High Cost Credit Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and Gareth Thomas
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), and I apologise to her for having missed the first part of her remarks. She certainly made an important point at the end of her speech about alternatives, in particular credit unions, and I shall return to that subject.
It was good to hear the Minister’s contribution. She rightly praised the work of the Office of Fair Trading, but she will understand our considerable disappointment that the Government are set to reject the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), which provides an opportunity to introduce tough new rules to tackle some of the worst excesses in the payday lending and high-cost credit industry. Nevertheless, I commend him for the manner in which he has introduced his Bill.
My interest in the Bill is sparked partly by the number of people in my constituency who have taken out high-cost payday loans, ended up in financial trouble and had to turn to local debt advice charities for assistance. Two particular cases stand out for me, and in neither was the person doing the wrong thing; both were in employment, trying to bring up their families without relying on anyone else. But such is the cost-of-living crisis being faced by too many families across the country, including some in my constituency, that these people got into financial difficulty and made the mistake of applying for payday loans, which has made their situation so much worse.
The first case involves a single mum, whom I will call Emma. She works part-time and has a 12-year-old son. She was managing fine until her elder daughter, who was contributing to the household bills, left home to get married. The bills did not reduce much when she left and as a result Emma’s wages alone were no longer sufficient to cover them all. Unable to get any help, Emma got behind on her rent and fuel bills, and resorted to taking out payday loans. She took out five, with five different companies, paying interest rates of between 1,700% and 2,900% APR.
The excellent Harrow citizens advice bureau pointed out to me, with commendable understatement, that anyone who had looked properly at Emma’s overall financial situation would have seen that there was no way in which she would have been able to repay these loans. Interestingly, when the CAB got involved in discussions with her landlord and the utility companies they were both willing to make reasonable arrangements to help her clear her arrears with them over time. The payday loan companies, however, were very different; they took notice only when formal complaints about their behaviour by the CAB to the Office of Fair Trading were threatened.
The other case involves a single mum who has two teenage girls at school—I will call her Sonika, but, again, it is not her real name. She is in full-time employment but, again, her household budget has been squeezed by the combination of rising prices, notably those for food and fuel in this case, and the fact that her wages have not risen. She was managing okay until a couple of years ago, when she began to fall behind with her rent. She took out a loan to help her pay the rent but then got behind again and took out another one. Soon she could not pay the rent because she was servicing some seven payday loans and by the time she went to see the Harrow CAB she was in absolute despair, facing eviction and homelessness.
Sonika, too, benefited from the CAB’s support in negotiating repayments on her rent arrears, so she was able to save herself from eviction. But, again, when the CAB came to negotiate on her behalf with the payday loan companies, even though it had her written authorisation for this, initially they refused to negotiate until a complaint to the OFT was threatened. Again, responsible lenders would have seen that she could not afford extra payday loans and would not have advanced the credit. Indeed, they would perhaps have pointed her much earlier towards the debt advice charities. She is gradually getting back on track with her finances, but it will be a long time before she clears her debts.
What is striking is the huge growth in the industry in the past few years alone. Consumer Focus has estimated that the number of payday loan borrowers in 2006 was comparatively small, at 300,000, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, by 2011-12 the OFT was suggesting that some 7.5 million to 8.2 million loans had been taken out. Others in the debate have highlighted the considerable concern about the way in which payday lenders are operating, be it the misleading advertising, the fact that they are not doing proper affordability checks, the irresponsible roll-over of loans or the way in which vulnerable consumers get targeted.
Philip Davies
There is lots of talk about irresponsible lending and I am sure that nobody would advocate that. Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that one of the lessons learned from the banking crash was that when people indulge in irresponsible lending the biggest victims are the people who are lending the money in the first place? There is no great incentive for people to lend money to people who have no prospect of paying it back.
Mr Thomas
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the payday loan companies seem to have done rather well despite the problems many people have in paying them back. Let me use his intervention to suggest that these are issues we might usefully debate in Committee and an occasional rebel against those on his Front Bench might be tempted to recognise the benefit of further debate, in Committee, on irresponsible lending.
Employment Opportunities Bill
Debate between Philip Davies and Gareth Thomas
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman should know that my hon. Friend is never swayed by my opinion on anything, so whatever I say will not influence his decision. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks everybody else is as lily-livered as he clearly is on controversial matters. All I can say to him and to my hon. Friend is if my hon. Friend does decide to press the Bill to a Division, I will vote for it. I do not think I can make my position any clearer than that.
When the national minimum wage was introduced it was not supported by my party or the Liberal Democrats, as we had a principled objection to it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on this. Mine is that that principled objection turned into expedient support for the minimum wage, but I am sure that the arguments that were relevant then remain relevant today.
We were told that the minimum wage would not make any difference to employment levels. Given that over the following eight years there were higher levels of employment and lower levels of unemployment, it was taken as read that the national minimum wage must have no negative impact on employment. Given that we all want people to be properly rewarded for the jobs they do and that no politician wants to argue for lower pay for people, we have a political consensus on this matter. However, during those eight years there were high levels of economic growth, so it was inevitable that employment levels would rise in that period, with or without a national minimum wage. This clearly has not crossed the minds of Labour Members, but even more employment may well have been created if there had not been a national minimum wage. I used to work in the supermarket industry and retailers in that sector made it clear that about 100,000 extra jobs would probably have been created without a national minimum wage during that time. The fact that the employment level rose during that time does not mean that it was caused because of the minimum wage; it probably occurred despite the impact of the minimum wage.
The real test of a national minimum wage was always going to come when we came to an economic slow-down. It is very easy for employers to maintain those employment rates in good times, but the test was always going to come during a downturn. There are legitimate concerns now about the effect of the national minimum wage, and it would be irresponsible for us to ignore them, even if it would be expedient to do so.
I must make the point that I was never supportive of the principle of the national minimum wage. I think that the payment of an employee by an employer should be a private matter and that if someone is happy to do a job for a certain wage, it should not be any business of the Government to prevent them from doing that job. However, I have to accept that that philosophical argument was lost some time ago, so my concerns are now based on the minimum wage’s practical and unforeseen impact on some of the most vulnerable people. The people who are most disadvantaged by the national minimum wage are not the unscrupulous employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch so eloquently said, such employers are still alive and kicking in the black economy; they are still employing people and paying them below the minimum wage. The people who are most disadvantaged by the national minimum wage are the most vulnerable members of society. My concern is that the minimum wage prevents those people from being given the opportunity to get on the first rung of the employment ladder.
The great myth when the minimum wage was introduced was that people who are paid low wages are paid those low wages for the rest of their career. Many people have been paid a low wage to begin with and that has given them some work experience which has allowed them to move up the employment ladder to get higher quality jobs and better wages. My concern is that the first rung on the jobs ladder is far too high for many of the most vulnerable people ever to reach and they are thus unable to move further up. I shall set out an example that I am able to give, having spoken to people in this field.
Let us consider an employer who needs to take someone on and can choose between a former prisoner and someone who has never been to prison. In the real world, who is the employer going to take on, given that they would have to pay both these people the same wage? I suggest that 99 times out of 100 the person who has not been to prison will get the job. As the employer would have to pay both these people the same wage, why would they give the person who has been to prison a chance? The only way the former prisoner would be given a chance by the employer is if the employer was able to say, “I’ll give you a smaller amount for a certain period of time and we’ll see how it goes. If you prove yourself, I’ll move you up.” The employer is not being given that opportunity as that flexibility is not available, and that is preventing certain people from being able to access employment. Consequently, many of these people—even the ones who want to get a job—cannot find employment and so they commit crime again and add to the problems in society.
I went to visit a charity called Mind in Bradford a few years ago. One of the great scandals that the Labour party would like to sweep under the carpet is that in this country only about 16%—I stand to be corrected on the figure—of people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities have a job. The others are unemployed, but why is that? I spoke to people at Mind who were using the service offered by that charity, and they were completely up front with me about things. They described what would happen when someone with mental health problems went for a job and other people without these problems had also applied. They asked me, “Who would you take on?” They accepted that it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who had no mental health problems, as all would have to be paid the same rate. Given that some of those people with a learning disability cannot, by definition, be as productive in their work as someone who does not have a disability of that nature, and given that the employer would have to pay the two people the same, it was inevitable that the employer would take on the person who was going to be more productive and less of a risk. The situation was doing the people with learning difficulties a huge disservice.
As I said at the start of my remarks, the national minimum wage has been of great benefit to lots of low-paid people. However, if the Labour party is not even prepared to accept that the minimum wage is making it harder for some of those vulnerable people to get on the first rung of the jobs ladder, we will never get anywhere in trying to help these people into employment.
Mr Thomas
On the question of take-home incomes for low-paid workers, and given the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for tax cuts, I wonder whether he saw the comments yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the shadow Chancellor, calling for a temporary drop in VAT. That is surely a perfectly sensible way of meeting the objectives that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve.
Philip Davies
Mr Deputy Speaker, I fear that I would incur your wrath again if I were respond to that, so may I just say in passing that I thought what the shadow Chancellor said yesterday was drivel. I will now move on to the rest of the Bill.
My point is that the minimum wage could be reduced by about a pound an hour, which would be a great benefit to employers and may encourage some of them to take on more people. If tax rates were adjusted accordingly and those people currently earning the minimum wage of £5.93 an hour were taken out of tax, they would not be any worse off. Therefore, no one would be penalised by that. Those people would still take home the same rate of pay as they do now, yet it would be a great fillip to employers, many of whom are struggling; as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough helpfully pointed out, there would be benefits in terms of the employment contributions that they have to make as well.
Mr Thomas
I welcome my hon. Friend’s attendance at and participation in this debate. If I am able to secure your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to set out at greater length what the Opposition think would be a proper way to help working families, as opposed to this legislation.
Crucially, the Bill would enable the minimum wage to be lowered in areas of relatively high unemployment. It would undermine the national nature of the minimum wage, enabling rogue employers to compete on the basis of lower and lower wage rates. I recognise that the hon. Member for Christchurch, as he set out, has always been an unreconciled opponent of the minimum wage—he has been commendably consistent in his views. He must know, however, that with unemployment rising, the Bill would make it easier for minimum wage protection to be eroded.
As I hinted in an intervention on the hon. Gentleman, under clause 3, on the training wage, there would always be ways for employers to claim that training was being undertaken. There would be absolutely no quality control, and there would be a risk of lower wages as a result. Given the Government’s acceptance of the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation of an apprentice rate of £2.50 an hour, there is even less need for the training rate for which he argues. The apprentice rate recognises that someone is not yet up to maximum productivity, but the apprenticeship ensures that proper training is being undertaken, with the employer showing a genuine commitment to quality training.
The Bill would leave low-paid workers even more vulnerable to in-work poverty, and we certainly cannot support that. I gently suggest to Government Members that the minimum wage has been a huge success. It helped to raise pay for more than 2 million people when it was introduced, and some 50,000 low-paid teenagers received a boost in income when a minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds was introduced in 2004. When the Conservative party opposed the minimum wage back in 1997, it claimed that it would cost some 2 million jobs. In practice, 3 million extra jobs were created in the following 10 years.
Members may be interested to know how many people benefit from the minimum wage at the moment. Some 1,080,000 individuals were benefiting from it as of last October. In the south-east, where the hon. Gentleman’s constituency sits, there were some 110,000 individuals benefiting from it. In Yorkshire and the Humber, where the constituency of the hon. Member for Shipley is, there were some 100,000.
Philip Davies
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s selective use of figures. Will he confirm that unemployment among adults and youths is now higher than it was when the national minimum wage was introduced?