather deluded.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not agree more with you about the importance of this issue.

On dealing with those who are responsible, are those responsible in the banks being held accountable, or will this whole thing just return to business as usual? Are criminal investigations progressing, and which law authorities will be leading the conspiracy and fraud cases that might arise? Has the Chancellor reflected on the consequences for competition and has he considered involving the Office of Fair Trading, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police? We need to know who knew what and when, and criminal prosecutions should and must follow against anyone who might have broken the law.

Millions of home owners with variable rate mortgages, small businesses with floating loans and consumers who depend on affordable credit could have lost money because of what amounts to a price-fixing scandal. What support will be available for individuals and small businesses who have potentially lost out because of the market fixing and who contact the Financial Ombudsman Service or the bank directly? Is the FSA also investigating the role of the bank’s auditors in tracking and reporting the manipulation of the figures between the rate submitters and the traders involved? What is happening to ensure that other banks that have manipulated markets in a similar way are brought to justice?

Secondly, what is being done to prevent anything like this from happening again? We raised our concerns with Treasury Ministers about the regulation of LIBOR recently. On 6 March, during a debate on the Financial Services Bill about the set of unregulated financial activities that the Chancellor evidently felt should remain unregulated, the shadow Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked the Financial Secretary directly about the

“billions of pounds of trades that are subject to the LIBOR rating”––[Official Report, Financial Services Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 359.]—

and why that might need to be regulated. When asked whether he had a view—any view at all—about ending self-regulation, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had a one word answer: “No.”

The Chancellor made a conscious decision to exclude LIBOR from the Financial Services Bill in its current form, even when he must have known that a massive FSA investigation into precisely that matter was under way. The reputation of the City of London and our financial services sector is at stake. Instead of Ministers’ saying that the Treasury has no view, surely we need swift action to prevent the market abuse? Will the Chancellor urgently revisit his decision not to regulate LIBOR arrangements and instead amend the Financial Services Bill, which is still before Parliament?

Thirdly, a much wider issue is the culture in the City of London. As Bob Diamond said only last year, culture is about

“how people behave when no one is watching,”

but people in his organisation thought they could do anything they liked, just to make a fast buck. They thought they would never be held to account and that they were effectively above the law. We cannot allow Britain to become a place where the privileged and the powerful act according to their own set of moral standards. That is why we are calling for the strongest punishment for those who have broken trust and broken the law, tough regulation to prevent such practices in future and a culture change in our banking industry. We must get our economy working for the majority, not just a few at the top. The Government must act.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Monday 11th June 2012

(12 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for his answer, but regret the absence of both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to explain this series of U-turns.

This statement leaves a number of questions unanswered. On 16 April, the Exchequer Secretary told the House:

“The same approach should apply to mobile caravans as to static, non-residential caravans, and to a hot pie served in a fish and shop and one served in a bakery.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 130.]

On 12 April, in relation to the proposed cap on income tax relief for charitable donations, he said:

“The policy that we’ve announced is a sensible one.”

What new evidence has come to light since then and during the recess that has led the Government to change their mind? The reality is that the facts have not changed. This is a Government who do not like to be held to account for their mistakes. The Minister has tried to make a virtue out of the Government’s abandonment of policies that prove to be unpopular and unworkable by saying that they are listening. However, failing to do the necessary work on a policy before announcing it and then sneaking out a reversal when they hoped no one was looking is not consultation—it is total incompetence. Is it not the truth that this Government were so desperate for money-making measures that they took from whomever they thought they could, hoping to get away with it? The result: a total and utter shambles of a Budget.

The mistakes that are still in the Budget are, however, the worst ones of all: a tax cut for millionaires while asking millions to pay more, and no plan for the jobs and growth that we desperately need to get our economy back on track and our deficit down. As the Minister and his colleagues are making such a virtue of listening and of their readiness to change course and make the occasional U-turn, perhaps now they will listen—to the millions of pensioners hit by the granny tax; to the millions of families hit by cuts to their tax credits; to the 1 million young people out of work; to the businesses struggling to break even; and to everyone in this country suffering from the double-dip recession made in Downing street and crying out—[Interruption.]

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. The House needs to calm down, on both sides. I remind the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the narrow focus of the question covers changes to the announced policy. I know that she will concentrate on that narrow matter, as this is not a Second Reading debate on the Budget.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - -

Given the number of U-turns that the Government have made in the past two weeks, it is difficult to know where to start. Will they now change course on the biggest mistakes in the Budget—cutting tax credits for working families, the granny tax and cutting tax for millionaires while asking ordinary people to pay more? The country is crying out for the Government to change course and to get a grip on their policies, which dug us into this hole and this recession.

Points of Order

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Tuesday 24th January 2012

(12 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The International Monetary Fund has today revised its growth forecast for 2012 downwards, from 1.6% to 0.6%, and asked the Government to reconsider the pace of their deficit reduction plans. Have you had any indication that the Chancellor plans to come to the House to give the Government’s response?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have received no such indication, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will pursue these matters through the Order Paper and in other ways if she is dissatisfied with the position as it stands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and John Bercow
Monday 26th July 2010

(14 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We will take it as a rhetorical question.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

3. If he will take steps to ensure that no major Government policy announcements are made when the House is not sitting.