Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Lord Bates Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, as I listened to the right reverend Prelate, I struggled to think of one point in this Bill on which this House might be unanimous, but I venture that it is this: that the provisions of the Bill are unwelcome. However, the question was never whether they were welcome; it was always whether they were necessary.

The roots of this Bill in this Parliament lie in the bill for the previous Parliament: the doubling of the national debt and the biggest budget deficit in the developed world and in our own peace-time history. From 2003 to 2010, the previous Government spent £171 billion on tax credits, contributing to a 60% rise in the welfare bill, which was unsustainable. I have never quite been able to get to grips with the idea that profligacy is compassionate and that sound management of your finances is somehow hard-hearted and uncaring.

Other myths that have been put forward surround language. “Shirkers”, for example, is an expression that I would never use, having grown up on Tyneside with many people who found it degrading to be in receipt of government aid through welfare rather than having the dignity of earning a salary. I never use that phrase, but, of course, it was never this Government who started its use; it was Mr Liam Byrne—to whom I shall refer a couple of times in this speech. He said at the Labour Party conference in September 2011:

“Let’s face the tough truth—that many people on the doorstep at the last general election felt that too often we were for shirkers not workers”.

That was not a Conservative statement. In a speech given by Mr Byrne at the London School of Economics in January last year, he said:

“Labour is the party of hard workers not free-riders. The clue is in the name. We are the Labour Party. The party that said that idleness is an evil. The party of workers, not shirkers”.

It is important when we have a debate of this nature, which is clearly highly charged and emotive, that we correctly ascribe the language being used.

Let us place the proposed savings that this measure will bring about in some sort of context. We are talking here about proposed savings in 2014-15 of £1.1 billion, rising to £1.9 billion in 2015-16. That is 1% of the £117 billion bill for social welfare, excluding pensions and sickness. Another argument used is that this is somehow a pernicious measure which seeks to attack the poor while helping the rich, yet the argument used about higher-rate tax cuts is worth further examination. Higher-rate taxpayers will pay more tax to the Government in every single year of this Parliament than they paid in any single year of the previous Parliament. The increase of the higher rate of tax to 50p in the pound came into effect on 6 April 2010. If ever there was deathbed conversion on the part of the previous Government, that was it. In 13 years, they did not put up the higher rate of tax; it came into effect two days before the Dissolution of the previous Parliament. We are moving forward and saying that you will pay more through capital gains tax, more through the reduction in the pension tax relief threshold, more through the freezing of inheritance tax, which will come later, and in a number of other ways.

Therefore, the point that the Government are focusing on fairness in restoring the public finances is an important one. For example, changes in child benefit will mean that those who earn salaries over £50,000 will progressively lose their child benefit, which has widespread support as being fair. The raising of the personal allowance has halved the tax bill of someone who is on the minimum wage and taken 2.2 million of the poorest working families out of tax altogether. The state pension has risen from £97.65 in 2010 to £110 per week in the current year, including one of the largest rises in the level of the state pension ever in 2011.

There is another crucial element, which is reducing the welfare dependency culture in the UK, which has trapped millions on welfare and is a huge waste of human potential. Between 1997-98 and 2010, while average earnings increased by 30%, tax credit spending increased by 340%. The result was that by 2010, 90% of all workers were eligible for some form of welfare.

That leads me to another point on which I should like to press my noble friends on the Front Bench a little further. Given the opportunity, I will return to it in Committee. With the introduction of universal credit, we will have a system where, no matter what the salary of the job, you will always be better off in work by a straight line table of 65p in the £1. It is very important that people should always be better off in work. That is one of the principles at the heart of this reform. However, in the debate on 17 January led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which I guess was a bit of a forerunner of this debate, one of the issues that I raised was the living wage. I should like to explore it further.

I followed it up in a Question for Written Answer, in which I asked what would be the effect on the bill for social security benefits of raising the minimum wage to the living wage. If the argument, which I fully support, is that we want to reduce welfare dependency, then whether that welfare dependency comes through levels of benefits or inadequate levels of income, it needs to be treated exactly the same. The Answer was:

“The Government support the idea of a living wage and they encourage businesses to participate. However, requiring employers to pay a living wage higher than the national minimum wage could be burdensome to business and damage the employment prospects of low-paid workers … In the absence of evidence on the living wage’s adoption by employers and the resulting effect on employment levels and patterns, it is not possible to estimate the net effect on income tax and national insurance receipts, or on social security benefits”.—[Official Report, 29/1/13; col. WA 315.]

On the first part of the Answer, I would say that if it was the case that the minimum wage destroyed jobs, why have we continued to increase it from £5.93 in 2010 to £6.08 in 2011 and then to £6.19 per hour in 2012? Presumably, we accept that it does not destroy jobs.

When it comes to calculating the cost, Her Majesty’s Treasury seems unable to estimate it, but the Resolution Foundation has estimated that the living wage would introduce gross savings of £3.6 billion in increased tax revenues and a reduction of £1.1 billion in tax credits and means-tested benefits—a not insignificant sum, as it is the same as would be yielded by the 1% cap on welfare increases over the next three years.

I therefore encourage my noble friend to reconsider the issue of the living wage. As a Conservative, I think that we should help companies to create wealth and jobs through lower taxes, not by subsidising low pay. That is worth looking at. It would be entirely in keeping with the principles of the Secretary of State for Social Security and, I am sure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would support it. That would show that we are on the side of low-paid employees who are struggling to get on in life and whose contribution and effort we respect and admire.