Future Government Spending
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I am somewhat bemused to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who seemed to be giving us a public mulling over of his chances of re-election in May. We will leave him to consider that.
We are discussing Government spending and I am sure that Treasury Ministers will have been hard at work this morning trying to find some positive news in the briefing published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. They will have to keep looking, as the report confirms that working people are worse off now than they were in 2010.
“It’s astonishing actually that seven years later incomes are still no higher than they were pre-recession and indeed for working-age households they're still a bit below where they were pre-recession”.
Those are not my words, but those of the IFS director, Paul Johnson, who has already been quoted today. Mr Johnson might well be astonished that after five years of this Government life for working people in Britain is harder, but I am not. In West Dunbartonshire, we know what a Tory Government means: hardship, job cuts and poverty.
This Government have chosen to pursue an austerity plan that has not worked and that has hurt.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not, because my constituents want me to make these points, not to give more time to Conservative Members.
The plan has not hurt the people with the broadest shoulders. No, this Government thought that they deserved a tax cut.
Gemma Doyle
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give him and his broad shoulders any more time.
The Government’s plan has hurt my constituents. It has hurt the poorest, the people who have to count every penny to pay the bills every month. What have the Government achieved? Nothing but pain. The Prime Minister promised that he would balance the books by 2015, but he has failed. Instead, borrowing for 2015-16 is set to be £75 billion and the Government will have borrowed more than £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. Their failure to balance the books is fundamentally linked to their failure to tackle the cost of living crisis in this country. How can we expect public finances to improve when Ministers have trapped families all over the UK in working poverty? Low pay, rising housing costs, disastrous benefit reforms, sky-high unemployment and spiralling energy costs are the marks of this five years in office and they are all driving up the cost of social security and driving down living standards.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is not future Government spending a question of priorities? This Government introduced the cruel and pernicious bedroom tax; a Labour Government will scrap it.
Gemma Doyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be naive of us to think that the Government were making life harder for everyone. As he points out, that is simply not the case. The rich are getting richer, bankers’ bonuses are buoyant once again and corporations are lining their pockets at the expense of families in the UK. That is absolutely unacceptable, because when big companies do not pay their taxes, the working man and woman have to pay more. It is clear that five more years of the Tories means a continuation of an economy that rewards only the most privileged while piling on the pressure for millions of families. That unbalanced and extreme approach is only going to lead to deeper spending cuts—cuts that my constituents cannot afford to live with.
The Government want us to return to public spending levels last seen in the 1930s, a time before the NHS even existed.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not.
Labour Members reject this Government’s failing austerity plan for what it is: unbalanced, unfair and unjust. This election is about saving the NHS and it is about opportunities and jobs for our young people. A Labour Government would take a very different approach to balancing the books, including a bankers’ bonus tax to fund jobs for our young people, a mansion tax to fund an extra 1,000 nurses in Scotland and raising taxes so that the richest pay more.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not give way.
Our spending plans would support working people, boost living standards, protect our NHS and support the next generation. We want people in this country to do well, but we are not afraid of asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more. If someone has done well for themselves under this Government, the next Government or any Government, they should pay their fair share.
We need to pull together as a society, not drift further apart. We need to return to being a country that works for people, not against them, and that provides public services that families can rely on when they need them most. Unlike this Government, we are taking the important step of ensuring that we can deliver every promise we make. I know from talking to my constituents on the doorstep that they are fed up with being told one thing before an election only for something different to happen afterwards. There is too much of that in politics and it should stop.
The IFS has praised Labour’s approach to our spending commitments. It is a shame that this Government have not been able to make promises that they plan to keep. Our plans are simple: we will make life better for people by increasing the national minimum wage, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, freezing energy bills, expanding child care and providing a paid job with proper training for young people who are unemployed.
I know from my conversations with people on the doorstep in West Dunbartonshire that they have had enough of the Tory austerity plan. This Government have had five years and they have failed.
Stephen Mosley
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. The motion, which I am sure she will be supporting, calls for
“sensible reductions in public spending”.
Will she outline what sensible reductions in public spending Labour is planning for her constituency?
Gemma Doyle
My constituents are among the poorest in this country. The point is not to cut spending for the poorest people in this country; it is to support them. The point is that millionaires do not need a tax cut; I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks they do, but I certainly think they do not. We need to support people in this country who are trying to get by.
The hon. Gentleman’s Government have failed. The verdict is in: they have had five years and they have failed. We need a change of Government. The Labour party will do things differently, and I hope we get the chance to show that in May, because my constituents cannot suffer another five years of this.
Autumn Statement
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I fondly remember my visit to Gillingham and the Gillingham town strip I was given when I was there. My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gillingham’s businesses and transport links in the town. Many of the small business rate decisions we have taken today are in no small part due to the campaigning my hon. Friend has done on behalf of Gillingham’s businesses.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary passes him whatever fact is useful in answering my question, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that earlier this year, long-term youth unemployment in West Dunbartonshire had rocketed by 625% on his watch. That is nothing to be proud of. He has driven down the living standards of my constituents and he has driven down the value of their wages. When is he going to admit that he has failed on the economy? Will he apologise to people in West Dunbartonshire for the misery he has caused them?
Fairness and Inequality
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I am tempted to go down the route of the argument about the taxation of land and labour. I hope the hon. Member for North East Somerset agrees that it has many merits and that he will move a little closer to me on the left wing as a result.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
On taxation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 50p tax rate should be brought back, and would he support it in a separate Scotland?
Mr MacNeil
I have two points to make in response to that. First, when the 50p tax rate was abolished, Members from Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and a number of other minority parties—as they are termed in this place, even though we, of course, are the only majority Government on these islands—went through the Lobby to oppose the cut. If memory serves me right, Labour Members sat on their hands and did not do so.
Secondly, I would support the return of the 50p rate on the basis of need and argument. I understand that the UK Labour party is suggesting an increase to 50p for a short fixed term, probably because of the level of the UK deficit, but the Scottish deficit is at a different level. Is the increase necessary in the UK because of economic circumstances—that is one argument—or is the hon. Lady saying that a 50p rate is Labour policy for ever?
Gemma Doyle
I am happy to clarify that the question was whether the hon. Gentleman supports the 50p tax rate.
Mr MacNeil
We voted against its abolition. It would not have gone—we would have the 50p tax rate right now—if the hon. Lady and many others had joined us in the Lobby. The question is: why did she and her colleagues not go through the Lobby to vote against the cut? Where were Labour Members that night? There was no sign of them. Would anybody from the Labour party care to tell me why they did not vote against the cut to the 50p tax rate? I would be very pleased to hear why not. Will one of the about 20 Members on the Labour Benches please stand and explain why Labour did not oppose the cut to the 50p tax rate? Going once, going twice, gone: Labour has refused to explain.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend puts it very well: we are caring for those in need. Our hearts should go out to those needing help, and we should not be thought of as part of a something-for-nothing society.
Gemma Doyle
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much less money there would be to spend on public services in Scotland if his party gets its way and cuts tax for big business?
Mr MacNeil
If my party gets its way, there will be more money for services in Scotland, because our fiscal position is far better than the UK’s and our deficit per capita is lower. If we become independent, we can do a lot more to help. I hope that the hon. Lady does not hold the position of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood). Last Thursday, he told us:
“If the Scottish people are going to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the Union.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 467.]
If by becoming independent we can fight poverty, will the hon. Lady support independence?
Mr MacNeil
I must tell the hon. Lady that, to be absolutely honest, I have not considered that question politically. [Interruption.] Labour Members are mocking, but they would, because they probably have no response. If they have one, they are more than welcome to intervene. If the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) wants to limit the pay of top footballers, he can jump up to the Dispatch Box and tell us how. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) addresses a point that we should look at and think about in our society, since it is one of the jarring unfairnesses and inequalities. People working together shoulder to shoulder with such massive disparities sums up what is happening in our society.
In the report “Working for Poverty”, Dr John Sentamu’s foreword starts with a nugget from the CBI director-general John Cridland, who said that there are
“still far too many people stuck in minimum wage jobs without routes to progression…and that’s a serious challenge that business and government must address.”
I again praise the Archbishop of York for saying elsewhere in his report that business itself has to step up to the plate and make sure that people are getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but praise is due to John Cridland also, for his remarks at the outset of the report.
Making work pay is important—very important. The UK taxpayer is paying a staggering £3 billion to £6 billion to cover the costs of inadequate pay, which affects a colossal 5.24 million workers—an increase of 400,000 in the past 12 months alone. That is welfare on a sadly grand scale, for which we should not be asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.
The report notes that the prices of everyday items have risen faster than prices of other goods. Food costs 44% more than in 2005 and energy costs have more than doubled. On the bright side, it notes that vehicle costs have remained stable and the cost of audiovisual equipment has halved. In more serious terms, the report notes that children of parents on low pay are less likely to achieve in school compared with their peers at every stage of their childhood education. A living wage employee gets nearly double the amount of family time in a typical working week as someone on the national minimum wage—a subject I shall return to later in my speech.
The report lays out more correctly the problem in the gains of productivity and their distribution, noting that the arrangements are such that economic growth alone will not necessarily solve Britain’s low pay crisis. Unlike the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I think the Government have a role to play; it is not just a matter for well-meaning individuals. Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz observe that low pay takes demand out of the economy, as the people circulating money in the economy are those who are on low pay. There is even an argument that higher unemployment benefit is an economic multiplier, in that the money that goes into recipients’ pockets circulates more quickly.
Gemma Doyle
The hon. Gentleman is being generous. He mentions the opinions of Professor Joseph Stiglitz. Is he aware of another of Professor Stiglitz’s comments:
“Some of you have been told that lowering tax rates on corporations will lead to more investment. The fact is that’s not true. It is just a gift to the corporations increasing inequality in our society.”?
Will he reconsider his position on corporation tax?
Scotch Whisky Excise Duty
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Donohoe
I am grateful, Mrs Main. I hope that Members will note what you have said. What the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said is important. He is from another part of the United Kingdom and correcting this wrong tax at the Budget is as important to him and his constituents.
Mr Donohoe
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is the treasurer of the all-party group.
Gemma Doyle
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will be aware that the whisky industry is very important for jobs in West Dunbartonshire, too. Does he share my concern that the concessions previously given to beer and cider are mainly based on the fact that those industries ran a good campaign? I would not take that away from them, but we need a more coherent look at excise duty across alcohol products.
Mr Donohoe
Again, I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that we have learned a lesson in that respect and that we will make damn sure that our campaign this time is as good as, if not better than, the beer campaign.
Living Standards
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Gentleman makes two excellent points. The regional variations in economic performance are a profound issue for public policy, and the Conservative party was wrong to oppose the national minimum wage, which is one of the things that the last Labour Government deserve credit for.
The second solution I would suggest involves interest rates. At the moment we have record low interest rates. If we followed the economic policies of the shadow Chancellor, the cost of borrowing would go up, which would make an already difficult problem far worse and hit anyone with a mortgage extremely hard. The third thing we can do is look at public policy changes that Government can make to try to help people in low-paid work. One of the things about this Government that I am proudest of is the increase in the personal allowance. That sounds rather technical, but what it means is how much you can earn—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but how much anybody can earn—before the Government start taking money away in tax. When we came to power, the figure was £6,475; from next April, it will be £10,000.
Gavin Barwell
I am afraid I cannot give way again.
That change has taken 2.7 million low-paid people out of income tax altogether and cut the income tax bill for someone on the minimum wage by a half. The shadow Chief Secretary talked about priorities. It is true that this Government have made a change to the tax rates for some of the wealthiest in our country, but if we want to talk about priorities, we have to say that the Treasury has spent 50 times more cutting tax rates for people in ordinary low-paid work than it has paid in reducing the top rate. That shows this Government’s priorities.
As other hon. Members have said, we have ensured that petrol duty is 13p a litre cheaper today than it would have been if we had followed Labour’s policies. We have cancelled the beer duty escalator. We have helped local councils across the country to keep council tax bills down. We have a scheme that we will introduce for tax-free child care, which will help with the cost of child care for people with children under the age of 12. We are ensuring that energy customers are placed on the lowest tariff. We have introduced the triple lock for the state pension, to ensure that we never again have the national scandal of our pensioners being given a derisory pension increase each year. We are also introducing the Help to Buy scheme, to try to help my constituents who want to own a home of their own and take that vital first step to get on the housing ladder, so there is much that this Government are doing.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
This is probably the most relevant debate we could have when it comes to the issues that affect our constituents day in, day out. There is a living standards crisis in the UK today and it has been caused directly by the actions of this Government. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and his Government are entirely out of touch with families up and down the country who are struggling to make their pay packets last until the end of the month.
Before the last general election, we were promised that a Conservative Government would improve people’s living standards and that people would not only see their incomes rise but their quality of life improve. That has not happened. In fact, the opposite is true. There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn. The first is that the Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—have decided that they are happy to pursue policies that drive down living standards, and the second is that their policies are failing entirely.
The Minister should be in no doubt that the crisis is real. Every week, people in my constituency come to me to talk about rising energy bills, rail fares and fuel bills; cuts to tax credits and benefits; and the problems caused by low pay, underemployment and unemployment. I do not know what is in his postbag or in-tray, but that is what is in mine. He does not have to take my word for it, as the statistics speak for themselves. Since 2010, real wages in Scotland have fallen by an average of 6.4% or £1,420 a year, which is a huge sum. Statistics for the whole of the UK from the Office for National Statistics show that under this Prime Minister real wages have fallen for 35 consecutive months—longer than under any other Prime Minister since records began. What a shameful record that is.
Gemma Doyle
I will not at the moment.
In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, between 2010 and 2012 average wages rose by just 0.6%, while inflation hit 8%. With the cost of essentials such as food and energy continuing to go up and up, one does not need a calculator to work out that the figures just do not add up. In recent months, the community of West Dunbartonshire has come together to launch a food share project. People are so appalled by the need for that in our area that they do not want to call it a food bank. They do not want it to be just a food bank, so as well as collecting donations and redistributing supplies, the group has wider aims, such as campaigning on poverty and poverty pay. I am delighted to say that Labour-led West Dunbartonshire council is a living wage employer. I very much hope that other local employers will follow suit. I intend to have discussions with local businesses about how they can work towards that.
Earlier in the summer, figures published by Citizens Advice showed that one in five families feel that they cannot afford to feed their children. Frankly, that should shame us all. Its advisers are seeing people who have nowhere else to turn. The chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland, Margaret Lynch, has stated that it is no longer unusual for advisers to see people in their offices who do not have enough money to pay for food, never mind other bills such as rent and council tax.
I have had men and women bring their bills to my surgery. Some have lost their jobs and many have had their hours cut. They are desperate for more hours or for a job that will pay them enough to make ends meet. They have trimmed their outgoings to the bare essentials. They put their bills on the table in my office and ask, “What should I do?” It is difficult, but I give them the best advice I can. I tell them about the food bank, although I have to think twice about that, because it embarrasses people so much. It is a dreadful situation for people to be in, because they feel a huge responsibility towards their families, but it is not they who are failing, it is the Government who are failing them.
At the same time as that is going on in all our constituencies, the richest people in this country have had a tax cut. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs have decided that they want to give millionaires a tax cut, which beggars belief.
Gemma Doyle
I will not, because I want to ensure that we have enough time for the Front Benchers to speak.
We have a living standards crisis in this country. The Government’s own figures show that things will continue to be extremely difficult for the foreseeable future. People are really struggling, and the Government have a moral responsibility to do something about it.
Trident Alternatives Review
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been an important debate. I congratulate all Members who have contributed. A number of strong and passionate opinions have been expressed. It is important that all views are heard in this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that it is a shame that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not in the Chamber to listen to the debate. Indeed, I think it was quite discourteous of him to leave his ministerial colleagues from the Conservative party to listen to the debate on their own.
I pay tribute at the outset to the men and women serving in our forces, in particular—in the light of this evening’s debate—the Royal Navy and staff based at Clyde naval base, who work with the deterrent day in, day out. It is somewhat questionable that the Member representing them—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—chose not to speak in today’s debate. However, many of those men and women are my constituents. I also pay tribute to the civilian and the industrial work force who support the operation. We are all—
Gemma Doyle
I am sorry; I do not have time to. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman could have put in to speak and he chose not to.
We are all aware of the important job that the Barrow work force do. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary has no business calling me discourteous; I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate and he has not. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for speaking up so assiduously for his constituents, but there are companies and workers throughout the UK supply chain who are also integral to the success of the deterrent. I also pay tribute to the naval families who are without their loved ones, sometimes for a very lengthy period, with limited or no contact. It is not an easy position to be in. They, too, deserve our support and recognition.
We live in an uncertain and unpredictable world, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree. New threats emerge, but that is not to say that the traditional threats have disappeared. In response, we must have an equipment programme that enables us to deter, detect and tackle the entire spectrum of threats that we face as a nation. We on the Labour Benches are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered, both in effectiveness and cost, through a continuous-at-sea deterrent. We have rightly been keen to scrutinise the report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament, but absolutely nothing in it suggests that it would be in the UK’s interests to move away from a CASD.
We have heard from some Members that our deterrent is nothing more than a legacy of the cold war. Of course, the old divisions of the cold war have passed, but they have been replaced with new uncertainties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) outlined those threats, which are real. They are not imaginary or historic; they are very much present. We cannot predict what will happen. It is this age of uncertainty that is one of the driving reasons why it would be foolish to give up our deterrent now. Important points on that were made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
We support a policy of multilateral disarmament. Like many speakers in the debate, I want to see a world free of nuclear weapons. It should be a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on the path towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, alongside our international allies, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The last Labour Government made progress towards that, as we have heard. I know that work is ongoing to reduce the number of warheads further. I am sure that we would all appreciate some information from the Minister about that.
Those who were expecting the report to be published with some credible alternatives—they included my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—will be sorely disappointed, as he pointed out. It was all too clear from the Chief Secretary’s opening remarks that the report offers nothing new. In fact, it showed that the Liberal Democrats have taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that their past policy simply does not work. In fact, the only thing that we have learned from the report is that the Liberal Democrats are now well and truly a Trident party.
I am not sure whether to feel sorry for the Chief Secretary or to admire him. He has now reversed his party’s long-standing opposition to Trident, and I certainly do not envy him his job at his party conference this year. There is real concern that the review has been nothing more than an exercise in Lib Dem and Conservative party management, paid for by the taxpayer and taking up the valuable time of civil servants. That is no way to run a country, especially in relation to a decision of such great importance.
We have heard a number of excellent contributions on the importance of the continuous-at-sea posture, including from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell). It is not just the existence of our nuclear deterrent but its continuous nature that is central to our discussions and to the report. The report makes it clear, for those who were under any illusion to the contrary, that the
“highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
That has been the basis of our deterrent for more than 40 years: an assurance that our deterrent operates 24/7, 365 days a year. In short, any move away from CASD will result in a reduced capability. If our deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, it cannot be taken seriously if it is only part time. If that is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, it will confirm what a lot of us have suspected for a long time—that they cannot be taken seriously either. They seem to want a part-time deterrent, but that simply would not deter anyone.
We should also remember that, although the future of the deterrent is a decision for this House, that decision should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the world. It would appear, however, that the Chief Secretary did not even bother to consult anyone outside Whitehall, let alone in the rest of the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, the UK is a proud member of NATO, alongside our international allies, and any decision to switch to an alternative platform, or even to adopt the Lib Dems’ part-time deterrent, would have consequences for NATO. It would indicate a significant change in our approach to defence across the world.
The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I share a desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons, although our views differ on how that would best be achieved. We are looking to work with our international partners to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but his party’s policy is a uniquely insular one—namely, to remove the deterrent from the Clyde and claim victory because it has moved 100 or so miles south. The hon. Gentleman might also want to check his statistics, because the most recent YouGov poll showed that 52% of the Scots surveyed thought that having our own nuclear deterrent was important, with only 38% against that proposal. That is far from the majority against the proposal that he spoke of earlier. Also, given that not a single poll has ever shown a majority of Scots to be in favour of independence, he should be very careful about wanting to carry out public policy by opinion poll.
In fact, the hon. Gentleman led the way for the Chief Secretary to make his U-turn, because the hon. Gentleman U-turned the Scottish National party’s opposition to nuclear weapons by forcing the party conference to adopt a pro-nuclear alliance position, in line with its ambition to join NATO. So he has no credibility on this issue—[Interruption.] And quoting himself is not going to make him any more credible.
Paragraph 32 of the report states:
“None of the alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence.”
I thank the Chief Secretary for using the report so effectively to make the case for continuous-at-sea deterrence, and I welcome the conversion of his party to supporting the nuclear deterrent. The report sets out very clearly that CASD is the most efficient and cost-effective deterrent, and I hope that we can all now proceed on that basis.
Spending Review
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
As I said, we are spending more as a percentage of national income on infrastructure in this decade than in the previous decade. What I would say to the hon. Lady about energy-intensive industries such as steel is that there is support, which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is going to extend as a result of the statement to help them to cope with their high energy costs.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Living standards have fallen in every year of the Chancellor’s Government. When is he going to get the message that his strategy is not working?
Mr Osborne
As I said, the economic plan is taking Britain from rescue to recovery. I do not know if the hon. Lady knows any more about what the Labour party’s economic policy is. We did not hear from the shadow Chancellor the simple fact that he wants to borrow more. He has abandoned his argument but tragically he has stuck with the policy.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bob Russell
It is regrettable that no Defence Minister is here, because we could be putting the cart before the horse. What is crucial is the fitness for the purpose for which our MOD firefighters and police are employed. That should be the first, driving principle, and then we can move on to retirement ages and pensions. Does the country really want its nuclear bases to be defended by people of my age? Is it really safe for someone of my age to put out a fire on a nuclear submarine? The clear answer is no. It is therefore regrettable that the MOD is not represented in this important debate. This debate must be important, because I have missed the welcome home parade of 4th Mechanised Brigade. As a member of the Defence Committee, I always wish to welcome home our troops. I hope the fact that I am here will be read as an indication of how seriously I take this debate.
I draw the attention of the House to what Lord Hutton of Furness said in the other place:
“I do not believe that there is any substantive technical reason why we cannot look again at the role of the MoD firefighters and the MoD police.”
He went on to say:
“Surely there has to be a way of doing the right thing for these people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
I came to this debate fully intending to vote in support of the Lords amendments, but their unintended consequences could well lead to our MOD firefighters and police being financially worse off, albeit while retiring at a younger age. I will therefore take the Minister at his word—he is a Minister whom I trust—and give the matter further consideration in the spirit and intention of what Lord Hutton has said.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks MOD police and firefighters could be worse off if their normal retirement age is set at 60? That has been repeated a number of times, but I do not believe that it has been explained.
Sir Bob Russell
Yes. As I understand it, the retirement age is one anomaly, but the contributions towards pension funds are another anomaly. To ask the House to have its cake and eat it might be asking for too much.
Gemma Doyle
I do not believe that that is actually in the Bill. I do not believe that pension contributions will be affected, if the House votes to allow MOD police officers and firefighters to retire at 60. As we know—the hon. Gentleman and I represent some of these people—they want to be able to retire at 60.
Sir Bob Russell
The hon. Lady used the words, “I believe”, and although she may well be right, it is because of the uncertainty that I welcome the promise from the Minister, whom I must take at his word, to give this matter further consideration. It is worth taking that on board.
Sir Bob Russell
Well, the hon. Lady and I must beg to differ. I do not want her to think that her support for MOD firefighters and police officers is greater than mine. I was arguing in support of the MOD police when the previous Labour Government were cutting their numbers—so I can do without those sorts of comparisons.
I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance on the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome the comments from the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who raised questions that have not yet been fully answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) also raised concerns.
Autumn Statement
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Basildon, its schools and the particular school he mentioned. I will make sure that the Education Secretary hears the argument he makes. The money is available over the next two years.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
What will the Chancellor do to make sure that any Scottish Barnett consequentials from capital projects will be used to create jobs in Scotland, and not in China, which is what we saw the Scottish Government doing in awarding the contract for the Forth road bridge?
Mr Osborne
There will be additional capital spending. We have a devolved arrangement so it will be up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to make a decision about how that money is spent. Of course, I expect Scottish Members here and Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of the Scottish Parliament to hold the Scottish National party to account for the decisions it takes. More broadly, its independence programme would be a disaster for the Scottish economy.
Small Charitable Donations Bill
Gemma Doyle Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Charities are facing challenging circumstances, with falling financial support from the Government and falling regular donations as a result of the squeeze on people’s spending. This is a tough environment for any charity to work in. Furthermore, the reliance on the charitable and voluntary sector is increasing, as we are seeing from the number of food banks that are springing up and the greater reliance on homelessness services.
We owe it to charities to help them out when we can, and I must admit that the Chancellor’s announcement of these proposals was one of the few parts of the Budget that I welcomed. Now that we have had a chance to look at the details, however, we see that there are still some outstanding issues. We will of course support the Bill on Third Reading, but I still have concerns about accessibility for many of the charities that could benefit most from it.
Offering charities the chance to take advantage of a gift aid top-up is of course welcome. My constituency is facing a number of serious challenges, but we are fortunate to have a thriving charitable and voluntary sector that does much good work throughout the area. I am thinking of the small charities run by a handful of local volunteers, such as Home from Home in Dumbarton, and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, which has a very wide reach but relies on a small team of dedicated volunteers, as well as the slightly larger ones with some staff, such as Y Sort-It in Clydebank. They all contribute so much, working alongside the services offered by the local authorities to help with a range of issues.
As I am sure other Members will recognise, it is often many of the smaller charities which are getting by on tiny incomes that help so much with the provision of local services. Many of them do not have steady income streams or the time and manpower—or, often, the womanpower—to administer complex donation rules. They rely on simple methods of fundraising, such as bring-and-buy sales and collecting donations in buckets on the street. Those small activities all add up.
I am sure that, like me, many of those smaller charities will be pleased with the effect that the proposals could have on their incomes. They remain concerned, however, about the restrictions that could make them ineligible. The Government need to ensure that the rules will work for charities and not against them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has comprehensively set out, we need the Bill to help charities out, not to add to the burden of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy can be a headache for small charities. Compliance with the rules is essential—they are there for a reason—but they can pose real difficulties, particularly for the smaller charities. A Treasury spokesperson said the Government’s proposals were intended to reduce the administrative burden on charities, but I am not sure that that is what they will do. It is possible that the bigger charities, not the smaller ones, will benefit.
The Government’s amendments are helpful; they are heading in the right direction. The original proposals could have resulted in the smallest charities losing out the most, because placing so many conditions on the new top-up would have made it difficult for those charities to take advantage of the scheme. I am pleased that the Government seem to have recognised the problem with the three-year criterion, and that they are moving towards a two-year period instead. That will widen the benefits to include more charities. However, the proposals will still favour the larger charities that have a history of gift aid claims over the smaller ones that rely on bucket donations.
Similarly, the Government’s amendments do not properly reflect the needs of newly established charities, which will naturally not have any history of gift aid claims. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said that her amendment would acknowledge the fact that, although many charities are proactive in their work, there are those that react to events. A charity might be set up to react to a natural disaster, for example; another might be set up in memory of a loved one. Newly established charities often receive a significant proportion of their donations at the very beginning, and their donations might subsequently tail off. Under the current proposals, they would not be able to claim top-up payments related to those important initial donations.
Our amendments are intended to help those small and new charities by removing the lengthy start-up period and replacing it with a probationary period. That would provide a real benefit. It would allow all charities without a claims history, whether new or established, to benefit from the top-up scheme while keeping the protections in place. It is important to have protections against fraud, but I believe that our proposed probationary period would be sufficient in that regard. I therefore encourage Members to support our amendments.
We need to ensure that we get the scheme right. The Government’s own “Giving” White Paper, published last year, made it clear that they wanted to work more with business and charities to make it “easier and more compelling” for people to give time and money, and so make the change that they want to see. Our amendments would make it much easier for the Government to meet their aims.
New clauses 1 and 2 would ensure a proper review of the impact of the measures on access to the scheme. The charity and voluntary sector deserves to have the rules properly reviewed, with a report being laid before Parliament so that all Members can see how accessible the scheme is. I hope that, in the spirit of openness and transparency that the Government say they are in favour of, all Members will consider supporting the new clauses.
The simple principle of giving charities the extra bit of help that is contained in the Bill is very much welcome, but the proposals could and should go further. As the Bill stands, thousands of small charities could lose out. Our amendments would take a few steps towards giving charities that extra support, and I hope that Members will support them.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
As other hon. Members have already said, many practical concerns and suggestions were aired and shared by members of the four parties represented when we discussed the Bill in the Public Bill Committee. It is important that we use the Report stage to return to a number of those issues. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that were made in Committee. This is not the time for “Here are our best bits” or for simply making our pitches again. However, it is important to reflect on the fact that the Minister indicated that he was listening to some of the points that were made in Committee, even if he refuted many of the others. That is reflected in some of the Government amendments that he will no doubt speak to later. I welcome the fact that further progress has been made, just as I welcome the fact that, in Committee, the Minister tabled an amendment to clause 2 as a direct response to an issue that I had raised on Second Reading. I appreciate his doing that.
There is still a basic problem with the Bill. The original Budget promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was widely welcomed across the House, and certainly in the charity sector. People expected something along the lines of what they thought had been promised—that the equivalent of gift aid would be available, with certain conditions, to charities, without them having to fulfil all the gift aid criteria and the necessary processes attached to them.