Economic Growth
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(2Â weeks, 5Â days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
It is a great pleasure to be opposite the hon. Gentleman again, as we were earlier in this Parliament. I will address his points, but I say kindly to him that I would rather be continuity Labour than continuity Liz Truss.
The hon. Gentleman was right to mention Jaguar Land Rover. It is a concerning time for the workforce, and the Business Secretary is working closely with the chief executive and the leader of the trade union Unite, bringing them together tomorrow to discuss the situation. Jaguar Land Rover has made clear that it faces competitive global headwinds, but we have done a lot to support the automotive industry, and Jaguar Land Rover in particular, given the loan guarantee that we provided last year in the wake of its cyber-attack. The Business Secretary and the Government are also providing help to the automotive sector to bear down on the cost of energy.
I think the hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with me in some areas, which is always good to hear. We can agree that there is nothing progressive about spending so much money on servicing our debt. As a Government we are committed to fiscal discipline and the fiscal rules because we want to bring down the cost of Government borrowing, but we are not immune to the global instability that means that the cost of borrowing is also increasing for every other G7 country. However, we have the fastest growth in the G7, and we are cutting our deficit faster than any other G7 country; business confidence and investment are up; productivity is up; interest rates have been cut six times since the election; and consumer confidence is up. While the hon. Gentleman talks down our economy, me, the Chancellor and the whole ministerial team will be talking up the British economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question about the northern scale-up fund. The British Business Bank will make those decisions independently of Government, as should always be the case. He is right to ask for reassurance about that, and I have provided it. We are a Government that are serious about devolving power to every part of the country. We will have more to say about that at the Budget and will set out a fiscal devolution road map as well.
The hon. Gentleman accused me nicely of talking smartly about the thicket of consultation, saying that I had some common sense, and I thank him for that. He has been in Government too, in the Treasury, and I fondly remember our meetings together back then. It is good that there is agreement across the Chamber that we need to ensure that those sorts of things do not gum up the system, that Ministers are able to take decisions, and that we are able to get infrastructure built in this country.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the Green Book discount rate. We say proudly that we are reducing the discount rate to 3%, because there have been times in the past when the Treasury has stood in the way of good regional infrastructure projects that have a long-term benefit. I am proud that we are ensuring that those projects get a fairer hearing.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made changes to tax to support unicorns in last year’s Budget, and we are opening up opportunities to public procurement. I think he mentioned pudding at the end—parfait, I think it was—and although I am a big fan of pudding myself, I will not respond to that.
On the serious question of the Alan Milburn review, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timeline, but I will repeat what I said in my statement: it is our moral duty as a Government to ensure that we have more young people back in the labour market. That is why we have already introduced the youth guarantee, so that young people who have been out of work for longer than 18 months will get a paid placement by the Government, as well as introducing a grant for businesses that take on unemployed young people. It is a very serious issue, and one that we will address.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and her commitment that the British Business Bank’s new fund will not be interfered with politically, because when the Treasury Committee looked at the National Wealth Fund, we were very clear that it needed to be able to get on and do its job crowding in that private investment. There should not be a chop-and-change approach to the policy; it should not be a delivery vehicle for different Government policies, as Governments can change.
I have spent my career backing devolution, but there is a challenge here, is there not? The Chief Secretary has to ensure that the money that taxpayers give to Government to spend is spent well, but there is a gap, with our regionally elected mayors, in the oversight and scrutiny of that public spending. Devolution is a good thing, but what is she going to put in place to ensure that those mayors and the devolved authorities can report back about how well they are spending taxpayers’ money, and if they are not spending it well, what will the consequences be?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question, and I agree with her: public financial institutions must make independent decisions about the businesses that they support. The Chancellor has talked today about new strategic priorities for the NWF, and that is also the right thing to do. That goes in parallel with what my hon. Friend was saying.
On oversight of mayoral strategic authorities, my hon. Friend is right that if we are going to devolve more power and, critically, more resources, there should be more oversight. The First Secretary of State has talked about the role of others, including Members of this House, in holding mayoral strategic authorities to account when they receive those new powers.
Financial Services Reform
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(1Â year, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the statement and look forward to the Treasury Committee talking to—or interrogating—her, and indeed the Chancellor, about the detail as it emerges. Since the election, one of the things the Government have been talking about, leading on from the previous Government, is the secondary remit letters to the regulators about encouraging growth as a secondary objective. Can she tell us when the Government will be clear about their own appetite for risk in the sector so that both firms and the regulators know how far the Government will be prepared to go? She and I know from our experience in this place that if too many consumers suffer under any changes, this place is where that will be raised, and then there is a tendency for the Government to turn around and say, “Well, you went too far.” For the sake of the sector, the regulator and our constituents, will she tell us—or will she tell us when she can—where the Government’s line on risk will fall?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I am happy to talk to the Committee about that in more detail. What I will say is that the Leeds reforms regulate for growth instead of seeking to eliminate risk from the system altogether. We know that in order to get greater returns, there is a need to take informed risk. The reforms will enable firms and consumers to take informed risks. But we will always support the regulators and legislate in a way that protects consumers from bad practices and bad actors.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(1Â year, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Economic Secretary is reviewing the work of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We on the Treasury Committee recognise that there have been challenges with the service, but how will she make sure that the consumer voice is central to her review?
Emma Reynolds
I have had meetings with Which? and other consumer representatives. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are reviewing FOS. We want to make sure that it is a simple, impartial dispute resolution service that quickly and effectively deals with complainants so that consumers can get a fair deal, but that financial services firms are not subject to a quasi-regulator in the way they are at the moment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(1Â year, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, there was a lot of coverage of the Chancellor’s comments about the ISA limit. She pledged to keep it at £20,000 but did not specify how much within that would be cash and how much would be investments. Can the Minister reassure me that she is seriously considering the impact on the mortgage-lending market of changing the cash ISA limit?
Emma Reynolds
As we announced in the spring statement, we are looking for options for ISA reform to ensure that we get the balance right between cash and equities. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we understand that cash savings are a vital tool for people and act as a financial buffer for a rainy day.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(1Â year, 6Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know how important it is to encourage savings, because so many people are a paycheque away from poverty, but there has been a lot of discussion about lazy capital in cash-only ISAs, for example, and other savings accounts. I know there is a drive by Government to see greater investment. Would the Minister like to expand on the Government’s thoughts on that? In particular, can she make any comments about the security of the cash ISA?
Emma Reynolds
Cash savings provide a vital source of savings for a rainy day, and we recognise that. Equally, we want to build a better investment culture in our society, so that it is not just the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who can have the opportunity of better rewards by investing in British companies and others in our economy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(1Â year, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds
The ombudsman took six years to look into what is a serious, significant and complex set of cases. We need time to look at that seriously, and we are doing precisely that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Affordable Housing
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(11Â years, 6Â months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Private Rented Sector
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(12Â years, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Emma Reynolds
We are calling for a three-year tenancy. We think that we need to change the culture of short-termism that has developed around the private rented sector. We certainly draw a lot of inspiration from the excellent work done by Shelter, and many of its proposals are a feature of our proposals.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage longer-term landlords, such as the former owners of the New Era estate in Hoxton, which has just been sold on? Tenants there are facing huge rent increases. Many people have lived there for over 20 years and felt that they had security, but that is no longer so certain. Does my hon. Friend thus agree that the long-term tenancies are important?
Emma Reynolds
Absolutely, which is why we would legislate for long-term tenancies. We simply do not agree with the Government that a voluntary approach is appropriate. Longer-term tenancies are simply not coming about, so the people my hon. Friend talks about face great insecurity.
Emma Reynolds
There are problems with rent arrears, notably in the social housing sector. Many people are, for the first time in their lives, finding it difficult to pay their rent and finding themselves in arrears because of the Government’s callous bedroom tax.
Our reforms will be good for tenants, but they will also be good for landlords, and it will be essential for us to provide the right safeguards for them. The vast majority of landlords in England are small landlords with one or two properties, and they regard their extra house as a pension pot. They are interested in the increase in the value of their property over time, and in finding good tenants who pay their rent on time and treat the house like a home. We want to work with landlords to ensure that we get the balance right, but we also feel that tenants deserve extra protection and longer-term tenancies.
Emma Reynolds
I am going to make a bit of progress, because many Members on both sides of the House rightly take an interest in this issue. I will stop talking about the Secretary of State, because he seems to be becoming slightly annoyed about it.
Let me finally deal with the third element of our proposals. We will ban the charging of letting agents’ fees to tenants. Too many letting agents charge extortionate fees every time there is a change of tenancy.
Housing (London)
Debate between Meg Hillier and Emma Reynolds(12Â years, 7Â months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Reynolds
The truth is that the housing benefit bill is going up. The Government should try to shift Government subsidy away from benefits to bricks, but when we take into account the bedroom tax and the cap, in London in particular, on the amount of money that families can receive in housing benefit, we see that things are being pushed in the wrong direction and that the housing benefit bill is going up, not coming down.
Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend may be too young to remember this, but when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), was Housing Minister he said that
“housing benefit will take the strain.”
It would be useful to hear this Minister’s view on housing benefit now that the problem has escalated.