International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on securing this debate, ahead of tomorrow’s International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. I join him and others who will celebrate the gains that LGBTQI people in the UK have made since the decriminalisation of homosexuality over 50 years ago. It is a mark of how far we have come that this debate is taking place and that both major parties finally recognise the inherent justice of treating LGBTQI people as equals, at least in law if not quite yet in reality.
I am especially proud to have been a part of the Labour movement that recognised at its Bournemouth conference in 1986 that LGBT people needed particular protection after the oppression visited upon them by the odious section 28. That disgraceful and overtly discriminatory measure was put on the statute book by the Thatcher Government, egged on by the red-top tabloids in full cry. It effectively singled out LGBT people as a threat in our schools, treated them as though they were alien and delegitimised their very existence in law by referring to their relationships as “pretend”. It caused untold misery and suffering.
As the first openly out lesbian Minister in any UK Government, I was very proud indeed to have been part of a Labour Government who largely achieved equality in law for LGBT people during their 13 years in office. Indeed, the civil partnership legislation normalised LGBT relationships by granting legal protections equating to marriage. These were landmark social reforms, but their achievement was not inevitable. Positive change was not accomplished easily. Each reform was hard fought and resisted by the very forces that had given birth to section 28 in the first place.
Eliminating discrimination against LGBT people in UK law required heavy political lifting. It was undertaken out of conviction and it carried considerable political risk at the time, even if it seems in retrospect that it was all straightforward. I got fed up of seeing the Labour Government I was part of characterised in the tabloids as being obsessed with LGBT rights or seeing us being lampooned as being run by a “gay mafia”. Section 28 was not repealed easily, as those of us who were there will attest. It took three years to get it through the House of Lords, and the Conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep it. Equalising the age of consent was not achieved easily. We had to invoke the Parliament Act to get it on to the statute book after three attempts because the Lords simply would not vote for it. They also outdid themselves in the debates by comparing gay sex to bestiality.
Now we have a welcome agreement across political parties that LGBTQI people should not face legal discrimination, and I speak in this debate as just one LGBT MP in what has been called the “gayest Parliament in the world”. Who would have thought it? As we celebrate that progress, though, we have to remember that the forces of reaction have not been vanquished completely here and certainly not in the rest of the world, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said. IDAHO day calls on us to contemplate the work we still need to do to ensure that our LGBTQI sisters and brothers across the globe are able to achieve their own liberation from discrimination and bigotry.
That moment is a long way off, however, when we realise that 70 countries still criminalise same-sex relationships and that this involves the potential application of the death penalty in 11 of them. Stonewall’s international work shows that one quarter of the world’s population still believe that being LGBTQI should be a crime. LGBTQI people are losing their lives as a result of the bigotry and violence directed against them; it is estimated that there is a killing every two days.
So while we have seen the forces of progress advance in recent years, there is still much work to be done. We cannot and must not be complacent about what has been achieved, because we are in an era of backlash, and that should remind us that things can go backwards and that rights, once achieved, can be taken away. In 2019, the warning lights are flashing. The 2019 Rainbow Europe list shows that LGBTQI rights are even going backwards in Europe for the first time in 10 years. As the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, Turkey is failing to uphold fundamental civil rights, and Bulgaria has repealed a law allowing trans people to change their names and gender. Poland has made it harder for lesbians to access reproductive rights. Everywhere, the rise of the far right is threatening work to counter bigotry and discrimination against LGBTQI people and in some cases it is reversing gains already made.
The far right use the politics of hatred and resentment to foster blame against identified groups of people whom they can scapegoat for all society’s ills. They are organised globally and they often adopt similar tactics, wherever they appear. Call them right-wing populists, call them the alt-right; they are hostile to difference and they wish liberation movements, whether for LGBT people or women, to be crushed. They want us back in the closet and back in the kitchen. They also direct their ire at the black and ethnic minority communities, religious minorities and foreign nationals. I believe that there is a connection between all forms of prejudice and bigotry, and we are undoubtedly living in an era when discrimination is accelerating in its most reprehensible forms. It must be exposed and opposed.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
The hon. Lady is delivering a fantastic speech. Does she agree that social media, although a force for good, is also a key change that is unleashing horrific views around the world and helping to take us backward, when actually we should be using social media to help us to move forward and make the argument?
Ms Eagle
I could not agree more. I will refer to social media briefly later, but I think we need to contemplate far more when considering how to tackle the threat.
In the aftermath of the EU referendum in the UK, there was a spike in all sorts of hate crime. In the three months after the vote to leave, such crimes against LGBTQI people rose by a massive 147%. There is a sense that that type of bigotry has somehow now been normalised, and the LGBTQI community is suffering because of it. So are others—women, religious minorities, black and ethnic minorities, the disabled. We now have candidates standing in the EU elections across Europe who openly advocate removing civil rights from sections of the population or scapegoating immigrants; others are unapologetic about issuing on social media rape threats against serving politicians. Much of the anger and hostility is being spread by social media, as the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) pointed out.
We have much to do to counter those disturbing trends if we are to be able to celebrate our progress on future IDAHO days. We must not fail in that crucial task.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
Obviously, my hon. Friend has his ideas about how he would like to see motorists being taxed in relation to the environment. He will be aware that the way in which vehicle excise duty is structured encourages motorists to purchase and use cars with lower emissions.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On the day that diesel prices have hit a new high and inflation has jumped higher still, making the squeeze on living standards even worse, why do not the Government admit that they got it wrong on VAT and give struggling working people some much-needed support by reversing the Tory VAT rise on petrol, which would take 3p off the price of a litre? Just do it!
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady says, “Just do it!”, but she should know that that is simply not legally possible. She fully understands that. The reason that the Opposition are talking about that is that the fuel duty rises that are coming through were legislated for by Labour, so they are desperately looking for something to say about an issue that they themselves created. She knows that her policy on the VAT rise is illegal, totally unworkable and completely unfunded. Labour wants to take seven years to support motorists; we want to see what we can do to support them now.
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
Perhaps the hon. Lady will confirm and clarify her party’s position on—I think—fuel duty. I am not sure because on ITV’s “Daybreak” the shadow Chancellor said: “We’re saying today, as well as the duty thing, which I’ll think you’ll freeze”—I presume that he was not saying that explicitly to Christine Bleakley—“I think you should reverse the VAT rise.” Specifically on the “duty thing”, is the shadow Chancellor talking about freezing the 1p rise, the RIP rise—[Hon. Members: “RIP?”] Sorry, I mean the RPI plus one rise. Which is it? [Interruption.] I might have made a slip, but I was thinking about the Opposition and their policy.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we continue, may I appeal to Members, including Ministers and other Front Benchers who are intervening, to do that economically? I remind the House that the Chair’s responsibility is to seek to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. I put it to Front Benchers that Back Benchers will be not inconsiderably irritated if long speeches from the Front Bench stop them getting in.
Justine Greening
I shall not pre-empt next week’s Budget, but the hon. Gentleman knows that both parties in the coalition Government spoke in opposition about the effect of fuel duty on motorists. Conservatives spoke in opposition about how the oil price fed through into fuel prices at the pump, and Liberal Democrats talked about the impact of fuel prices on people living in remote rural areas. The coalition Government are now looking at how to tackle both those problems, but I cannot pre-empt the Budget.
Ms Angela Eagle
Will the Minister now admit that although before the election the Conservatives said they would reduce fuel by 10p a litre if petrol prices were high, they have actually increased fuel duty twice—once in October and once in January—since getting into power?
Justine Greening
Listening to the Opposition is stunning. The outgoing Chief Secretary’s message to the incoming Government was that there was no money left. Worse than that, the previous Government had pre-planned increases, which were due to come in now, as the hon. Lady just pointed out. The bottom line is that it is outrageous for the Labour party to cry crocodile tears about tax increases that it had planned—it is disingenuous in the extreme, and shows that it has no credibility and no leadership on the issues that matter to people, such as motoring, which we are debating today. The audacity of the motion is stunning.
Let me turn—as I was about to—to the Opposition’s proposal to cut VAT on fuel. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is hectoring from a sedentary position, and I think the reason is that he is worried that we are about to talk about his policy—a policy that unravelled within hours of his announcing it. He has come late to the debate on motoring. Obviously he spent many years being driven around in a Government car that the taxpayer paid for. I understand that it was reported in the papers that he used to use it for journeys of just 100 yards. Perhaps he was not aware at that point of how much it cost people to fill up their cars, but perhaps he knows now, and perhaps that is why he has suddenly realised that this is an issue, as we did in opposition. He has come to this debate late, but his policy-making suggestions are, to put it bluntly, illegal under EU law.
It is quite an achievement to make a proposal along those lines. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) , the shadow Chancellor is quite wrong to say that we can reverse the VAT rise on fuel, because doing so would be illegal under the EU VAT directive. However, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the UK operates under a different VAT directive, perhaps he would like to intervene on me right now. [Interruption.] I think we have established that there is only one EU VAT directive, and his proposal is illegal under that directive. The other big flaw in his argument—[Interruption.] Does he want to intervene?
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
Nevertheless, independence has to be perceived to be there too. No matter what individuals behind the scenes know, part of consistency and the whole point of such independence is that it is accepted across the political spectrum and in the country as a whole. If that is not the case, the organisation does not have the credibility that the reform creating it sought to establish. That is why I look to Robert Chote, who has moved out lock, stock and barrel from the Treasury, to begin to establish that reputation.
Justine Greening
It is only right that I should put on record the comments of Sir Alan Budd, in his report on the progress of the interim OBR, on the issues that the hon. Lady has raised—budget forecasts and interference. On the fact that some Treasury officials perform both roles of giving advice to the Chancellor and helping the OBR to produce the forecasts, he clearly said in paragraph 31:
“We do not believe that this involved any conflict of interest.”
In relation to how the OBR should operate and the issuing of forecasts, he said in paragraph 44:
“We are also able to state, without reservation, that there was no ministerial involvement in the forecasts at any stage.”
The hon. Lady uses Alan Budd as an example of someone who was somehow manipulated, but does she accept that his comments do not bear that out? Perhaps she would like to withdraw her comments.
Ms Eagle
This concerns those who allowed the bringing forward of estimates of job losses caused by the Government’s decisions on fiscal consolidation, which happened to be published just ahead of a Prime Minister’s Question Time at which that was to be a point at issue. Clearly, the relevant people should have realised the effect that that coincidence would have on the OBR’s reputation for independence when it had only just been set up.
On the Minister’s point about whether the OBR should use Treasury forecasters, Lars Calmfors, the chair of the Swedish fiscal policy council, has contrasted the arrangements in the Bill with those in Sweden. He said that it is very difficult when the OBR is working very closely with Treasury civil servants and other forecasters:
“one cannot have it both ways—the OBR cannot be both an independent watchdog and an in-house provider of input into the Treasury’s work.”
We shall certainly want to explore in greater depth in Committee that aspect of the arrangements for our OBR, which differs from the Swedish arrangements.
In addition to concerns about independence, we want to raise in Committee issues of the OBR’s accountability to Parliament. We wish to explore how independent the OBR will really be, given that close co-operation with the Treasury will be needed to access the information to generate the forecast in the first place. There is also the issue of its budget—I accept the comments that the Minister made about the transparent five-year budgeting process, but there are examples of similar bodies in other countries having had their budget cut as a result of displeasing the Government with whom they were working. The governance arrangements will need further scrutiny, as will issues of accountability, not just in relation to the Treasury Committee veto on appointments, but regarding the OBR’s accountability to Parliament.
Although the Bill is about who makes forecasts, the reality is that independent forecasting is no substitute for sound Budget judgements. The Government will not be judged on the accuracy of their forecasts, but they will be held to account for the consequences of the choices they have made in the circumstances they were confronted with and the forecast that the OBR had given them. Our dispute is with the Government’s plans and choices, not with the independence of their forecasting machinery.
When we left office, unemployment was falling, growth was forecast to be 2.3% this year, inflation was lower than it is now and was falling and, according to the OBR, borrowing had come in at £20 billion lower than had been forecast in 2009. When the previous Government delivered their last Budget in March 2010, UK growth was faster than in Germany, Italy and the eurozone as a whole, but the current Chancellor has chosen to prioritise rapid deficit reduction over any other policy goal and he has slammed the brakes on growth. Without an electoral mandate, the Government have chosen to launch a risky experiment with our economy and our prosperity.
Justine Greening
I completely disagree with much of what the hon. Lady says, not least given that her Government left unemployment 400,000 higher. She mentions electoral mandate, but surely she does not think that the previous Prime Minister had one, because he was never voted in as Prime Minister.
Ms Eagle
We do not have a presidential system: we have a prime ministerial system and the leader of the governing party tends to be asked by Her Majesty the Queen to form the Government. That is what has always happened, and if the Minister wishes to change that, perhaps we need to take an even wider look at our constitutional arrangements than that planned by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ms Eagle
Yes, but the Bank of England will also forecast for its own use growth and other aspects which it needs to assess in formulating monetary policy.
OBR forecasts predict that by the end of this Parliament, 110,000 more people will be on the dole under the Government’s plans, compared with our previous plans. Under Labour, the economy was forecast to grow by 2.6%, compared with only 2.1% under the current Government’s plans. The consumer prices index would have been at 1.6%, rather than 2.8%. So the OBR has decided that there would have been higher growth, more jobs and lower inflation under Labour.
Justine Greening
May I ask the hon. Lady a straightforward question? The Office for Budget Responsibility assesses that we have a greater than 50% likelihood of hitting our fiscal mandate, which is to eliminate the structural deficit by 2014-15 and achieve our broader fiscal mandate on debt ratio. Does she welcome that or not?
Ms Eagle
It is important to see what the forecasts are and what they mean at this stage of economic recovery. Of course I want to see the economy recover and grow, unemployment coming down and inflation being controlled. Unfortunately, that is not what the signs that we have been picking up since the Government’s decision to cut so deep and so fast tell us about the real economy. We will see as time goes on how the OBR adjusts its forecasts to take account of the monthly and quarterly statistics from the Office for National Statistics.
The shock GDP figures before Christmas strongly imply that the Chancellor will suffer the embarrassment of his growth forecasts being downgraded by the OBR in his self-proclaimed Budget for growth, which is due to be unveiled next month. We will wait and see.
We on the Labour Benches support a genuinely independent OBR but, as I said, we will explore in Committee the practical extent of that independence and suggest amendments to the Bill to shore it up a little more. We will need to explore the viability of the arrangements to produce, rather than comment on, the fiscal forecasts, as many other fiscal councils do. We will need to explore the extent of the OBR’s remit and whether the close co-operation with civil servants required to produce the forecast will lead to behind-the-scenes negotiations that will compromise at least the perception of independence.
Let us be under no illusion that the existence of the OBR, which we support in principle, can in any way protect us from the misjudgments of the present Chancellor or any other. The OBR must assume, as the Minister said, that the Government’s plans are a given. It cannot comment on the fiscal mandate or on wider fiscal policy in general. It is prevented from doing so. All it can do is calculate the probability of the Government being able to achieve their stated plans. The OBR therefore cannot protect the country from the mistakes that the Chancellor makes, or from the mistakes that he has made already. It is no panacea and it should not be regarded as one. Our dispute—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
No, it is not too late for members of the shadow Cabinet to get involved with this process. They had an opportunity last night, as you remember Mr Speaker, on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but they failed to take it. I think that that may be because they do not have the capacity or the courage to come up with their own suggestions.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm well-sourced reports that she has received Treasury advice to delay some of next year’s proposed spending cuts? How, if that is true, does it square with the harsh cuts rhetoric that we have heard from Treasury Ministers since the election? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that it is her decision, and that of the Front Benchers, to stick with the £23 billion of cuts that we know they are planning for next year?
Justine Greening
We are clear about what we need to do to sort out the last Labour Government’s terrible legacy—a Government, incidentally, who left unemployment higher than when they took office. We will stick to our economic plan, which, as we have heard, the IMF and the OECD think is the right one, and it is the plan that stands alone, because the Labour party simply has no alternative.
Finance Bill
Debate between Angela Eagle and Justine Greening(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Eagle
I certainly understand that anger, and I suspect that there will be even more anger if the Government do not address the unfair way in which the distribution of the pension tax relief has developed, especially since the simplification from A-day in 2006. We tried to address the problem by targeting the people at the very top who had benefited the most from the relief in particular.
We received representations from stakeholders who called for a simpler system, and it would be wrong of me to try to claim that the system for which we legislated was simple—it was clearly complex. However, when dealing with people on very high earnings who use complex financial arrangements, we often find that that complexity must be matched to ensure that a fair amount of tax is taken from them. In tax and benefit law, as the Economic Secretary will know—she probably struggles with this every day—there is always a trade-off between simplification and fairness, as well as yield. We took the view that despite the complexities of the system that we were introducing, it was right to target very high earners in particular. I state the distributional analysis again: the top 300,000 people receive 25% of £18.9 billion. No right-thinking person in this country with any kind of understanding of what the term “fairness” means would want us to tolerate that kind of distribution.
Simplification is always a popular cry, but there are trade-offs, and it causes different problems if we create a simpler system. We did consider other options, but the trade-offs are inescapable. We want to explore in debate today how the Government are working their way through the trade-offs, so that we can try to assess whether the solution that the Government have hinted at, but have not put before us, is fair, or whether its outcome is less fair than the outcome of the system that we decided on.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I can see that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are following a particular train of inquiry, and that is perfectly right—it is the purpose of this debate. I just draw her attention to the fact that the clause gives the Government the power to repeal the previous measures if we can find a better alternative. If we cannot, I assure her that we will leave what is in place. However, does she agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which described the measures that the previous Government proposed as unfair?
Ms Eagle
It is up to the entire electorate to decide what is fair or unfair. I have set out some of the reasons why we approached what is a difficult problem in the way that we did, but I certainly welcome the Minister’s comment that if the Government cannot find a different way of doing things, they will leave the current structure in place. I was wondering about the reference in the clause to December this year. I suspected that that might be what we would call a backstop position. It is important that the hon. Lady has put her point on the record. Taking what she says at face value, I assume that the Government will do some work in the next period. I do not know whether a measure will be in the Finance Bill, or how quickly that work will be done, but certainly there is not very much time for a completely new system to be brought in.
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is very kind. Given that she raises the issue, perhaps it would be helpful for the rest of the debate if I set matters out. On the timelines, she is right; we clearly need to make progress quickly. The aim is to publish draft clauses in the autumn, and to legislate in the Finance Bill 2011.
Ms Eagle
I certainly appreciate the information that the Minister has put before us, and it helps us to get on with the debate. I suppose it means that she and her officials will have time for at least a little bit of a holiday this August. Under our plans, the yield begins to come in during the next financial year. I was under the impression that she would have had to ensure that she legislated for an entirely new system in the September 2010 Finance Bill. She now tells us that potential measures for an alternative system will be forced into next year’s Finance Bill, which means that an extra £0.2 billion of revenue that was scored for the next financial year will have to be raised. I assume that she will take account of that.
Justine Greening
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess?
We have had a wide-ranging debate today and I will do my best to answer a number of the issues that Opposition Members have raised. However, it would perhaps be best for me first to set out the background to this debate, as the shadow Minister did. This issue was first looked at by the previous Government, and we have returned to it as a new Government. The coalition Government inherited from their predecessor the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe, with the single exception of Ireland. One pound in every four that we spend is borrowed. The gap stands at £149 billion for this financial year alone.
The previous Government had planned to raise extra revenue through the restriction of pensions relief for higher-rate earners. As we have heard, that approach was due to raise £4 billion to £5 billion a year by 2014-15. Given the appalling state of the public finances that we have been left as a new Government, it is something that we cannot ignore.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary set out our commitment to fairness. This is a progressive Budget that ensures that every part of society makes a contribution to deficit reduction, while protecting the most vulnerable, especially children in poverty and pensioners. The Budget has a number of measures to support pensioners, not least the triple lock guaranteeing an annual increase in the state pension in line with earnings, prices or a 2.5% increase, whichever is the higher.
Justine Greening
Let me make some progress.
That will benefit 11 million pensioners across the country. Through clause 6, which we will debate next, the Budget will enable individuals to make more flexible use of their pension savings.
Returning to clause 5, the Government have considered pension tax relief issues and believe that reform is a necessary part of their commitment to tackling the fiscal deficit. It is worth citing the views of Robert Chote, who heads up the Institute for Fiscal Studies, following the Budget. He spoke about this measure on 23 June:
“Perhaps the most welcome change was the decision to rethink the last Government’s complex, unfair and inefficient plans to limit pension contributions relief for high earners.”
That was what he thought about it.
Justine Greening
Many people on the minimum wage will not view it as progressive for someone who can afford to pay upwards of £100,000 a year into a pension fund to be given a 20% marginal rate tax break. In fact, that was not the only problem. Having listened to the concerns of the pensions industry and employers, this Government have real reservations about the approach towards pensions tax relief that was adopted in the Finance Act 2010. We believe it could have unwelcome consequences for pension saving, bring significant complexity into the tax system and damage UK business and competitiveness. The director general of the CBI said of the previous Government’s measure, brought forward in the Finance Act 2010:
“This will have serious consequences—it will make it much harder for UK business to attract and retain global talent… In every way, it’s a bad move.”
In addition, a number of features of the approach adopted in the Finance Act 2010 were unfair. For example, it included a very complicated income test, which made it difficult for individuals and advisers to understand. It also made it difficult for individuals to plan, as they would not know their final income until the end of the tax year so they would not know until then whether or by how much they would be affected. The income test also created many perverse incentives, avoidance opportunities and anomalies. For example, different charges could arise, depending on whether an individual or their employer made the pension contributions.
Under the approach in the Finance Act 2010, individuals on the highest incomes, who are able to put in very large pension contributions—upwards of £100,000 to £200,000 in one year—would have continued to get pensions tax relief, as they would still have been able to get relief at the basic rate rather than the higher rate. That is worth up to £51,000 a year. Given our concern for fairness, we believe—
Justine Greening
We are proposing a different approach, which would address that very measure. The decision for the hon. Gentleman to take tonight is on whether people who are able to pay £100,000 to £200,000 a year into their pension fund should be able to get tax relief at the basic rate. That is the question for him to answer.
Ms Angela Eagle
There are hints in the Red Book about the annual allowance taking the strain, so will the Minister tell us whether that is the only approach that is going to be looked at, or is she considering a range of different approaches? She is comparing a system that was legislated for and consulted on with a replacement about which the House has no real information. As I say, there is a hint in the Red Book, but nothing else. Will she help us focus on the comparison by doing us the courtesy of telling us what her Government are going to develop as an alternative?
Justine Greening
I was just about to come to that. One thing that we know right now about the existing plans is that if they came in from April 2011, they would curtail, but still give, basic rate tax relief to people who can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds into a pension every year. Our alternative approach looks principally at significantly reducing the annual allowance to curtail that effect. We think that the annual tax relief available will potentially be restricted to less than half that available under the previous Government’s plan, significantly curtailing the ability of the super-rich to benefit from pensions tax relief. That alternative approach is supported by the pensions industry, including the National Association of Pension Funds, as well as employers and their representatives, including the CBI. The Government are keen to continue to engage with the pensions industry, employers and other interested parties to specify the level of the annual allowance, and other relevant design features.
Let me leave no uncertainty about our fiscal objectives. The Government are clear that a reduced annual allowance approach would have to raise no less revenue than the existing plans to restrict pensions tax relief in order to enable us to meet our commitment to deficit reduction. That is why we are not repealing the existing regime at this point, while we are finding a better way of achieving our objectives.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked for more detail. Our provisional analysis suggests that the appropriate level for the annual allowance could be in the region of £30,000 to £45,000 in order to deliver the necessary yield to the Treasury. However, the level required would be influenced by a number of policy design features in the revised regime. Once those have been decided, we can repeal the measures in the previous Government’s Finance Act 2010. Clause 5 therefore gives the Treasury a power to make an order repealing section 23 and schedule 2 in that Act.
Those measures, which are known as the high income excess relief charge, restrict pensions tax relief to the basic rate for high-income individuals, with effect from 6 April 2011. Let us be clear, however, that they still give basic rate tax relief to high-income individuals. The Government want to consult on a new approach. We want to discuss how best to design an alternative approach to make sure that it can operate fairly and effectively. The power to repeal is time-limited, because we recognise the need to resolve the design of the restriction of pensions tax relief as quickly as possible. We have already begun discussions with groups, which will continue through the summer.
Amendment 60 proposes that we should publish a report outlining the new arrangements and details of the yield implications and distributional impacts. I have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendment, but it will ultimately be unnecessary, because there will clearly be a chance for people to look over the draft legislation, and we will not repeal the high income excess relief charge until details of the alternative regime have been finalised and set out in public.
Ms Angela Eagle
I thank the Minister for giving way on this important point. Will she undertake to provide a distributional analysis so that we can compare directly the effects of the system that she wants to repeal, with the system that the Government finally settle on if she can find an alternative? That is the essence of the amendment, so her answer to this question is quite important.
Justine Greening
A whole range of analyses and impact statements will come out with the legislation. I suspect that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) behind me is saying, any work that is done would give an answer that Opposition Members would not like, because it would show that we are no longer going to give basic rate tax relief to people who can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds into a pension pot every year.
Let me address some of the issues that have been raised. I have set out the time frame within which we want to progress towards a better alternative to the current system. We all agree that, for pensions tax relief to remain affordable, we have to limit high levels of tax-privileged pensions saving, but we think that there is a better way of doing it than the one set out by the previous Government. We believe it is important to reduce the annual allowance to prevent people from saving £255,000 a year tax free.
The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned instances of people suddenly being able to pay a large amount into a pension fund on a one-off basis. She was right to raise that matter, and we shall be looking at options for protecting basic rate taxpayers and supporting any hard cases caused by such one-off spikes in pension accruals. She also asked about the lifetime allowance being changed. We have not ruled that out, but it is obviously a key mechanism that sits alongside the annual allowance. We shall therefore have to look at it in the context of where we end up going with the annual allowance limit. I should say that all this is subject to being able to work with key stakeholders to get something that we believe we can rely on. That is why the provisions will give us the power to repeal that measure, if we can find a better way.
I particularly want to respond to the argument from Labour Members that our proposals would somehow give a tax break to the most well-off people in the country. Let us have a look at some of the figures involved. Of course, the minute I say that, I lose the relevant bit of paper. Ah, here it is. Under the terms of the Finance Act 2010, someone who is contributing £283,000 to their pension fund on an annual basis would have had a tax charge, net of pension relief, of £85,000. Someone making the same contribution to their pension pot under a potential annual allowance level of £35,000 would have a tax charge, net of relief, of £124,000. The reason for that is that they would get 20% tax relief on the income that they would otherwise have paid a much higher rate of tax on. That is why they would pay just under £40,000 a year more under our proposed scheme than they would have done under the previous Government’s arrangements.
I wonder whether those Labour MPs who are so concerned about the impact of tax policy on the better-off people in this country will go through the Lobby today and vote for a measure that means that people who can afford to pay £283,000 a year into their pension pot will pay £40,000 less tax than they would previously have done. I do not know what Labour Members think “good” looks like in relation to taxing better-off people, but I guess I will find out when we have a Division on this amendment shortly.
Justine Greening
I was asked for some figures and what the impact would be on the very richest. We can probably find in Hansard tomorrow that I have just provided the Committee with that information. That is probably the way in which debates are meant to work. Ministers have questions put to them and if they can answer them in some detail, they do. That is what I have done. I have set out in some detail why we are pursuing the clause. I hope that everyone realises that it is sensible and a pragmatic way to address the industry’s concerns. The industry faced a £1 billion bill for implementing excessively complicated and unfair tax changes on pensions tax relief. We hope that we can reach a conclusion with the industry and all stakeholders, but the key issue is to address the fiscal deficit, so any solution will have to bring in no less money than the mechanism intended by the previous Government.
Ms Angela Eagle
We have had a long discussion, so I will be brief. I appreciate the information, such as it was, that the Minister was able to put before us about the shape of the alternative scheme. It is a bit like shadow boxing when one tries to compare a scheme that has already been legislated for with one that has been only hinted at in the Red Book. That has been the problem with this debate.
I was candid about the issues and trade-offs that we had to go through to come up with the structure for which we legislated in the Finance Act 2010. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will be as candid as they try to develop this other method. She said that she was sympathetic, but she is still resisting the amendment to put a report before the House that will contain distributional analyses and much more information about this alternative system. That is a great pity. We shall divide the Committee on that amendment as the Minister has not given us an undertaking to provide that information. I also want a separate vote on clause 5.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justine Greening
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. This provision is a step forward. As he said, it might be a small one, but it is an important one that will open up a flexibility that many whom we want to encourage to start saving for a pension will value, which is why it is important that we take the time to make an early start on this matter.
I want to respond to a couple of the shadow Minister’s points, including the one about the consultation document not being published in good time. This clause allows us to engage in a consultation. It was not necessary to launch the consultation today, but as it was it was launched at 12.30 pm, and by the time we got to the clause it was 5 o’clock—several hours after the document became available—which has meant that we have had a more informed debate today.
Justine Greening
We are getting into the same sort of argument that we had in the previous debate, where if we had put the consultation document up and had not had a sentence on an earlier webpage saying that it was there, we would have been accused of hiding it away. I am afraid that we have to do one before the other, and clearly in this case we decided to put out the statement that the consultation was going up on the website, and then we put it there, which is where it has been since 12.30 pm.
Whatever the bluster from the Opposition Benches, it cannot mask the fact that we are taking a positive step forward on pensions today. We have launched what I think will be a landmark consultation. Clause 6 and schedule 3 will give us the time to get that consultation right over the summer and then bring forward legislation in the forthcoming Finance Bill to ensure that people have more flexibility in dealing with their pensions, because ultimately it is their money, which they have put aside for their retirement. We want them to be able to deal with the pot that they have built up in a way that suits them, rather than in a way that suits the country.
Interestingly, we had a brief discussion about the fact that 75 has been the statutory age for some time. It was first agreed in 1976, which is ironic, given the obviously parallels between Britain then and now, with the Labour Government then having to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund and going on to leave a desolated economy. We are ensuring that we have sustainable finances in our country over the coming years, so hopefully we will reach a different end point from that of that Labour Government.
I very much welcome the fact that the shadow Minister nevertheless supports the consultation going ahead, and I can assure her that we are going to get on with it. We believe that eight weeks is plenty of time to get a response, given that the issue is one that people have been pressing Governments past—and now present—to address. We are a new Government, so we are getting on with adopting a new and improved approach to annuities and pensions, as we can see from today’s debate. I therefore very much hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, so that the clause and the consultation can improve the legislation, creating more flexibility in pension law for the people who so badly need it.
Ms Eagle
I am not really that satisfied with the answers that the hon. Lady has given, as she will not be surprised to hear, after that brief reprise of the 1970s. My information is that the Finance Act 1921 introduced compulsory annuitisation and that the current age of 75 was introduced in 1956, which was a Conservative time, not a Labour time.
Regardless of the Minister’s point scoring, however, it is important that we take an appropriate amount of time to see how any changes to the annuitisation regime might work in practice. The Opposition have no objection to the idea of having a higher age. However, there is some scepticism about the practicality of having a minimum retirement income and how it might be worked out, although that is part of the consultation, which no doubt we will now all be struggling with over August. It is a shame that the information was not available in a more timely fashion, so that we could have done more preparation for this debate. Because the amendment seeks more information and because the Government seem to be rushing ahead so precipitously, we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.