Pensions and Social Security

Debate between Ian Murray and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have demanded not only an inflation-level rise this year but a similar rise for both the two years covered by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. As to our policies for beyond the next election, he will have to await our manifesto, just as the whole country is eagerly awaiting it. It will tell him how we will put these problems right.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am—I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland this question this morning—that it is a Liberal Democrat Minister who is about to give the biggest tax cut to millionaires the country has ever seen, while at the same time ensuring that people trying to do the right thing are worse off?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That does surprise me very much because in opposition the Minister’s party used to champion reducing child poverty. In government, however, it has surrendered and is cutting in real terms the incomes of the poorest in what is frankly a craven surrender to the Tory party at its worst. It is implementing policies that even Mrs Thatcher did not dare propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I think what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) is trying to say is that the 50p tax rate created £7 billion of tax avoidance, so rather than going after the tax avoidance the Government have reduced the rate.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right: if it is an avoidance problem, the Treasury should address that.

Strivers will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure. The most vulnerable are being hammered and the rich are getting a tax cut. The solution is to get Britain back to work. That is why we have argued for our compulsory jobs guarantee. It will cost about £1 billion a year. We will pay for it by restricting the tax relief on pensions saving for those earning over £150,000 per year. We will guarantee anyone over 25 who has been in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for two years the offer of a choice of jobs or a training position, and after that the payment of jobseeker’s allowance will cease.

The case for our compulsory jobs guarantee received a welcome boost from the Minister’s Department when it published an evaluation of the last Government’s future jobs fund. I am grateful to both Ministers who are in their places on the Front Bench for the publication of this helpful and informative evaluation. The evaluation pointed out just how successful the future jobs fund was in getting young people back to work. It estimated that the net benefit to society as a whole was £7,500 for every participant in the future jobs fund, and that is after taking account of all the costs of the initiative. Of the gross cost of some £750 million for the future jobs fund, over half was recouped by the Treasury in additional tax payments and reduced benefit payments. Our compulsory jobs guarantee will repeat that success for the over-25s. We will get Britain back to work; we will end this punishing spiral of increasing struggle for strivers and for the most vulnerable in order to fund, as the Government find they have to do, the price of ever-increasing unemployment.

The proposals in this order for working-age benefits are a disgrace, although the Minister made a perfectly fair point in his speech earlier—that an increase is better than no increase at all. The proposals for pensions uprating are worth having—I put it no more strongly than that—but the proposals for working-age benefits are shameful and quite contrary to everything the Minister’s party argued for when in opposition. I hope that in the course of this evening’s debate we will be able fully to expose that.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Murray and Stephen Timms

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The point I am making—I think his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was making it too—is merely that we can draw a parallel between the code in the Bill and how it could work in the example I gave involving carrots in a ready meal, and what happened with the dairy industry. We are merely drawing parallels. I am not denying the actualities of what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am saying that having an adjudicator without teeth—one without the power to deal with the issue—could lead to exactly the same examples with many other industries.

To finish, my noble Friend Lord Knight—I pay tribute to the work he did on the Bill in the other place—speaking on behalf of the Opposition on Second Reading in the Lords, said:

“It is fundamentally odd that while Parliament is entitled to debate and scrutinise the function and powers of the referee, we are denied the opportunity to give the same scrutiny to the rulebook itself.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2012; Vol. 738, c. GC80.]

I appreciate that the Minister said that the code has a footing, in that the adjudicator can use it to compel supermarkets and retailers to comply, but there is a question whether it should be put on a statutory footing in this House to allow that to occur, rather than be dealt with through executive order.

The code must be a living document that is open to continual improvement in order to ensure that the framework is responsive, and that it ultimately works in the best interests of all businesses as well as consumers. The National Farmers Union has raised concerns about the status and enforceability of the code, because it is contained in a schedule to an order under the Enterprise Act 2002, rather than in a statute of its own. We would consider going further, and we will explore the ways in which the code could be a matter for Parliament to consider on the basis of recommendations from the adjudicator, who is best placed to evaluate the code. The code needs to be capable of responding to changing market forces, and to be as durable as the adjudicator who will referee it.

I mentioned extending the scope of the code to intermediaries, and hon. Members have already raised the recent issues surrounding the dairy industry. Cuts to farm gate prices mean that dairy farmers are being paid less for milk than it costs them to produce it. That is not a sustainable model. We welcome the news that there is agreement on the terms of an industry code of practice that will lay the foundations of a new deal between farmers and retailers. For too long, dairy farmers have put up with wholly unbalanced terms and have been struggling to cope in an increasingly unworkable financial situation. It cannot be right that supermarkets use milk as a loss leader while farmers are being paid less for the milk than it costs them to produce it.

Ministers need either to ensure that the voluntary code on dairy contracts works for farmers, or to bring in regulation to fix the dysfunctional supply chain in that marketplace. I believe that the adjudicator could fit that role if necessary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether their role could be extended into areas such as the dairy industry when problems arise. That would be part of keeping the code as a living document.

[Stephen Timms]

Traidcraft and others have raised a point relating to the confidentiality of those who report their concerns. The Minister referred to that matter in her speech. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill will provide enough protection for those reporting breaches of the code?

[Ian Murray]

We will have to explore that matter in detail in Committee, because there is confusion in the industry and among trade bodies. They are uncomfortable with the current requirements, and I hope that the adjudicator will offer recommendations on the level of evidence that will be required to set up an investigation. A balance will have to be struck involving anonymity and confidentiality. That could be difficult in the circumstances in which a product could be uniquely indentified as coming from a particular supplier, and care would have to be taken to ensure that that supplier’s identity was not disclosed in the course of the proceedings.

This is a good Bill, but it could be a great Bill. The situation was best summed up by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who said in the House in April 2011:

“None of us wants a weak, ineffectual, pointless adjudicator which will cost everyone something but achieve nothing.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 236WH.]

The adjudicator could and should be strengthened through the various proposals that we have heard this afternoon, and we will seek to achieve that in Committee. I give the Minister a commitment today that the Opposition will work constructively with her. Similarly, I hope that she will be open to giving due consideration to the amendments that we will table in the weeks ahead. I also hope that Hon. Members on the Government Benches who recognise that the Bill does not quite fulfil its potential will look at our proposals in detail in Committee. We look forward to playing our part with the Government in establishing an effective adjudicator as soon as possible.