Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I think it is fair to say that many of us have been speaking to ever-rising numbers of constituents in the past few weeks, and I am confident that that will continue in the weeks to come. Members will acknowledge that the sense on the doorstep and on high streets is that there will be a recovery that genuinely touches every part of our country only when the talent that is wasting away in each of our communities can find fulfilment again in the dignity of decent work.

Welcome though the recent falls in unemployment are—although, worryingly, youth unemployment rose in the last quarter—they conceal the scale of long-term unemployment, particularly among young people. In my constituency, some 520 people have been out of work for either a year or more in the case of 18 to 24-year-olds, or two years or more in the case of over-25s. That accounts for one fifth of the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count in my constituency.

I have met the families of many young people, who have told me exactly the same story: those young people have gone to college and undertaken good vocational training, but ended up in long-term unemployment at the end of it. They have done the right thing but ended up without work for long periods, so now the Government must do the right thing by them and act to restore their right to a decent job. They are people with ambition, aspiration and great prospects, but they are currently denied the right to work by a way of running the economy that lets inequality rip, with the majority of the gains from growth going to people at the top of society, while low pay, insecure hours and increasingly insecure terms and conditions at work leave a persistent gap between rich and poor.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has started exactly where this debate should start—with who needs to benefit, which is young people who are looking for work but have been out of work for some time. Does he agree that it is not only about giving them jobs, but about giving them the opportunity for careers and long-term employment? The Conservative party says that it is the party of opportunity, after all.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend’s point will have as much salience in Inverclyde as it does in Glasgow North East and, I believe, in every constituency. When the maximum number of people in this country are involved in the economy, we have a broader tax base and more tax revenue coming in. That is the only credible plan for reducing the deficit in a fair way in the next Parliament. Any Chancellor who wants to have a credible deficit reduction plan has to have a credible plan for abolishing long-term and youth unemployment.

BMI Pension Fund Compensation

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sanders.

The issue that I will address today is complex but it potentially directly affects many hundreds of people throughout the UK, including many people in the Edinburgh and Lothian area. In fact, one of my constituents is affected, and they have asked me to raise the issue in Parliament. I am glad to have this opportunity to do that, because the issue has wide implications beyond those who are directly affected by it.

The issue is complex, and I will therefore have to spend a bit of time setting out the background to it. I am sure that those hon. Members who are taking part in the debate will be familiar with the subject and its history, but many of those listening outside this place will not be so aware, so it will be helpful to set out some background.

Let me start with the history. BMI—British Midland Airways—was, as Members will know, a major UK airline. It operated from a number of UK airports, and that geographical spread across the UK is reflected in the Members who have shown a particular concern about the issue. They are from the Lothian area, from London, from Northern Ireland and from the east midlands itself, where the former headquarters of BMI was situated. I know that all of them have been in correspondence with Ministers over a considerable period.

As Members will also know, from about 2009 the airline went into a complex set of changes of ownership. Those changes were stimulated by a decision of the major shareholder and founder of the airline, Michael Bishop, who is now a Conservative peer, Lord Glendonbrook. He exercised an option that resulted in Lufthansa becoming the 100% shareholder of BMI. However, under UK pensions law, at least as applied by the Pensions Regulator at the time, that did not mean that Lufthansa took on any legal obligation to fund the BMI pension scheme.

In due course, Lufthansa decided to sell BMI. However, part of the condition of the sale that Lufthansa agreed with the International Airlines Group, of which British Airways is a major component, was that responsibility for the pension scheme should be removed from BMI. There was a solution proposed by Lufthansa initially, but it was not approved by the Pensions Regulator, for reasons that I will not dwell upon here; they are not directly relevant to the subject matter of the debate.

In any event, the outcome of all these comings and goings was that the BMI pension fund, and therefore the Pension Protection Fund, received £16 million from Lufthansa. In addition, Lufthansa provided a further £84 million to top up members’ benefits outside the PPF, even though it did not appear to have a legal obligation to do so.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Sanders, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does it seem to him that that move in this takeover was a calculated one to strip 80% of the pension away from those long-serving employees?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is, the Equitable Life Pensions Act 2010—

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which helps to clarify the matter.

As a good-will gesture, Lufthansa agreed to pay £84 million in compensation, which staff were offered as a one-off cash payment or which could be added to a defined contribution pension scheme. However, staff were then informed that any cash payments would be taxed. Clearly, there is an issue there. Lufthansa was also advised that it would not have to pay national insurance on cash payments, even though members of the BMI pension scheme were not direct employees of the German airline.

Understandably, that has caused a lot of frustration among former BMI employees. As far as they are concerned, they worked for x years and paid x into a pension scheme, which they are now entitled to, but because of dealings between the parent companies, they are now to lose out. We are here for justice and fair play for our constituents and for those who have been disadvantaged.

At the time, BALPA, the pilot’s union, said:

“Pilots in bmi are rightly outraged that their pensions are to be significantly reduced. These pilots have invested their careers in this airline, and a large proportion of their salary in its pension scheme.”

That is how its members felt, and they still feel that way, because the issue has not been sorted out.

The BMI Pensions Action Group was set up to seek justice for employees who were disadvantaged by the company buy-over. When the possibility of BMI’s sale first arose in autumn 2011, BALPA sought assurances, and reassuring noises were made by Lufthansa, which said that there was nothing to worry about, and the UK Pensions Regulator said it had powers to hold companies to account. Members of the scheme received no communications after December 2011, when Lufthansa said it was going to retain the pension obligation. Those in the scheme were led to believe that they were okay, but they clearly were not.

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points. I am sure he will agree that the people involved have been shabbily treated. Here we see another example of people being asked to prepare for their retirement and old age, but when they near that point, their pension is ripped from their grasp. Perhaps the Minister could take the issue away—we are talking about 4,000 people, not 4 million—and look again at the issue of taxation being applied to what compensation people have received.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is clear. It is disgraceful that those whom we represent have been treated shabbily, to use his terminology. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I ask the Minister to review the situation, because we are talking about 4,000 employees. The Government did that for Equitable Life, even though they said they could not. Members asked in Westminster Hall for that to happen—every one of us here today was probably here for Equitable Life’s members, and we are here today for the 4,000 BMI workers who have been disadvantaged.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Under this Government, there have been a number of initiatives in the Humber area that have helped to grow the economy, not the least of which is the enormous effort that Ministers in several Departments made in attracting the Siemens investment to Hull, which is an incredibly important part both of creating jobs in that area and of delivering our ambitions for renewable energy.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

3. What recent estimate he has made of how much the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45% is worth for a person earning £1 million a year.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax to 45% is estimated at about £100 million a year. That is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2013. We have not broken down the impact by income ranges, because there is a significant behavioural response associated with the additional rate of income tax. That behavioural response is estimated in aggregate and reflected in the costing.

[Mr McKenzie]

Christmas is coming and it is a time for giving, but the truth is that this Government have been giving to millionaires for some time. The average tax cut to millionaires is worth £100,000 a year. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that that figure for the Government’s tax giveaway to millionaires is correct? How many of my constituents in Inverclyde have benefited from that reduction in tax?

[Mr Gauke]

What is a fact is that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% for the years since the 50p rate was cut has in every year been higher than in any of the years in which the 50p rate was in operation. It is this Government who have made changes to stamp duty land tax—that was just last week—and to capital gains tax, and who have dealt with reliefs and exemptions, to ensure that the wealthiest play a greater share than they have in the past.

Income Tax

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Chief Secretary is being most generous and accommodating in giving way. I simply point out to the House that the second debate has a comparable number of would-be contributors as does this one. If we are working on the assumption that this debate will finish at about 4 o’clock, it is important to ensure that there is maximum time available for Back Benchers who wish to make speeches. After that, I am in the hands of the House.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

To bring my hon. Friend back to the whole subject of fairness in taxation, especially in these economic times, it was this Government who told us that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the majority of the burden, yet the first thing they did was reduce the tax rate to take that burden off their shoulders. [Interruption.]

[Chris Leslie]

There is a lot of protest coming from Government Members. Only those who are not standing for Parliament again will dare to stand up and defend cutting the 50p rate. Mr Speaker, I have heard your entreaties about being a little more strategic in the way we progress through the arguments, but I thought that it was important—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

The deficit of £150 billion that we inherited from the previous Labour Government has been reduced by a third, but there is much more work to be done. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and listen to my speech, during which he will have the chance to intervene, I think that I will answer many of his questions.

The ability to earn more than £150,000 does not give or guarantee happiness, health or friends, but it does give choices. People who earn more money have more choices. My definition of poverty is having no choices: people with no choices are in poverty. One of the choices people have is about where they are domiciled for tax. With taxes rising in France, there has been a flight of people to the UK, to such an extent that, as was pointed out at a meeting with the Mayor of London a few months ago, so many French people live in London that it is the fourth largest French city.

I have always been a great believer in this quote:

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

When the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) brought in the 50p tax rate before the last election, I naturally assumed that he did not take on board George Santayana’s sentiments, as history has told us time and again that

“for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

Yet the Labour party persist in this notion that having one of the highest top rates of tax in the world will increase revenues and make the country more competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) was quite right to quote Abraham Lincoln, who said:

“You can’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.”

He described economic inequality as benign, rather than malevolent. Understanding the difference leads to understanding why allowing the greatest number of opportunities works better for increasing everyone’s wealth than trying to equalise outcomes. That was true then, and it remains true now.

The Labour party’s economic blindness seems to extend to failing to take note of what is happening over the channel in France. It is in its third year of being led by the Leader of the Opposition’s comrade Francois Hollande. After the Socialist Government increased a range of taxes, including the top rate of tax, revenues have proven to be half of what was expected. France has virtually no economic growth, and it has a black hole of billions of euros in its public accounts, to the point that it now wants the UK to pay €2 billion to help to bail it out. An uncompetitive top rate of tax decreases the incentive to work, reduces the amount of money for investment and, as has been seen in France, ultimately reduces the size of the economy.

What the Opposition do not seem to grasp as they play 1970s politics is that we live in a different world from that of the 1970s, when the UK had draconian top rates of tax. The principal difference is that high earners now have the option to live elsewhere, without any inconvenience, because of the internet and much improved air travel. We do not want to go back to the brain drain, and to being the sick man of Europe.

Plenty of people have offered advice on this issue to the Labour party. Let us take the comments of Mark Giddens, a partner at UHY Hacker Young, who stated:

“We would lose some of the edge that we currently have over other Western European countries in attracting successful entrepreneurs and investors. We will also find it harder to compete against other major English speaking economies such as the USA”.

The evidence seems clear. Under the French model we see high tax rates, anaemic growth, high unemployment and lower Government revenues; under our current model the long-term economic plan is working, we have the fastest economic growth in the developed world, and an economy that has created more jobs than the rest of the EU combined, leading to more tax revenue.

We can see in the HMRC analysis that was mentioned by the Minister and published in 2012, that the 50p rate was raising nothing like the £3 billion that Labour estimated at the time and continues to hold dear. Indeed, the direct cost of the reduction in the rate of income tax at that time was estimated at only £100 million. When other lost tax revenues are taken into account, it is evident that there was no direct cost to the Treasury in cutting the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, not to mention the wider economic impact of that higher rate of tax, as we have seen in the French economy.

When Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60p to 40p in 1988, the tax take rose and top earners paid a larger share of it. When the Treasury decided to set the rate of capital gains tax at 28%—up from 18% under the previous Labour Government—it stated that its studies had concluded that that rate maximised the tax take. If the optimum rate of unearned income is 28%, I suggest it is unlikely that the optimum rate of income tax should be nearly double that level. Figures show that less than 1% of the population earn more than £150,000 a year, yet those people contribute approximately 30% of the total income tax take. That is a total of £49 billion from the 45p rate, compared with only £40 billion raised the year before when the rate was 50p— evidence that when we cut the rate of tax, revenues rise.

What is Labour’s case for tax rates that will lead to decreased revenues? When the measure was first suggested it was nothing more than a pre-election attempt to convince its core vote that it was still the party of squeezing the rich, and remains so today. At the same time, Labour was obviously laying a bear trap for the incoming coalition Government. It was a Trojan horse of a policy; a Trojan horse of a tax. Members will have noticed that I have referred to France rather a lot in my speech. That is because for the future of the UK should Labour win the next election, we have only to look across the channel and see what has happened. As the Leader of the Opposition said previously, “What Hollande is doing in France I want to do in Britain.”

[Mr McKenzie]

How does the hon. Gentleman feel about comments from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) who said that cutting the rate of tax to 45p would emphasise to the public that again, the Conservative party is indeed the party of the rich?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I said at the beginning of the debate that if we co-operated with each other and each speaker spoke for no more than nine or a maximum of 10 minutes, everybody would be able to speak without a time limit. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for 13 minutes, so I would be grateful if he would think about drawing his remarks to a conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I will follow your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the length of Members’ contributions because I know that some Members still wish to speak in the debate.

I think that we will have no argument about the fact that austerity has been painful. What divides us in the Chamber is where we see that pain being inflicted most. Labour Members believe that it is targeted on the whole at people at the lower end of the income scale—they have been feeling most of the pain in these difficult economic times. Incredibly, billions in tax cuts have been given to people at the upper end of the income scale. The top 1% of earners have been given a tax cut worth £3 billion, in stark contrast to those at the other end of the income scale, who have been struggling in these difficult times.

Let us look at what little has been given to lower earners and how that was paid for. It did not come from the top earners; it came from the Government dragging down the tax bracket to take in middle-income families, who have paid through going into the higher tax bracket for anything that has been conceded to people at the lower end by moving the threshold up. I suspect that the Government wished that to go unnoticed but we have well and truly figured that one out and the public have noticed it, too.

On top of that, households will on average be nearly £1,000 a year worse off by 2015 as a result of Government tax cuts and benefit changes. That means that hard-working, middle-income families are being squeezed into a cost of living crisis. We see that day in, day out. I certainly do in Inverclyde. I see that in everyday events. More and more families are having to shop around during their weekly shop, looking for bargains. Those families are in work, yet they are finding it difficult.

As has been highlighted, whatever happened to putting into practice the Government’s well-used phrase, “Those with the broadest shoulders should bear more of the burden”? That was pushed to one side when those people were relieved of that burden through tax cuts.

If people can pay more, they should pay more in these difficult times. That is only fair. That is what this debate is about—fairness in these times of tax pain. It is not only me saying that. Some members on the Government Benches have been saying it, too. The coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, have been saying it. Most notably, the Deputy Prime Minister said that this was the wrong time to send the wrong message by cutting the higher-tax level. Even Lord Heseltine, who once looked as if he would lead the Conservative party and become the next Prime Minister, has said that it is the wrong message to send out.

Tax avoidance is increasing under this Government. As we heard only the other day, £35 billion of tax has been avoided, yet the Government are reluctant to go after the tax-avoidance loopholes and to take the burden off lower-income earners. In addition, the Government have again cut staff levels at HMRC.

Austerity is being applied at the wrong end of the social spectrum by this Government. That is as clear as day. By their actions, those who can least afford it will be asked time and again to step up and make that contribution. It is not just the lowest paid—middle to low-income earners are also taking the brunt of the austerity.

Let me talk a little about hard-working families in Inverclyde. Government Members claim that they are producing more employment—that more people are in jobs. In Inverclyde, 26% of children live in poverty. Three quarters of them come from working homes. It is an absolute disgrace that, in this day and age, that level of child poverty is allowed to exist.

People say that good things come to those who wait and they talk about the Government’s long-term economic strategy. I will tell Members what good things came to those who waited: it came to those bankers who paid themselves a bonus after waiting to cash in on the lower tax rate. However, it did not come for one of my constituents, who waited almost a year to be assessed for her disability benefit and had to rely on the good will of others.

We support lifting many of the low paid out of tax altogether. They are not being lifted out of poverty. They are still captured in the circle of poverty. Their outlay does not match their income and that is evident when we look at where they are buying the basics of life: they have to look for bargains time and again.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman is talking with great passion and emotion about the hard-pressed people in his constituency. I am completely with him on that, but can he explain how deterring the top 1% of earners, who are already paying 30% of all income tax, from economic activity, or even driving them out of the country, will help his hard-pressed, hard-working constituents, or mine?

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman argues that, if we put the 50p rate back in place, we would see a mass exodus of billionaires. It is not me who is saying that that would not happen; it is his coalition partners. The Lib Dems say that that would not happen; they do not see it transpiring. If he is talking about the employment that has been created, he will see that in my area of the country, part-time work and temporary work, especially at this time of year, are on the increase. Labour Front Benchers have talked about helping those on lower pay and lowering the starting rate of tax to 10p. The public were hit by one of the first increases in tax that the Government put in place: the VAT rise, which has hit them hard, too.

Remember that this Government promised to balance the books in this Parliament. They have reneged on that promise and are actually borrowing more. Therefore, the time scale to balance the books under this Government has been pushed out even further. That can mean only one thing for those already feeling the pinch of austerity: they are going to feel the punch of austerity if this Government get back into power. It is about balancing the books in a fairer way.

We say that a 50p higher rate would help to do that. It is time for the economic circumstances to require those who can pay more to pay more. A 5p increase will not chase them out of the country, despite what the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) thinks. Labour will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners as part of our plan to balance the books in a fairer way. In contrast this Government have increased tax for millions while millionaires are given huge tax cuts. It is time for top earners to pay the 50p rate. If this Government will not put that in place, the next Labour Government will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It was indeed an extremely ingenious question, as HMRC would not be the tax collector, but, understandably, that did not trouble the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in any way.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

20. One in four children across the UK lives in poverty while this Government allow £34 billion in unpaid tax to go astray. Does the Minister not see an urgency in collecting that tax so that he can eliminate that disgraceful statistic?

[Mr Gauke]

Let us be clear: the tax gap is lower than it was under the previous Government and yield is higher. By international standards, the UK has one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. We have a good record, but we always seek to do more, which is why at the Budget and autumn statement we have always been able to bring forward measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion, and that is a record with which we will continue.

Finance Bill

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by accepting the new clause, the Government would give weight to their often recited argument that the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden? The new clause would put the burden on the shoulders best able to bear it.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a good contribution, which I agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood set out the facts in her speech, so I will not reiterate them; others want to speak. The hon. Gentleman will know about the disparities all too well. The Government have a responsibility to make sure that the tax system is fair, and fairness is at the heart of a progressive tax system admired by people in other countries. The changes that the Government have introduced—prioritising tax breaks for those who least need them while ordinary families continue to struggle—are deeply disturbing and unfair.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

We are hearing people say, “Tax them less and they will pay more.” Why does that not work all the way down the tax scales? We are seeing middle-income families being sucked into higher tax brackets to pay for the lifting of the less well paid out of tax altogether.

[Rushanara Ali]

The Government have made a great deal of their efforts to support middle-income families, but frankly their words have been empty. They have prioritised those at the top. Will the Minister say whether his Government will rule out reducing tax further for high earners to 40%? I give him the opportunity to say so now. The revenue that the Government are forgoing could be used to support others—to get young people back to work, for instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McKenzie]

Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government are so reluctant to produce this report if, indeed, they see the change as beneficial to all? We see this £160 million giveaway as being beneficial to only one particular group, and not our constituents.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can only hazard a guess as to why the Government consistently refuse to look at producing any report or to accept any of the requests—quite reasonable requests—that we have brought forward, seeking further information, further transparency and these particular pieces of information. I am forced to conclude either that the work has not been done or that the Government, for whatever reason, do not wish to share those facts and figures with us. That is a pity because it would help hon. Members of all parties if this information were put forward. I shall come on to deal in a few moments with some of my hon. Friend’s other points, particularly regarding how his and my constituents will be affected.

As the Minister said, the Government new clause removes the stamp duty reserve tax charge for which fund managers are liable when investors sell or surrender their units in UK unit trust schemes or shares in UK open-ended investment companies. Some people have argued that SDRT could essentially be considered as some form of transaction tax—not a term that everybody would use, but it has certainly been argued in that context—currently levied at what seems to be a not unreasonable rate of 0.5%. This is the element that the Government propose to remove.

As I have indicated, our amendment would require the Chancellor to publish a report—I always try to be reasonable, fair minded and mild mannered in my requests to the Minister, as he knows from our many discussions in Committee—to show exactly who benefits and who would be left worse off through the abolition of SDRT on investments in those units trusts and OEICs. As I said in Committee, in these straitened times, hon. Members—as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) suggested—could be forgiven for assuming that such a generous tax break would fall to those who really need it, such as the millions of hard-working taxpayers who are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government than they were in 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to move on to discuss further who exactly it does benefit, which is the crucial point. We sometimes hear from the industry that there is some kind of existential threat presented by people moving to Luxembourg, Switzerland or wherever else, but it seems that despite all that, the industry is, as I said, in pretty good health.

One of the things that worry Opposition Members is that the only people about whom the Government seem to be genuinely concerned are those who are already wealthy and privileged. They have cut the top rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 per annum—we discussed that earlier, so I shall not say more about it at this stage—and, as bank bonuses rise again, they continue to oppose our proposal for a bank bonus tax to help young people back into work. They have failed to balance the books, as they promised to do, yet it seems that they can still find £160 million a year for those who may not need it as much as others.

[Mr McKenzie]

Is it not typical of the Government that they can find that £160 million while telling our constituents that times are still hard and they must tighten their belts? The cost of living is driving many of them to despair.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, my hon. Friend has made a very valid point. As he says, many of our constituents in the real world are at the point of despair. VAT has risen, tax credits have been cut, and wages have not kept pace. As my hon. Friend knows very well from his own area, many people are on zero-hours contracts, or are working fewer hours than they would like. Furthermore, the bedroom tax—which we have debated on numerous occasions, and which has been mentioned earlier today—is still having an impact on many people throughout the country.

While all that is happening—and while our constituents are continually coming to our surgeries and contacting us in other ways to tell us about the problems in their lives and how difficult it is to make ends meet—the Government still cling to the notion that the much vaunted recovery is benefiting everyone. I must tell the Minister—I am sure that he has heard similar comments even from Members on his own Benches—that those benefits are not being felt by most of my constituents, and I suspect that they are not being felt by most of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, whose seat is not far from mine.

I could not swear to this, but I strongly suspect that if I asked my constituents what one policy would really improve their quality of life and living standards, they would not be queuing up to tell me that the answer was tax cuts for investment funds. I may be wrong, and I have no doubt that the Government would advance a different argument. Perhaps they would argue that the removal of SDRT for unit trusts and OEICs will produce a fair and proportionate tax rate which will create jobs, revitalise communities and rejuvenate local economies, for that certainly seems to be what they are trying to claim. During last year’s debate, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury implied that it would create more jobs in regional economies by encouraging investment funds to move to the United Kingdom. What concerned us at the time was the fact that there was scant evidence to back up any of that, and, I cannot, try as I may, find any additional supporting evidence in the tax information impact note attached to this year’s Bill.

In Committee, the Minister told us a wonderfully heart-warming story—to which he has referred again today—about a 22-year-old investor who would benefit from the Government’s changes to the tune of some £4,600. At that time, I questioned whether this was a real 22-year-old who had been found by the Government Actuary’s Department—where from, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister now knows whether it was a real live 22-year-old. In any event, I was interested in the notion.

As I told the Minister in Committee, the majority of 21, 22 and 23-year-olds who have contacted me have done so not because they are concerned about investment funds, but because they are desperate to get a job. They are desperate because they have either finished an apprenticeship and are not being kept on, or because they have recently graduated and are determined to get their foot on the employment ladder. Most say that they would take any job that was available in order to have an opportunity to build towards something that would make the best use of their skills. Unfortunately, I think that the notion that their first decision will be about where to invest for the long term does not apply to most of them. As well as trying to find work, those 22-year-olds, and many other young people—perhaps including people aged 30 and beyond—are desperate to get on the housing ladder, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to find opportunities to do so.

[Mr McKenzie]

My hon. Friend has described a number of desperate scenarios with which the Government could help to deal, but they have chosen the desperate scenario of a fund that has grown by 6.5% for the last four years and is worth trillions of pounds, and have decided to give this particular desperate fund an extra £160 million.

[Cathy Jamieson]

As I said earlier, one thing that the Government could do and have consistently refused to do would help thousands of people throughout the country: they could abolish the hated bedroom tax. They could also accept our proposal for a tax on bankers’ bonuses, and adopt our properly designed programme to get young people back into work and give them the start that they want. Until we get young people into work, ensure that they have adequate housing and ensure that they can have a decent quality of life, the majority will not have an opportunity to think about saving from one year to the next, let alone trying to invest for the longer term. In Committee, I asked whether it was only me—or only Opposition Members—who held this view. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made a powerful speech in which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, he described the reality of what was happening to young people in his constituency.

I have looked at the tax information impact note again, in search of further details of that 22-year-old’s story, but I can find nothing that explains how such people will benefit. The only reference to benefits for investors was this rather disappointing revelation:

“This measure could improve returns on investments (including pensions) but would otherwise have no impacts on individuals or households.”

I do not yet see how the measure can benefit the people we are trying to represent.

I am sure that we would all like to hear the next chapter in the 22-year-old’s life story, and if the Minister has any more information to illustrate the fact that he is just the kind of person who stands to benefit from this measure, I am genuinely willing to hear it. However, in the absence of any such information, I shall return to the subject of amendment 67.

Our amendment invites the Government to lay out clearly and transparently exactly who will benefit from this policy and by how much. In Committee my hon. Friends expressed on a number of occasions the view that this is just another tax break for the Government’s friends in the City. While it does look like that, we are open to giving the Government the chance to prove otherwise. That is why our amendment asks the Treasury to publish the costs to the Exchequer in order to ensure that a list of beneficiaries and a distributional analysis for the abolition of stamp duty reserve tax are put into the public domain. That way we will be able to see all the facts as to who the Government are really concerned about.

Of course, if the Government do not agree to our amendment, we will be forced to conclude that this is just another tax cut for the wealthy, just as we suspected all along. We would also have to conclude, in the absence of any information to the contrary, that any claims of jobs created in regional economies are about as robust as the Prime Minister’s stance on Europe has been, and we would have to look a lot harder to try and find something in this which would create jobs, as seems to have been suggested on previous occasions, because I cannot for the life of me see how that stacks up. If we really want to tackle some of the regional imbalances, let us look at some of the announcements that have been made today, in terms of the reports put forward by the Opposition, about how we can create more wealth and look to ensure that power and resources are devolved to some of our cities and we tackle the issues around infrastructure in the regions.

In the light of the response when we tabled this amendment in Committee, I have to say that I am not at all confident that the Government are going to agree to provide us with the transparency we so urgently need. Again, if we look back to what was said in Committee, we find that the Government were not particularly transparent in terms of the information we were given, because, along with the story of the 22-year-old, speakers on the Government side were keen to stress that, because it is fund investors as opposed to fund managers who will benefit from the removal of SDRT, it would greatly boost investment. Again we have to question whether any increased investment would directly benefit those investment fund managers. Hon. Members were also very helpful in trying to enumerate how many people are currently employed by the industry, but try as they might, they failed, as did the tax information and impact note, to detail that important point about how many jobs would be created by the abolition of SDRT.

We also heard that the tax as it currently operates is

“an uncompetitive charge that puts UK-domiciled funds at a disadvantage to funds domiciled elsewhere”.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 10 June 2014; c. 412.]

That does not square with the idea that the UK investment management industry is doing so well that it is the second largest in the world, beaten only by the US.

I want to draw to a conclusion soon because I put quite a number of questions to the Minister in Committee and it would be useful for us to give him some time to respond to them, as he was not necessarily able to do so in Committee. It is important that we give him the chance again today, therefore. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Minister is continuing to steadfastly—albeit politely—refuse to countenance our amendment for two reasons. First, he seems to be suggesting that the information requested has already been covered by the tax information and impact note, which, as I hope I have outlined, it does not seem to me to do in any clear and transparent way. The other argument that came up in Committee is that it would be difficult and it would perhaps take longer than six months to do. I am sure—and I am sure the Minister will understand this—that should he wish it to be so, he would be able to utilise all the capacity of the Government to overcome any difficulties, and indeed to ensure more information and a report were brought forward, and I am sure he would also be able to use his good offices to have his Government provide us with considerably more information than is currently contained in the tax information and impact note. It would also be helpful if the Minister could give us more information in his winding-up speech as to why he thinks it would not be possible to do this within a six-month deadline, as we have asked in our amendment.

In conclusion, this is all about priorities. The Government’s measures will reduce Exchequer revenues by more than £800 million over the course of the next five years if this particular measure goes ahead. That funding could be used in a variety of ways, and the Government have to be held responsible for the choices they make. Our amendment simply asks them to undertake that assessment and put the information in the public domain, so that we can see who benefits from this initiative and how it would benefit the wider public. The Government have not made that case; they have not shown how the measure would have an impact on our constituents—for the most part they seem to suggest it would not have any impact on them—and they have not answered the questions put previously about job creation and the impact on the regional economies.

Let me therefore remind the Minister of some of the questions we posed in Committee—I am sure other Members will wish to contribute, but he will also want to answer these in his summing up. The Investment Management Association is saying that the industry is doing very well, so why are the Government handing this tax break to the industry? What evidence can the Minister provide to us, even at this late stage, to suggest that the measure will have a positive impact on the UK economy and, in particular, the jobs market? Unless my memory fails me, he has not so far been able to give me a concrete number on the jobs he expects to be created or any more information about the regional benefits that have been referred to. Can he do that now? It would be helpful if he could do that and if he could set out all that information today. In those circumstances, perhaps I would consider whether our amendment was necessary. I suspect that he will not be able to give that information and will not be able to provide the clarity and transparency we seek, so I strongly suspect that when the time comes, I will seek to press my amendment to a vote.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing this important debate. The choice of which currency to use is perhaps the single most important economic decision a country can take. That is why Scotland is asking, as we close in on the independence referendum in September, why the yes campaign does not seem to know what currency it wants. We hear that the SNP wants and favours a currency union with the rest of the UK, keeping the pound. However, the other members of the yes campaign want either the euro or a new currency altogether. This leaves us in Scotland very confused and worried. What currency does the yes campaign want for Scotland?

The people of Scotland want a straight answer about the currency from those who support separation, with a guarantee of which currency we would use if a yes vote should transpire in September. But today all we have on currency from the nationalists is a wish list at best, wrapped up and qualified with ifs, buts and maybes. We now know that keeping the pound in a currency union would require the agreement of the rest of the UK; but what if agreement could not be reached on that? What is plan B? Even if a separate Scotland wanted to continue to use the pound, and agreement was reached with the rest of the UK, it would mean that there was no control over our interest rates and how much Scotland could tax and spend. I do not believe that even the nationalists would accept that as independence.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DsUP)]

Is not the bottom line the fact that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the yes campaign—that on one hand the SNP and the yes campaign want national sovereignty to be transferred to Edinburgh, but on the other hand they want to give it away almost immediately in a currency union?

[Mr McKenzie]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point clearly and we have been highlighting that throughout the debate on Scotland’s future.

If Scotland carried on using the pound regardless, we would have no control over our economy and we could lose our central bank, which acts as the lender of last resort. The nationalists are now suggesting that Scotland should default if they do not get their way on a currency union; the Deputy First Minister has said that Scotland might not take its share of national debt if it is not agreed. That is wildly irresponsible and would jeopardise an independent Scotland’s creditworthiness. The people of Scotland have every right to worry about the future of the money in their pocket, when they hear bullying threats, such as the threat of reneging on our share of the debt. What tone would that bring to other negotiations about separation? It is hardly the way to make friends and impress people.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Scottish Government cannot default on the debt, but can only refuse in the negotiation to take their share; the debt is already underwritten by the UK Treasury. What I do not understand about that position is that all the cash collection systems operating in the UK—Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, benefit systems and all the rest—will continue to be operated centrally. It is a mess.

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points; but the main thing is that the Scottish Government believe they can do anything they want.

Losing the pound would mean a higher cost of living, with higher mortgage repayments, higher credit card and store card bills and more costly loans, because Scotland would start out as a separate state with no credit rating. There would also be an unnecessary threat to jobs: what would the exchange rate be? The cost of changing money every time Scottish firms were to buy from or sell to our biggest customer—the rest of the United Kingdom—would be an issue. There would be deeper cuts or higher taxes as the Scottish Government paid more to borrow money, leading to more debt and lower public spending. There would be risks to benefits and pensions as payments were converted into a different currency. Many people worry about what currency they will be paid in and what their savings will be worth.

There would also be risks to the economy. Without the back-up of the rest of the UK following the world banking crisis, Scottish banks would have gone under and families and businesses would have lost everything. Let us remember that billions were pumped into our banks following the world banking crisis. In my constituency alone, more than 400 jobs were saved. Time is running out for those who want a separate Scotland to give an answer and provide an assurance on currency. The Scottish people cannot be expected to go on any longer with “Don’t worry—it will be all right on the night.” It is not scaremongering to want a direct answer from the nationalists, incorporating a guarantee on currency in Scotland after 2014.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, which borders another country with a different currency, can attest to the difficulties with prices and services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that retention of the pound sterling is essential for the continuation of trade, but also for the continuation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr McKenzie]

I fully agree. What is scary is the attitude of the nationalists and the yes campaign—an attitude of casually and arrogantly waving off any challenge to their supposed plans. Those plans do not stand up to scrutiny—as we find now on the matter of currency; they would deliver not so much independence as isolation.

The question to the nationalists is simple, but the options are limited. Can they deliver a currency union? All the indications are that the answer is no. Will they go it alone and just use the pound, with the result that they will have no control over the economy? Will they go for a new currency, and will that be pegged or floating? The Scottish nationalists are keen to get closer to the Nordic regions, nations of a comparable size; they always cite Norway, Finland and Sweden, or anywhere in that supposed arc of success, as it fluctuates. In the past 10 years, Norway’s currency, which was pegged against the euro, has fluctuated, and there has been a high degree of movement, and cost implications, as a result. Alternatively, will the nationalists adopt the euro—if and when Scotland can gain entry to the EU?

Those questions are as yet unanswered. Scotland needs to know from the yes campaign what currency—guaranteed—would be used after 2014. We who want to remain part of the UK can guarantee Scotland’s currency after 2014; it will be the pound, and all that is necessary for that to happen is to vote no in September.

Fairness and Inequality

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

The point that is often forgotten is that despite the fact that London is one of the richest parts of the European Union and that communities such as mine in Carmarthenshire are at the bottom of the European wealth league, public expenditure per head is higher in London than it is in Wales—that is until very recent figures, which showed that Welsh spending had caught up. It is an incredible situation. I could not make this up.

The way in which monetary policy is formulated is also in severe need of reform. The week before last, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the Bank of England, or the Sterling Central Bank as it should be renamed, to be reformed better to take into account the economies of the UK when formulating monetary policy. The Governor should appear for scrutiny before the relevant Committees of the devolved legislatures, and meet with the devolved Governments, just as he has to with the Chancellor and the relevant Select Committees in Westminster.

In addition, the four external members of the Monetary Policy Committee should be nominated by the four nations, rather than hand-picked by the Chancellor of the day from the self-serving banking elite. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my friends from Northern Ireland who supported that early-day motion. There is an interesting story in the Western Mail about the need for the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to collaborate in the event of Scottish independence, be it a yes or a no vote, to ensure that we are not bombarded by Westminster. I hope that it might be a small step on the road to greater collaboration. Instead, what we have is a drive towards regional pay in the public sector, introduced by the previous UK Government and now developed by the coalition, which ghettoises low-wage economies outside London.

Labour has gone a step further, with a pledge to cap benefits on a geographical basis if it forms the next Government. That means that the unemployed and disabled in Wales will receive fewer payments than those who happen to live in London. Wales will have lost more than £1 billion during 2013-14 due to cuts in benefits. Those include payments that people in work receive to top-up low wages. That money would have been spent directly in the Welsh economy, but is now lost.

Rather than hitting the sick and unemployed with a stick and labelling them “scroungers”, why do we not embrace the active labour market programme employed so successfully in Sweden? It is an interventionist policy, in which the Swedish Government spend twice the amount per capita that is spent in the UK, creating tailored action plans. The programme has productivity and mental health benefits, so it ends up costing the taxpayer far less, as individuals are moved from social security into employment, and it eases considerable pressure on heath services.

It is increasingly clear that the Treasury has been re-infected with the British disease of basing growth on inflating house prices backed up with taxpayers’ cash—the Help to Buy policy. Far from rebalancing the economy, the Treasury is reintroducing boom and bust. Instead of delivering an equitable share of infrastructure investment across the UK, the Exchequer lavishes London with its grand design projects, be it the Olympics, Crossrail 1 and 2 or High Speed 2. UK Trade & Investment does not deliberately channel foreign direct investment into the poorest parts of the state, unlike its German counterpart, Germany Trade & Invest, which has a statutory duty to do so. Is it not sobering that despite the cold war and a physical wall between the east and west of its country, Germany today is far more balanced in geographical wealth than the UK?

Other places have shown the way. Germany is a federal republic, and the constitution requires fiscal equalisation among the Länder. That is a timeless requirement on all parts of government, and policies are required no matter the era. After reunification, when poorer East Germany joined developed West Germany, a massive effort meant a variety of measures were implemented, including financial transfers to poorer regions and industrial development policies.

The same could be done from Westminster, but it has not been. The alternative is the approach favoured by the London parties, whereby investment is concentrated in London and the south-east, and wealth inequalities continue to rise. It is clear that it is time for a change. Where are the voices in support of such a change? Who will turn back the tide of growing inequality? We know that we cannot rely on the Tories in London, so unashamed are they in their love of banking and the financial elite. Where is Labour? Why is it not standing up against inequality? Its amendment seeks to wreck our motion, absolving it of its role in creating rising inequality over the past decade, but it is bereft of policies.

Last week, some of Labour’s Wales-based Members defended the UK as a redistributive Union. They are deluding themselves, both about their record in government, as inequality rose during that period, and about the current situation. A closer examination of their voting record would suggest that their rhetoric is unsupported by action. I cite their abstention on the Welfare Reform Bill, which introduced the cruel and dreaded bedroom tax; their abstention on a cut in the top rate of income tax; and their refusal to support any measure to help to promote measures to provide the Welsh Government with the economic powers that they need to move the Welsh economy forward.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bedroom tax, and I invite him to congratulate Scottish Labour which, in the Scottish Parliament, pushed the Scottish Government to end the bedroom tax in Scotland. Will he further assist me in calling on the Scottish Government to reimburse those good citizens who have already paid the bedroom tax?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that his party is not in power in Scotland any more—it is the Scottish National party Government who introduced that policy. Rather than grandstanding, he would be better advised to congratulate the SNP on its progressive track record in government.

Who could forget the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, promising to be “tougher than the Tories” on benefits? Only today, the Leader of the Opposition has praised none other than Baroness Thatcher, that well known proponent of fairness and equality, in a bid to reform public services. By that, he can only mean more privatisation. Perhaps the greatest let down, and without a doubt Labour’s greatest folly, reflecting its abandonment of the fight against inequality, is its commitment to Tory austerity cuts post-2015. It is now blocking fiscal devolution to Wales, which would enable us to develop our own economy. It has also failed to commit to fair funding for Wales, even though it admits underfunding by more than £300 million a year as a result of the Barnett formula.

The national parties of Wales and Scotland fight for a partnership of equals between the nations of these isles. However, it is about far more than that. It is about what we do once we achieve that aim. The main reason is to honour the political traditions of our countries, which I have set out today and which have been undermined by centuries of Westminster rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting intervention. As an MP for a left-of-centre party—sadly, the hon. Member for North East Somerset is no longer in his place to hear this—I am asking how it is possible that our society and, indeed, many other societies, particularly in the English-speaking world, can tolerate inequality, which has now grown to levels beyond those of the 1920s. Has something primitive been transmitted to our minds through the media? The belief that the poor are poor because they are undeserving and have not worked hard enough is a primitive thought. People have to be helped, because we are complex creatures living together in society. People have deep psychological needs and some can suffer from the paralysis of feeling swamped or depressed when they feel stuck or trapped.

Yesterday’s report by the Living Wage Commission, “Working for Poverty”, looked into the scale and problem of low pay and working poverty in the UK. The first shocking statistic I stumbled on came from the work of the Resolution Foundation, which had tracked low-paid workers for a decade between 2002 and 2012. Despite working for a decade, only 18% of those people had managed to escape low pay in that 10-year stretch. In other words, people in low pay had a four in five chance of remaining there.

The report further notes:

“1.3 million employees remained stuck in low pay for the subsequent decade, and a further 2.2 million workers held higher paid jobs but returned to low paid jobs by the end of the decade.”

That is and should be depressing. Imagine the feelings of the people we eyeball who have been living with that reality on a daily basis for a decade.

There is good news and bad news. Over the past decades, the wealth of this and other countries in the west has grown as productivity has increased. The bad news is that the fruits of that productivity have been disproportionately distributed. According to the BBC’s wealth gap analysis, as the wealth pie grew and there was more to slice up, many people got roughly the same slice of the pie while others took a share that would embarrass a lion.

Between 1997 and 2007, the income of the top 0.1% grew by 82% to an average of £1.179 million annually; the top 0.5% saw an increase of 66.5% to an average of £452,000 annually; and the top 1%, which, of course, includes the previous two groups, saw their income rise by 60%, but their rise was only about a quarter of that of the 0.1%.

Meanwhile, between 1997 and 2007—the happy decade, as some in financial circles call it, before the crash of six years ago—the bottom 90%, which includes most of society, saw their wages rise by only 17%, a disproportionate slice of the economic pie. Another way of looking at it is that the fraction of pay the bottom 90% were getting in comparison with the top 1% had fallen by a fifth over that decade. As Professor Stiglitz says:

“A corporate CEO will not exert less effort to make the company work well simply because his take-home pay is $10 million a year rather than $12 million.”

The “Working for Poverty” report contains a series of nuggets and goes fearlessly into some thought-provoking factors.

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned poverty and how to tackle it, which is welcome, but can he explain why the SNP Government in Edinburgh have taken £1.2 billion out of anti-poverty programmes since 2008?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will find that the efforts of the SNP have been very laudable in Scotland, with unemployment and youth unemployment lower than in the rest of the UK. The SNP Government have done all they can. He should realise that the Government in Edinburgh are in a financial straitjacket set by the philosophies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in London. If the hon. Gentleman really wanted to tackle such issues, he would free himself from that straitjacket, and the SNP or whichever party was in government in Edinburgh would be fully accountable, rather than held within the straitjacket of another Government’s philosophy with which we disagree. Does he want to intervene again?

[Mr McKenzie]

indicated dissent.

[Mr MacNeil]

No, the hon. Gentleman is very happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

I do indeed have great fears about what will happen to our country if we do not get a yes vote in September, because either this lot will continue in power with the cuts already promised by the Chancellor, or we will have the Labour cuts commission and heaven knows what it might come up with.

We have a different vision for our country. We will be able to do many things with independence that we cannot do under devolution. The problem of child care, for example, is not just about improving the early education of our children and helping families, important as those things are; it is also an important economic policy. If we can raise female participation in the labour market to the levels achieved in, for example, Sweden, we will not only boost general economic performance, but raise an extra £700 million a year in tax revenue.

Under devolution, the Scottish Parliament has been able to increase the amount of child care available and it has recently announced a further extension, but with independence we could go beyond that and deliver our ambitious plan for the provision of free universal child care for all children aged one to five—a policy that, when fully implemented, would save families up to £4,600 per child per year.

Why do we need independence to deliver that? Because at the moment, as I have said, Scotland receives a fixed budget from Westminster. We would not receive the increased tax revenues resulting from having more women in the workforce unless Westminster decided that we should, so under devolution the costs of providing increased child care would have to be met from within a fixed budget, which would inevitably mean cuts in other services. Those who are making that argument need to tell us where they want to see the cuts. That social and economic transformation can be achieved only when we have access to all of Scotland’s resources, and that is why we need independence delivered to the full.

We could also take action to ensure that most people are treated fairly and that work is genuinely a route out of poverty. We should not accept this as a given, but the fact is that many women work in low-paid jobs, so what we do with the minimum wage really matters to the living standards of women and their children. With independence, we will able to guarantee that the minimum wage will rise at least in line with inflation every year and not leave it to the whim of the Government of the day.

It is interesting to note that, if the minimum wage had increased in line with inflation over the past five years, the lowest paid would be £600 a year better off than they are now. That has been the cost to the lowest paid of not being able to take such decisions ourselves and of not being able to make the impact we want on the inequality that stalks our nation.

With independence, we and not Westminster will be responsible for implementing the Equal Pay Act 1970, closing the scandalous 32% gap that still exists between the pay of men and women. Why is it that 44 years after that Act was passed there is still such a huge gap between their pay?

Decisions being made down here about the retirement age are also a problem. Just a few years ago, women could expect to retire at 60. By 2020 the retirement age for women will be 66—an increase of six years in just a decade. As things stand, young women entering the work force today will probably have to work until they are about 70. Of course, we all have to accept that people are living longer and that things cannot stand absolutely still—we accepted the first rise in the retirement age—but the rapid increases being imposed by Westminster are not right for Scotland, because we have different demographics. We have serious problems in some of our communities and we are working hard to deal with them. The fact is that life expectancy is often much lower in some of those communities than in the general population. It is, therefore, surely better that decisions about the retirement age are taken in Scotland, where such distinctive circumstances will be properly taken into account.

I have often spoken in the House on energy, and it will be no surprise that I want to say a few words about it. In its recent campaign, Energy Bill Revolution made the point that fuel poverty has increased across the UK by 13%, but one gain from devolution is that that is not the case in Scotland. Under the latest Scottish house condition survey, which was revealed at the end of last year, the number of those in fuel poverty in Scotland has decreased by 3.4% at a time when energy prices are rocketing. That is a tremendous achievement by successive Scottish Administrations, who have made real efforts to tackle fuel poverty. However, there is so much more we could do.

[Mr McKenzie]

On fuel poverty, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Scottish Government have changed the criteria for boiler replacements for the elderly, which Labour set up? None of them can get boiler replacements.

[Mr Weir]

The Scottish Government have invested much more in fuel poverty measures: more is now being spent than was spent in the last year in which Labour was in power, and much more is being spent there than is spent down here. As I have said, we have reduced fuel poverty at a time when it is rising in the UK as a whole, but we need to do more. We need to transfer fuel poverty measures from energy bills, which need to be reduced, and put money into a direct programme to increase the fuel efficiency of many houses in Scotland—particularly hard-to-heat houses of solid wall construction—which will help people.

Consumer Rights Bill

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about supply chains, but does he not agree that those who operate supply chains have a duty and responsibility to monitor them at regular intervals to ensure that they live up to the quality and standard of the product at the end of the chain that they will be delivering?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts precisely the point I was about to make about balance in supply chains. The manufacturer at the end of the supply chain has a duty to understand, monitor, measure and take responsibility for the supply chain, but we also need to provide for consumers to exercise their rights and understand the supply chain.

I want to talk about the two areas I have most experience of: the Government’s industrial strategies for life sciences and agricultural technologies. The central thrust of the agri-tech and food strategy, which we launched last summer, is that corporate interests in reducing costs and dependence on agrochemicals, energy and labour are now very much aligned with consumer interests and demand for increasingly green food with low-carbon, low-plastics and low-water footprints. The challenge in global agriculture is how to measure those inputs and communicate to consumers clearly and simply at the point of purchase that the thing they are buying comes with a low-carbon and low-water footprint. A proper system for measuring that will also make Britain a leader in the technologies required to hit those targets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who has done a lot of work on resilience in supply chains and the importance of this agenda. I suspect we will get the benefit of her comments in a moment.

That agenda applies equally in the field of medicine. The challenge of discovering drugs for modern patient groups has seen the industry reinvent itself and move away from spending 15 years and $1 billion on developing a blockbuster drug that it can present to Governments as working for everybody. The more we know about disease, genomics and different patient groups, the more we know that different people get the same disease in different ways, and the challenge is to help the industry develop drugs around the patients whom we know will benefit. Then we can give the right drugs to the right people, instead of wasting drugs and having to set dosages at levels that make drugs ineffective in those for whom they work well in order to prevent side effects in those for whom they do not.

That agenda is driving a completely different way of discovering drugs—one where the NHS works with patients—and creating extraordinary opportunities for the UK to lead the world in providing targeted and ultimately personalised medicine, but it requires a different way of thinking about patient rights. We need to think of patients as having the right to be involved in NHS research; to access the best medicines available; and to access and use data, both personalised and anonymised, to support research. I understand that the Bill does not address that area of consumer rights, but the House will have to return to it in the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I want to focus on certain aspects of the Bill that relate to the changing landscape of the types of products we purchase, the sales techniques we encounter, the impulse purchases consumers make, the consequences of those purchases and, last but not least, the consumer’s experience of the unknown data sharing that clearly happens.

A number of Government Members tried to entice us to welcome the Bill. Although I do not welcome it in its entirety, I welcome the spirit behind it. We welcome anything that brings consumer rights up to date, although I do not think that the Bill totally does that, or that protects the consumer, although the Bill does not do that in the way that we would like to protect them. Those on the Front Bench suggested, as I would hope, that they would engage with the devolved Administrations and encourage them to consider consumer rights and to embrace and work on some of the issues that are raised today and will be raised in Committee and during the later stages of the Bill.

It is difficult for consumers. It is difficult for them to know their rights and for some of them to understand those rights, or to know where to seek assistance if they believe that their rights have been breached. That crosses the generations, covering both the elderly and the young. Let me give an example, which is not in the Bill, that I would ask the Government to consider, caused by the changing way we purchase things. We go online to purchase nowadays, so protection is required on downloads as much as on the hardware and the physical products that we buy.

We must embrace the idea that we live in an age of online shopping and we purchase things that we can only download, as they have no hard physical existence. We still need those products to do exactly what we have purchased them to do, however. We are now living in the world of apps and if we download a patch to our phone or tablet, we should not just accept that it did not operate and move on to the next download.

I want to enlighten the House by sharing some of the experiences that my constituents tell me about when they come to my surgeries. They have had, or believe that they have had, their consumer rights infringed. One example involves unfair business behaviour and sales techniques, such as those used to sell products over the phone. Elderly constituents have come to me who have been caught out time and again by those selling over the phone. The most recent case involved insurance sales. It is not hard to pitch a sale when we have been through a difficult winter, with storms and so on. If someone says, “We can do your house insurance £50, £60 or £100 cheaper,” that would be enticing to an elderly couple, for example, with a low budget.

As we say, if something is too good to be true, it probably is, but those people only find that out when the dream bargain they think that they have acquired over the phone turns into a bit of a nightmare when they have to make a claim. I have heard complaints that such insurance sales companies are difficult to contact and difficult to get back to. After the difficult and stormy weather that we have had, they renege on their commitments for months on end. That means that we have elderly couples in extreme panic about the repairs needed to their roofs. They take on the insurance, but find that they end up phoning the other side of the country and are in a queue, meaning that it can take anything from 20 minutes to get through to someone to talk to. Even after that, the repair does not transpire for months.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the great problems with some of those calls is how the company at the other end of the phone can make it look as though the consumer has to purchase the product, as though they are coming from some pseudo-position of knowledge? That is especially the case with the rightly much-unloved energy companies, some of which urge consumers to take out higher direct debits by making it look as though they have to do so because otherwise there will be serious problems. They even suggest that there will be money at the end and that it will be a nice way of saving. That is completely unethical.

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is absolutely right to say that there is a pressure from the other end of that telephone line to make the recipient think that the caller is selling the best possible product imaginable. Time and again, it catches people out.

It is not only a question of the elderly being caught out by sales over the phone and so on. Increasingly, a number of young people are coming in to my surgery. They are not the only people who purchase online, but they are increasingly purchasing certain products online and are bitterly disappointed by their quality. I am speaking about those who might have downloaded things, especially music, from the internet in the months leading up to Christmas, only to find that the music is not quite what it said it was and is not quite of the quality they would have expected from the group or individual they downloaded. For them, it is a case of saying, “That is not what I wanted: the product does not do what I thought it would when it was sold to me.” In some instances, it is not entirely the person they expected when they downloaded their purchase. Other people are filling up tracks just to make up the album.

The problem does not often come to light, because when people purchase something for £2.99 or £3.99 they think that it is not really worth their while to go back and complain. However, when we multiply the problem by the number of young people who make downloads and share that experience, it adds up to quite a bit of money. The Bill should look at the download and software side as much the hard physical side of the problem.

We live in an era in which we share a lot of data—perhaps we do not realise how much data companies have on us, including about our buying habits and other trends. I dare say that if we went into certain supermarkets, they could tell us what we purchased every week, what we changed every week and, more to the point, what we were probably enticed to buy when there were “Buy one, get one free” or “Three for the price of two” offers. It is that sharing of data that leads to another consumer experience: nuisance or persistent calls in which people are told, “We know what you buy, we know what you like, and we know what you might buy.” We live in a different world in which we are told that we should not wait and that we have to buy something now—“Get it now; don’t wait”—which is in stark contrast to the experience of a previous generation, who thought that if they could not afford something, they should not buy it. There are pressures to impulse buy as a result of the sharing of that sort of information. For some people, that leads inevitably to debt. An increasing number of people are getting into debt as the result of such purchases.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that when certain groups of people take those calls they take a backward step? They think that they are talking to the agent or the company, but in fact they are talking to a sub-company. They are left with a belief that they have to do something. It is not a question of whether they should do it—they have to do it.

[Mr McKenzie]

We should never forget that those sub-companies have targets, and they will do anything to meet them. For example, a young constituent came to see me. He had purchased a mobile phone contract, and wished to give up the phone after the term of his contract had ended. He found that, yes, it was easy to give up the phone, but he noticed on his bank statement that every month a deduction of £5 continued to be made by the company. He wondered what on earth it was about. He had given up the phone, only to find in the small print that he had been sold phone insurance. Because of its targets, the company continued to take insurance money, even though he did not have the phone.

That leads me to the problem of debt and how we help people to get out of debt. I am delighted that in my area we have begun a campaign to highlight the problem called Debtbusters, which has been rolled out across Scotland both to help people who have got into debt as a result of those purchases and to tackle payday lending. One way out is to offer advice on credit unions. The focus on credit unions tends to be the credit side, but we need to change that and focus on savings. It is unbelievable that, after eight weeks, someone can take out three times what they have saved and that leads to increased debt.

In conclusion, Labour believes that this Bill does not do enough to clarify the way in which customers are empowered in both local and national structures to ensure that they know who to turn to for help when things go wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the contribution of the financial sector. Last year it paid over £60 billion in taxes and employs over 1 million people throughout the country. Where consumer detriment occurs, the Financial Ombudsman Service provides a valuable service, providing swift resolution to complaints, but of course we must stop consumer resolution occurring in the first place. That is why we have created a new regulator—the FCA, a regulator with real teeth.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

23. Will the Financial Secretary commit to looking more at financial services on the high street—I speak of high-cost credit—and to looking at more than just imposing a cap, including such business practices as no affordability checks, encouraging roll-overs and advertising aimed at the most vulnerable in our communities?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: he is right to raise this important issue. I am sure that, like me, he will welcome the action we have already taken to transfer regulation from the Office of Fair Trading to the FCA and the consultation the FCA is holding on new rules, including on continuous payment authorities, roll-overs, advertising and strict affordability checks.