Tax Credits

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Of course we need to make sure we are doing the right thing for people today and for the next generation, but that comes back to what I explained to the House: the position the SNP had at the general election—a responsible position of investing today and for tomorrow, a responsible position of dealing with the deficit but investing in the future of the country.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem in making today’s children suffer in the short term is that child poverty has enormous long-term consequences?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We must ensure that we deal effectively with child poverty in this country, but these measures will constrain that effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

At the heart of this debate lie two different views of how we should combat poverty. The first is that the state should do so exclusively through the welfare system, and the second is that the real way out of poverty is through hard work for proper, honest, decent wages.

I agree with Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said that the unintended consequence of tax credits has been to subsidise employers who do not pay their staff enough to live on. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree that employers and companies that do not pay their staff a decent wage and enough to live on are behaving in a deplorable and completely unfair way. I welcome the introduction of the living wage, which moves us towards a point where people can live on their wages.

As a corollary and consequence of the introduction of the national living wage, I think that productivity will increase as well, because employers who pay low wages have no incentive to invest in IT and machinery.

The proposal begins to move the balance away from a reliance on tax credits towards a reliance on fair wages. I understand the points that Members on both sides of the House have made about the effect of tax credit reductions on particular individuals, but while many of the analyses we have heard, including those by Unison and the IFS, take into account the national living wage and the tax threshold increase, they do not take into account extra childcare or the removal of the fuel duty escalator, which means it now costs £10 less every time we fill up the tank. Nor do they take into account the 1% reduction in social and council rents or the fact that wages are going up by 3% while inflation is zero.

The living wage will directly affect 3 million people and a further 3 million people on slightly higher wages will benefit from a ripple effect. In fact, 200 companies, including Morrisons and Lidl, have already adopted the national living wage.

Labour Members, particularly the shadow Chief Secretary, have completely failed to answer repeated questions about where the £4 billion would come from if not from this measure. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) did not suggest a single idea. The SNP has not taken up the challenge, but it could increase income tax.

[Dr Whiteford]

I tabled amendments in this House to devolve universal credit, which is exactly where tax credits sit, and they were rejected by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

[Chris Philp]

In a year or two the Scottish Government will assume powers to vary income tax and it will be entirely at their discretion to raise it to fund tax credits, so we will find out very shortly whether they really plan to use those powers.

I am conscious that time is short, so I shall conclude. The measures shift the engine of prosperity creation away from the state and towards work and pay. I welcome the proposals and will support them this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

rose—

[Jeremy Quin]

I apologise, but I have given way twice and other people want to speak.

Those pay increases are only part of the story. The ripple effect will continue as those who are on the national living wage see others coming on to it and the pay differentials kick in.

Tax Credits

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Let there be no mistake: this statutory instrument will mean drastic cuts in the incomes of families with parents in low-paid work. Across the UK, about 7.5 million children live in about 4 million families that are in receipt of tax credits, and the vast majority of those families are in work. The key impact of the measure will be to reduce the incomes of more than 3 million working families by an average of more than £1,000 a year. We have a very short time today to debate a statutory instrument that will, at a stroke, make dramatic cuts to the incomes and life chances of millions of our citizens, and it deserves a lot more scrutiny then we are giving it today.

The Government have tried to argue this afternoon that their changes to benefits and tax credits are part of a plan to encourage people into work, but this measure overwhelmingly affects people who are already in work. Far from providing incentives for parents to enter the workforce, it actively reduces work incentives and makes it harder than ever for parents in low-paid work to support their families.

This is a hugely regressive measure. Our poorest working families are set to lose a dramatic proportion of their income. If we pass the regulations today, tax credits will start to be withdrawn from any family earning more than £3,850 a year rather than from those earning more than £6,420 a year, as is currently the case. More than half a million families earning less than £6,420 a year will lose out disproportionately because of these cuts to work allowances. That is a massive reduction in the amount that families can earn before tax credits start be withdrawn. Combined with the lower level at which universal credit will be withdrawn it means that, for example, a single parent earning £6,410 a year—roughly 20 hours’ work a week on the minimum wage—will lose 48p in tax credits for every pound they earn above the new threshold, which will leave them about £1,200 worse off a year.

One hundred pounds a month probably does not sound like a lot to Conservative Members—[Interruption.] It might not be a lot to them, but for those on low incomes a drop in income of that magnitude will almost certainly mean very difficult choices about very basic things, such as the quality and quantity of the food they eat and how to heat their home. Many poorer families already struggle with heating costs in winter, especially in my part of the world, but it is not only people’s health that is affected by living in cold and damp conditions. This is also about whether children have an adequately heated place to study and do their homework and the long-term consequences if they do not.

I recognise that disadvantage takes many forms, and we have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about social mobility, but the harsh fact is that income poverty is the single biggest driver of long-term disparities in children’s outcomes. Children who grow up in income-poor households are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives. They attain fewer qualifications at school, end up in lower-paid jobs and die younger than their peer group.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that income-poor families have much poorer physical and mental health as well as educational attainment, but is that the case? The fact is that someone on benefits or welfare has poorer outcomes, so the route out is by gaining work and earning a decent wage.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady is making a ridiculous argument and once again trying to pretend that there are people on welfare and people in work whereas in reality—as illustrated by the tax credit system—many thousands and millions of working people are dependent on benefits because of low pay. That is the key issue in this debate. The Government are attacking low-paid workers, just as they have over the last Parliament, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society. The deep cuts to the incomes of the poorest families that the Government are trying to enact today will only exacerbate the inequalities we already have in our society and push opportunities even further out of the reach of those who already lag behind.

The most bizarre claim that has been made for the Government’s austerity measures is that they will encourage people to work harder. I think that we should reject the rather insidious implication that people in low-paid jobs somehow do not work as hard as people in better paid jobs, because that is simply not the case. We must remember that those low-paid jobs are often far more physically demanding, and many people who are set to see their incomes cut under this measure are already working very long hours in exhausting and often pretty unrewarding roles.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady also reject the glib answer from those on the Government Benches that low-paid workers can somehow just take more hours, because clearly those hours are not available?

[Dr Whiteford]

In various parts of the country unemployment is still unacceptably high. Whether someone can easily pick up extra hours depends on which part of the country they live in, which sector of the economy they work in and what caring commitments they might have, whether for children or other family members. It is not so straightforward when lots of parents are chasing part-time work between the hours of 9 am and 2.30 pm, when their children are at school. A lot of part-time work needs to be done outwith those hours, when parents have real difficulties accessing childcare.

The charity Gingerbread has today pointed out that some lone parents working full time on the minimum wage with one child will, by 2020, be no better off than non-working lone parents were in 2010. By 2020 many parents working full time will have fallen even further below the minimum income standard than they are at present, but essentially they will be no better off working full time than they would have been had they been out of work five years ago. Where is the work incentive in that? If we really want to incentivise work, we should be increasing work allowances, as my party proposed in the run-up to the general election, not cutting them. That would incentivise work and cut child poverty.

Once again, we have been told today that increases in the minimum wage will compensate for those losses, but the numbers simply do not stack up. Even if the Government proposed raising the minimum wage to the level of the current living wage, which is already £7.85 an hour—well above the Government’s proposed ceiling—the calculation of the living wage is based on not only the cost of living but the assumption that low-paid families are already receiving their full entitlement to tax credits at the current rate.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, trade unions and others have all pointed out that the proposed increases in the minimum wage, and indeed the increases in the personal tax allowance, will not make up for the loss of tax credits. The crucial point is that if we cut tax credits in the way the Government are proposing today, the minimum wage would have to rise substantially further, to around £11 an hour, just to keep incomes standing still in real terms.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of the proposed changes on the housing benefit bill, particularly in the private rented sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, because the cumulative impact of a range of benefit measures is hitting the same people again and again. She makes a valid point, and one that I hope to come to in just a moment.

The bottom line is set out clearly in the OBR’s estimates, which indicate that the higher minimum wage is likely to increase earnings by around £4 billion in total by 2020, compared with social security cuts of £12 billion in the same period, a large portion of which will come out of tax credits. The figures just do not add up. No matter how they repackage their minimum wage and tax changes, the Government are giving a little with one hand but taking a whole lot more with the other.

At the same time as the Government are slashing the incomes of the lowest paid families, the wealthiest families are set to benefit from huge inheritance tax breaks on properties worth over £1 million. For me, that exposes their perverse priorities on families. It is not so much robbing Peter to pay Paul as robbing Peter to pay Rupert and Sebastian.

My colleagues and I were elected on a commitment to fight the austerity agenda being recklessly pursued by this Tory Government. Almost half of all families in Scotland will lose out as a result of these measures, pushing into reverse much of the progress we have made in recent years to reduce child poverty. Around 346,000 children in Scotland will be impacted by these cuts, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 100,000 more children in Scotland will be living in poverty by 2020 as a direct result of the UK Government’s changes to tax and benefits.

The Scottish Government are attempting to mitigate the worst excesses of austerity, providing over £300 million between last year and next, but we need to remember that the people affected by cuts to tax credits are in many cases the same people already disproportionately affected by the freeze in child benefit, the freeze in housing benefit, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) noted, pay freezes and other austerity measures. Once again, other public services and the voluntary sector will be picking up the pieces from the collateral damage of the UK Government’s ideological crusade.

Finally, I want to address the removal of child tax credits for a third or subsequent child. This is just a further blow to poor families already struggling. This measure, along with the introduction of the two-child policy in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will push more families with children into poverty, pushing them further behind in health and education, potentially for the rest of their lives. Only about one in six of the families receiving tax credits in Scotland has more than two children. Larger families are a rarity nowadays. By contrast, the majority—more than half the poorest families in Scotland—have only one child. In Scotland, it is in the more affluent areas that people tend to have more children, but across every income group our birth rate is unsustainably low. We need to be supporting family life and encouraging people to have more children if we are to dodge the demographic problems coming up on the inside lane. We should not be putting barriers in the way of those prepared to contribute to our society by doing the essential job of raising the next generation.

This Government have got it very badly wrong. Cutting the incomes of working families will only make it harder to tackle the embedded inequalities that already blight the life chances of too many children. Work should be a route out of poverty for families, but here in the UK it really is not. This statutory instrument pushes that aspiration even further out of reach. That is why my colleagues and I will oppose it and continue to press for the power to make these decisions in Scotland, for Scotland, in the interests of our people and in line with our commitment to building a fairer society.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has searing ambition, and I am sure that when she achieves her full ambition she will want to reform welfare and ensure that people make the most of themselves. Tax credits are a massive barrier—that is a fact even if no Labour Member will recognise it—and we are spending £30 billion a year to put a ceiling on the aspiration and ambition of British working families. My hon. Friends and I believe in a safety net, but I do not believe in a ceiling. We should not put ceilings on ambition and hold people back from making the most of their natural talents and abilities. We should empower them to make the most of their skills.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman thinks people are getting a king’s ransom in tax credits. The reality is that the Government are taking people on low pay that simply will not keep a person and their family and bringing them just to the breadline. They are not exactly incentivising them to stay in poverty. That is the crucial flaw in his argument.

[James Cartlidge]

Of course it is not a king’s ransom. That is the point. We are trapping people on benefits.

At the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere. Someone else has to earn the wages to pay for the tax credits of the people who receive them. If we reduce them, people will have to be more productive, will have to work harder and will take alternative employment to make that up. That is what happens in the real world. I am proud to be in a party that is ready to take the tough decisions to deal with the fundamental problems we face.

We must look at a solution to the problem the hon. Lady describes. Clearly, we cannot just cut the whole system overnight, but it is worth reflecting that, according to the House of Commons Library, if we spent the £30 billion we spend on tax credits on education, we would have the best-funded education system in the European Union and the fifth best-funded system in the entire world.

There are choices—to govern is to choose—and there is an opportunity cost to spending. My view is that we should reduce tax credits, increase the minimum wage over a long period towards the living wage and reduce employer’s national insurance with the savings we make so that employers can cope with the increase. That is a one nation policy. It is radical and tough. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench: be brave, be bold and reform tax credits, because they will be helping working people who are being held back by that massive dependency culture.

Offshore Wind Developments

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time this morning to debate offshore renewables.

Like other hon. Members, I have a strong constituency interest in the development of offshore wind energy, in that one of the projects bidding for support in the first allocation round of contract for difference is based in the Moray firth, off the northern coast of Banffshire. Several of the ports along the Moray firth could benefit from the development of offshore renewables, with significant potential spin-offs for a wider supply chain bringing much-needed economic development to the area. I am sure other coastal communities also have the potential to benefit from such economic diversification, which is key to the future prosperity of such communities. In the north-east, there is also an understanding that the skills utilised in the offshore oil and gas sector are eminently transferrable to the offshore renewables industry, as well as a sense that we should grasp the opportunities to develop new and innovative technologies on our doorstep by building on our existing strengths.

Today’s debate takes place in the context of energy market reform. We should always remember that that is not only about keeping the lights on, bringing consumer prices under control and repairing a broken system, but about climate change and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate, or adapt to, the effects of climate change that are already manifest.

I read recently that 2014 was the hottest year on record. We do not always notice that in Banff and Buchan, which is pretty cold, but we undoubtedly see the impact of a slightly warmer, slightly wetter climate and the effect of changing sea temperatures on our marine environment, with coastal erosion and increased landslips. And who could fail to notice the problems associated with increased flooding right across the UK? If we abdicate our responsibility to reduce emissions or pretend we can ignore climate change indefinitely—or at least for another decade or two—we are burying our heads in the sand. Environmental campaigners are fond of pointing out that the climate does not negotiate, and they are not wrong.

That is primarily why we need cleaner energy. However, we are also in the fortunate position of being able to take economic advantage of the opportunities renewable energy presents. Being in the vanguard of new technologies has the potentia1 to strengthen our manufacturing, our exports and our research base.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady’s argument is surely an argument in favour of investing in adaptations to ensure that the impact of climate change is not felt so severely—for example, on the coast. If we have coastal defences, we can defend ourselves better against the consequences of climate change.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman’s views on these issues are well articulated and well known, but we have to be a lot more ambitious. I do not want be shoring up our coastline—I would rather be preventing it from falling down in the first place. One way we can do that, and gain economic advantage, is by developing new, innovative technologies, which will have tremendous commercial potential if we develop them properly.

In that light, I am deeply disappointed that no decarbonisation target has been set for 2030. That is a real missed opportunity, and it undermines confidence in the Government’s commitment to the offshore renewables sector. The Government initially seemed much more ambitious about the development of offshore wind, and that raised a lot of expectations, leading to considerable investment from industry. Companies were actively encouraged to make bids for offshore developments, and they have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in bringing projects to consent.

However, the smoke signals from the Government have changed, and the goalposts have shifted somewhat since Ministers embarked on this journey. The budget announced last October for contract for difference bids was substantially lower than expected. The £235 million allocated for group 2 will support an estimated 700 to 800 MW of offshore wind capacity, which is a lot less even than some of the individual projects aim to generate.

I am not questioning the principle of a competitive element to the process, but the money available will, realistically, support only one—and possibly only part of one—of the seven projects in the frame. Given that companies will each have invested tens of millions of pounds just to get to this stage, the support on offer simply does not present sufficient incentives or prospects of success to encourage further development in the sector. I fear that the prospect of offshore wind on the Scottish coast is in real danger of withering on the vine.

It is important to point out that, under contract for difference, offshore projects will compete against not just each other, but other renewables projects, including more evolved technologies, such as onshore wind on the islands, which are now much cheaper and lower risk. Again, that is likely to jeopardise the development of a strong domestic renewables sector and supply chain.

I am concerned that the shifting goalposts, the mixed signals and the interminable delays that have characterised energy market reform are doing the UK considerable reputational damage in international markets, which will deter future investment. Those who feel they may have been led up the garden path this time will be reluctant to venture into our orbit again, which is not where we need to be in attracting investment. The Government need to send a signal that they remain committed to the offshore wind sector—if they are—and to let the sector know that there will be future allocations under contract for difference to make further investment viable.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because I am conscious of the time, and I want to make a couple of points before I conclude.

I well recall how the Government made the same short-sighted mistakes in the 1980s, when early, first-generation renewable energy technologies being developed in Scottish universities were starved of funding. That simply meant that the research moved to Europe and beyond and that other countries created the manufacturing jobs that could and should have benefited our economy.

There is a grave danger that if we pull the rug out from under the fledgling UK industry before it has had a chance to establish itself, the chance we have will pass us by. Others will harness the technology and steal a march on us. We need not to be content with what we have, but to realise that there is more wind to be harnessed if we go out into deeper waters. However, that takes investment, and it means risk, and we need to take that seriously.

I represent an area that still has a lot of manufacturing, and we are keen to benefit from what is happening. That would have long-term benefits in terms of creating a stronger, more stable and more resilient economy.

There has been some mention of the Government’s direction of travel—the enthusiasm for fracking and the rush towards new nuclear. Others have spoken about the costs at Hinkley Point, but it is worth pointing out that EU experts have said that those costs are actually much higher—about £25 billion. Professor Peter Strachan of Robert Gordon university points out:

“The deal involves paying twice the current price for electricity, with UK taxpayers and electricity consumers locked into a binding contract for an extraordinary 35 years.”

If we also consider the massive decommissioning costs involved, those figures put into context the £235 million available for offshore wind through contract for difference in the current round. Offshore wind developers seem to be scrabbling around for the crumbs.

If it is possible to make a 35-year commitment to support the nuclear industry, it seems short-sighted to have the offshore renewables sector lurching from year to year and round to round. Obviously, we are not comparing like with like, but we simply will not have a renewables sector if we do not give it more certainty and security to develop these ambitious technologies. I would like the Minister to use this opportunity to indicate the Government’s ongoing commitment to the sector.

Renewable energy is an important part of our energy mix, but we need to think long term if we are to realise its full potential. The cost of new technologies is likely to reduce over time. Contract for difference helps to encourage that investment, but we will achieve the added benefits only if we remain in the vanguard. The point has been made already, but it is worth saying again that a native renewables industry is critical to our long-term energy security.

Several Members have said that we lead on offshore renewables. If we want to stay in the lead, we need to harness the stronger winds further offshore. Let us not abandon our initial ambition, and let us ensure that we give our offshore wind energy sector the kick-start it needs to achieve real economic benefits for us.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Well, that was certainly the outcome in many cases; that was what happened to the pension scheme members. Certainly, it was clear that part of the agreement that Lufthansa reached with the companies taking over the former BMI operation was that effectively the pension scheme responsibility would not go with the airline, which is very concerning and, as I have said, has much wider implications beyond the BMI pension scheme, although I am obviously concentrating on that today.

The arrangement by Lufthansa to top up members’ benefits outside the PPF seems, on the face of it, relatively generous. However, hundreds of staff in the BMI pension scheme will lose substantial sums in pension money, and I understand from the British Air Line Pilots Association that there are now some people in the Monarch Airlines pension fund who are in similar circumstances. Hundreds will lose out. At least 30 of the BMI pensioners and 13 Monarch members will lose more than 50% of their expected scheme pension, and that is taking account of the top-up payments from Lufthansa. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has decided that although those top-up payments do not in any sense compensate for the full loss of pension entitlement, they must be taxed. That decision is wrong, and addressing it is the purpose of raising this issue today.

The tax treatment is, of course, intimately bound up with issues about the PPF, which is a wider problem that the Government also need to address. I will try to tackle both the immediate and the broader issue, in so far as I can in the time available this morning.

The Government response to the concerns that have been raised by a number of members of the BMI pension fund scheme has so far been, in general terms, one of sympathy. They are basically saying, “'Well, the tax rules are the tax rules and they must be applied, and that’s really all there is to it.” However, that is not in any sense a satisfactory response—not in the slightest. Ultimately, the tax rules are what Parliament—we as MPs, and our colleagues in the Lords—decide them to be, and the Government have frequently taken action to deal with other situations where the application of the tax law has seemed unfair or inequitable in its outcome.

For example, a couple of years ago the Government decided to impose VAT on building alterations to listed buildings. However, because that change would have hit churches and other places of worship particularly hard, the Government set up a special scheme to allow grants to be paid to those bodies to pay for the costs of extra VAT. When the Government want to find a way round the rules, they can do so.

On another pensions issue, a very relevant comparison can be made with the case of Equitable Life. In that case, although it appeared that the Government had no legal obligation to pay those people whose pensions had been hit by the Equitable Life fiasco, as a result of political pressure they of course set up a fund to pay out compensation—I think it is £1.5 billion in total—to Equitable Life policyholders, which Members across the House had called for. Of course, the payments to the Equitable Life pension holders will be tax-free, because the Government passed a law to say that that would be the case. Yet the Government are trying to distinguish between the logic behind the Equitable Life scheme decision, and that behind the BMI pension fund scheme decision.

In that context, I will quote a previous Minister, who told the House, or perhaps wrote in a letter—I am not entirely certain—that:

“Following an Independent Commission report, The Equitable Life Act”—

That is, the Equitable Life Pensions Act 2010—

“came into effect in December 2010 authorising the Government to make payments to the Equitable Life Payments Scheme. The Act provides that payments under the ELPS are tax free.”

He said, or implied, that there was a contrast with the BMI case, by going on to say:

“The £84 million payment made by Lufthansa is a voluntary payment intended to compensate BMI Pension Scheme members for the reduction in pension benefits they may face due to the BMI Pension Scheme entering the Pension Protection Fund. Where the payment is made into a registered pension scheme, it is subject to the registered pensions scheme tax legislation. As such, the payments will benefit from receiving tax relief when it is made, but that relief is subject to the normal limits within the annual and lifetime allowances. The ELPS payment and the payment made by Lufthansa are therefore fundamentally different and cannot be compared in this way.”

As I have pointed out, the two cases are “fundamentally different” because the Government passed legislation to make them fundamentally different, and not because they are, in essence, fundamentally different. These are both cases in which people lost out because of circumstances beyond their control, and we have a moral duty as Parliament and as Government to respect that in the case of the BMI pension fund holders as well as in the case of the Equitable Life pension fund holders, and indeed in other cases.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and I also apologise to him, because I will not be able to stay for the duration. He is making a really important point about the Lufthansa deal. I share his concern about the individuals affected, but does he agree that there are implications beyond this individual deal for staff of other companies that might seek to do copycat deals?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. I have made that point already and I will touch on it briefly again. Certainly, this raises much wider issues.

Just as the payments quite rightly made to the Equitable Life pension scheme members were compensation—they were not a direct benefit arising from the scheme—similarly, the BMI pension fund members have lost out through no fault of their own, and I believe they require better treatment. The Equitable Life experience shows that where the Government decide that they want, for political reasons, to compensate those who have suffered adversely through circumstances beyond their control, they can find a way to do so. I believe that they should do so for the BMI pension scheme members.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The Financial Conduct Authority has already made it clear that if, for example, anyone attempts to present themselves as providing guidance under the guidance guarantee when they are not in a position to do so, that will be looked at very seriously. There is a strong determination to ensure that the dishonest, the unscrupulous and those seeking to mislead people are treated very seriously indeed. We are talking, after all, about a regulated sector, and those who try to conduct regulated activities who are not properly regulated already face offences. I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about whether we are determined to address those who try to defraud our constituents. Yes, we are absolutely determined to address that, and the FCA is very engaged in that process.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I, too, would like to press the Minister on the issue of consumer protection. At the moment, if someone gets bad advice from a financial adviser, they have a degree of protection through the FCA. If people receive advice from those who are not professionals in financial matters—the Minister has conceded that these are complex matters—what comeback will they have?

[Mr Gauke]

As I say, the FCA is very engaged in this area and has already set out its determination to ensure that those seeking to mislead face punishment. The FCA has responsibility for ensuring that regulated firms treat their customers fairly and communicate in a way that is clear and not misleading. We believe that it has considerable powers here. Of course, the Pension Schemes Bill is also important in ensuring that the FCA puts in place standards for the guidance guarantee—standards that anyone delivering that service must comply with.

Finance Bill

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Before the Minister fully leaves the point about how people might spend the lump sums, one concern that I have had is that people might be tempted to invest in property, for example, which could have the unintended consequence of boosting an already overheating housing market for the next generation. That is still prudent spending from those people’s point of view, but there could be unintended consequences for everyone else. I wonder to what extent that consideration featured in the Government’s thinking.

[Mr Gauke]

There are two points to make. First, we believe that individuals should be able to make their own choices. Of course, they should be provided with guidance, but essentially a system that relies on the state telling people precisely what their investment portfolio, as it were, should be is too restrictive, and does not perform the role that we should be performing. As for the systemic effect on the housing market, which was, I think, the hon. Lady’s central point, I do not think that our changes will have any such effect. Both the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it clear that we need to ensure that we do not return to the bad old days and to the unsustainable housing market boom we saw some years ago. There are measures in place to reflect that, and we have the institutions in place to ensure that if there are problems they can be addressed quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

The annuities market was not working effectively in a number of ways, but, in relation to the lump sum, it did not work for a lot of our constituents if they rationally expected a very low life expectancy. If they had been diagnosed with a particular illness, the question of what would happen to their money would cause them great stress. It is important, therefore, to enable them to release some of that pension money and put it into another instrument so that their family can share it or, indeed, so that they can enjoy it themselves in their final years. I understand there is a risk of people under-predicting their longevity, but the large number of people with a diagnosed illness would like to access that pot. That is a slightly extreme position, but it is at the other end of the scale.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about encouraging people to shop around, but is he aware that many parts of these islands do not have very good internet access, so putting all the eggs in that basket will not help many people who want pensions advice?

[James Duddridge]

I agree that we should not put all the eggs in one basket, but we certainly should not put none in the internet basket. It is a very useful provision and, as public and domestic access to broadband improves throughout the islands, I think that use of the internet will speed things up.

I find it odd that so much of our discussion about this Finance Bill, which is a Treasury matter, has been about pensions Bills. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has prayed in aid the Pensions Minister’s submission to the Department for Work and Pensions. I wonder whether we conduct our debates on Finance Bills in the right way, structurally speaking, and whether other departmental Ministers should be involved, where relevant, alongside Treasury Ministers. Fundamentally, the report supported by Opposition Members almost amounts to a fundamental review of a number of issues in the pensions industry, which is clearly in the remit of the DWP, not the Treasury. I am not arguing that it is wrong or right; it is just that not all the key players are involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle]

As I said to the shadow Minister, capital allowances are very close to my heart. I believe they are the way to go, but they have to be linked to other financial policies, which the Government have to put in place to work with them. Capital allowances on their own are no good. We must have other structures within the Government’s scheme of things to ensure companies have confidence. It is no good saying, “You can have a capital allowance against a new machine that you want to buy, but we are not prepared to give you the confidence to do that because we are going to increase our taxes so you aren’t going to make any money—so why would you really want to invest in the UK?” We need to create an environment whereby companies will say, “We’ll invest in the UK because the tax regime in the UK is good. We’ll invest in the UK because we feel that the training programmes in the UK will train our young people to do the jobs. We’ll invest in the UK because of the apprenticeship programme that is going ahead, and because we know we will have the future work force to deliver products that we will be able to sell around the world.”

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say people will make investment decisions on a range of issues, but does he agree that stability is a very important component of that?

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Absolutely: stability, confidence, cash, training programmes, and an economic strategy for the future are vital for companies to decide to invest.

I agree with, and certainly do not have any real objections to, the Opposition proposal, but it is not linked to anything. If the Labour party wants to put forward a new economic or industrial strategy that links to this, I would be the first to support it, but this is just one element of a major programme that needs to be put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As always, the hon. Gentleman’s questions are interesting and could take me in a number of directions. Let me just say this: it is important that the United Kingdom has a competitive tax system. It is the case that corporation tax will continue to play an important part in our tax system, and it is important that it is properly enforced. Indeed, the UK is leading the way on international reform to ensure that we have an international tax system that takes a contribution from companies. In the end, however, it is always individuals who pay tax—whether it is the shareholder, consumer or employee. All tax is paid by people even if the cheque is written by the company.

Let me return to the measures that we have set out. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the measure to extend the AIA is expected to bring forward another £1 billion of business investment in the short and medium term. Although the Government rightly keep all tax policy under review, there is limited merit in conducting an evaluation in the way that the amendment suggests, and there are also a number of obstacles that make it impossible. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not have the relevant data to conduct such an evaluation for another year, and as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, it would be extremely difficult to isolate the impact of this change from the other factors influencing business investment, and from subsequent changes, in the ex-post data.

An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who said that a number of factors are involved in business investment, not least confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out, the AIA has been set at various levels over this period; identifying a direct link between the level of AIA and business investment is extremely difficult.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister is quite right to point out that there have been dramatic fluctuations in these types of allowances over a long period, but surely that emphasises the point about trying to get better at assessing their impact. If these allowances are a good thing at the moment, the Government might be well advised to consider bringing some stability to the system and committing to them over a slightly longer period.

[Mr Gauke]

The point I was making is that it was this Government who introduced a corporate tax road map in 2010. That road map has provided a great deal of certainty to businesses and set out our plans for corporation tax. Given that we have been able to make progress with corporation tax rates in the current circumstances, although businesses feel uncertain about the challenges that lie ahead, including the referendum in Scotland and the possibility that an anti-business Government might be elected at the next general election, it would be helpful to have an annual investment allowance in place.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

This welfare cap is a reprehensible and regressive measure that once again puts the most disadvantaged people in our communities on the front line. The cap that has been proposed is a crude blunt instrument. It is arbitrary and it simply will not be flexible enough to respond if the economy or our changing democracy drive greater structural need.

The Government recognise implicitly that the drivers of welfare spending are largely structural and they have excluded the most obviously cyclical benefits from the cap, notably jobseeker’s allowance and pensions. Other benefits also have a cyclical component, however, and the Government persist instead in pursuing an agenda that victimises and stigmatises people on low incomes and punishes them for the shortcomings of Government economic policy.

In the short time we have to debate the motion today, I want to address the impact of the welfare cap on sections of our society that are likely to be affected. State pensions have been excluded from the cap, but it does not exclude pension and savings credits. The very poorest pensioners, those who have spent their working lives in low-paid private sector jobs or who have spent years caring for others, will potentially be hit. That could affect 300,000 pensioners in Scotland, most of them women.

The second group I want to mention is children. We already know that as a consequence of the UK Government’s welfare cuts 100,000 more children in Scotland will be growing up in poverty by 2020. We also know that the majority are the children of parents in low-paid work. The cuts to tax credits and the below-inflation uprating of child benefit, housing benefit and other forms of support for families are already expected to drive up child poverty, and the arbitrary welfare cap just puts a tin lid on it.

The Child Poverty Action Group points out that child poverty places a huge burden on our economy, not least through the £15 billion spent on addressing its consequences through social services and extra educational support. The group makes the point that in the medium to longer term, the Government’s approach will hinder deficit reduction and we will all pay for the costly long-term legacy of low skills and poor health associated with childhood deprivation.

Disabled people and their unpaid carers are also in the firing line, again. We need to understand the structural challenge as the baby boomer generation develop more health problems and disabilities associated with old age. We need to support family carers, who are the backbone of our community care system. It is a wholly false economy to subject the benefits paid to carers to the welfare cap.

Underpinning the circumstances of all those people is the UK’s pernicious combination of low pay, wide labour market inequality and high housing costs. Housing benefit remains one of the biggest ticket items in welfare expenditure. Increases are driven by chronic shortages of affordable homes, soaring private sector rents in areas of high demand—most notably in London and the south-east—and the failure of Governments to address that. The welfare cap will not address those underlying structural problems and the scandal is that people in good jobs cannot afford to pay rent.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because other people need to speak.

The best way to reduce and manage welfare spending is to restore the economy to a state of health and that is exactly what the Government are failing to do quickly enough. If the Government were serious about reducing welfare spending, they would be creating more job opportunities in sectors that pay a living wage, investing in child care to enable parents to work or increase their hours, and building more affordable homes and taking action on housing costs.

In Scotland, we spend a lower proportion of revenue and GDP on social protection than the UK as a whole. We have invested heavily in affordable housing and in child care and we have increased apprenticeships. That has enabled more people to work full time, which is why our child poverty rates have fallen more quickly. Those long-term efforts to address the drivers of welfare spending, not just the symptoms, stand in sharp contrast to the Government’s ill-conceived, punitive and counter-productive approach.

I intend to vote against this measure today and I hope that Scottish MPs from all parties will do so too. To acquiesce in this nasty Tory nonsense that piles yet more pain on our poorest pensioners, carers, disabled people and low-income families would be an abject failure of leadership and a betrayal of the people of Scotland who elected us and who, frankly, deserve better.

Fairness and Inequality

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Inequality is one of the great political scandals of our age, and it is important that we have had a chance to debate the subject at length today. I have been somewhat disappointed, however, at how few speeches there have been from Government Members. Nevertheless, what we have lacked in quantity we have made up for in quality, with a number of substantial and considered speeches from both sides.

Over the past three decades, the gap between the rich and the poor in our society and elsewhere has grown exponentially. The rewards of economic growth have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small minority, while those in the lower half of the income spectrum are being increasingly deprived of the just rewards for their efforts. We on these Benches have made the case that inequality, on the scale that we see in the UK and internationally, is bad for all of us. It is in no one’s interest to have a society that is so divided by extremes of income and so damaged by social deprivation, but it is especially bad for those people who find themselves trapped on low incomes and who have seen their spending power and social mobility reduced dramatically over the past 25 years.

We have had a wide-ranging debate today. It has tackled issues as diverse as land ownership, fuel poverty, health inequalities, taxation and social policy, as well as a range of other disparate policy issues that would normally be debated separately. All those topics have been underpinned by the issue of economic inequality and the income gap that has grown so wide over recent decades. We have argued that inequality is not inevitable, and that it is a political choice. The Government have at their disposal the fiscal levers to enable progressive and more redistributive measures, but in recent times we have seen tax and benefit policies that have allowed the gulf between the haves and the have-nots to widen. A number of hon. Members have pointed out that the impact of the tax and benefit changes has fallen disproportionately on those in the lower half of the income distribution, particularly those in the lowest quintile, who have paid the highest price for economic austerity.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is important to bear in mind that redistribution applies not only after tax but before tax. In regard to productivity gains, we need to ensure that people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point.

It is also important to note that those fiscal levers are not the only tools at the Government’s disposal for tackling inequality. Addressing the underlying drivers of wage inequality requires sustained effort and a fresh mindset about the policy choices that we can make to further a more equitable model of economic growth and to build a fairer, more inclusive and less divided society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) outlined some of the positive ways in which equitable growth could be pursued in Wales. He opened the debate by drawing our attention to the geographical distribution of inequality across the UK, and argued convincingly that while much of Government policy was oriented towards the needs of London and its surrounds, the consequences of that for the other nations and regions of the UK could be dire. Many of us have paid a heavy price for London’s prosperity.

It is notable that, with a few honourable exceptions, the speakers in today’s debate have come from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps that shows how seriously the issue of inequality—which is distinct from, but related to, poverty—is taken in these islands. It is obviously a pertinent issue in the context of Scotland’s referendum later this year, as we weigh up the two futures that are opening up before us and consider not only the benefits of making policy decisions based on our own values and aspirations but the uncertain consequences of continuing along the path that the UK seems determined to follow, with wealth and opportunity being increasingly concentrated among a small elite.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Obviously, if we are going to pursue a more equal society, we will have to ensure that those at the top do not get richer. What are the SNP’s policies for ensuring that those who are already rich become poorer in order to narrow the income gap?

[Dr Whiteford]

Had the hon. Lady been here for the earlier part of the debate, she would have heard some back-and-forth chat about tax rates and such like. I will not rehearse those arguments. For Labour, there still seems to be a zero sum game in which rich and poor have to share out a very small cake. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made earlier was that if we want to tackle inequality, we need to grow the economy. Once we have done that, we will be in a much better position to tackle inequality and poverty alike.

[Mr Bain]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not give way. I want to make some progress; I have a lot to get through in a limited amount of time.

The extremes of income inequality that we see today had their genesis in the late 1970s. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) challenged the motion’s wording about the upward trend of inequality in the UK. I am prepared to grant him that, in the early years of the Labour Government after 1997, there was a stem in the rising tide of inequality, but if we look at the long-term historical perspective we find that it is clear that from 2003 onwards inequality started to rise again. We can argue the piece about that, and I would not take away from the Labour party things it managed to achieve in government that were beneficial to people, but I question the lack of responsibility we have seen from Members on both sides of the House. They have tried to blame each other for not only the financial collapse, but how we have been dealing with the aftermath. It is incumbent on us all to take responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves and work out how we can build a more prosperous future for everyone, in which the rewards of our prosperity are shared more evenly.

Today, the richest 10% of the population across the developed world have incomes nine times greater than those of the poorest 10%, but in the UK the margins are even more stark, with the richest 10% having incomes 12 times greater than the incomes of the poorest 10%. Can we really say that a person’s contribution is worth 12 times that of another person? I find that a difficult piece of maths to do; I certainly do not think I work 12 times harder than people who are earning a lot less than me in my constituency, as I know they work very hard in difficult and often demanding jobs.

According to the OECD, the UK is now placed 28th out of 34 in its inequality league, as measured by the Gini coefficient. Of course that is not the only way in which to measure inequality, and some commentators who use a wider range of measures consider the UK’s inequalities to be even more stark. For example, Professor Dorling of Oxford university considers the UK to be the fourth most unequal country in the developed world, despite being one of the wealthiest. Those of us who aspire to live in a fairer, more equitable society will have been shocked by the research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in December, to which reference has been made. It showed not just that 13 million people in the UK are living in poverty, but, for the first time, that more than half of those people live in working families.

We used to hear the mantra that work is the route out of poverty. For people who are able to secure better-paid, full-time jobs that is undoubtedly true, but the reality of modern Britain is that now most poor people are working, but that work no longer guarantees a life above the breadline. About 5 million people in the UK are paid below what would be considered a living wage, and millions of working people find they have to depend on the benefits system to top up their income to adequate levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made the point that the report published yesterday by the Living Wage Commission showed that 21% of the work force are being paid below a living wage, which is a 9% increase in the past 12 months. People cannot get out of low-paid work. One of the most important points in the report, which echoes comments made by the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), was that once people are in a low-paid job, it is extremely difficult for them to get out of it. Only 18% of those people manage to get out of minimum wage work in the course of their working lives; a decade later those people are still stuck in those jobs. So work is a route out of poverty only for those people who have well-paid jobs.

A number of hon. Members, the first being the Minister, mentioned food banks. We have seen a huge increase in their use over the past two years, which is a shocking development in a wealthy country. We know that that increase has been driven by changes to the benefits system, particularly by delays in benefits payments and the increased use of sanctions. It has also been driven by the rising cost of living. One thing that has shocked me most in my constituency is the number of working people who are now dependent on food aid parcels. Half a million people in the UK now depend on food aid, and instead of squabbling about whose fault it is and whose Government the levels rose most under, we should be trying to tackle the problem and ensure that people have enough to eat.

Ours is a mature democracy with a well-developed welfare state, but the tax and benefits system remains the main lever through which Governments mitigate poverty and inequality. The recent reforms of the past couple of years have been overwhelmingly regressive and have exacerbated hardship. The promise from the Chancellor in recent weeks that £60 billion of further cuts are on the way shows that there will be no respite for disadvantaged people in modern Britain. Of all the regressive measures we have seen in the past few years, perhaps the changes to housing benefit best illustrate both the willingness of the Government to squeeze the incomes of the poorest households and the London-centric drivers of policy making. The under-occupancy penalty, or the bedroom tax as it is better known, is punishing disadvantaged people in our society who live in social housing and need help with their rent. It is squeezing the incomes of those who are already most hard pressed financially and driving the most extreme forms of inequality. In Scotland, around 80% of those affected by the bedroom tax are also affected by disability, which highlights that link between poverty and disability. Disabled people are still disadvantaged in the workplace and often find it hard to make ends meet. The proportion of disabled people in the UK as a whole is slightly smaller than it is in Scotland, but it still represents two-thirds of the households affected by the bedroom tax.

We also have a structural mismatch between the available housing stock and the needs of tenants. Some 23% of the housing stock is one-bedroom accommodation, yet 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom house. Even if it was in anyone’s interest to play musical chairs with housing allocations, there are simply not enough one-bedroom homes to go round. Provision of one-bedroom lets in the private sector also falls well short of demand and, in any case, costs the public purse considerably more than renting from social landlords. As well as pushing low-income households into debt, the policy is costing more than it saves, and the Government’s persistence in pursuing the policy is foolhardy in the extreme.

I know that the Scottish Government have already made extensive efforts to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax by increasing the budget for discretionary housing payments to the legal limit. In answer to the strange and bizarre interventions by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), there are legal constraints on how much the Scottish Government can top up those payments.

[Pamela Nash]

rose—

[Dr Whiteford]

No, I will not waste time taking an intervention from the hon. Lady. Her earlier intervention was really quite unbecoming. There has been cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament—not just from the Labour party and the SNP but from the Liberal Democrats who are represented on the Government Benches—to increase the discretionary housing payments budget to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, who is in his place, to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the matter so that when the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is in London on Thursday, she can meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to progress the issue further.

Transfers made to low-income households are the major tool through which our tax and benefits system compensates for the low-wage culture and, in a small way, mitigate the inequalities created by the structure of our labour market. Over the past two years, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted, changes to tax credits have created significant reductions in the incomes of families in low-paid work. Although some very low earners have been lifted out of tax, the gains have been more than cancelled out by cuts to tax credits and the freeze in the uprating of other benefits, which have fallen in real-terms value. That point was also made at length by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

The Government’s own distributional analysis of their tax and benefit changes shows that the lower half of the income spectrum has paid the greatest price of austerity, while tax cuts at the very top end have allowed the gap to grow between the haves and the have-nots.

A number of Members have drawn our attention to the fact that women make up a disproportionate share of the low-paid work force. In an early intervention, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made the point that the Government have made tax adjustments of £14 billion, £11 billion of which have fallen on women. It is unfortunate that he was not able to stay to make a longer contribution, as I am sure that it would have been worth while.

Women are more likely to be in low-paid, part-time work. They are more likely to be working in insecure, temporary jobs, or on zero-hours contracts, and more likely to be working in jobs for which they are overqualified. More than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970, women are still paid 12% less than men. When we look at who is poor in the UK, we find that women, especially women with children, are over-represented. When we look at who has been impacted most by the UK’s benefit reforms, we see women once again in the front line. That is largely because women take on the greater share of responsibility for child care and for looking after elderly relatives. Child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit are all paid to the main carer of children, and when the changes were introduced, 83% of in-work families receiving those benefits had a woman payee.

The second half of the 20th century saw women enter the labour market in ever-greater numbers, to some extent masking the ever-widening gulf in wages by increasing overall household incomes. None the less, women are losing out heavily and as a society we lose out because women are not reaching their full potential. According to a recent report by the Resolution Foundation, two thirds of mothers find the cost of child care a barrier to working more. The UK labour market has some of the lowest participation rates by mothers of any OECD country. Some women make a choice not to work when their children are small and choose to take a break in their working life. Many, particularly those with more than one child, want to work part time, but most women find that their choices are financially constrained. There is clear evidence that many women who want to work full time or work more hours face barriers because they cannot afford child care. They cannot get work in the hours for which they are available, or they cannot get the kind of work for which they are qualified. We all know families in which a second earner has given up work because they cannot afford the cost of child care for pre-school children. That is particularly the case for people on low and average earnings, but I know men and women on graduate-level salaries who have given up work because child care for more than one child, plus commuting costs, adds up to working for free. That is bad for families in the longer term, but it also extremely bad for our economy.

Child care has been mentioned by a number of speakers, and in my view, a step change in child care would be the single most transformative policy that the UK Government could make in tackling inequality, because it would boost prosperity, improve work incentives for parents, empower women in the workplace, and would help to tackle child poverty. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), in an important intervention, discussed the Child Poverty Act 2010, and the important gains that were won with cross-party support in the House in the previous Parliament. This week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on child poverty in Scotland that showed that, although gains have been made, progress is under real threat because of the austerity measures introduced by the Government.

Child poverty in Scotland has fallen by twice as much as in England. Most reductions in poverty are attributable to improvements in employment rates, but it has been argued that the additional fall in child poverty in Scotland, where it is now 40% lower, is due to a shift to full working—both parents in the family are working, and at least one of them is full time. That has not been replicated across the UK. I have no doubt that that is partly due to the fact that in Scotland we have the best child-care package anywhere in these islands. We have to go significantly further if we are to compete with the best in Europe and have ambitions for the next generation. Otherwise, we face the threat of more and more children falling into child poverty.

The Scottish Government have made huge efforts to try to ensure that all our young people have opportunities. A point made early in the debate by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), which was not picked up very much, concerned the issue of skills, which are at the heart of how we increase prosperity and close the wage gap between high earners and lower earners. The Scottish Government have introduced the “Opportunities for All” programme, which means that every single school leaver has the offer of a positive destination to take up when they leave. We have record numbers of young people in apprenticeships. We also have record numbers of people completing apprenticeships. Some 92% of young people who complete an apprenticeship are in work six months later, with 79% of them in full-time work. Over 90% of our school leavers are now in positive destinations, and 89.5% of them are in work nine months later, or in education or training. That is the highest it has ever been, and it shows what can be done when we put our mind to it.

Today’s debate shows exactly why Scotland needs the full fiscal levers of a normal country to tackle inequality, why Wales needs the power to grow its economy and improve the prospects of its people, and why it is in the interests of the whole UK not to bury its head in the sand any longer but take responsibility for the failures of the past and respond to the needs of our citizens in the next generation. The motion calls for a commission to investigate the impact of welfare and spending cuts on poverty and inequality, which reflects the wishes of the House expressed on 13 January. Importantly, it goes further, because we cannot really tackle poverty, particularly the kind of poverty that we have in the UK, unless we understand inequality and take steps to tackle its long-term drivers. That is why I fully support the motion, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House who have listened carefully to the debate will join us in the Lobby. The motion would allow us to address the shortcomings of the past, and I hope that all Members will join us in building a fairer and more equal society.

National Minimum Wage

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that extra minute. I will come to my own history lesson in a moment. He will of course welcome the fact that under this Government the gap between the poorest and the richest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years, having grown under the previous Labour Government.

Let us talk about the problems of falsely increasing wages and go back to the 1970s. In 1975, my parents, who were young teachers, were given a 25% pay rise under Harold Wilson and were delighted with it. Twelve months later they suffered a 3% pay cut, because inflation had gone up to 28%. We also remember the then Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, demanding wage restraint at the Labour party conference, only to be booed by the floor. Having listened to this afternoon’s speeches, I am sure that some Members present would boo him now, too.

Wage inflation creates a real problem for people on fixed incomes who have worked hard their entire lives and paid into private pension funds, only to then see them eroded by inflation running out of control. For example, in 1965 my great uncle retired at the age of 65 on what was then a very reasonable pension of £15 a week. By the mid-1970s it was absolutely worthless.

If we go ahead with wage inflation in the way suggested by the Labour party without linking it to cutting taxes for business and making sure that it is sustainable, we will end up, as Neil Kinnock said, with a Labour council running around the city in taxis, giving out redundancy notices.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The problem for people on the minimum wage, though, is that it simply has not kept pace with inflation. Those people would each have been £675 better off had the minimum wage kept pace with inflation, even over the past five years.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I entirely agree with everything the hon. Lady has just said. She is absolutely right. The minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, but neither has anybody else’s wage, because of the devastation that the Labour party caused to the economy. It is going to take decades to get this country back on track, but what we are seeing now is a long-term, credible economic plan that is leading to real growth in business and GDP.

It is fundamentally evil to introduce policies that create inflation which people who are on fixed incomes and who have worked hard all their lives are unable to keep up with. Such policies must sound very good to the Islington elite as they sit around their dinner tables and say, “Let’s talk about a living wage. We must have a living wage.” It is notable, however, that Labour’s motion does not encourage the Low Pay Commission to look at a living wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am afraid I do not have time to give way, although I see that when the nationalists are provoked, they tend to respond.

I want to comment on some of the contributions from both sides of the House to today’s debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) was right to say that the existence of the national minimum wage is a statement about the kind of country we are. She was also 100% right to highlight the real-life impact of low pay on individuals and families, and particularly on women with child care responsibilities, who are disproportionately affected by employers who do not abide by national minimum wage legislation.

I was quite taken by the remarks of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). He was right to be contrite, and to apologise for his party’s previous stance on the national minimum wage. Unfortunately, however, as recently as yesterday, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) wrote in the Evening Standard that any increase in the national minimum wage would be a

“massive jobs tax on business”.

He also described it as “oversold”, and said that this

“policy cross-dressing is more likely to confuse than impress voters”.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Harlow is a lone voice on the Conservative Benches when it comes to defending the national minimum wage in the trenches. That would be a shame.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said that the very low-paid could not even comprehend the pay packets of the most wealthy in this country. He summed up the debate well when he said that the minimum wage was for the many and not for the few. He also reminded us that the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee sat for an unprecedented 70 hours. Anyone here who has served on Bill Committees over the past four years will realise that to do so for 70 hours involves quite an undertaking. That just shows the then Government’s commitment to getting the legislation through.

I am always delighted to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) speak in the Chamber, although I never agree with a word that he says. Given that he is a Liberal Democrat, I thought he might have been a little more contrite on this subject. Let us give credit where it is due, however. He did say that he had always supported the national minimum wage and always paid it. If any of the hon. Gentleman’s employees or former employees want to get in touch to dispel that rumour, we would be willing to hear from them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) reminded the House of the statistic that the UK has the fifth worst levels of poverty pay in the OECD. We should be doing something about that. He also mentioned the impact of low pay on the welfare budget, and the fact that since 2010 the national minimum wage has fallen behind to the tune of 50p an hour.

The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), always an entertaining speaker in this House, talked about how increasing wages for the lowest paid was false and fake. I do not think the pay of the poorest in this society is false and fake, but I did enjoy his restatement of the Tories’ trickle-down policy of economics in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) talked passionately about the need for effective enforcement and rightly said that it would take political direction to bring in the living wage. The Business Secretary did say that the Low Pay Commission should be free of political interference, but bringing in the national minimum wage and, indeed, the living wage is a political direction, and we should all be striving for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was one of the hon. Members who stayed in this House all night trying to get the national minimum wage legislation through. Let us not underestimate the former right hon. and hon. Members, and those who still sit in this House, who made such effort to get this legislation through, despite the vehement opposition of many on the Opposition Benches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) has done some wonderful work in his constituency since he was elected in that wonderful by-election victory, and he gave numerous examples of where workers are paid less than the national minimum wage because of unlawful deductions. He mentioned the increasing problem of the personal accident insurance that is being taken off employees; it is costing employers pennies but they are taking pounds from employees. We have to make sure that there is enforcement on such issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) is a passionate advocate for the living wage and rightly gave credit to the councils that are paying it. My local council in Edinburgh is paying above the living wage and has done since 2011, and we should encourage more councils and employers to do more. When I am at this Dispatch Box I always find that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks last, or second last, and is curtailed in his contributions. I would like to hear an awful lot more of him speaking in this Chamber, because he deserves significant congratulations on the campaign he has run against national minimum wage exploitation; we heard some of the issues relating to the shipping industry from him.

Last, but certainly not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) talked about why enforcement fines should go back into the enforcement industry, to make sure that we can enforce the system better and that exploitation is rooted out.

We have had a robust debate on the national minimum wage, in which I have been struck by the Government’s restatement of their policies. Indeed, they have re-announced their policy on naming and shaming more times than they have actually used it, which is surprising. We need more action from the Government on these issues, rather than the restating of policies. When the Prime Minister, no less, announced the increase in fines back in November, I am sure that the Government had no intention of rushing them through—until the Opposition called this debate. But that is not new in this House, and this Opposition will continue to press the Government to get results.

Labour will also bring in Make Work Pay contracts to encourage people to pay the living wage, and we have instigated a review led by Alan Buckle, the former deputy chairman of KPMG. He will look in detail at how to restore the value of the minimum wage; how to ensure that sectors that can afford to pay more do so; and how we can promote better the living wage. In November, the Leader of the Opposition also outlined how a future Labour Government will provide tax incentives for employers that sign up to pay the living wage—employers, employees, trade unions, the Government and the Treasury all working together to share the benefits of lifting pay for the lowest paid in this country. Those benefits can be shared for all; I think that that is the right way to go.

Labour created the national minimum wage, despite strong opposition, and it is Labour that will strengthen it for all the low-paid people around our country, moving together towards the shared goal of making work pay for all. It is Labour that will take proper sanctions against those who do not pay it. That is only fair to those who work hard, do the right thing and deserve to be paid properly. That is what we are trying to do today, and I hope that the Government will support our motion.