Finance Bill
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), although I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) also rose when you called me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I hope this does not mean that I will get a speech in stereo; I hope his hon. Friend will wait until I call him before he speaks.
Graeme Morrice
A good point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that my hon. Friend might repeat some of my points, as we Labour Members have robust arguments in support of the bank bonus tax in new clause 13, to which I am delighted to lend my support this evening.
Given the dramatic events at Barclays over the past few days, it is particularly apposite to be discussing the contribution of the banks to the well-being of our economy and how to deal with the excessive bonus culture in the financial services sector. Our position on this issue has been clear and consistent: bonuses should be exceptional payments paid for exceptional performance. Far too many highly paid bankers, however, continue to be paid astronomical bonuses, often seemingly with little or no connection to meeting their performance targets. While such excessive and unjustifiable bonuses remain, the case for a tax on bank bonuses is strong and undoubtedly popular with the public. The LIBOR scandal at Barclays will cause the banks’ reputation to plummet to a new low. Few would have believed that the public’s opinion of them could get any worse, but they manage to keep coming up with inventive new ways of further undermining the trust of their customers and the wider population.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend has made an important point about the popularity of a tax on bank bonuses with the public, but the tax should not just be popular; it should also work. Nothing that Government have done has remotely worked, and those failures—including their failure in regard to bank lending—are the real reason why this is the right thing to do.
Graeme Morrice
I agree, and I shall deal with that aspect of bank lending in due course. It is vital for people’s trust in British banks to be restored as quickly as possible.
Mark Lazarowicz
Is not one of the tragedies the fact that the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the financial services sector—many thousands of them in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend—are being let down by those who are receiving the big bonuses? I was shocked and horrified by what is being done in their name, because they are often the victims of the criticism and the policies in the banks which have led to today’s debate.
Graeme Morrice
I agree. Many of my constituents who work in the banking and financial services sector contact me regularly to express concern about what their employers are doing.
Bob Stewart
The problem with the banks seems to be that they will not lend because they are frightened, and they are frightened because they must have money themselves. Perhaps we should think about the connection between bonuses and the way in which banks lend to small businesses, and perhaps a decent bonus could then be given to a bank that is run by someone who helps the economy by lending.
Graeme Morrice
That is a valid point, with which I shall deal shortly.
The strength of the balance sheets and the corporate reputation of our banks are crucial building blocks enabling us to restore confidence in the economy and return to growth. However, I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s limited parliamentary inquiry into what happened at Barclays will not command the confidence of the public, or be regarded as an adequate response to the catalogue of failings and scandals that have befallen our banks in recent years.
The full public inquiry into banking standards that has been called for by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would be the most effective way of demonstrating to the public that both politicians and those in the industry are serious about ending unacceptable practices and taking steps to restore faith in our banking system. A repeat of the bank bonus tax would help to reassure the public that bankers are making amends for their part in our current economic woes by helping young people to return to work and enabling new homes to be built.
I know that many Government Members believe that the bankers have been let off lightly in regard to bonuses and paying their fair share towards recovery. Senior Government figures have talked tough on bank bonuses, but have stopped short of taking meaningful action. Indeed, rather than ensuring that bankers made a bigger contribution, the Chancellor gave them a massive tax cut in the Budget, as a result of which the richest bankers will pay millions less in tax from next April. As Deborah Hargreaves, chair of the High Pay Commission, said when the new 45p rate was announced:
“This tax cut for bankers will be galling for the millions of pensioners who will see their bills go up because of this Budget.”
As well as the reduction in the personal tax paid by bankers, the Chancellor’s cuts in corporation tax mean the banks received a tax cut last year and will do so again in future years. Despite the Chancellor’s slight increase in the rate of the bank levy in January this year and 2013, the Government’s failure to repeat the bank bonus tax leaves the banks considerably better off, while our constituents face cuts in tax credits, higher living costs and a squeeze on millions of pensions.
At the same time, small businesses across the UK continue to struggle to access the lending they desperately need to grow and create jobs, with lending to SMEs having fallen by more than £9.5 billion last year.
Charlie Elphicke
Why then make it harder for banks to lend by taking more money out of them through the Opposition’s proposal?
Graeme Morrice
That may be the hon. Gentleman’s opinion, but I reiterate the point that, because of the Government’s policies of the past two years, the official figures show that banks lent £9.5 billion less to SMEs last year than in the previous year, so there is a problem now.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right about the poor state of bank lending, but the reality is that the banks are not lending because they have no confidence; they have no confidence in this Government because they have pushed us back into a double-dip recession. That is the reality, and that is why action is needed. That is why this Labour proposal is the right way forward to kick-start the economy and start to solve the problem of youth unemployment.
Graeme Morrice
I agree. I am sure that many Members have been contacted by SMEs based in their constituencies who are desperate because they cannot attract as much lending from the banks and other financial institutions as they enjoyed a number of years ago. While many are critical of the lending banks, they are also critical of Government policy. Members on the Government Benches may not agree with that, but it is the reality, and that is why people are approaching us with these complaints and concerns.
The continued failure on lending is making a mockery of the Chancellor’s promise to link the pay of the chief executives of each bank with performance against SME lending targets, but there is now another chance for Members on the Government Benches to demonstrate to their constituents that they are genuine about making bankers pay their fair share. Labour’s bank bonus tax raised about £3.5 billion, as confirmed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, even on a cautious estimate, we believe that this year alone it could raise at least £2 billion, over and above what is already in place. The Government could use those funds to introduce the real jobs guarantee for young people who are long-term unemployed, potentially helping 100,000 into work. It could also be used to build thousands of much-needed new affordable homes.
In conclusion, by supporting the new clause hon. Members can show that we are serious about holding bankers to account and ensuring that they pay their fair share, while also raising additional funds to address the people’s priorities—youth jobs and affordable homes—and make a real contribution to turning around our ailing economy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I support the new clause because today more than 1 million of our young people—one in five of them—have no job. That is not because they are not trying to find work and it is not because they are not working hard to get experience and skills; it is because in this flagging economy—in this double-dip recession created by this Government’s failed economic policies—the jobs just are not there. Yet, at the same time, we see the banks paying out huge bonuses to some of those responsible for the economic mess we are in. Britain is now bottom of the pile for social mobility, and that is due to this Government’s failures. The top 1% of our society now control a greater share of the national income than at any time since the 1930s. Despite these crippling inequalities, this Government’s priority has been to give tax breaks to millionaires while building their austerity programme on the backs of some of the poorest in this country.
The current labour market is a bleak place. The hardest hit by unemployment remain women and older people, who face discrimination in the labour market, and of course young people. Long-term unemployment is at its highest since 1996. As my hon. Friends have already said, youth unemployment has increased by more than 100% in the past year. That is a travesty, because it means that we have failed to help young people live up to their ambitions and find the jobs they want—or, indeed, find any jobs at all. It also means that a great wealth of talent and productivity is being lost. That is a travesty, too, and one this Government should be ashamed of. According to a recent Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations report, that will cost the Treasury £4.8 billion this year and it will cost the economy £10.7 billion in lost output. I support the new clause because the Government’s plans are driving a wedge through our society, leaving too many people behind.
Social mobility in this country has ground to a halt, and as I represent one of the most deprived areas of London, I see that all too clearly; it has always been hard, but now we are moving backwards. Every week, I meet young people in my constituency who are losing out. My area has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment, at more than 8%. The loss of the education maintenance allowance is making it harder for these young people to stay on in school. The lack of jobs makes it seem like the rising cost of university or education is just not worth it. Georgia Rowe, a student at one of the colleges in Tower Hamlets, recently said to me:
“I thought about university but it doesn’t guarantee a better job. You might as well not be in debt.”
This is the generation of young people who are being left behind.
That is why Labour has proposed the real jobs guarantee to help give our young people a chance, as we know the scarring effects that long periods of unemployment can have. People need work experience, training and to learn the skills that make them more employable in today’s difficult labour market. I know what a massive difference it can make to a young person’s chances if they get a little experience. Programmes such as Job Ready, which is hosted by Futureversity in my constituency, and Skillsmatch, and those of the Adab Trust and City Gateway, along with access to a job, can help people overcome the psychological barriers to economic opportunity, and build ambition and confidence. They connect business and young people, opening up new opportunities and partnerships, but those programmes are all struggling without adequate support.
The Work Foundation has rightly called the Government’s approach to youth unemployment “piecemeal” and “fragmented”. The Government’s headline plan to get young people back into work through the Work programme and youth contract is failing. They have managed to get only about a third of those on the programme into jobs, and in this age of austerity that is not good enough. Recent figures in my constituency showed that at least 15 people were chasing every job vacancy. The Government should be looking for real ways to help solve these problems and not continuing to kill off jobs and growth prospects through their draconian austerity measures.
Young people in my constituency can see the opportunities a short distance away in Canary Wharf and the City of London. They want to know how to get jobs there. They see bankers in the city getting tens of thousands of pounds in bonuses while unemployment soars. This is what happens when social mobility grinds to a halt. Those kids in my constituency, who are as talented and aspirational as any others, simply do not have the same opportunities, so it does not seem like such a bad idea to ask those who have so much to pay a little more.
When I consider the behaviour of the banks and some of their employees, I do not always see shining examples of socially responsible companies. The finance sector is a vital part of our economy and many companies and their staff behave responsibly, but too many of the highest paid behave the worst, as we have seen with the Barclays bank scandal. Such behaviour is at best reprehensible and at worst criminal and requires inquiries and investigations as soon as possible, yet those people are some of the highest paid in the country. Bob Diamond earned 600 times more than the average income in my constituency, so a tax on the excessive bonuses received by people such as him is only too fair. But instead the Government are reducing the tax paid by banks, with the bank levy raising just over half as much in 2011-12 as Labour’s bank bonus tax would have raised this year.
Finance Bill
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier
Absolutely. If we have a duty in this House, it is constantly to remind ourselves of what life is like for our constituents. We can get lulled into a sense of safety and snugness on these green Benches and enjoy intellectual repartee and debate, but we are here to represent the people who elected us. It is incumbent on us to remember that many people are living on £10,000 a year or less, and it is important that we reflect their concerns in this House. For me, that is a burning issue. I want my constituents to earn more than £10,000 a year, but they will not be able to do so unless we get the economy moving.
Locally, we have real poverty and high unemployment. Youth unemployment has risen to about a quarter of the total number of my constituents aged under 24, as roughly a third of them are, and we are seeing an increase in over-50s unemployment. These are the people who are not gaining but seeing those earning over £150,000 gain considerably. There is a lot that we need to do.
We must look at the unfairness of the cut overall and at the needs of the people who are earning less. I do not think that the money that is supposed to come back will be used to reverse the cuts to further education, to make the banks lend or restore the overdraft facilities of small businesses in my area, or to restore the education maintenance allowance, which had a big impact in helping those in my constituency who wanted to skill themselves up to earn more money—the end of EMA put those people on the back foot. Those matters all impact on the lives of people in Hackney South and Shoreditch today.
A year ago, the Chancellor promised that the measures in the Budget, some of which we are debating today, would boost the economy. What have we seen in the past year? The economy has not just stalled, but shrunk. Again, who suffers the most? It is not the people who have gained from the reduction in the 50p rate of tax, but ordinary men and women up and down the country who are working hard and paying tax. The Chancellor has also had to borrow £150 billion more than planned.
I have mentioned the freezing of the personal allowance overall, but the decision to take away the pensioner element has the biggest impact on those who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 a year. There are not many pensioners in my constituency who earn more than that, although it does have an interesting mix. Being on the edge of a city, there are people of greater wealth in my constituency, but they are not many in number.
Somebody who is due to retire in 2013-14 aged 65 will lose £323 a year, which other Members have talked about at length. It is worth reiterating the point that I made to the hon. Member for Amber Valley: somebody who is on a fixed income or who will be on a fixed income in a year’s time will have to adjust their affairs overall, including their savings if they are lucky enough to have any. That £323 may not seem much to us on our comfortable salaries as Members of Parliament, but for people on low-level fixed incomes of just above the amount where they would get help other than the basic state pension, that will have a real impact on their household income. I reiterate that we must think about the message that that sends out: pensioners are the victims; those earning £150,000 a year or more are the victors. That is unfair.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate in support of the Labour Opposition amendments.
I was a member of the Finance Bill Committee and attended each of the 18 sittings over the past several weeks; obviously I must have been bad in a former life. It was clear to me that the more the Bill was scrutinised in Committee, the more it was revealed that the Bill, and the Budget that it will enshrine into statute, is the omnishambles that many commentators have described it as.
Once again, the Tories are showing their true colours. It was a classic Tory Budget, with millions paying more so that millionaires can pay less. That is evidenced by the fact that, as we have heard throughout the debate, 14,000 millionaires will receive a tax cut of more than £40,000 a year, while 4.4 million pensioners will lose an average of £83 a year. It is a classic Tory Budget, but with the difference that it was possible only thanks to the support of the Liberal Democrats—the Lib Dems who continued publicly to oppose any change to the 50p rate of income tax immediately prior to the Budget statement but then voted for it; the Lib Dems who, before the last election, repeatedly stated their opposition to immediate public spending cuts, only to support a Budget reduction of more than £6 billion within two weeks of forming the coalition; and, lest we forget, the Lib Dems who promised not to raise VAT and then raised it.
The 50p rate raised about £1 billion in its first year and could have raised £3 billion a year over the lifetime of this Parliament and beyond. Its continuation could have been used to cut fuel duty, not just freeze it, as we agreed in the previous debate. Many of my constituents have written to me about that. It could have been used to reverse the Government’s damaging cuts to tax credits or help reduce the deficit. Instead, the Chancellor chose to give the richest 1% of earners a huge payout. People on middle and low incomes are already being squeezed by rising fuel, energy and food prices. Now, their tax credits and child benefit are being cut. Yet again, the Government have made the wrong choice and proved how totally out of touch they are.
The aspect of the Budget that has undoubtedly caused the most anger among my constituents is the decision to freeze the personal allowance for pensioners, which will help subsidise the Chancellor’s bumper tax cut for the rich. That was buried in the Budget’s small print, and the Government tried to make out that it was a tidying-up exercise. However, nobody was fooled by that. It was clear that it was actually a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners. No wonder that was the only aspect of the Budget that was not leaked in advance.
How will the Chancellor’s tough talk about cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, which he says is “morally repugnant”, be put into action if the resources of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continue to be cut? Some 10,000 jobs will go by 2015, including 240 processing posts at Pentland House in my constituency.
Labour’s five-point plan for growth offers an alternative vision. If the Government followed our advice and implemented a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, we would begin to see some progress on tackling the scourge of youth unemployment. Instead, millions are left to pay for a Budget for millionaires—a classic Tory Budget, but this time supported by the discredited Liberal Democrats.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I should, in the interests of probity, place on record the fact that my wife works for Age Scotland. I declare that interest.
The contrast between the two sums of money that we are debating has been mentioned several times. There is the £3 billion of tax cuts for millionaires’ row, versus the £3 billion by which our pensioners will be worse off as a result of the punitive measures employed by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. Personal allowances for the over-65s, our golden generation, are to be cut in real terms in the coming year. As several hon. Members have mentioned, that will mean that a pensioner who turns 65 in the next year will be up to £323 a year worse off. In these hard-pressed times, with the rising cost of living, rising energy and water prices and the flatlining of their savings, they can ill afford to pay that tax. It is worth contrasting their situation with that of the people who will be the greatest beneficiaries of the Government’s decisions.
I know that many Members are fans of a popular US television programme called “The West Wing”. For hon. Members who do not own a television, let me explain that it is about a wonderful Democrat politician, whom Members of all parties might aspire to be, who is pitted against a mad, right-wing Republican Congress that pursues more and more absurd policies. Even “The West Wing” could not countenance the idea that in a time of austerity, when deficits have to be reduced, a right-wing party—or the two right-wing Government parties—would call for tax cuts for the very wealthiest. Even Speaker Haffley in “The West Wing” would not support such ludicrous so-called economics.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
In that case, the hon. Gentleman ought also to welcome the substantial investment, for example, in the northern hub rail project. He ought to welcome the substantial investment in the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway. He ought to welcome the substantial investment in the capital infrastructure around ports to enable the north and the north-east of England to benefit, particularly from the investment in renewables that we will see over the coming years. A fair picture would represent those things too.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the rate of income tax paid by those earning over £150,000 per year.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax. The percentage of total income tax paid by the top 1% will be more than 27% in 2012-13 and in subsequent years, compared with an average of less than 23% between 1997 and 2010. Budget 2012 announced a package of measures to ensure that those on the highest incomes contribute more. This includes a cap on previously uncapped income tax reliefs, which will increase effective tax rates.
Graeme Morrice
The Prime Minister claimed in the House last week that the 50p top rate of tax had raised barely anything at all, yet the HMRC document sets out a figure of more than £1 billion, and the Minister confirmed in the House on the same day that it had raised £700 million. Should not the Prime Minister come to the House and set the record straight?
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Gummer
I profoundly respect the hon. Gentleman. He is a torchbearer for a former age in the Labour party, and he should raise that point with his own Front-Bench team. We are clearly not going to agree on it. However, at some point, someone needs to face up to the fact that we will almost double spending on old-age pensions between now and 2040. I shall put that in context: the number of people retiring this year who will be alive in 2041 will be more significant than now. I cannot give the precise figure, but hundreds of thousands of people retiring in the next few years will be alive in 20 or 30 years. We are not only dealing with an intergenerational problem, with a problem between this generation and a generation in two or three generations’ time or with a problem between people in their 20s and those in their 60s or 70s; we are dealing with a problem of those retiring now and to whom we must promise pensions and a decent standard of living in 30 years’ time. The ability to afford that is at the crux of the Government’s reforms, and this proposal is just the start of it.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) asked why, if this was such a wonderful proposal, it was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto. My question is this: if this is such a wonderful proposal, why was it the only one not leaked before the Chancellor’s statement?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. [Interruption.] Well, it isn’t. I was endeavouring to have a wider debate about the importance of the reform in the context of the massive pensions challenge and of trying to pay for the pensions of vulnerable people not just this year but in 10 and 15 years.
Margot James
I am sorry, but I will not take any more interventions.
As a result of that Government pledge, there will be no cash losers from this allowance freeze. We have protected universal benefits, with the single exception of not renewing the temporary increase of £100 in the winter fuel payments. We have protected all the other universal benefits, however, as we promised to do. Some 600,000 of the poorest pensioners have received a warm home discount of £120 extra to help with their fuel bills. We have also frozen council tax for two years running. Council tax has been a bone of contention among older people, many of whom have been hit hard by increases in it over the past decade. We have also protected, and increased slightly, the budget for the NHS. As we all know, older people account for more of that expenditure than any other group and they will benefit disproportionately from the NHS budget increase.
I have already made the point that freezing this allowance will entail a cost of, on average, £84 a year. I accept that that is not a derisory amount for someone living on an income of just over £10,000 a year. However, 5 million pensioners will not be affected by this measure. In fact, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an organisation that Labour Members sometimes cite, has said that the media coverage has lost all perspective on this matter, stating that
“you would think it’s doomsday for older people…I’m not sure. I think we’re losing perspective on phasing out the Age-Related Allowances”.
It makes a number of good arguments as to why it takes that view.
In conclusion, I must say that I have received very few critical letters on this subject from pensioners. The vast majority of older people in my constituency are more concerned with the prospects for their grandchildren; the average age of a new home buyer is now 38. They might not have read “The Pinch” by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science, which was published two years ago, but he pointed out, among many other things, that those in the generation born after 1970 are the first not to be able to look forward to a better standard of living than their parents. That point is felt keenly by many older people in my constituency. Although they cannot easily increase their income, they accept that their grandchildren are facing a different future from the one they faced. Unlike the Labour party, they know that the alternative to facing down this deficit, with everyone making a contribution to that strategy, is the further impoverishment of their grandchildren, and that is not a price that they are willing to pay.
Graeme Morrice
I am conscious of the time, Mr Bone, so I will keep my speech short. May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on her excellent introductory speech? What she said clearly reflects the views of Labour Members.
The Chancellor’s granny tax is certainly the aspect of the Budget that has caused the most anger among my constituents. As we now know, the Chancellor’s plans, which were buried in the Budget smallprint and described as a “tax simplification”, will mean that 4.4 million pensioners who pay income tax will lose an average of £83 per year next April, with people who turn 65 next year set to lose the most, at up to £322. This measure will affect pensioners on modest incomes of between £10,500 and nearly £30,000, with pensioners on incomes above the higher threshold being unaffected by the change. The pensioners in my constituency I have spoken to about the granny tax are really angry about the Chancellor’s decision to hit them in this way. It seems obvious to them that it cannot be right that while putting up taxes for pensioners, the Government are giving the rich a tax cut. My constituents simply cannot understand why, after they have worked hard all their lives, the Chancellor is now targeting those on low and middle incomes in retirement in order to fund a tax cut for millionaires. As one constituent put it to me recently,
“I sincerely hope you and your colleagues do not support this granny tax and you fight for all our pensioners who worked all our lives to help this country. I am 71 years old and thought I had seen it all, but this is the pits, so do your job and kick this out.”
Harriett Baldwin
Has the hon. Gentleman shown his constituents the article in the Financial Times headed: “When is a tax not a tax? Answer: when it’s ‘the granny tax’?
The article says:
“let’s calmly consider what has actually happened…In fact, grannies have retained their cherished position within the UK tax system: they will continue to be allowed more tax-free income than other members of the population—and for at least another three years”.
Has he shared that article with his constituents?
Graeme Morrice
I must confess that I have not shared that article from the Financial Times with my constituents, who, like me, are more avid readers of the West Lothian Courier. As we know, the increase in inflation, high fuel, energy and food prices and the VAT increase up to 20% have eroded any increases given to pensioners by the Government.
I am delighted to be able to tell the constituent whom I have just quoted and all the others who have contacted me about this issue that we on the Labour side of the Committee are trying our best to do exactly that today. In other words, we will do our job and kick this proposal out.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. There is an inconsistency between his actions and his standpoint at the last Budget brought in by the previous Chancellor, who froze the age allowance and the personal allowance. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the effect on pensioners on modest incomes, but at least on this occasion there was a significant increase in the personal allowance. When the previous Chancellor froze the age allowance, he also froze the personal allowance, so that tax affected people on lower incomes. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that logically that position is inconsistent?
Graeme Morrice
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but I thought we were talking about the proposals in this Bill.
Although we are clear that the granny tax is not right and not fair, the coalition parties have been desperate to try to play down the significant impact of the measure. As we are aware, this is a £3 billion tax raid on our nation’s pensioners. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) actually went as far as to insist that there is no granny tax at all. That will no doubt come as a great surprise to the 4.4 million pensioners who will be worse off as a result of the proposal, but it is typical of the increasingly desperate attempts by Liberal Democrats to distance themselves in the media from unpopular Government policies, before voting with the Tories to get those same measures through Parliament.
Graeme Morrice
I notice that there are two Lib Dems in the Chamber today, so I will give way to one of them.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman has obviously discussed the fairness of this measure with his pensioner constituents. Has he discussed with his other constituents the fact that when his Government left office, people on the minimum wage and hard-working parents were paying £603 a year more tax than their grandparents on the same income? Does he think that that is fair and has he discussed it with his other constituents?
Graeme Morrice
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comment a few moments ago: we are talking about the proposals contained within this Bill.
Whereas some brave souls in the coalition parties were prepared yesterday to rebel over pasties and static caravans, we wait to see if any of them will speak up for millions of pensioners and join us in opposing this squeeze on pensioners’ incomes. I suspect not, and the message today on the granny tax will be clear: only the Opposition will stand up for pensioners and working people in these tough times.
Graham Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point on the disparity between rich and poor under the Labour Government.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), but bringing the UK’s top rate of tax in line with other international competitors such as Italy, France and Germany, and cutting corporation tax to the lowest level in the G7, will send out a powerful message that enterprise and aspiration are valued in this country. In the spirit of the Leader of the Opposition’s recent Occupy-style hyperbole, I want the 1% to come and occupy and therefore pay tax and create jobs in the UK.
Graeme Morrice
The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that reducing the top rate from 50p to 45p raises next to nothing. We had a discourse on this in Committee yesterday, and in Prime Minister’s questions, when the Prime Minister said something similar to what the hon. Gentleman says. However, in fact, the official HMRC book confirms that the loss to the Treasury will be up to £3 billion. Should we not use that money to finance the deficit and avoid having to make draconian cuts on our pensioners?
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
No, I am not going to give way.
The Government are the ones who could decide today to put the rate back up to 50p. They have chosen to cut it from 50p to 45p. We are not going to indulge in any more of this procedural gibberish. The reality is that we are here to debate the substance of the issue, which is the values and the evidence that underpin the decision.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that at Prime Minister’s questions today the Prime Minister said that the 50p tax rate provided no additional income to the Treasury. However, can my hon. Friend confirm what the actual loss to the Treasury would be from reducing the rate to 45p?
Owen Smith
I would be absolutely delighted to confirm that, because we have got it in black and white, in the HMRC’s dodgy dossier, as I think of it these days. Page 39 of the HMRC paper says that the post-behavioural yield—that is, the amount of money realised—of the 50p rate for the one year in which it was in existence was £1.1 billion. The summary, on page 2, says the same thing. In answer to my hon. Friend’s supplementary point, the amount of money that would be forgone in forthcoming years, which is captured in table A2 on page 51, is £3 billion, rising to £4 billion over the spending period. That is the reality, there in black and white in the HMRC document. These are not uncertain numbers, like some of the other ones. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis)—[Interruption]—who is looking off into the ether.
Owen Smith
I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s last point first, because I answered it on Monday, too. When we introduced the 50p rate, in the Budget for the year before it took effect—we first floated the notion in 2009, allowing a year for it to be implemented, as is good practice—the rationale was simple. We wanted the people with the broadest shoulders to pay the maximum amount, and to pay an amount that is fair and just. This Government have a different set of priorities.
Graeme Morrice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. On the basis of the confirmation from the official HMRC report that the loss is indeed in excess of £1 billion, does he think that the Prime Minister should be asked to come back to the House and correct the record accordingly?
Owen Smith
I do. It is absolutely extraordinary that the Prime Minister should have misled the House in the manner in which he did. However, it is in keeping with the misleading of the House that is writ large throughout the HMRC document, which has frankly come up with this £100 million loss—not flat, as the Prime Minister suggested—with the flimsiest of evidence and on the basis of economic modelling that I intend to take to pieces later on.
Amendment of the Law
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell).
Over the past few days, I have been speaking to people in my constituency about the Budget, gauging their opinion and gathering their views. Everybody I spoke to was clear that, once again, the Tories have shown their true colours with a classic Tory Budget under which millions will pay more so that millionaires can pay less. That is evidenced by the facts, as we have heard throughout this debate, with 14,000 millionaires receiving a tax cut worth more than £40,000 a year, while 4.4 million pensioners lose an average of £83 a year.
It is a classic Tory Budget, but with a difference—it was possible only thanks to the support of the Liberal Democrats. Those same Lib Dems publicly opposed any change to the 50p rate of income tax until just a few weeks ago; those same Lib Dems, before the last general election, repeatedly stated their opposition to immediate public spending cuts, only to support a Budget reduction of more than £6 billion within two weeks of forming the coalition; and, lest we forget, those same Lib Dems promised not to raise VAT and then raised it. The Opposition will not forget the sycophantic sight of Lib Dem Members waving their Order Papers in glee last Wednesday at a George Osborne Budget—yes, a George Osborne Budget. I am sure the country will not forget that sickening display at the local elections in six weeks’ time. We can safely say that any lingering uncertainties about the Liberal Democrats’ wholesale abandonment of their progressive roots have finally been laid to rest by this Budget. British Liberal Democracy RIP.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrat policy of increasing the personal tax allowance to £10,000 by 2015, which was in our manifesto, is not only being delivered but being delivered quicker than that? It will take 2 million of the poorest people out of paying tax altogether.
Graeme Morrice
I have been told that I am not getting an extra minute, so I will just press on with my speech.
I want to say a few words about the 50p tax rate and about the granny tax, which has angered many people in my constituency, before finishing with the Government’s failure on jobs and growth.
The 50p rate raised about £1 billion in its first year, and its continuation could have been used to cut fuel duty, about which many of my constituents have written to me, to reverse the Government’s damaging cuts to tax credits or to help reduce the deficit. Instead, the Chancellor has chosen to give the richest 1% of earners a huge payout. People on middle and low incomes are already being squeezed by rising fuel, energy and food prices, and now their tax credits and child benefit are being cut. Yet again, the Government have made the wrong choice and proved how totally out of touch they are.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Yes, but somebody else will end up losing it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he feel, as I and many people outside the House do, that as the threshold for a single person will be approximately £50,000, which will affect their tax credit, but for two people earning £40,000 each there will be no cut to their—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. If you want to put your name on the speaking list, do so by all means, but interventions have to be short.
Graeme Morrice
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The aspect of the Budget that has undoubtedly caused the most anger among my constituents is the decision to freeze the personal allowance of pensioners, which will help subsidise the Chancellor’s bumper tax cut for the rich. Buried in the Budget’s small print, the Government tried to make out that that was a tidying-up exercise, but nobody is fooled by that. The public are clear that it is actually a £3 billion tax raid on pensioners. No wonder it was the only aspect of the Budget that was not leaked in advance. In Scotland, there is a song that goes:
“Yi canny shove yer grannie aff a bus”—
the reason being, the song explains, that “she’s yer mammy’s mammy”. It seems to me that the Tories are quite happy to forgo a compassionate approach to our collective grandparents by shoving them all off the nation’s bus.
How will the Chancellor’s tough talk about cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, which he says is morally repugnant, be put into action if the resources provided to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continue to be cut, including 240 processing jobs at Pentland House in my constituency?
Finally, on growth and jobs, it has become increasingly clear that the Government are failing to deliver for business and drive forward growth. The reality simply has not matched up to the rhetoric, with record unemployment and flatlining growth. When even the Business Secretary describes Government initiatives to drive forward growth in key technologies as “rather piecemeal”, we know that they are in deep trouble.
My constituency has an excellent track record of attracting and sustaining innovative high-tech employers, but I know from speaking to some of those companies that they are frustrated by the lack of Government support and strategy. Many of them are doing well overseas and would like to expand and recruit new employees, but the toxic mix of a UK Government who are failing to create a supportive environment for sustained growth and a Scottish Government stoking up economic uncertainty with their obsession with breaking up the UK is making many firms think twice. Labour’s five-point plan for growth offers an alternative vision, and if the Government followed our advice and implemented a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people, we would begin to see some progress in tackling the scourge of youth unemployment.
Fuel Prices
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I join other Members in paying tribute to the FairFuelUK campaign and the thousands of businesses and individuals who have backed it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing a debate on this important matter.
There can be no doubt that for many months now high fuel prices have been hitting families and businesses hard. Indeed, the October AA monthly fuel price report highlighted that summer prices—those from April to mid-October—compared with those in 2010 were on average 17.5p per litre higher for petrol and 19.7p higher for diesel. These high price increases are an important element of the wider financial squeeze that so many middle and low-income families are currently experiencing.
New AA research published yesterday also underlined the fact that less well-off drivers have suffered more since the price of fuel peaked earlier this year. The research shows that those cutting back on car use and/or other spending rose dramatically among those living on lower incomes. That is a very worrying development. The constituents who have contacted me over the last few weeks are absolutely clear about what they want: lower fuel duty and lower fuel prices at the pumps.
On fuel duty, the Conservatives in opposition said that pump prices would be benchmarked and allowed only to move by 5p per litre in either direction, in response to the changing price of oil. The limited fair fuel stabiliser plan announced in the Budget does not equate to what the public might expect from a fuel duty stabiliser. Commenting after the Budget announcement, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said:
“In effect it is a stabiliser on an escalator rather than a stabiliser on prices. It does not reduce prices. All it does is to reduce increases in duty.”
That is not what consumers were expecting and, as the motion states, it is time for the Government to look again at a “price stabilisation mechanism”.
When the Government increased VAT to 20% in January, they contributed to a further increase in fuel prices. It was the wrong tax at the wrong time, and it has kept petrol prices high and hit economic growth. I support the call, along with my Labour colleagues, for a temporary VAT cut to 17.5%, which would immediately bring the cost of fuel down by about 3p a litre.
We must also be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for the excellent research that he published earlier this year on the political responsibility for increases in fuel duty. His revealing figures show that Conservative Governments have presided over increases in duty and VAT that have actually cost motorists twice as much as increases made by Labour Administrations. His figures demonstrate clearly that Labour Members have always been on the side of the ordinary motorist and the business person, whereas the Conservatives have been content to use fuel duties as a punitive means of raising revenue.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend has not only laid out the case with tremendous vision, but he has used some research, which is very welcome. Does he not think that the many people from Chesterfield who wrote to me supporting the fair fuel debate will be surprised to see how meek the motion is? They were expecting a hell of a lot more from this debate than what is to be voted on.
Graeme Morrice
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the public are expecting more, and we are not going to see any action unless the Government do something about this imminently.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Filling up a commercial van costs £15 more now than it did last year. In January, I asked the Prime Minister about help for hauliers who are struggling with their fuel bills and he told me that the Government were looking at a discount for haulage firms. So far there has been little action on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to support our truckers at this time?
Graeme Morrice
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Immediate action needs to be taken to ensure that our hauliers, and our commercial and transport businesses, are supported in this regard.
Graeme Morrice
No, I am going to carry on because I have taken some interventions and I do not have much time. I am coming to the conclusion of my speech. [Interruption.] We hear all the jeers from those on the Government Benches, but we must not forget that in 1993 it was a Conservative Government who introduced the fuel duty escalator. It is a Conservative fuel escalator, despite the protestations from Conservative Members. The families and businesses that have contacted all Members of this House on this issue need and expect action that will bring about a tangible reduction in the price of petrol and diesel, sooner rather than later. I hope that today’s debate will act as a stimulus for real change on this issue in the weeks and months ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
We are bringing the deficit down from the record levels that we inherited, which has in part provided stability in the financial markets for sterling and our interest rates. That has been absolutely crucial, as we can see in the very high interest rates faced by not just Greece and Portugal, but now even by countries such as Italy and France, which face significantly higher interest rates than we do. That is of course a huge boost to the British economy.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor think that rising unemployment and growth of just 0.5% in 12 months will make it easier or harder to get the deficit down?
Mr Osborne
This morning’s GDP numbers are a positive step, but of course the British economy has a difficult road to travel from the very high debts—the record debts—that we inherited. That is made more difficult by the international situation, as people can plainly see today, but we are determined to make that journey to the growth and prosperity that this country was so lacking under the previous Government.
Road Fuel Duties
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(13 years, 3 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
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) for securing the debate on what is clearly an important issue for all our constituents and the future of our economy. All right hon. and hon. Members will have had constituents approaching us and expressing their concerns about the current high cost of fuel. Individual constituents and local businesses have certainly raised it with me.
Fuel costs in West Lothian, where my constituency of Livingston is, are currently almost exactly in line with the national average: about £1.35 or a little more for a litre of unleaded, and £1.38 a litre for diesel—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) confirms that from a sedentary position.
High fuel costs form an important element of the general increase in household outgoings currently experienced by so many families, in many cases coupled with frozen or reduced household incomes. A constituent recently contacted me to describe her own circumstances: she has not had a pay increase for two years, yet she is having to pay an extra £10 to fill up her car with petrol, meaning that she must now prioritise her journeys to remain within her budget.
Interestingly, recent AA research found that one in four of its members is now in the position of having to restrict the amount spent when refuelling and to prioritise car use. Alarmingly, that figure rises to 40% among those on lower incomes. Edmund King, the AA’s president, commented:
“Members tell us that driving to work represents the priority use of their car and that other trips have to suffer to make financial ends meet.”
With the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning recently that household budgets are set to be squeezed for a decade, it is vital that we get a grip on the issue of fuel costs now, so that consumers do not continue to suffer misery year after year.
Other constituents have expressed their frustration at being told that they should use public transport when they live in areas where public transport links are simply inadequate, or the costs are as high as for using their own vehicle. We touched on that earlier in the debate, and I do not want to go into the detail. The impact of high fuel costs is also seriously hurting businesses, however, and I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on that aspect of today’s debate.
We have seen some welcome, if limited, respite for consumers in the past few weeks, with pump prices in supermarket forecourts falling in response to a reduction in wholesale costs. Even if that is of some small assistance to individual consumers, it does little to help businesses and, in particular, haulage and transport companies. Speaking about that recent round of price cuts, the Road Haulage Association chief executive, Geoff Dunning, said:
“These price cuts can only ever be short term. What is desperately needed and would help everyone would be a reduction in the actual rate of fuel duty.”
He went on:
“However, January’s planned duty rise, combined with the proposed August increase will drive up fuel duty by a massive 10.4%. This will suck more money out of the economy and further undermine efforts to regenerate growth.”
Only last week, the Freight Transport Association revealed research showing that, on average, vehicle operating costs for rigid, articulated and drawbar vehicles had risen by 5.6% in the year to 1 July 2011 and that they have remained close to record, all-time highs since April this year. The largest contribution to the rise is the 12% increase for diesel over the same period. The FTA said that, while hauliers could ride out the recession by reducing margins and delaying vehicle replacements, they continue to feel the pinch and that it is likely that some hauliers might not be able to sustain their businesses in such circumstances.
That is of particular concern in my Livingston constituency because of its central position in Scotland, which makes it a popular location for businesses that need to transport goods throughout Scotland and often to other parts of the United Kingdom. Before the previous Budget, Dave McDougall, the chief executive of the West Lothian chamber of commerce, highlighted that point and the importance of getting the cost of fuel down for businesses in West Lothian. He said:
“Fuel prices are crippling all types of business. West Lothian is a location of choice for many companies because of its access to all of central Scotland. But this means that the effects are even worse for our Chamber members.”
He urged the Chancellor to take action to reduce the costs but, of course, we know that the 1p cut in fuel duty announced in the Budget was wiped out within weeks by soaring world oil prices.
Also speaking before the Budget, in March, the Federation of Small Business’s Scottish policy convener, Andy Willox, said:
“Scotland is suffering disproportionately due to the spiralling cost at the pumps.”
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has just said that Scotland is suffering disproportionately. Would he prefer those powers to be held by the most democratic forum representing Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, or to be controlled by the Tory and Liberal Government here in London?
Graeme Morrice
I do not want to get bogged down in a debate on the constitution or the whole question of more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I certainly support the Scotland Bill, which we have been discussing, and fiscal autonomy for Scotland—but not independence, of course.
[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]
The impact has also been felt by retailers, with Asda stating last month that its customers were cutting back on trips to its stores because of high fuel prices. It estimated that families have, on average, £9 less disposable income each week compared with this time last year, largely due to increased petrol costs. So there is absolute agreement about businesses needing more help with high and rising fuel costs.
The all-important question is what can be done with road fuel duties to reduce the pressure on businesses and individuals and to bring about a halt to spiralling price rises. Fuel duty accounts for more than 60% of the pump price of petrol and just less than 60% for diesel, with VAT on top of that—the highest percentage of duty in the European Union. While the anger and frustration of individuals at suffering such high duties are understandable, once again the major concerns that business has are also clear. How can we expect businesses to compete on a level playing field with European competitors when they face such high taxes and duties?
When the Government increased VAT to 20% in January, they contributed to a further hike in fuel costs. It was the wrong tax at the wrong time, hitting families and businesses hard, just when they were least able to absorb such an increase. I support the calls to look at reversing the VAT increase for road fuel. We know it is feasible to obtain approval at the EU level for such a cut, but the Government refuse to entertain the idea because it is politically inconvenient for them to do so.
In a debate on motoring fuel costs here in Westminster Hall back in June, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) called for a commitment to no more petrol tax rises in this Parliament. He urged the Government to consider abolishing even inflationary rises on fuel duty during the Parliament. Such calls have largely come about as a result of the work of Fair Fuel UK, which is a broadly representative body and is making a strong case for reducing fuel costs for both motorists and businesses.
How do such calls square with the Government’s position? In opposition, the Conservatives made much of plans to “slash fuel duty”, as the headlines screamed at the time, with their fair fuel stabiliser. The concept of fuel duty falling when fuel prices go up and rising when prices fall, seems, on the surface at least, like a winningly simple and effective idea. Many of my constituents certainly believed so and contacted me about supporting it. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have raised problems with that approach. It remains to be seen whether the fair fuel stabiliser will deliver what businesses and individual motorists want.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
When the Office for Budget Responsibility looked at the fair fuel stabiliser, it said that one of its fiscal problems was that the benefits to the Government of higher fuel prices were wiped out over time by the harm to the economy. Is that not evidence for intervention, and for the Government to set a lower fuel duty to stimulate the economy?
Graeme Morrice
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am all for Government intervention in many walks of life, but I would have thought that reducing VAT would be a good start. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire made the interesting point that putting VAT on top of the total cost of fuel is a tax on a tax, and the Treasury should look at that.
In summing up, I again thank my hon. Friend for this debate. It will not solve the problem, but I hope that it will at least provide further food for thought about what we can do to find a solution to this most thorny of problems in the longer term, and eventually to bring about a settlement that provides relief for hard-pressed families and businesses. I look forward to the Economic Secretary’s response.
Justine Greening
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The issue was raised of VAT being applied to the total price of fuel, including fuel duty. For clarification, that is in line with EU rules. That is the reason why that approach is taken. However, I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, we have introduced a £1.9 billion package to support motorists. Secondly, I have heard a number of Opposition Members bemoan the increase in VAT, but they have had several chances in the Division Lobby to vote against that VAT rise and they have not taken them. I would be happy for any hon. Member who voted against the VAT rise to intervene on me now, but having checked Hansard—[Interruption.] Let me be clear that I am not referring to the Scottish National party contribution to this debate, because of course it called the vote. I think that both I and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who represents the SNP, would recognise that the Labour party abstained in that vote and did nothing, despite its words. It never followed them up with action. Those Members owe it to their communities to be a little more frank about the fact that they waved through the VAT increase themselves.
Justine Greening
I did not hear the whole of that intervention. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman repeats it, I can respond.
Justine Greening
Well, of course, that is one of the key measures that we had to put in place—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but he is—
Justine Greening
I would rather be in my position, voting for things that I believe in, being clear to my constituents and accountable and being part of a Government who are tackling a huge fiscal deficit. I think it is the worst fiscal deficit handed to any incoming Government. It is one of the deepest seen in a developed country.
Justine Greening
It was not caused by the banks, actually. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what a structural deficit is. Even in the good times, the previous Government were spending more money than they were taking in taxation. That did not have to do with the banks. The banks simply dramatically exacerbated that problem. That was what we were talking about when we said that the previous Government did not fix the roof when the sun was shining. My point is that there is no point in Opposition Members complaining about the VAT rise when they have not taken the opportunity to vote against it. I think that most people in Britain would think that that was slightly disingenuous.
Justine Greening
I will give way again if the hon. Gentleman wants to keep digging his hole.
Graeme Morrice
But we are not in government. When the sun was shining, we built schools and hospitals and improved public services. We spent the money on the people’s priorities. The current Government are now cutting that.
Justine Greening
There are many people with schools in their constituencies—I can certainly think of one in mine—that saw none of that investment. Frankly, it is easy to spend, spend, spend. That is the Labour party’s legacy to Britain—a debt that is so high that it is costing taxpayers £120 million of interest every day. It is always the same. Let us not forget that the other legacy was unemployment that was 400,000 higher.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graeme Morrice Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is of course independent. It is set a target by the Chancellor, and I expect the Bank to pursue that target.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T10. Contact a Family and the Children’s Trust have been campaigning for a change to the current rule that suspends disability living allowance payments for children under 16 once they have spent 84 days in hospital. The cost of this is around £3 million, compared with the overall deficit reduction measures of £80 billion. As this is a financially driven measure, will the Chancellor undertake to discuss the funding issue with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions so that some of the most severely disabled and sick children and their families continue to receive the financial support required when they need it most?