All 3 Debates between Derek Twigg and Rachel Reeves

Public Spending: Inheritance

Debate between Derek Twigg and Rachel Reeves
Monday 29th July 2024

(4 months, 3 weeks ago)

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

It was the previous Government who set the mandate for the pay review bodies. It is extraordinary that they did not include in that remit a measure of affordability, but they did not, which is why the pay review bodies made these recommendations. The previous Education Secretary could have rejected those recommendations, but she let them sit on her desk, because the previous Government were not willing to make tough decisions. We have made those decisions, including making sure that a third of the cost of these pay awards is absorbed, but there is a cost to inaction: last year, there was a £1.7 billion cost to the NHS alone because of industrial action.

Derek Twigg Portrait Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Under the previous Government, there was at least a £17 billion black hole in defence, and of course they had hollowed out the armed forces. However, it is a surprise to find out today that not enough money was set aside in reserve to fund all the military assistance needed for Ukraine. Would the Chancellor say a bit more about that?

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The problem that the previous Government got into was that every time they wanted to make a commitment, they said it would be paid for from the reserve. By the time I came into the Treasury on 5 July, that reserve had been spent three times over, because they put so many commitments into that reserve that they could not afford. That is the situation that we inherited, that is where the £22 billion black hole comes from, and that is why I am having to make difficult decisions today to get a grip on the public finances.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Derek Twigg and Rachel Reeves
Monday 29th October 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Twigg Portrait Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of my constituents contact me about the impact on pensioners of the wholesale changes that the Government are proposing and have made in respect of this notice period and the fact that people are having to change their plans. That has caused great distress and worry to many of my constituents. I am pleased that she is addressing the point, because the Government seem to be ignoring it.

Rachel Reeves Portrait Rachel Reeves
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We argued exactly the same point when the Government arbitrarily increased the state pension age for women in their late 50s with just six years’ notice given. When Lord Turner carried out the review of state pensions for the previous Government, he recommended a 15-year notice period be given, and the Pensions Policy Institute recommends a 10-year notice period. Such notice needs to be given and it is not enshrined in this Bill.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Derek Twigg and Rachel Reeves
Thursday 19th April 2012

(12 years, 8 months ago)

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

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 Portrait Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

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.