Jobs and Growth
Diane Abbott Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier
That question demonstrates the detachment of this Government and their Back Benchers from the reality of human lives. If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my argument, I will point out that there are real challenges for people. There is an alternative plan, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues have laid out, and I back it.
I have met young people who have already been made redundant in their early 20s and others who have done everything that the Government have asked of them, such as working hard at school. Our borough has seen huge improvements in schools and education, and its results are improving. Our young people are increasingly going to university, which was pie in the sky for many young people when I was first selected for my seat. And still, there are no jobs. We risk having a lost generation, although not like the lost generation that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) spoke about, because we made great strides in government, although there is still more to do on skills. We risk a lost generation of young people who have achieved a lot and still cannot get a job.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most alarming consequences of the Government’s economic policies for those of us in inner-city communities is how hard the cuts hit the public sector and women workers in the public sector? Particularly in inner-city London, disproportionate numbers of public sector workers are black and minority ethnic, and there are no private sector jobs for them to go into. Those people are often the head of their household and the only earner in their household. They are the sacrifices of this misconceived economic policy.
Meg Hillier
I could not put it better than my hon. Friend and I will not try. She is absolutely right.
Young people who have never worked are now desperately seeking even unpaid work experience. What have this Government done in response? They have cut the future jobs fund so that there is no more chance of employment and no more try-before-you-buy for employers. They have cut education maintenance allowance and increased student tuition fees. Just as young people in Hackney are emerging from school, ready and qualified for university, they are losing the help that they had.
The cuts programme is so deep and so fast that it gives no hope. It does exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said: it cuts the jobs that were providing for so many households in my constituency and keeping our local economy going.
Although the Chancellor is not in his seat, let me tell him about real people. Last week, I met a 16-year-old who said to me, “I really want a Saturday job because I want to grow from a boy into a man and this will help me.” He also told me that he wants and needs to contribute to his household’s increasingly squeezed income. He is losing the education maintenance allowance that he would have been entitled to and he is very worried.
There is the sixth-former who used her education maintenance allowance to top up the family’s electricity key on a Thursday so that she could keep the lights and heating on until the end of the week for the basics of study and existence. There is the teenager who attended school on alternate days because he and his brother had to share a pair of school trousers. Thanks to EMA, he is now at university, where he has escaped from his chaotic family background and is ready to succeed. I hope that there will be a job for him when he leaves.
There is the woman who is working to bring up her children and is using an expensive prepay meter key.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Diane Abbott Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
Have you read the clause?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. All that we are trying to do is give the Government a chance to reflect on a bad decision that has been made in haste, and to look at the impact that these measures will have on families. That is not a revolutionary approach. It seems quite reasonable to me. The Government will have ample opportunity to reflect on these matters, because the provisions will not be implemented until 2013. Were they to do so, I hope that that would provide the impetus for a wide-ranging debate on whether the coalition will push ahead with its policy on child benefit and child tax credits, and on what the implications of that will be for families, for the broader economy and for society.
Andrew Gwynne
It was not my intention to speak in the clause 35 stand part debate. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), however, I have decided that it is important for me to do so.
As has already been said, the clause introduces schedule 8, which introduces changes to the higher rate taxpayer relief for child care. That was first announced by the Government and, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, Labour does not oppose it, except for the important point—I bear in mind your earlier strictures on not extending the debate too widely, Mr Evans—that the measure has a wider impact on the Government’s child care policy and how it fits in with the Budget measures.
I have some sympathy with the notion of expanding child care places for two-year-olds. The previous Labour Government made greater provision for early years education, which has been incredibly beneficial to those children. I declare an interest in that all three of my children went through early years education under a Labour Government and, thanks to that Government’s investment, they are doing brilliantly at primary and secondary school.
Andrew Gwynne
I am happy to say that all three of my children went to St Anne’s primary school in Denton, where my wife, who is up for election tomorrow, is a chair of the governors. My eldest son goes to Audenshaw high school, which is also in my constituency, and all my children are getting a first-class education in those schools.
Let me return to clause 35, Mr Evans, for fear of being told off by your good self for straying too wide of the issue. The issue, for Labour Members, is this. We support the extra investment in child care for two-year-olds, especially in constituencies such as mine. Denton and Reddish is quite a deprived constituency, which covers five wards in the Tameside metropolitan borough—which is, I believe, the 52nd most deprived local authority in England—and the two Reddish wards in Stockport, which, although Stockport itself is a much more prosperous borough, are the two most deprived wards in the constituency. Investment in early years education has made a big difference to young people in constituencies such as Denton and Reddish. I would particularly welcome extra investment in nursery education in those deprived communities and, indeed, the Labour party proposed to provide it. I am pleased that the present Government are pressing ahead with a change that we proposed when we were in government.
Where we differ is in our approach to targeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington made a valid point about that. Although I understand the arguments for targeting as a way of ensuring that communities such as his and mine receive the benefit of extra early years provision, some constituents who are better off than the average in my constituency tell me—and it is difficult to argue against what they say—that they pay considerably higher taxes and pay into a welfare state system, and that they expect to get at least something in return. Those payments are their buy-in to the universal welfare system. I take on board your strictures, Mr Evans, but I also take on board the points made by my hon. Friend.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to have the opportunity to say why clause 35 should not stand part of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, the fundamental problem with the clause, which in principle at least the outgoing Labour Government were going to promote, is that in its new guise it fails the fairness test. As we go into election season tomorrow and tomorrow night, the fairness of what the Government are doing will be foremost in our electorate’s mind.
Clause 35 deals with higher rate taxpayer relief for child care. In Hackney, I represent one of the most deprived areas of the country but I do have some higher rate taxpayers. It being Hackney, my higher rate taxpayers are people of discernment and intelligence and they are Labour-voting higher rate taxpayers, but none the less my concern overall is for the most deprived in our community.
When clause 35 is stripped of any pretence of helping low-income families with child care, it is astonishing to see that this Government should so nakedly seek to attack many of their supporters. It is unthinking, chaotic and disorganised and it is not even politically coherent. When we put it in the context, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) sought to do, of the other changes in taxes and benefits that will affect middle England—the cuts in the amount that parents can claim for child care, the freezes to child benefit, the changes to the baby element of child tax credit, the freezing of the basic 30-hour element of working tax credit, the changes to the second income threshold for the family element of child tax credits or the withdrawal rates for tax credits—we see a frontal financial assault on middle England, the very people who the Government will look to for support not just in the local elections in 24 hours’ time but as they move forward.
Why are the Government seeking to attack middle England in such a way? Is it because we have a Cabinet of millionaires? Do they not understand what it is to struggle to make ends meet, even on a relatively middling salary in a relatively middling condition of life? Is it ignorance or uncaringness about how the majority of people live? Who knows: there can be no question but that as the totality of the changes to taxes and benefits as well as the job losses in the public sector come to the attention of middle England, it will be hard for those people to understand or believe that the Government have their interests at heart.
Another significant consideration about clause 35 and the suite of changes to child care, family tax and welfare issues is the effect they will have on women. One reason why issues such as tax relief on child care and particularly child benefit remain so emotive in public discourse is that they go back to the original child benefit which some Members might remember was paid to the mother, who had her own child benefit book. For many mothers, that was the only money of their own that they had—that was certainly the case in my family. Even though those payments are now paid through the tax system and to the family as a whole, these are still emotive issues in ordinary families who remember the old child benefit system and remember that the money went to mothers. The reason why it went to mothers was that it was always understood that child benefit was an effective benefit because mothers spent it on their children.
With a Cabinet of millionaires, the Government do not understand how middle England is struggling. They do not understand how people in middle England fear for the future even if, on paper, they have good salaries and good jobs. They do not understand the emotive content of issues such as child benefit and child tax credit to ordinary women in ordinary families. Ordinary women are looking at the totality of the changes that the Government are making and asking, “Do they really understand my life? Do they really understand what it is to pay bills at the end of the month or to juggle a job and child care and to support the rest of my family?” When one looks at clause 35, presented naked, without the commitment that we had to help lower-paid families with child care, the answer seems to be that, no, they do not understand. The Cabinet of millionaires does not know what it is to be in the middle and to feel as though you are just one wage packet away from a really difficult situation.
In the past decade, middle England has been encouraged to over-leverage itself and been facilitated in doing so, and people are now trying to down-leverage by paying off more of their credit cards and trying to bring down their burden of debt. The Government may say that the £1,000 that people will lose because of changes to this tax relief is only a small amount, but for someone who is juggling their salary to pay off debt, worrying about paying their children’s tuition fees as they go through university and also worrying about how to pay for the care of elderly family members, that money will make the difference between their sums adding up or not adding up at the end of the month.
The Government’s lack of understanding of the reality of life for many ordinary British people, even those who are, on paper, so much better off today, such as some of my constituents in Hackney, shines through in the clause and in the thoughtless and heedless way in which the Government have brought the measures forward. They have not sought to balance them with measures that might help the poorest, although that might have helped middle England to understand why the changes are being made. Currently, given the way in which the measures are being introduced, all that middle England can understand is that the Government do not understand what a struggle it is for middle-income families, and even some families in which the sole wage earner is a higher rate taxpayer, to make ends meet. Of course, similar proposals were originally brought forward by Labour, but in a very different context. Clause 35 has been brought forward in the context of a series of other measures that will also have an impact.
Mr Robinson
Not only were the Labour proposals brought forward in a different context, but the Labour Government were going to use the money to extend child care for two-year-olds in the least well-off families. Is not that the whole point? Is it not strange that the Government, who are so concerned about cost-effectiveness and getting the most out of every penny they spend, do not realise that all the studies show that the earlier an intervention is made the more effective it is? By not doing what the Labour Government wanted to do and extending that child care to two-year-olds, they are denying themselves the very basis on which they could have realised that principle.
Ms Abbott
That is an important intervention. This is a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Had they been willing to continue both halves of our policy—taking away tax relief for higher-income taxpayers and extending child care to two-year-olds for low-income families—in the long run, they would realise a cash benefit. I know from my own constituency that the earlier we can make an impact on people, the earlier we can give families support with properly funded child care, the sooner we can save the state money on education and a range of social issues. As I said, these are people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Clause 35 is the shell of something that the outgoing Labour Government introduced, but it lacks the counterbalancing measures that we were going to introduce. It reflects a Government who do not understand that families are struggling in the current climate, and who do not understand the significance of those tax and welfare arrangements for women. They will pay a price for that lack of understanding in the local elections tomorrow, as middle England looks on the Conservative-led coalition and says, not that this is the most family-friendly Government ever but that this is the most middle-income-family-hostile Conservative-led Government ever.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in this stand part debate. I, too, want to express concerns about the proposals on child care, particularly the intention to change taxation.
It is not the change to taxation in relation to child care with which I wish to take issue but the broader context of funding and provision for child care, and the lost opportunity that the clause represents. Opposition Members accept that in straitened financial circumstances it is appropriate to look at the taxation system and tax breaks for higher earners and better-off families, and that it may be appropriate to rebalance the tax take and those tax breaks. However, we believe very strongly that there are better ways to redistribute—a word that is perhaps more popular among Opposition Members than Government Members—that money for the benefit of families and children and, in relation to clause 35, to achieve adequate child care provision.
Ms Abbott
Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure to grasp the opportunity to redistribute income in favour of child care for some of our more poorly paid families is the more surprising, given that the Tory-led coalition allegedly believes in the big society? What more important anchor of the big society is there than high-quality child care?
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is right. She highlights another of the Government’s key strategic objectives, an objective that commands great support and interest across the House, but the Government fail to put in the infrastructure and the investment that would enable them to deliver such an objective. Again, that is a matter of regret.
Any parent will say that child care remains an enormous challenge for families, particularly in terms of helping parents to access the labour market, but much more broadly than that. We know that UK parents already pay the highest child care charges of any parents in the OECD. That is probably why in the OECD report just last week on progress on child poverty across the OECD nations, it was specifically identified—
Kate Green
I am grateful.
What is important about the legislation behind clause 35 is that it retained all parents, higher-income parents as well as lower-income parents, in a single integrated child care market. It ensured that all parents received some financial support that helped to create, expand and ensure the quality of that market.
When lots of families participate in a child care market, the market is sustained, secure and improved in terms of what it can offer to families, and that is important for raising the aspirations of families and children, a particularly important strand of the Government’s social mobility strategy. If we are to remove higher-income families from the ambit of the child care market, and Opposition Members all understand why the Government might choose to do so, it is very important indeed that we recognise the potentially deleterious effects on the quality of the child care market for those families who remain within it—those families whom we want to remain within it because of the improvements that it can secure for children’s outcomes. Importantly, therefore, when removing that tax advantage we must be very careful to ensure that we compensate for any damaging effects that its removal might have on the general landscape of child care provision, including its quality and its availability for other families who remain within its ambit.
This is very much a debate in the context of a Finance Bill. It is therefore a debate about what works most effectively for the economic strength of the country, and it is very much a debate about how best we come through the recovery and start to promote the return of the growth that we all hope to see. We have just begun to see it return hesitantly and slowly, but we now want to see it improve.
Ms Abbott
My hon. Friend touches on the fact that this is a debate about clause 35 of the Finance Bill, but it is also about how we as a society get through the current financial crisis. Does she agree that one way we will get through the current financial crisis is by something that clause 35 undermines: social cohesion and the principle of universality? To have the clause without the counter-balancing arrangements of child care for two-year-olds and the lower paid is to undermine the process of social cohesion, which is the only way we will get through the current financial crisis.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend leads us into really important territory: the issue of universal provision. If we are going to start to eat into that universal approach, for good reasons, we have to be very mindful of and careful about the consequences, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight the consequences for social cohesion, which is a key fundamental of good economic growth.
We are not going to do well as a national economy if we have to compensate all the time for a fractured society, a society of strains and tensions, in which the public pick up the cost all the time in order to remedy the damage that that causes. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right to point out that undermining the universal approach has potentially dangerous consequences for our economic performance down the line—[Interruption.] I sense that the Chairman fears that I am straying slightly—
Kate Green
I am grateful, Mr Evans. I was mindful of your earlier injunction not to stray into a discussion of what the money be spent on, and I do not intend to do that.
Kate Green
In a moment.
I should like to talk about what this provision will mean in terms of the number of children likely to access good-quality child care provision in future. The knock-on effect of clause 35 will be that not only the children of the families from whom this tax break has now been removed will be affected, but so too will the increased number of children who will fall out of the ambit of affordable, good-quality child care. I say that not only because of the importance of a universal market that tends to raise quality and aspirations but because starting to chip away at the money that is flowing into this market, which will inevitably happen, means that some parents who are currently able to afford to access the formal child care market will decide not to do so.
As money starts to be withdrawn from the market, provision generally will start to be reduced, and in turn other parents will find it more difficult to access it, whether or not they have financial support from other measures such as the child care element of the working tax credit to enable them to do so. Then we will be in a downward spiral. By removing funding at the top but not putting it back elsewhere, we start to shrink the child care market, and the more it shrinks the more it continues to shrink. The problem with this market, as we have seen again and again, is the insufficiency and unpredictability of provision, and those elements will be put under further pressure because there will be less money to sustain the market even at the current levels.
I am conscious that a couple of my hon. Friends wanted to intervene, and I do not want to deprive them of the opportunity to add their comments if they would still like to do so.
Ms Abbott
I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has said about the effect of clause 35 on the child care market, which is very germane to the discussion. We heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer many months ago that we were all in this together. What message does clause 35 send to people? It says to higher income tax payers that they are not in it with everybody else, and it says the same to the very poorest families with two-year-olds who will not get the improvement in child care that we would have promised them. That is a very divisive, non-communitarian message.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is right. We are beginning to say that child care is only for some children, not for all children. Yet we know that it is universal, mixed child care settings that produce the best outcomes for the most disadvantaged children. It is key to social mobility and to raising aspiration that children engage with other children in mixed child care and educational settings. The clause will make further inroads into that approach.
Ms Abbott
For the record, I am the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, not for Shoreditch, and I came this close to being leader of the Labour party. [Laughter.] Yes, this close! Perhaps the alternative vote system would have done it for me—who knows!
Of course we supported the proposal made by the outgoing Labour Government, but as we have said throughout this important and illuminating debate, we did so only in combination with the redistributive measures in relation to child care for two-year-olds.
Air Passenger Duty
Diane Abbott Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity to raise in the House of Commons the vital issue of the effect of air passenger duty changes on the Caribbean.
I want to begin by outlining what is intrinsically wrong with the changes—namely, the way in which the duty is calculated. No one in the Chamber is against environmental measures designed to bear down on excessive airline travel, and no one wants the British Treasury to lose money, but the way in which the duties have been calculated, and the way in which the zones have been worked out, are indefensible. The zones are calculated on the basis of where a capital city is. For instance, because the capital of the United States is Washington DC, one would pay less duty under this system to fly to Hawaii or Los Angeles than to fly to the Caribbean. How can that be right? How can it be cheaper to fly those vast distances than to fly to the Caribbean? These are issues of fairness, equity and transparency.
The flight tax to the Caribbean increased by 25% on 1 November 2009. In November 2010, the tax on flights from the UK to the Caribbean increased by a further 50% in all classes of travel. At present, passengers travelling to the Caribbean pay £75 per person in economy and £150 per person in all other classes. There is a substantial amount of traffic between Britain and the Caribbean, particularly at holiday times. As a member of the Jamaican diaspora, I sometimes find myself on those planes packed full of people who are happy to go home and see their relatives. Many of them have saved for two years or more for their flights. I put it to the Minister that £75 might not seem much to the Treasury, but when people are paying for a family of four, five or six, it amounts to a lot of money. People have often saved up for their flights for years, and that sum is a big consideration.
I am appealing not only to the Minister’s humanitarian instincts, however. I know from talking to Ministers of whatever party that I would do that in vain. I also want to talk about the effects of air passenger duty on British business and on the economies of the Caribbean.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Before she moves on to business, I would like to encourage her to talk more about the matter of equity, although she says that she would do so in vain. Many people from my constituency travel to destinations in the Caribbean, and many of them came to this country in the 1950s, ’60s or ’70s. They have often spent their careers working in the public sector on very low incomes, and many are now pensioners. For them, £75 is a very significant cost. They have siblings, perhaps aunties, and certainly nephews and nieces back on the Caribbean islands—not only Jamaica but many others. Does the hon. Lady agree, notwithstanding the excellent points that she has made about geography and is about to make about business, that there is a strong equity case for the Minister to review the question of air passenger duty?
Ms Abbott
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well indeed. Many of those people, particularly the older ones, have contributed to this country. Some of the generation who came to this country after the war helped to rebuild its public sector, and they have worked all their lives. As I have said, the sums of money involved might seem relatively minor to a Treasury official, but they represent a huge imposition on those people who love this country and who are almost invariably British citizens but who also have a great love for the country of their birth. One thing that makes this seem all the more unfair to those people is that air passenger duty is not charged on private aircraft. If this were really an environmental measure, one would expect it to be charged on private aircraft. I will come back to that point later.
It is my contention that air passenger duty is having a negative effect on British business. I have evidence that British business travellers are flying to the continent, then flying to the Caribbean from there, because it is cheaper to do so. Business travellers contribute £70 million to the British economy—money that is slowly being lost due to airport passenger duty charges. Aviation taxation is putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with our European neighbours. This duty will incentivise the strengthening of alternative hubs to the UK both in and outside Europe. In the end, it could well reduce the number and connection of destinations served by UK airports.
Let me move on to tourism. I have been in the House quite a few years and I have lived to see Caribbean countries urged to restructure their economies and to move away from old-fashioned economies, such as those based on bananas and sugar, into financial services, which ended badly. Then they were encouraged to restructure the economy and diversify into tourism. Thus the Caribbean tourism industry now employs, directly and indirectly, more than 1.9 million people—11% of the region’s work force. In important tourist destinations such as Jamaica and Barbados, as much as 25% of the work force are engaged in tourism, while 60% of St Lucia’s gross domestic product derives from tourism. For the Barbados hotel industry, a significant number of holidaymakers are British, and there is no question that the tourism industry in the Caribbean has been damaged by the increases in this duty.
Arrivals from the UK to the Caribbean are now in decline, while those from other markets are increasing. The latest figure from the UK Office for National Statistics shows that visits to the Caribbean by UK residents in 2010 were 16% lower than for the same period in 2009. Visits to Barbados for the same period were 22% lower. For a tourist, as opposed to someone with family links to the region, the Florida Keys is now a cheaper destination. In respect of our air passenger duty arrangements, the whole system is wrong and it is having an effect on British citizens who happen to have links with the Caribbean.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. I represent one of the constituencies with the biggest Caribbean diaspora populations in the country. It covers Brixton, for example, and this is a huge issue in my community. I endorse all my hon. Friend’s comments, but would add one more. If this measure were primarily about increasing sustainability and reducing emissions, one would have thought that the proceeds would be used for environmental purposes. My understanding is, however—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the sums raised from this duty go back into the general pot. Will the Minister also answer a specific point that was put to me? How can it be fair to charge a greater level of tax to fly to Jamaica—there are many Jamaican families in my constituency—than to fly the whole way to Hawaii? I would appreciate an answer on that.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point very well. He raised the question of the avowed environmental intent of the duty. I remember that when passenger duties were put forward under a Labour Government, Ministers said that they were there largely in order to help the environment and discourage unnecessary airline travel. This Government have stated that the rises in air passenger duty are partly intended to help achieve environmental goals.
Far be it for me to accuse any Government—whether it be my own or the present Government—of glossing over the reality, but the truth is that if APD were really about achieving environmental goals, it would be calculated differently. For instance, APD is calculated according to only one element of a given flight—the distance travelled, not according to whether the plane is full or half-empty. A whole range of other factors are relevant to environmental impacts, including the type and age of the aircraft, the time it spends in the air and how heavy it is, but the Government choose not to take those factors into account in calculating aviation tax rates.
As I have said, if this is really about the environment, why is no duty charged on private aircraft? The failure to establish a way of calculating the duty that would actually minimise the effect on the environment gives people the impression that, although Ministers may indeed believe in the environmental benefit, it may be no more than a pretext on the part of their officials.
If we want to persuade people to abandon planes for other forms of transport, it is surely logical for APD to bear more heavily on short-haul flights, to which there are genuine alternatives in the form of trains and boats. What, though, is the alternative for the retired nurse living in Hackney who wants to return to Jamaica every couple of years to see her friends and family? There is no such alternative, but we are imposing these big APD rates on her flight, or that of her family.
Having raised the issue under the last Government, I have taken the earliest possible opportunity to raise it again now.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I joined my hon. Friend in some of her representations to the last Government. My impression was always that Ministers found the issue too difficult to deal with, and that civil servants thought it a nice tidy way of arranging things to impose air passenger duty in accordance with the locations of the capitals of the countries to which people were travelling. However, would it not be possible to devise an equally simple APD system based on, for example, time zones? Surely a determined Minister who wished the duty to reflect the real distance involved would be able to corner his or her civil servants into achieving such an end.
Ms Abbott
My hon. Friend and I went on a number of delegations to Treasury Ministers, and found them—as Ministers always are—well-meaning, kindly and ostensibly understanding of our case. However, they were simply unable to stand up to their officials. We look to this new Treasury Minister for more stoutness of heart and firmness of purpose.
Mr Umunna
I think it important for us to send the public—our constituents—the message that this is not a party-political issue. I have obtained a very good House of Commons note on the subject, and I know that the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who is sitting behind the Minister, made a number of excellent points about it in the debate on the Finance Bill in, I think, 2009.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree that this is not a party-political issue, but one on which Members on both sides of the House feel strongly. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that Ministers should show some fixity of purpose. The present method of calculation is indefensible in terms of both equity and environmental impact, and it could have a big impact on British business by removing the incentive for business-class travellers to make long-haul flights to the Caribbean from London rather than from the continental hub. It is bad for business, it is bad for the Caribbean’s economy—of which tourism is a vital part during an international downturn—and it is bad for British citizens with business interests or family members in the region who simply want to be able to travel at an affordable price.
I have pursued this issue for some time, but I have every hope that a new set of Treasury Ministers will view the arguments afresh, and will undertake to reconsider the way in which air passenger duty is calculated. We appreciate that the Treasury’s tax take must remain the same, and, as I said at the outset, we appreciate that there is a genuine environmental case for seeking to lessen air travel over time. However, we consider the present level of air passenger duty to be unfair, indefensible, and a burden on the Caribbean which this Government should seek to lift.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate. She eloquently ran through some of her concerns about the way in which air passenger duty is currently structured. She is asking me, as a Minister, to defend the current structure, but it is difficult for me to take responsibility for the structure of APD, given that it was entirely put in place by the previous Government. I took on board the questions put by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) about the fairness of the structure, but he would be better placed asking his party leader and the now shadow Chancellor about the logic that the previous Government used in approaching these issues and how they thought about the issue of fairness with respect to Caribbean countries.
Ms Abbott
I am the last person to defend the previous Government mindlessly. I made it clear from the very beginning of my speech that I made this argument to the outgoing Government and was disappointed by their response. Nobody is asking the Minister to defend the current system, because we know that incoming Ministers have to deal with the hand that they are dealt. What I am asking her to do is to reconsider the current system—that is a different point.
Justine Greening
In that case, I have good news for the hon. Lady. She was doubtless paying close attention to the emergency Budget in June, when we said that we would look at reforming APD. We recognise some of the shortcomings in the existing system’s structure, and in the next few minutes, I am going to discuss some of the issues that she has raised.
First, it is important to say that the new coalition Government recognise the importance of the strong ties that exist between the UK and Caribbean countries. As a London Member, a large number of my constituents have strong family ties with the Caribbean and they spend a lot of time saving up to go there, travelling there and spending time there, as well as having relatives come over to see them in this country. So the hon. Lady makes an important point about these links. We must also not forget the Caribbean’s relationship within the Commonwealth, which is a further incredibly important link with our country.
When the hon. Lady wrote to me recently to raise her concerns about this issue, she rightly highlighted the context within which the coalition Government are operating. Clearly the fact that we have inherited a record budget deficit has meant that some of the tax rises announced by the previous Government, such as the increase in APD rates that came into effect last November, simply could not be avoided. She referred to the APD bandings, which are the aspect of APD that concerns the Caribbean countries most, and I need not remind her that they were the brainchild of the previous Administration, not this Government.
However, we need to look forward, which is why today’s debate is worth while and important. The hon. Lady was right also to point out the role that aviation and business plays. The coalition Government recognise that as we get the economy back on track and as the recovery in the world economy starts to gather pace, aviation can play an important part in delivering future growth for the UK economy. Without continuous improvements in air connectivity, we risk endangering future growth and prosperity in the UK. She talked about the importance, particularly for the Caribbean tourism industry, of the aviation connection with the United Kingdom. I shall discuss that in a little more detail shortly, but she will be aware that I met representatives from the Caribbean countries and the Caribbean Council here in London last year, once we started to ensure that we were talking to all the stakeholders who had an interest in the reform of APD. Of course, they were an important group that I needed to talk to face to face. We had a very helpful meeting and they set out their case effectively to me that afternoon.
The hon. Lady raised some particular concerns today and in the letter that she wrote to me, and I shall do my best to address them. First, she talked about the contrast between the duties paid on flights to the Caribbean and to other destinations, including the United States. It is true that the current four band structure of air passenger duty based on the distances between London and the capital cities of other destination countries—something that was brought in under the previous Government—has the effect of placing the Caribbean in a higher tax band than the United States. Such issues are common to any banded system. I do not particularly want to defend the existing structure of APD and how the previous Government changed the tax system, but it is difficult to have any banding system that solves all the problems raised. Whichever approach we take—she mentioned time zones—there are trade-offs between equity, simplicity and effectiveness. She is right to point out that the current banding system has some downsides, but it is also fair to be pragmatic about the fact that any banding system will have its downsides.
The second point, which is very fair, concerns APD as structured and the environment. I shall not try to defend the way that APD is structured in that regard, but the new coalition Government have been very clear that we have a strong sense of purpose about the environment. We want to be the greenest Government ever. We know that alongside other major sources of emissions, the aviation sector needs to start to take proper account of its global environmental impact in the future. It is also worth recognising that from 2012 aviation will be part of the EU emissions trading scheme. That is an important step forward in ensuring that the environmental impact of aviation is better taken into account as part of the overall fiscal environment.
The coalition Government’s approach to the environment will be guided by the evidence. We do not think that there is anything to be gained by empty rhetoric on the environment, so I am very clear that we need to take a fresh look at how best to deliver our environmental objectives in a way that is fair to passengers—the hon. Lady has talked about her concerns about passengers flying to and from the Caribbean—and to industry, which has perhaps never been more important than it is now. Also, we must not lose sight of the need for the UK to have economic growth while tackling the clear problems with emissions.
Ms Abbott
It is important that we as a country achieve our environmental goals, but our environmental goals should not necessarily conflict with other wider development goals, such as the millennium development goals. As regards the impact of the air passenger duty as constructed on a region that, although it is ostensibly a middle income region, has communities that are among the poorest in the world, I see no reason why environmental goals cannot be co-ordinated with broader development goals.
Justine Greening
In many respects, that is precisely what we are trying to do. We are trying to see where we can strike the balance. That is one reason why, at the emergency Budget, we talked about wanting to reform APD. The hon. Lady is setting out some of the challenges, and finding the right mix in an approach to APD that means that we try to square off some of the difficult issues at the same time will not be easy. Debates such as this, and the time that I am taking to meet the various stakeholders—not just the Caribbean countries and their interests, particularly in tourism, but the aviation industry, airports and business in general—
Comprehensive Spending Review
Diane Abbott Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am very pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate, as I believe that these economic issues will be the most important issues facing this Parliament. I want to talk in particular about the effects of the spending review on London and inner-city communities—the type of community that I have lived in all my life and sought to represent over the past two decades. I also want to talk specifically about the effects of the spending review on the private sector, as they are not sufficiently debated or understood, and on the public sector, and about the particular effects on housing and housing need in London, because I think the spending review and the mix of proposals on housing benefit and cutting expenditure on public sector housing will hit London harder than any other part of the country, with consequences that I do not think the Government have calculated.
It is not sufficiently understood that more than 1 million jobs in the private sector are directly dependent on public sector contracts with private sector organisations. That is the case in construction, for example, but there are also many jobs in social care and looking after young children that are basically delivered by private sector organisations. Also, when we make these cuts and people lose their jobs, demand will be taken out of the economy, so many retail and service companies in London will suffer. These cuts will have a ripple effect in the private sector in London. The Government and their supporters in the Lib Dem party may be laughing now, but they will be laughing on the other side of their faces when the effects on the private sector become clear.
The coalition Government talk about the public sector as if it is all about men in bowler hats who can easily be switched into meaningful jobs in sectors such as banking. In Hackney and the inner city generally the majority of public sector jobs are women’s jobs, however, and the majority of those women are heads of households, and far from doing peripheral or frippery jobs, they work in the heart of communities as teaching assistants or care assistants or in the voluntary sector, which will suffer because of the cuts in local government spending. These jobs are at the heart of communities. How hypocritical it is of the coalition Government to talk about the big society and then attack ordinary women working in the heart of their communities across a range of important occupations.
I have listened to what coalition Ministers have had to say, but having lived in and represented Hackney for more than 20 years, I can tell them that there are no private sector jobs for women in Hackney who will be made unemployed to step into. That is because of the structure of employment in Hackney and the inner city. Yes, we can count up the number of vacancies and the number of people who might be made unemployed, but there is a mismatch between the types of people that this coalition are going to fling into unemployment and the actual opportunities available to them, such as they are, in the City and the private sector in London generally.
We have to judge these matters on the basis not of political banter, to and fro and Punch and Judy, but of the effect on real people’s—real women’s—lives. The consequences for communities such as Hackney in the next financial year will be very serious indeed. The people in those communities will not have been impressed to see Ministers on the Treasury Bench laughing and congratulating themselves when the statement was read out. What were they congratulating themselves on—thousands of people losing their jobs and thousands more losing their homes?
That brings me on to housing. Members will be aware that since the 19th century one of the core activities of local government in London has been building housing—affordable, quality housing for rent. If hon. Members are not aware of that, I can take them to estates built in Hackney more than a century ago. Of course politicians then, even Tory politicians, recognised that decent housing was at the core of social stability and public health concerns. But what are we getting from this coalition? We are getting cuts in public sector housing expenditure, which, as I said, affect the traditional role of local government; cuts in people’s housing benefit after a year; and, above all, a cap in housing benefit.
I put it to the Government that the majority of people claiming housing benefit are not shiftless people, but working people and those looking after disabled people. These are not people who are simply unemployed. It has been argued that we have to cut housing benefit because, horror of horror, poor people are living alongside rich people in desirable areas of the city.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is reflecting on the inequities of the changes to housing benefit. Does she agree that the Government’s focus on the cap is a red herring, because it is relevant to very few housing benefit recipients, and that the really important thing is the 10% cut that will hit housing benefit recipients in the second year?
Ms Abbott
I quite agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I have a sentence or so more to say about the cap. We have been told by the Prime Minister of the horror of poor people living alongside rich people in boroughs such as Islington and Westminster. Let me tell the Government that I can take them to the heart of the Prime Minister’s Notting Hill and show them poor but entirely respectable West Indian couples living alongside merchant bankers who have bought their houses for millions of pounds. London has always been a city where rich and poor live side by side; it has never had the perfumed stockades of the upper east side of New York or the kind of social segregation seen in American cities. This type of cleansing of poor people from what are deemed to be areas that are too good for them to live in is quite unconscionable. As my hon. Friends have said, this is not just about the cap on housing benefit, although that will also have a serious effect on ordinary people in London and may well see the end of some Lib Dem MPs now sitting on the Benches opposite us; it is also about the cuts in housing benefit after a year.
What I say to the House is that we can sit here this afternoon scoring points and doing the Punch and Judy stuff, but real people in our constituencies, whose circumstances are not understood by those on the Treasury Bench, will suffer as a result of this ill-thought-out, ill-paced and wholly ideological spending review. The credit crunch and the deficit have been the occasion of this spending review, not the reason for it.