Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Of course, the key thing about social security and welfare is that it should encourage people into work. One of the remarkable achievements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is that the number of workless households is now at a record low in this country. That is a huge achievement. Since the Opposition have been raising all these questions about living standards and wages, perhaps they would like to hear what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), a member of their shadow Cabinet, has been saying. He said:
“From 2004 onwards…families on ‘median incomes’—millions of workers—…were feeling the strain…people were working just as hard as ever—but were not getting on”.
He presented his findings to the Cabinet in 2010 but they got buried:
“We picked it up too late. It was very late in the day, is the truth”.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The truth is that working families have paid the price for the three years of flatlining under this Chancellor. Prices have risen faster than wages for 37 of the 38 months that he has been in office. I have a quiz question for the Chancellor this morning. Can he tell the House which one of those 38 months is the odd one out and why?
Mr Osborne
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady back and congratulate her and her husband Nick on the birth of their baby, Anna?
There has been wage restraint in the public sector, but I thought that, as shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Lady supported that. When she gave her speech about fiscal discipline before going on maternity leave, she supported wage restraint in the public sector. I am not clear whether she has changed her policy.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not get the bonus point. He might find the truth embarrassing, but I must tell the House that the only month in which real wages rose was the month when bank bonuses soared by 80%, as the highest paid took advantage of his tax cut for millionaires. Rather than cutting taxes for the richest, why does he not help families facing the cost of living crisis on his watch?
Mr Osborne
When the shadow Chancellor was the City Minister, bank bonuses were £14 billion a year. They are now a fraction of that. Indeed, the income tax rate in every year of this Government is higher than in any year of the previous Government. By the way, inequality is now at its lowest level in this country since 1986. We have taken difficult decisions and tough action to ensure that our economy turns the corner. All those things were opposed by the Labour party, but as a result, because of low mortgage rates, because of the large tax-free allowance and because we are creating jobs in the economy, we can hold out the prospect of an improvement in the long-term living standards of the British people.
Living Standards
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government is failing to turn things around for the UK’s hard working families; notes that this has been the slowest economic recovery on record, and that the Government is out of touch with the difficulties faced by ordinary families; recognises that average earnings are almost £1,500 a year lower in real terms than they were in 2010; notes in addition that tax and benefit changes since 2010 are costing families an average of £891 in 2013-14 according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies; further notes that the Government is making hard-working families pay more than their share to bring down the deficit while cutting income tax by an average of £100,000 for the 13,000 people with incomes over £1 million; and calls on the Government to ensure that the recovery is strengthened, sustainable and its benefits fairly shared by getting more people into work, bringing forward capital investment, as recommended by the IMF, introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee, backing fair taxes by reintroducing a 10p rate of income tax, paid for by a mansion tax on houses worth over £2 million, taking action on rip-off rail fares and soaring energy bills, standing up for families in the private rented sector, reforming the pensions industry, curbing payday lenders and implementing long-term reforms to banking, infrastructure planning and the skills system.
During the 2010 election campaign, the Conservative party made the rather bold claim that it would strive to
“see an economy where not just our standard of living, but everyone’s quality of life, rises steadily and sustainably”.
Looking back more than three years on, time has served that particular Tory manifesto pledge disastrously, as it has so many others. It is no wonder that people are feeling let down. Today, average earnings are almost £1,500 a year lower than they were when that pledge was made.
Since the end of 2010, the UK has seen the biggest fall in workers’ income of any country in the G7. Prices have risen faster in the UK than in any other major economy. It is another broken promise from this out-of-touch Prime Minister.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Does the shadow Chief Secretary accept Labour’s responsibility for its catastrophic stewardship of the public finances, which left this country with a budget deficit in excess of 11% of GDP?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a global financial crisis that hit every country in the world, and all countries are now dealing with the aftermath. As the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said, budget deficit reduction has now stalled, not because the Government have not cut public services or put up taxes for ordinary people but because unemployment remains too high and economic growth too weak to get the deficit down.
This Prime Minister is ripping up the record books when it comes to overseeing falling wages for ordinary workers. Average wages have been falling behind prices for 37 of the 38 months of David Cameron’s prime ministership. Which month is the odd one out? It is April of this year, when the bankers reaped the rewards of deferring their bonus until George Osborne’s cut to the top rate of tax was implemented. That tax cut resulted in 13,000 people with an income of more than £1 million receiving a tax cut worth on average £107,000. That is four times average earnings in this country.
The rest, ordinary people, will be on average £6,660 worse off by the end of the Parliament. That is enough to have paid for the family weekly shop for more than a year and a half. Although he has said repeatedly, “We’re all in this together” and “Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden”, how can families trust this out-of-touch Prime Minister, who has prioritised millionaires over millions of working people?
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would like to welcome her back from her maternity leave. Does she share my concern that 4.8 million people are now earning below the living wage? Does she agree that that is a concern not just for them, because of their low living standards, but for the state and the Government? Social security benefits are having to rise to compensate for that low pay, so the number of in-work claimants of housing benefit alone has gone up to 1 million, with a 50% rise since 2010.
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend will know, the number of people earning less than a living wage has gone up from 3.4 million in 2009 to 4.8 million today, which means that 20% of the work force in this country is now earning less than a living wage. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that that means more pressure on the Treasury, more money spent on tax credits and more money spent on housing benefit. As I said in answer to the earlier intervention, the budget deficit reduction plan has stalled because those payments are going up as the economy is not growing in the way that it was supposed to.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
The Labour motion contains a long list, including a lot of things that the Government are already doing. I also note that it does not call for a temporary cut in VAT, which was one of Labour’s flagship policies. I know that Labour is a policy-free zone at the moment, but is that another abandoned policy?
Rachel Reeves
The list of the Government’s failures could have been an awful lot longer, but we wanted a motion that would fit on the Order Paper. He talks about VAT—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if he listened to my answer. Two years ago the shadow Chancellor said that as an emergency measure VAT should be cut to stimulate the economy. In the two years since, the economy has flatlined. The shadow Chancellor also said that as the economy gradually moved into the recovery stage, the emphasis should be on infrastructure investment, which I think is important. It is because the economy has flatlined for two years that family finances are in the state they are in today.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend not struck by the fact that the interventions from Government Members seem to be addressing everything but living standards? The TUC has shown today that Flintshire, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and I represent, has suffered the biggest fall in living standards in Wales.
Rachel Reeves
It is interesting that the interventions from Opposition Members refer to the challenges their constituents face owing to falling living standards. It is a shame that hon. Members on the other side of the House want to talk about anything but that.
I would like to talk about a family I met this week. On my first day back from maternity leave, I visited a family in Thurrock who told me what they were up against. The father, once a partner in a thriving small business, lost his livelihood three years ago during the recession. Desperately trying to keep up their mortgage repayments, he has spent the past three years taking whatever work he could get through employment agencies, often on the minimum wage and often on zero-hours contracts. He recently found a permanent job as a driver which, topped up with evening shifts doing deliveries, gives the family a bit more security, but it falls far short of making full use of his talents and experience.
The wife abandoned her dream of training to be a primary school teacher so that she could hold on to her relatively secure but modestly paid job in retail. Their daughter is studying for university and should do well, but she worries about fees. All of them pointed to a gaping and growing disconnect between their rates of pay and the costs they face for travel, housing and other basic necessities. Under this Government, the situation is getting worse for such families—families who want to get on in life.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
It is possible that the hon. Lady has said something significant: that the Labour party has dropped its commitment to the temporary VAT cut. Given that as recently as June the shadow Chancellor said that he was committed to it, what has happened since then to cause it to be dropped?
Rachel Reeves
The shadow Chancellor said in his conference speech two years ago that VAT should be reduced from 20% to 17.5% as an emergency measure to stimulate the economy. The reality is that since then the economy has flatlined and we have continued to argue for that, but he has also said that as the economy slowly begins to move into recovery mode—we hope that the growth over the past two quarters will continue—the emphasis should move to infrastructure investment. Were we in government today, our priority would be the £10 billion of infrastructure investment that the International Monetary Fund has called for.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I bring my hon. Friend back to the real-life situations that real people face? Is she aware that in Islington the cheapest subsidised place for full-time child care costs £164 a week? The minimum wage is £212 a week and the London living wage is £272. Is that reality not why it is so hard for so many people in Britain today to make ends meet?
Rachel Reeves
Of course, since the Government came to office, 400 children’s centres have closed and the child care element of the tax credit has been cut, making it harder and harder for ordinary families to afford child care.
Under this Government, the situation is getting worse for families such as the one I mentioned and those in my hon. Friends’ constituencies. One in 10 people who want to work more hours cannot get more shifts; 700,000 people are working more than one job, most of them out of desperation rather than choice; and 1 million people are thought to be on zero-hours contracts. Incidentally, zero MPs from the Government side turned up to the Westminster Hall debate on zero-hours contracts organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott).
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. The workers at the Hovis factory in my constituency recently rejected the replacement of full-time staff with agency workers on zero-hours contracts, but does she share my concern that so few people are able to stand up against that and that increasingly it is young people who are trapped in insecure, low-paid work, which means they have no ability at all to plan their lives or to budget?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she is absolutely right. The Resolution Foundation produced an excellent report, published this morning, warning about low pay becoming entrenched. It does not just affect workers at the start of their careers; low pay this year results in low pay the next year and the year after that, which is particularly worrying.
Zero-hours contracts often mean that workers are vulnerable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, they are unable to plan for the future and unsure of their ability to pay the rent or the bills each month. Let it be remembered that no Tory MPs or Liberal Democrats, apart from the Minister responding, could be bothered to turn up to debate that issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned, we learnt today that 4.8 million people are now earning less than the living wage. Figures I commissioned from the House of Commons Library show that almost 60% of new jobs created since the spring of 2010 have been in low-paid sectors. This is the economy that the Tory-led Government are building: low-paid, part-time and insecure, making life tougher for families.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Three in 10 of my constituents who are in work earn less than the living wage. Two weeks ago I spoke with a constituent from Robroyston. He had been a construction worker before the crisis started but is now in insecure, part-time work and facing child care bills of £200 a week. Is it not the case that under this Government the economy is just not generating the number of good-paying jobs that allow families to meet the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
Two thirds of children growing up in poverty have parents who are in work. I think that goes to the heart of the issue of low pay and its impact on families. It is no wonder that payday lenders are among the fastest growing businesses on the high street. Some of them charge interest rates as high as 7,000%. Families, desperate to pay the rent and provide for their children, are being dragged into debt because they are not being paid enough.
The use of food banks—I am not sure whether the Minister has visited one—continues to rise. In my constituency the main food bank is struggling to find larger premises because demand has outstripped all expectations. St Bartholomew’s church in Armley in my constituency is now distributing food parcels to many desperate families. Its work, and that of St George’s Crypt, is a wonderful example of the active citizenship and community spirit in Leeds, but food banks are damning evidence of the Government’s record on living standards.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right to focus on the issue of low pay. Will she tell the House what has happened under this Government to the level of income tax paid by someone working full time on the minimum wage?
Rachel Reeves
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the IFS says: the average family is £891 worse off as a result of changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits. That takes into account not only the change in the personal allowance, but the cuts to tax credits and all the other changes, such as the VAT increase, that have put pressure on families. Taken in the round, that is the impact on ordinary working families. The Prime Minister says that he is trying, but that is not enough for a family struggling with the bills and the rent and worrying about the increasing gap between what they take home in pay and the cost of some of the basics.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Given what my hon. Friend is saying, did she share my surprise at the Prime Minister’s response to the issue of school uniform costs raised at Prime Minister’s questions today? It was bizarre to hear him dismiss so quickly the cost of school uniforms, which every parent in my constituency knows is a massive issue.
Rachel Reeves
I often hear about that from constituents, particularly this week, when children go back to school. The costs of the summer holidays are past, but those can be very expensive for many families, especially if they receive free school meals and have to provide an extra meal a day during the holidays. The cost of going back to school is also expensive. There is the cost of school uniforms, a new pair of shoes and a school coat—all the basics which sometimes I think the Government just do not understand.
In the face of such challenges, there is a distinct lack of urgency from the Government. For all the warm words, they do not get the reality facing families. Energy bills are up £300 a year, while energy companies enjoy huge profits.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that the hon. Lady is highlighting this issue. She is right that in the last couple of years under Labour there was a huge reduction in living standards, and the coalition Government have not yet reversed it. Does she now think that her party was wrong to implement policies of very high and rising energy and fuel prices, which are one of the main reasons people are in this bind?
Rachel Reeves
We have said that we would abolish Ofgem and create a new energy watchdog with real teeth to force energy companies to pass on price cuts when the cost of wholesale energy falls. Meanwhile, under this Prime Minister’s watch, energy giants are enjoying a £3.3 billion windfall. That shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government. Rail fares are another example, increasing by up to 9% a year. We would apply strict caps. We have said that we would introduce a new legal right for passengers to be entitled to the cheapest ticket for their journey; this Government are giving powers back to train operating companies to increase some fares by up to another 5% beyond the cap. Again, that shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government.
On housing, there are now 3.8 million households in the private rented sector, including more than 1 million with children. Research shows that many are being ripped off through hidden fees and charges costing tenants £76 million a year.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the atrocious slowdown in house building led by this Government has contributed to rising rents, making life incredibly difficult for families and meaning that they cannot do the extras such as getting broadband in their homes, which is vital for their children’s education and their own social inclusion?
Rachel Reeves
We have said of the private rented sector that we would require a new national register of landlords.
This Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. We have said that we would build new affordable homes, and the IMF has said that the Government should bring forward investment in infrastructure. Perhaps we should listen to the IMF.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor now claim that their economic plan has worked after all, but two quarters of positive growth do not begin to repair the damage from three years of flatlining. Three wasted years have left permanent damage as businesses have lost vital investment opportunities, and almost 1 million young people are out of work. That is why families are suffering; that is why deficit reduction is so far off track. Yet we have a complacent Government. They have no idea of what they have put families through, no idea of the damage they are still doing, and no plan to put things right. Three years in government and still no British investment bank; three years in government and banking reform is being watered down; three years in government and one in five apprentices say they have received no training; three years in government and the number of 16 to 18-year-old apprentices is down by 13% this year; three years in government and major infrastructure projects are stalled; three years in government and life is getting tougher for ordinary families.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case about the warped priorities of this Government and the consequences and costs for households. It is little wonder that 80% of payday loans are for the basic costs she is talking about—housing, travel, rent and food. Is it not another example of this Government’s warped priorities that in three years of clear warnings they have done nothing about the legal loan sharks in our society, and is that not why we would make a difference in government?
Rachel Reeves
She has done fantastic campaigning work on that issue. Labour has said that we would cap the cost of credit, as she has called for.
A one nation Labour Government would be taking action now to secure the recovery and to build a more balanced economy that boosts the living standards not just for the few at the top but for the many. We would act on the recommendations of the IMF to support and secure the recovery by bringing forward £10 billion of infrastructure investment. We would build 400,000 affordable homes, creating more than half a million jobs and making our economy stronger for the long term. We would support house building, encourage private sector investment, and create apprenticeships. A one nation Labour Government would be confronting the scandal of youth and long-term unemployment by introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that household lending from banks is at the same sort of level—3% lower than in 2008—but lending to businesses is 30% lower. Is not the real problem that three quarters of new jobs are low-paid because businesses are not being given support by the banks and the Government are not forcing them to act in the interests of high-paid jobs and growth for the future?
Rachel Reeves
We have had Project Merlin and the funding for lending scheme, and yet lending to small businesses falls and falls.
A one nation Labour Government would offer guaranteed work for young people and those who have been unemployed for over two years—work that they would have to take. We would cut the welfare bill and help people to gain the skills and experience they need to join the work force for the long term. A one nation Labour Government would reform our banking and energy sectors, improving our infrastructure planning and building a skills system that ensures that everyone can play their part. A one nation Labour Government would make fairer choices to ensure that the benefits of growth are fairly shared. We would reintroduce the 10p tax rate, helping 25 million basic-rate taxpayers; and we would not be cutting income tax or increasing pension tax relief for the very wealthiest while cutting tax credits for hard-pressed families. Different choices, different priorities: this Government and this Prime Minister do not get it.
As the LSE growth commission said earlier this year:
“prosperity is strengthened when everyone has the capacity to participate effectively in the economy and the benefits of growth are widely shared”.
Rachel Reeves
I will not give way to Members who have already intervened, but I will give way to those who have not yet made an intervention.
That will be the difference between us at the next election. We have a Tory party that is out of touch with the challenges facing families and that believes in the outdated orthodoxy that if the rich get richer, the wealth will trickle down; a Tory party that will not stand up to vested interests or stand up for British families; a Tory party that has overseen three years of falling wages; and a Tory party that offered warm words about the living wage at the time of the election, followed by a surge in the number of people working for less than the living wage over the past three years.
Meanwhile, one nation Labour, even in opposition, has driven forward this campaign. Labour councils are paying the living wage to their staff and extending it through procurement chains. Fifteen Labour local authorities are now accredited living wage employers, with another 80 in the pipeline. Labour is committed to doing all it can in government to support the spread of the living wage, and is now working with Alan Buckle, deputy chairman of KPMG International, to look how this can best be done.
All the examples that I am sure we will hear in this debate about the rising numbers of food banks, payday loans, part-time jobs and zero-hours contracts make it all the more galling for the Chancellor to have claimed earlier this summer that wages were rising.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, to be fair, and she has made some important points about zero-hours contracts. Is she aware that Rhondda council is implementing zero-hours contracts for some of its workers, and it is a Labour-run council? Will she join me in condemning its actions?
Rachel Reeves
Zero-hours contracts can work for some people, but their growth has led to far too many people not having the flexibility they need. No one has said that zero-hours contracts should be banned, but the exploitation of far too many workers is resulting in all the power shifting to employers and not to employees.
The most recent figures show that real household disposable income fell by 1.7% in the latest quarter—the biggest fall for 26 years. The Chancellor claimed that living standards were improving and that incomes were rising. We all know why he made that desperate claim. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Education says that disposable incomes are rising, but the figures show that they fell by 1.7% in the latest quarter—the biggest fall for 26 years. People will find it very surprising that he claims that living standards are improving when for so many families across the country exactly the reverse is happening. We all know that Lynton Crosby, the head of Conservative electoral strategy, a job he shares with the part-time Chancellor, has told the Prime Minister—just one of the things he has been telling him—that he should be relentlessly focusing on living standards. Yet, as the Secretary of State for Education has shown, the Government are out of touch on living standards, leaving ordinary families out of pocket. It is one rule for millionaires, another for our ordinary workers; one rule for train companies, another for the hard-up commuter; and one rule for the energy companies, another for people getting higher bills through their letterboxes. Rents are up, house building is down. We have the worst Prime Minister on living standards since records began. The Prime Minister is out of touch, and hard-working families are out of pocket.
Infrastructure
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the latest GDP figures from the Office for National Statistics, showing that the UK economy has now shrunk in four of the last five quarters; believes that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economy’s short term recovery and long term prosperity; further notes that, half way through the Government’s term of office, many of the major projects promised in the National Infrastructure Plan are yet to start work; further notes the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister, in the House Magazine of 24 January 2013, that the Government cut capital spending too deeply, and that figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that in the first three years of this Government’s term it has spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than the last Government had planned; further believes that private sector investment has also been hit by weak demand and confidence in the UK’s flat-lining economy, and uncertainty resulting from the Treasury’s dithering, delay and lack of leadership; welcomes the independent review of long-term infrastructure planning undertaken by Sir John Armitt; and calls on the Government to act now to kick start the UK’s flat-lining economy by genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment including building thousands more affordable homes.
We have secured the debate to urge the Government to take action to invest in infrastructure projects to create jobs and to boost confidence in our flagging economy, and to strengthen our productivity and competitiveness for the future. We all recognise the importance of infrastructure investment. The Prime Minister has said that
“getting construction projects off the ground is critical.”
The Chancellor agrees, saying that
“investing in Britain’s economic future is the priority of this Government”
and adding that infrastructure investment was critical in
“laying the foundations for future economic success.”
It should come as no surprise that the Government’s grand rhetoric has not been matched by grand actions. Dithering without a strategy for growth, they have cut too far and too fast, choking off demand and stifling the economic recovery.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking the Chancellor and the Government for the £600 million Heathrow link investment that they will be making in my constituency?
Rachel Reeves
Maybe the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene again and tell me when that investment is going to happen. The reality is that so much of the investment is not happening right now when we need jobs and growth. We have lost more than 120,000 construction jobs since the Government came to power.
Rachel Reeves
That intervention says it all. It is all jam tomorrow from this Government.
The last set of GDP figures demonstrate the scale of the Government’s economic failure. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of last year, demonstrating once again the desperate need for a strategy for growth. Since the Chancellor’s spending review two years ago, out of the G20 economies Britain has been 18th out of 20 when it comes to economic growth—worse than the USA, worse than Canada, worse than Germany, worse than France and worse than Turkey. So much for the Prime Minister’s global race.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
In the previous Parliament, I was fortunate to serve on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Committee examined why houses were not being built under the previous Government, and 400,000 planning permissions not implemented. Surely the hon. Lady ought to be looking at what is stopping building. The permissions have not been stopping. The banks were not lending under the previous Government. This is a deeply entrenched position.
Rachel Reeves
House building was down 8% in 2012 and the think-tank Policy Exchange has warned that the Government could end up presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. That is the record of the hon. Lady’s Government—not one, I would imagine, that she is proud of.
The Prime Minister says that we are in a global race, but in reality we are hardly out of the starting blocks. The Chancellor has been told time and again—most recently by the International Monetary Fund—that if economic growth undershoots expectations, the Government should boost the economy with greater infrastructure spending. Well, growth has undershot and the economy is shrinking. Over two years, economic growth has been 15 times less than the Chancellor promised in 2010.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will the shadow Chief Secretary join me in thanking the Chancellor for the £45 million invested in the Stroud to Swindon railway line, work on which has just begun, and which will make a huge difference to my constituency?
Rachel Reeves
I wonder whether the next Government Member to intervene will congratulate the Chancellor on spending £12.8 billion less over three years than the plans he inherited from the previous Labour Government.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I hope that I do not excite the shadow Minister so much that she delivers her baby early. What does she think about the fact that once again the Government have kicked into the long grass the problems of congestion in air traffic in the south-east? Money could be invested in that without the need to spend any public money. Why are they kicking that into the long grass?
Rachel Reeves
It is being kicked into the long grass because of weak leadership. It is desperately disappointing for businesses wanting to invest today that no decision will be made and no report published from the man charged with conducting the review until the next Parliament.
The Chancellor should take the IMF’s advice and use the March Budget to rethink the Government’s failed economic plan. We told the Government that to cut too far and too fast would hurt the economic recovery and that the country needed leadership, not warm words. That is why since the Government choked off the economic recovery we have been calling for a boost to jobs and growth by bringing forward infrastructure investment, as the last Labour Government did in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
With the Government presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation, was it not a mistake to cut £4 billion in affordable housing investment, leading to a 68% collapse in affordable house building, and to reject out of hand the proposal for the 4G licence money to be used to build 100,000 affordable homes, which would have added 1% to GDP and created hundreds of thousands of jobs and which was hailed by the CBI as just what the economy needed?
Rachel Reeves
That is why we urged the Government, before the autumn statement, to use the money from the 4G auction to start building 100,000 new affordable homes and why we urged the Chancellor to use a tax on bank bonuses for a programme for jobs and growth, with further house building and a job guarantee for young people. But the Chancellor did not listen—[Interruption.] Clearly, the Liberal Democrats do not want to listen either. With every project delay, every investor put off and every job lost in the construction sector, we lose ground to our global competitors. With the economy flatlining and no growth over the past year, the case for action is irrefutable. We need to bring forward public investment, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, kick-start the flatlining economy and get the construction industry moving again.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the flatlining of our economy and our failure to invest is having a major impact on young people? In my constituency, there are more people out of work than there were six months ago, and long-term youth unemployment is rising.
Rachel Reeves
Close to 1 million young people are out of work, and one third of them are now long-term unemployed—a waste of their potential and a waste to our economy, as we are losing out on their skills. We so desperately need that economic recovery.
There is still no sign of the Government sharing the country’s sense of urgency. Only 14% of the 576 projects listed in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline have started and just 1% of those are said to be operational. The Government’s record on infrastructure is a complete and utter shambles. Wherever we look, the strategy is failing to deliver—a perfect storm of uncertainty, incompetence and delay.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is talking about projects. One project that might be considered seriously is the GB freight route—the building of a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the industrial areas of Britain and able to take lorries on trains. Will she give that serious consideration?
Rachel Reeves
I know that that is something that my hon. Friend has worked on carefully and is discussing with Ministers and shadow Ministers. It is worth looking at such a scheme.
The Government’s national infrastructure plan is well worth reading. [Interruption.] Given that even the Deputy Prime Minister says that the Government have got it wrong on infrastructure investment, one would think that the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), might listen to the debate, rather than just chuntering from a sedentary position. The national infrastructure plan exemplifies the vacuum of leadership from this Government, with more projects being kicked into the long grass. Let us take the A14, which was described by the former Transport Secretary as “a crucial strategic route” and
“a lifeline to international markets.”
Now the Treasury says that construction might just begin in 2018. The Mersey gateway, which has been highlighted as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, has still not had a preferred bidder announced. Today we found out that 45 winning bids for the regional growth fund—the Deputy Prime Minister’s pride and joy—have already walked away from the process, which is taking so long, with millions of pounds of public money gathering dust in Whitehall. Delay, delay, delay.
That inaction is costing jobs. The construction sector has lost 129,000 jobs since this Tory-led Government came to power. What a waste. No wonder that John Cridland, director general of the CBI, is asking the Government where the diggers on the ground are.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It was reported in The Guardian recently that total PFI liabilities are likely to be more than £300 billion. Will the hon. Lady confirm that, should the Labour party form the next UK Government, it will not return to PFI?
Rachel Reeves
PFI in my constituency built three new secondary schools and helped to rebuild primary schools, as well as building Sure Start centres. I would not have wanted any of those projects not to go ahead, so I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s criticism.
It is not just independent outsiders attempting to urge the Chancellor to change course and take action or saying that change is needed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, in what he described as a “self-critical” mood, has stated:
“I think we’ve…realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
He did not quite get round to saying sorry for a second time, but at least he has finally stumbled upon the problem. We said that cutting infrastructure spending too far and too fast would stifle the recovery, but the Deputy Prime Minister’s brief lapse of regret came two and a half years too late. That moment of self-realisation will not help the construction worker who has already lost his job, the children waiting for their new school or the new business waiting for improved roads. We do not need mea culpas; we need the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to change course.
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like to explain why the Government have cut infrastructure spending by £12.8 billion over three years.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Does she welcome the thousands of new houses being built in the Kilnwood Vale neighbourhood in my constituency, in addition to the £26 million upgrade of Three Bridges rail station and the £53 million upgrade of Gatwick rail station, and so on?
Rachel Reeves
The problem is that this is just a wish list. Those things are not happening—as John Cridland says, the diggers are not on the ground. As I have said, housing investment is down 8% in just one year, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I look forward to hearing Government Members explaining why they are supporting those policies.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chinese have a five-year plan involving $1.5 trillion of investment in strategic new industry and infrastructure, and that their economy has been growing at 10% a year for 10 years. Is it not time that we took some lessons from growth economies such as China, and indeed Brazil, which is investing some $66 billion in its fiscal stimulus? Let us get on with it.
Rachel Reeves
The economic and political system in China is a bit different from that of the UK, but what we must learn from other countries is that we need a proper industrial strategy if we are going to create the jobs and growth that we need, and if we are going to excel and win the global race that the Prime Minister has talked about.
Two weeks ago, at Treasury questions, the Chancellor said that I was being “creative” with the facts when I said that he was spending less than Labour planned to on infrastructure investment. He said that I was being misleading on his record on investment. He had to withdraw that slur. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” has looked into his claims. The verdict is in, and I quote from its conclusion:
“Latest figures from the ONS show that Mr Osborne’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than what Labour had planned is wrong.”
The Chancellor has refused to come to the House to put the record straight, so let us do that now. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility—which the Government set up—the Government are spending £12.8 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from the last Labour Government. They are cutting too far and too fast. I am happy to take an intervention on that point.
Rachel Reeves
Yes, I would like to hear why the Government are spending £12.8 billion less.
Mrs Main
The Labour Administration had a target for rail freight interchanges, and the Howbury Park project was given the go-ahead in 2007. However, no work has yet been done. Should not the Labour Government have insisted on proper investment being put into the project, which would have benefited the local area?
Rachel Reeves
I have generously let the hon. Lady have another chance at intervening, but she did not explain why, in the first year of this Parliament, her Government spent £3.2 billion less than the last Labour Government planned to spend, or why, in their second year, her Government spent £2.9 billion less than the amount in the plans they inherited. Nor did she explain why, in the third year of this Parliament, they spent £6.7 billion less than we had planned. When the Chancellor says that he has matched the plans of the last Labour Government, he is just plain wrong.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I wish her well with her impending delivery. What figure would she place on the capital expenditure budget for this year, if there were a Labour Government at this time?
Rachel Reeves
In the plan set out by the last Labour Government for 2012-13, the amount was £48.4 billion. In the plan set out by this Government, it is £41.7 billion. We had a plan to halve the deficit during the course of this Parliament. This Government wanted to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in that time. The reality is that they are borrowing more than the amounts set out in the plans left by the last Labour Government. They are not borrowing it to invest in infrastructure, either. They are spending £12.8 billion less on infrastructure than the last Labour Government, but they are spending £13 billion more on social security. Why is that? It is because there are more people out of work and more people claiming tax credits as a result of this Government’s failure to get the economy growing again. They are spending £13 billion more than they had planned to on social security. Is that really what they came into power to do? No, but the reality is that their decision to cut as far and as fast as they did has choked off the economic recovery. The result has been an economy that has flatlined for two years.
This Government are lethargic in the face of a flatlining economy, and inept in the face of long-term challenges. They came in and abandoned Labour projects, such as the plans for 715 schools, in a tranche of ideologically motivated cuts. Then, having at least partly recognised their mistake, they announced a new school building programme in 2012. Progress is painfully slow, however, with work planned to start only sometime in the spring. More delay. It is simply not good enough. This is a Government without a plan for the present and without a vision for the future—[Interruption.] If any Liberal Democrats would like to intervene, I look forward to hearing from them. [Interruption.] If someone just wants to mutter from a sedentary position and does not have the guts to intervene, that is their problem, not mine. Do we have an intervention from the Liberal Democrats?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That means me. Members should speak through the Chair.
Rachel Reeves
I do not know how the hon. Gentleman bought his house, but when I bought mine, I had a mortgage because I could not afford to buy it outright. That is why schemes such as PFI were introduced. I am not sure what school, hospital or children’s centre in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency he would prefer not to have opened during the last Labour Government. I bet a lot more of those things opened under the last Labour Government than have been opened under this Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.
The reality is that what the Government are doing is hurting business confidence. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has described the Government’s plan for infrastructure as
“hot air, a complete fiction”.
Rachel Reeves
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to explain why even the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce thinks that the Government’s plans are hot air.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is very much on broadcast rather than reception. On PFI, she mentioned her mortgage, so what would happen to her if she were unable to make the repayments on that mortgage?
Rachel Reeves
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government are not going to be able to make the repayments on their debt. We know that their triple A rating is under threat, so if this is a warning that the Government are planning on not paying their debts and the deficit back, it will be interesting news.
The CBI has warned the Government that
“businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet”.
Yesterday, the monthly index published by BDO showed that business confidence hit a 21-year low. That is the lowest level of business confidence since Norman Lamont was Chancellor and sterling was ejected from the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will remember that day. The Prime Minister certainly does—he was working for the Chancellor at the time. Confidence is now at those low levels again.
It is now clear: business has lost confidence in this Government, who do not have a plan for jobs or growth. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Government are failing to attract the private sector funds they need for their infrastructure investment. It is worth remembering how the Government’s plan to target £20 billion of pension funds for investment is going. Responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had to tell us that the Government were on course for just a 10th of their original target: £2 billion out of £20 billion raised.
The Government lack the policy framework to attract the long-term investment we need. Changes such as cuts to feed-in tariffs have had a detrimental impact on low-carbon investment. The CBI warned the Government that such measures have been
“damaging to business confidence, with implications not just for immediate investment decisions but for longer-term trust in government policy”.
It is no wonder that, last year, 50 companies, investors and industry bodies wrote to the Chancellor asking him to set a firm decarbonisation target for 2030 to give investors the confidence they needed. On energy policy, the Institution of Engineering and Technology has been clear in saying:
“Short-term uncertainty around UK energy policy…is very unhelpful and has the potential to… delay much-needed investment in all forms of energy infrastructure.”
According to the findings of a poll by KPMG, two thirds of businesses believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better because of uncertainty about the policy framework.
From the business community, we hear resounding frustration when it comes to the Government’s infrastructure policy. The Government do not seem to understand that businesses long for certainty when attempting to grow, employ more people and build for the future. Those are the people and businesses that we need to encourage, not put off, and infrastructure is vital to that, but the Government’s ideological decision to cut infrastructure investment further and faster is hampering confidence rather than nurturing it.
Small businesses, the engines of growth, are still waiting for the Government to roll out universal broadband. The Government abandoned the commitment from the last Labour Government to provide broadband for virtually every household by 2012. When business needs this Government, they are nowhere to be found.
Fundamentally, the Government fail to understand the need for a comprehensive and long-term plan to build Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century. That is why the Labour party has commissioned Sir John Armitt, chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to consider how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can be radically improved. The Olympics taught us what we could achieve together as one nation. With the right leadership and the right investment, and by building consensus around the long-term projects that are essential for our energy, transport and housing needs, we can compete globally, with a national infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century. Labour is therefore making the case for a British investment bank, which would help to support long-term finance for British businesses so that they could take risks and grow. That is especially urgent given that net lending to businesses has fallen by a staggering £13.5 billion over the last year.
Investing in infrastructure is about more than the tarmac on our roads or the bricks that make up our schools. It is about creating skilled jobs for our youngsters. It is about supporting the entrepreneurs who want to export and grow their businesses. It is about ensuring we can grow and operate across the globe. It is about attracting investment from abroad. It is about being ambitious in the face of challenges, and attempting to build a better country for the next generation.
The Prime Minister said in his new year address:
“This is, quite simply, a government in a hurry. And there’s a reason for that. Britain is in a global race to succeed today.”
Whichever way we look at it, however, this Government do not seem to be in a hurry to invest in our country’s infrastructure. Indeed, as I said earlier, they are spending £12.8 billion less on capital investment than the amount specified in the plans that they inherited from the last Government, which amounts to an 8% cut. A Government in a hurry? Hardly. Inertia is the watchword of this Government, at a time when what we need is action.
When other countries are investing in their infrastructure, aware of the benefits, this Government dither. On infrastructure, as on so much else, the country needs decisive leadership. Instead, we get incompetence, delay and cuts. It is time that we changed course.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I should inform the House that a speaking time limit for Back Benchers will be announced when he has sat down. I advise Members not to think much beyond eight minutes for the moment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that the previous administration’s final Budget planned to cut capital investment by 6 per cent more than this Government’s latest plans, in the period 2010 to 2014; further notes that this Government has increased capital plans by £20 billion at the Spending Review and at the last two Autumn Statements, by taking tough but necessary decisions to cut current spending, with a result that public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under the previous administration; further notes that this Government announced £5.5 billion of extra infrastructure investment in the last Autumn Statement, including £1.5 billion for roads, £1 billion for new schools, £900 million for science and £1.8 billion for housing and local infrastructure; further notes that it has supported the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times under the High Level Output Specification; further notes that no national infrastructure plan existed under the previous administration whereas this Government has set out for the first time a multi-year long-term strategy for the UK’s infrastructure, with over 50 per cent of the Government’s top 40 projects and programmes due to be in construction, procurement or completed by the end of 2014-15; and believes that sweeping away red tape and developing new finance initiatives such as the UK Guarantees Scheme will also support up to £40 billion of extra important projects”.
I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but there is little that can be said by Labour Members that should not start with an apology. Infrastructure, more than most issues, is an area of policy in which the present is haunted by the decisions of the past. By their very nature, major infrastructure projects must be planned years in advance, capital spending budgets must be allocated years in advance and private sector investment must be secured years in advance. All those things require a Government who can look ahead, anticipate the needs of the future, and make the necessary decisions in a timely fashion.
Rachel Reeves
Plans do need to be made for the future, so why did the Government cancel the building of 715 schools under the Building Schools for the Future scheme when they came to power?
Greg Clark
I should have thought that in two and a half years the hon. Lady would have learned the lesson from that. The deficit that Labour was running was greater than the deficit in any other G7 country. We needed to sort that out, and to create confidence in our economy. If Labour Members have not learned the lesson after two and a half years, what hope is there for the future?
The economic arguments advanced from the Opposition Benches sometimes purport to draw on the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes recommended that Governments should run a surplus in the good times, enabling spending, especially on infrastructure, to take place in the lean years.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I profoundly disagree with the motion, particularly what it says about “dithering” and “delay”. I am all for a bit of dithering and delay, but I would call it caution and sensible planning. I am speaking up for the environment because I want us to take a considered approach to planning as well as kick-starting our economy. Carpenters have the old adage, “Measure twice and cut once.” We should be very careful that we get our infrastructure right rather than just dashing forward and building on any old place.
The motion stresses the need to get Britain building, but we need to have a cohesive approach, not a mad dash for growth without considering local communities or what is actually needed. I am concerned that we are intrinsically entwining planning and the Treasury. I want to make sure that we are giving these matters due consideration and are not trampling over communities, historic landscapes, and, importantly, the green belt, but getting our infrastructure right and getting it in the right place.
I want the infrastructure debate to be associated with economic benefit, local regeneration and jobs, but never to lose sight of the environment. The two are intrinsically linked. Local communities need to ensure that plans are not granted in a hasty fashion just to join the ranks of unimplemented or badly located permissions. The absence of a joined-up approach to getting our infrastructure right and ensuring that there are full appraisals of alternative sites for large, private-funded proposals, such as those for rail freight interchanges, is likely to result in a developer-led scramble to see who can get their project through first, and it will often not end up on the best site for the local area or for national economic growth. That can also affect investment in other sites that may be more suitable, but which are starved of potential investment as investors hold fire in case another rival site gets permission through the planning system.
I want to make sure that we ask where we need to deliver such infrastructure in Britain. It is obvious that large infrastructure projects can create jobs and they should, if possible, be based in those areas where there is a need for those jobs, while at the same time doing minimum harm to the environment. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.
There has been a “minded to grant” decision on a rail freight terminal in my constituency. According to the developer of the site, it will create more than 3,000 jobs, the vast majority of which will be blue collar. Such a development could—I agree with the Labour party on this—provide a considerable boost for a struggling local area if it had the work force. It would be a shot in the arm for an area that needed those jobs. In St Albans, however, we are fortunate to have an unemployment rate of just 2.5% and the vast majority of those 1,155 people are white-collar workers. In fact, we have a deficit of blue-collar workers. Beyond that, neither my constituents—some of whom would be situated 100 metres from the development—nor Hertfordshire county council want the site, we are not a regeneration area, and the site will depress our local house prices, concrete over 10% of our green belt and compromise commuter routes into London.
The site has had three refusals, but on the Friday before Christmas, there was a volte-face and the “minded to grant” decision was made. Residents were stunned, because, if we compare and contrast the situation with that of a nearby site in Upper Sundon, just a few miles north of St Albans, we will see—this may be coincidental —that it has all the supposed national benefits that I believe we should be looking for and none of the drawbacks, or very few of them. The site is located in an old quarry—it is not on the green belt—and a ready, accessible work force, who would not need to travel in an unsustainable fashion, want it. It is also on the M1, which I am pleased to say is being upgraded, as we have heard from the Government today.
The site is in the central Bedfordshire development plan and has the support of the council, which would make the planning process simple and, I hope, amicable. Luton airport is also nearby, which is also looking to expand. The site will have easy accessibility to roads and road freight. From the economic point of view, the site is located near Luton, where the most recent figures show that 5.6% of the population are unemployed, most of them blue-collar workers.
I want to marry up those two happy coincidences, but I am concerned that the prevailing mood—driven by the Opposition in particular—is that, in the name of economic necessity, we must give permission to build at whatever cost. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) would not let me intervene when I wanted to ask her whether she agreed—
Rachel Reeves
Of course infrastructure investment should be in the right place, but there is no risk of any infrastructure under this Government. That is the problem that we have been trying to highlight today, and the hon. Lady seems to welcome that lack of investment.
Mrs Main
I point out to the hon. Lady that in 2007, under her Government, the Infrastructure Planning Commission granted the decision to build Howbery park, against much opposition from local residents, on the green belt, on the basis that the Strategic Rail Authority said that it should be situated just about there. However, not a shovel has been turned on that development —the previous Government did nothing about it. I do not see why we should not have a strict rule that infrastructure must be placed exactly where it is needed, not where a developer happens to want it, which may lead to a situation such as that in Alconbury, which ended up with the Trojan horse of a business development park because it never got the rail links it was promised. That is not what we should be doing with our infrastructure. It should be in the right place and linked to the right work force.
If we are going to allow the development of much-needed housing, we should also look at why we have 142,000 unimplemented planning permissions that have already been granted. Across England, the figure is up to 400,000. Our priority should be to look at what has already been granted and ask why it was not built in the first place or why it was not built according to the planning permission that was granted to it, as in the case of Alconbury. If we do not make sure that infrastructure is correctly located, future generations will judge whether we had proper stewardship of our countryside.
We should examine historical permissions, both for large-scale infrastructure developments and large housing developments, that have not come to fruition. We must not just speed up the planning process and churn out more permissions that can be banked for five years, because that does not help the economy by ensuring that development happens where there is economic need and where there are people who can take up the job opportunities that are created.
A clear-sighted strategic decision-making process that was more “steady as she goes” would give investors confidence that they would not end up with permissions granted but never see the developments delivered properly in the way that was envisaged. If people want to get involved in strategic rail, there are many spin-offs such as people working on the site and promises of additional infrastructure upgrades to support the development. However, all those things fail if the developer never puts a spade in the ground and does not deliver the site as it was envisaged. All the potential jobs that are linked to such planning permissions never actually happen.
That has happened under previous Governments, and not only the last Government. However, the Opposition are now arguing that we should rush through more planning permissions and accuse this Government of dithering. I ask the Treasury to please be a bit more cautious and not to do what the previous Government did in allowing loads of permissions to be granted that never delivered what they should have delivered. We should consider applications slowly, cautiously and carefully to ensure that instead of a developer pushing the area where he would like to build, developments are built where we want them to be built and where communities want them to be built. That would be in the best interests of this country as a whole.
To return to the site in St Albans, it will not benefit my constituency one jot to have a rail freight interchange. It would probably benefit Sundon quarry and the surrounding area because of the jobs that it would create, but it would not benefit my constituency if it happened in Radlett. I hope sincerely that the “minded to grant” decision is suddenly reversed to match the original three refusals, because those refusals were sensible. Two of them came under the previous Government, so I hope that Labour Members would approve of them as well. The harm that will be done by that development certainly does not justify its going ahead, especially where an authority slightly further up the road would like to have such development, very much as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said his area would.
We should encourage development to go where communities would welcome it, and where it fits in with our with our bigger, broader strategic plan for the economy of this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Yes I can. Again, it is an inconvenient truth that we are spending billions of pounds more on capital spending than was setout in the Budget that half of them opposite, who were in Parliament before the last election, voted for. We are making those choices: they oppose everything because they have nothing to offer in this place.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
That is an incredibly complacent answer from the Chancellor. Does he not agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the coalition Government in fact cut capital spending in infrastructure projects too far and too fast, and that this has hampered growth and the economic recovery?
Mr Osborne
We are spending more on capital than the plan set out by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—the plan that the shadow Chancellor voted for. We have increased capital spending in the 2010 spending review and increased it in autumn statements since. That is why we are spending more money on roads, and it is completely hypocritical for the Labour party to complain about capital spending cuts that would have been deeper if they had stayed in office.
Rachel Reeves
It is simply not correct to say that the Government have matched the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in the first three years this Government are spending £12.8 billion less on infrastructure than the plans that they inherited. It is £6.7 billion lower in this year alone. But if the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister are now so concerned about the shrinking economy, why do they not listen to the advice the International Monetary Fund gave them last week and use the Budget in March to rethink their failed economic plan?
Mr Osborne
I do not think that the hon. Lady is being completely straight with the House about the numbers she is using—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”]
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I have to say that the reaction to the autumn statement from the business organisations of Britain was very positive. It was warmly welcomed because we are maintaining control of the public finances, which is a prerequisite for stability and recovery, and because we are taking steps to cut the corporation tax rate and increase the annual investment allowances. I still do not know whether Labour supports the cut in corporation tax. Its Front Benchers have been sending out confused messages on that over the past couple of days. Perhaps we will hear from the shadow Chancellor when he gets to his feet.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Chancellor knows that business success is key to getting our economy growing, to getting the deficit down and to creating jobs. Will he therefore tell us what was the judgment of the Office for Budget Responsibility on the impact on growth of the measures that he announced in the autumn statement last week?
Mr Osborne
The Office for Budget Responsibility said that there was a measurable impact on growth in the short term, and of course we have to pay for this in the long term, so it has taken that into account. I have always said that we want to improve the long-term supply potential of the British economy, and one of the most encouraging signs is that the UK, which was becoming a less and less competitive place to do business, is now back in the world’s top 10 competitive economies.
Rachel Reeves
I am not surprised that the Chancellor does not want to answer my question, because the OBR’s assessment is that his measures will add just 0.1% to UK gross domestic product by 2018. That must also be set against the fact that growth has been downgraded this year, next year and every year of this Parliament. Is it not the truth that the Chancellor has no plans for jobs and growth, and that that is why the Government are set to borrow an extra £212 billion during the course of this Parliament, breaking the fiscal rules that he gave to this country?
Mr Osborne
When the Labour party was in office, its approach led to the economy shrinking by 6% of GDP. We have set in place plans to ensure that the deficit it left us is dealt with and that our economy is more competitive. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we have over 1 million new jobs in the economy and a record rate of small business creation. That is something to celebrate in our economy.
The Economy
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
As always, my hon. Friend makes a good point. We need people with experience in compliance and enforcement, and we are expanding employment in those areas. That is the right thing to do and it should have been done a long time ago.
The previous Government set out plans to increase fuel duty above inflation last year, this year and again in 2013 and 2014. However, as a result of repeated action by this Government, pump prices will remain at least 10p per litre lower for the remainder of this Parliament than they would have been had the Labour party remained in government.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Slide 24 of the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that, including fuel duty changes and the changes to the personal allowance and tax credits, a one-earner couple with two children will be £534 worse off on average as a result of the changes in the autumn statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that?
Danny Alexander
No, I cannot confirm that. I do not recognise those figures—[Interruption.] Labour Members are waving bits of paper—
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome this opportunity to debate the state of the economy, the Chancellor’s record over the past two and a half years and the measures he has introduced in the autumn statement. Last Wednesday he came to the House and admitted that he had failed—failed to get the economy moving, failed to meet his borrowing targets and failed to listen to our advice and change course.
First, though, let us go back to the heady first months of this coalition Government—when they were still getting on, when they were fraternising in the rose garden. In the 2010 spending review, the Chancellor decided to implement a programme of unprecedented fiscal contraction. We said it was not the right time to cut demand, given that the economy was only just recovering from the global financial crisis, and that the cuts went too far and were being implemented too fast.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Is it not true that we are actually spending more than we were two years ago and that no real cuts have been made? What would the hon. Lady like to say about that?
Rachel Reeves
There is one particular area where the Government are spending more money, and that is welfare, on which they are spending £13.6 billion more during this Parliament, because more people are out of work or in part-time work and so receiving more tax credits. That is a sign of the Government’s failure, not of their success.
In the 24 months since the spending review, where have we got to? How much progress has been made? Is the Chancellor’s plan working? The verdict is in. We now know that borrowing and debt figures have been revised up for this year, for next year and for every year of this Parliament. The Government are borrowing £212 billion more than they planned. They said that five years of austerity would be difficult, but that it was necessary to support our economy, and they said that it might hurt, but that it would work. Well, it has not worked, but it has hurt, and we are no closer to clearing our deficit than we were two years ago. [Interruption.]
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not like the answer to his intervention. Fair enough—I would not be pleased to hear that my Government were spending an extra £14 billion on welfare because of their failure.
This year the economy will shrink by 0.1%. The Chancellor’s two gap years—two years of painful cuts, more borrowing and no growth—are a shocking indictment of a failed plan. He stands up and tells the nation that the British economy is healing and that he is equipping Britain to win in the global race, yet over the 24 months since the spending review the UK economy has grown by just 0.6%. In the same period, the US economy grew by 4.1% and the German economy by 3.6%. Helpfully, the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook data allow us to put together a league table of 184 countries based on total growth between 2010 and 2012, so we can now analyse our performance in the global race that he describes with this Government at the helm. Of those 184 countries, where do Members think Britain comes? We are 158th. It is a relegation battle. We are behind Togo and Namibia, Albania and Macedonia, but there is no need to worry—apparently we are hot on the heels of Mali, Samoa and Fiji! We are the worst performing G7 country, apart from Italy. In the global race, Britain is well and truly in the slow lane with this Chancellor at the helm.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Lady agree that the context she has rightly given the House is the reason the Scottish referendum on independence will be won in 2014?
Rachel Reeves
I will let the good people of Scotland make their decision when the time comes, but I believe that we are stronger together—stronger united than divided.
The worst aspect of the Chancellor’s two wasted years is the long-term damage being done to our economy. Every month of inaction, every failed initiative and every growth forecast downgraded is another hammer blow to the work force, our businesses and our national infrastructure. The skills and motivation of British workers are going to waste, with one in three of our 2.5 million unemployed out of work for more than a year and 3 million of those with jobs wanting to work more hours, but unable to find the work. In reality, we are falling behind, and the Chancellor has nobody to blame—not the snow, not the royal wedding, not the eurozone.
I agree with the chief economist of UBS, George Magnus—[Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “He’s gone!”] Obviously the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) does not want to hear what the chief economist of UBS has to say. I will send him a copy of Hansard. George Magnus said that the Chancellor’s excuse
“falls under the category of ‘Sorry Miss, the dog ate my homework’”.
He also said that
“the problem I think that the Chancellor has with the eurozone is that we are just like them. We have this single-minded focus on austerity and the lack of growth is basically crippling our ability to meet our fiscal targets.”
I agree that the Chancellor and his economic plan are to blame. Two and a half years of austerity, two and a half years of this Chancellor, and what do we have to show for it? We have no growth, more borrowing and a tragic waste of time. [Interruption.] It is good to see the hon. Member for Spelthorne in his place again.
A year ago the IMF warned:
“If activity were to undershoot current expectations and risk a period of stagnation or contraction, countries that face historically low yields (for example…the United Kingdom) should also consider delaying some of their planned consolidation.”
At that time the IMF was predicting 1.6% growth this year; now the OBR tells us that the economy is more likely to shrink by 1.6% this year.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Would the hon. Lady like to comment on the 6.4% collapse in GDP in 2008, and at the end of her speech will she enlighten us all on what her economic policy will be?
Rachel Reeves
Like other countries around the world, our GDP contracted during the global financial crisis. Germany and the United States have managed to recover that growth; we have not, because our Chancellor chose a different course—austerity—when jobs and growth are needed to get the economy moving and the deficit down. Unlike this Government, we recognise that we need to take action to stimulate jobs and growth. That is why we have said there should be a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on new workers and a bank bonus tax to fund a programme of youth jobs, and that we should genuinely bring forward infrastructure investment and temporarily cut VAT to 17.5%. Those are the policies that would get the economy moving, get jobs back in our economy and help to bring the deficit down in a sustainable way.
Andrew Gwynne
The Government have placed great emphasis on the views of the Office for Budget Responsibility. My hon. Friend will be aware from reports in today’s media that Robert Chote of the OBR has suggested that the UK need not fear losing its triple A rating. Does she see us losing our triple A rating as a ringing endorsement of this Government’s economic policies?
Rachel Reeves
Let us see what the rating agencies have to say in the new year. Of course we are on negative watch, but it was not we who said the rating agencies should be the be-all and end-all. Indeed, they were giving Lehman Brothers a triple A rating until that company crashed and almost took the global economy with it. It was the Chancellor who said that a triple A rating would be the watchword of his chancellorship, so if it were to go, it would be a damning indictment of what this Government have presided over.
What was the Government’s response to all the bad economic news last Wednesday? Let us give credit where it is due. The Chancellor now agrees with us that we should not go ahead with the fuel duty increase in January; he agrees with us that introducing regional pay in our public services would be costly and impractical; he agreed with us that we should reverse the relaxation of restrictions on pension tax relief for the very rich; he agreed with us that it was a mistake to implement deep cuts to capital programmes such as Building Schools for the Future; and he agreed with us that cutting investment allowances risked damaging incentives for long-term wealth creation. We propose the creation of a British investment bank to support small businesses, and the Chancellor has produced a pale imitation of that, but I am afraid that all these measures are too little, too late—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Smoke and mirrors will not hide the lack of a real, purposeful growth strategy.
The chief executive of British Airways summed it up yesterday when he said:
“I don’t see an agenda for growth.”
I agree, and so does the Office for Budget Responsibility. Taking into account all the Government’s measures from the autumn statement, the OBR has concluded that they will add just 0.1% to UK GDP over the next five years. The economy is shrinking this year. Growth next year—forecast at 2.9% just two years ago—is now forecast at just 1.2%. Indeed, we have seen downgrades not just this year and next, but the year after.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Why does the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that there would be £200 billion more borrowing under Labour’s plans?
Rachel Reeves
There is £212 billion more borrowing under this Government’s plans.
Families will continue to feel the Chancellor’s failure in their wallets and their homes. Average earnings will not outpace inflation until the second quarter of 2014. It will take even longer for families to recover the loss to their living standards that this Government’s economic failure has cost them.
The lack of growth and the increase in borrowing under this Chancellor have meant that he has had to come back and ask the country for more. And who are the Government asking to bear the brunt of the past two and a half years of failure? Luckily, Andrew Neil asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that question on BBC1 last Wednesday. He asked him whether
“those who are on ordinary incomes are suffering a lot more than most”.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied: “That is absolutely right.” That was the only sense he spoke all day. It is no surprise that he is increasingly described as the Conservatives’ favourite Liberal Democrat in the Cabinet. Apparently, they regard him as easier to deal with and more persuadable. The Chancellor’s favourite Liberal Democrat has finally told the country what we have known for a long time: that this Government are asking ordinary families to foot the bill for their economic mess.
The facts speak for themselves. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that a one-earner family on £20,000 with two children will lose £279 a year from next April. Slide 24 of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report shows that a two-income family with children will lose £534 as a result of the changes, including all the measures in the autumn statement. Slide 17 of the IFS assessment shows that middle and lower earners will lose most as a result of the autumn statement, with the poorest 40% losing more than the richest 10%. How can that be fair? And this is all to pay for the Government’s £212 billion of extra borrowing. They are hurting those who are trying to get on and do the best for themselves and their families. That cannot be fair.
Mothers across the country will be worried about the real-terms cut in maternity pay, worth £180, that the Chancellor announced last Wednesday. That comes on top of other deep cuts that will hit pregnant women on low incomes, such as the abolished Sure Start maternity allowance and the health in pregnancy grant. This is further proof that the Government are out of touch and simply do not understand the pressures families are facing, day in, day out.
Gavin Shuker
What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact of the changes, particularly those relating to people on low incomes, on the overall growth of the economy? It strikes me that they are exactly the people we ought to be encouraging to spend right now.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right. It is a false economy to cut the incomes of the lowest paid, because they will have less money to spend in their communities. What really matters, however, is the real impact that the changes will have on their living standards and those of their children.
The Resolution Foundation has said that 60% of the cuts to benefits and tax credits will hit working households—that is, those who are trying to get on in life. Given that the welfare bill is forecast to be £13.6 billion higher in this Parliament than the Chancellor thought it would be—another target tossed aside—perhaps it is time for the Government to concentrate on getting people back to work in order to reduce the welfare bill. In February this year, the former employment Minister, now the Secretary of State for Justice, said:
“The Work Programme is doing a good job and is on track. It is helping long-term unemployed people into work.”
And only today the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the scheme was going well, but we now know that for every 100 people who are unemployed, the programme has seen only two people back into work. If that is the Government’s idea of a programme that is on track, I would hate to see one that is not.
It is not surprising that OBR documents released last week showed that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance was set to rise from 1.58 million this year to 1.69 million in 2014, and that the number forecast for 2016 had been revised up by 340,000. That will be a third of a million more people receiving JSA compared with the number forecast in March this year.
Let us not forget that the Prime Minister dismissed the last Labour Government’s future jobs fund, which helped 120,000 young people back into work, yet an impact analysis for the Department for Work and Pensions found that we all gained £7,750 per participant through wages, increased tax receipts and reduced benefit payments. This Government ditched a plan that worked for one that has failed, so we will not be lectured by them on welfare or on job creation.
At the same time, one group of people continue to gain from the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary’s policies. If someone earns more than £1 million a year, next year they will receive an average tax cut worth £107,000. It beggars belief that while taking from families on low incomes with one hand, the Chancellor gives to millionaires with the other—there is one rule for the very richest, another for everyone else.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady talks about the Government favouring the richest, but if we look at the distributional impact of tax and benefit reforms on the IFS slides to which she has referred, we can see very clearly that the richest 10% lose £260 in net income whereas everyone else is far less disadvantaged. Does she not agree that the richest are shouldering more of the burden?
Rachel Reeves
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those on average incomes being worse off by £534 year is not very much, it is up to him to justify that to the people of Dover and Deal. Page 17 of the IFS analysis shows that the poorest 10% are 1.6% worse off, the second decile are 1.7% worse off, the third 1.3%, the fourth 0.6% and the top only 0.5%. The four lowest deciles—those on the lowest and modest incomes—are being hit hardest by the changes in the autumn statement, while those at the top get off relatively unscathed. That is the reality and if he wants to put that slide in his leaflets in Dover and explain it to his constituents, I am sure that they would appreciate it.
As I have said, it is one rule for the richest and another for everyone else. The poor are expected to work harder or else they will be made poorer, but apparently the rich will work harder only if they are made richer. It is the same old out-of-touch Tories and their Liberal Democrat accomplices.
There are some who think that the Chancellor is a master of political strategy; his autumn statement was clearly delicately put together. He said that borrowing was down this year, but that is only by using money from the sale of 4G contracts, which has yet to happen. He said that his cuts were targeting the workshy, when in reality they hit working people. He said that austerity was necessary for us to compete with our global competitors when, after two years of austerity, we have fallen further behind. He lived up to his reputation as a part-time Chancellor, because it was a statement that worried more about tomorrow’s headlines than the economic reality. For all of the Chancellor’s cynical political games and for all the smoke and mirrors, the real story is being felt across the country. Living standards are being squeezed, long-term unemployment is rising, borrowing is up, growth is flatlining: it is a story of a failed Chancellor and his Lib Dem accomplice desperately trying to find a way out of the mess their economic failure has got them into.
Income Tax
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that HM Revenue and Customs figures show that 8,000 people earning over £1 million will gain an average of £107,500 from the Government’s decision to cut the top rate of income tax from April 2013; further notes that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that the Government’s changes to tax allowances for pensioners will mean that 4.4 million existing pensioners will lose an average of £83 from 2013-14, while thousands of people turning 65 will lose £323; and calls on the Government to announce in the Autumn Statement that it will not go ahead with its proposal to cut the top rate of tax for the richest earners at a time when the economy is flatlining, millions of pensioners on middle and low incomes are paying more, and when wider tax and benefit changes being implemented in 2012-13 will result in families with children losing an average of £511.
In March this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood in this House to deliver his Budget. It was a revealing moment. Having previously said that we are all in it together and insisted that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, the Chancellor announced a tax cut worth, on average, £107,000 for those earning more than £1 million a year. It was the moment that the Government’s façade of fairness disappeared for good. In these tough times, against the backdrop of the biggest squeeze in living standards for a generation, and with the economy flatlining, the Chancellor prioritised millionaires above millions of working people. That is why we have called this debate: to question the priorities of the Government, to stand up for pensioners and families who are being hit hardest—
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Lady said that she wants to prioritise ordinary people over millionaires, so would the Labour party, if it were to come into government in 2015, reintroduce the 50p rate?
Rachel Reeves
We are hoping that Government Members will see sense and vote for the motion, and that the Chancellor will rethink his decision in next week’s autumn statement. It is not too late to reverse this change. I am not going to write the manifesto for 2015 now, but every single Labour MP will be voting against this tax change, which has not yet come into effect, so the Government can still think again.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Can the hon. Lady explain why only two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)—voted against the rise after the Budget statement in March?
Rachel Reeves
We have already debated this; when we debated the Finance Bill, Labour MPs voted against the cut in the top rate from 50p to 45p, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
Let us look at the facts. There are 30 million taxpayers in the UK—30 million people who go out to work each day and pay their tax—yet the Chancellor’s tax cut helps only the richest 300,000, of whom 8,000 take home more than £1 million a year. According to table 2.5 on page 30 of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ income tax liabilities statistics of April this year, their total income in 2012-13 is expected to be £18.4 billion, and they will pay £8.6 billion of tax on that income at the 50p rate. From next April, when the additional rate is lowered to 45p, they will pay £7.7 billion of tax on that income. This represents £860 million of lost revenue because of a tax cut for people earning over £1 million, and an average tax giveaway of £107,000 to each and every one of them—not just in one year but in each year to come.
Andrew Bridgen
Will not the hon. Lady be honest with this House and this country? This was a Trojan horse of a tax brought in at the very fag end of the Labour Government as part of a scorched-earth policy that has been shown to have cost the Exchequer almost £7 billion already—something else that the previous Government messed up and that this Government have to put right.
Mr Speaker
Order. In using the word “honest”, it should be taken as read that Members are always honest in the Chamber.
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The increase in the top rate of tax from 40p to 50p was introduced to help to reduce the deficit because the last Labour Government thought that it was right that those with the broadest shoulders paid a little bit more towards achieving that. The fact that this Chancellor has reversed that and is reducing the top rate of tax shows that he thinks exactly the opposite—that his priorities are not with ordinary working people but with the richest 1%. [Interruption.]
Rachel Reeves
I will—and if the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) has an intervention to make, then he can make it.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the hon. Lady accept the calculation by the Office for Budget Responsibility that this proposal would cost £100 million—yes or no?
Rachel Reeves
Let us look at what Robert Chote, the chair of the OBR, says about the cut in the 50p rate:
“This is a judgement based on not even a full year’s data based in terms of how people have responded to the 50p rate, in particular in terms of those self assessment tax-payers.”
Indeed, we know that a series of larger-than-usual dividends were paid in the days and weeks just before the introduction of the 50p rate. For example, the Prime Minister’s friend Emma Harrison, who is the Government’s adviser on their welfare-to-work programme—we know how successful that has been—was paid on 1 April 2010, before the new tax year, which meant that her dividend was taxed at the old 40% rate, saving her £800,000.
That is why the Government’s claims about the yield of the 50p rate do not stand up. People have had the opportunity to anticipate the introduction of the new taxation rate by bringing their income forward, as they did when the rate was reduced. As the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, it is difficult to produce a definitive estimate for the long-term yield of a tax that has been in place for only a short period, and it is fiscally irresponsible and wholly misleading to use figures from the first year to justify the policy.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again, but let me press her a bit more on this point. The OBR said that its calculation was a “reasonable and central estimate.” Does she disagree with that?
Rachel Reeves
Robert Chote has said:
“This is a judgment based on not even a full year’s worth of data”
and the estimates are very uncertain. Another group of experts at the IFS stated that
“by giving out £3 billion to well-off people who pay 50p tax…the Government is banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them…There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk on this estimate.”
If the Government think that lots of millionaires who were not paying the 50p rate of tax will start flooding to these shores to pay the 45p rate—well, we will see what happens when the numbers come out.
Charlie Elphicke
Let us talk about those millionaires. Today’s Daily Mail states that the number of millionaires slumped from 16,000 to 6,000 after the 50p rate of tax was introduced, and that revenues fell from £13.4 billion to £6.5 billion. Does that show that if the rate of tax is increased too much, it will have a negative impact on the public finances?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for at least highlighting that thousands of people with declared incomes of more than £1 million who were paying the 50p rate will get a tax cut next year. His figures show that in 2010-11 there were 6,000 people with declared incomes of more than £1 million, and 10,000 in 2011-12. A written answer that I received from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on 19 June stated that 70% of people earning more than £250,000 were paying more than 40% in tax, and 80% of those earning more than £500,000 were paying the 50p rate. In the new year, each and every one will get a large tax cut.
If the Government honestly want people to pay their fair share of tax, they should spend more time and resources on tackling tax avoidance, not compensate the wealthiest by cutting the headline rate of tax. No wonder they have cut staff numbers at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by 11%—they have just given up.
I am happy to debate the Government’s record on raising revenue through taxation. Last autumn, as a result of the slowing economy, projected income tax revenues across the board had to be written down by £51.2 billion by the Office for Budget Responsibility because of the weakness of the economy and the double-dip recession. Only last week, the Office for National Statistics released statistics showing that public borrowing in October was £2.7 billion higher than for the same month last year.
Over the first seven months of financial year 2012-13, the Government have borrowed around £5 billion more than for the same period last year. Why are we seeing that increase in borrowing? It is not as if the Government have not put up taxes for ordinary people or cut public services. The Chancellor’s flatlining economy has forced a 10% slump in corporation tax revenues, and VAT revenues are expected to be down by 2.5%. The Government can spend all the time they like defending a tax cut for millionaires, and Ministers as much time as they like in Cabinet arguing among themselves about why there has been no growth, but it is time they changed course and adopted a plan for jobs and growth.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Whether the rate is 45p or 50p, does the hon. Lady accept the principle that a low-tax economy is better for Britain and for businesses to do business in Britain?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman says, “Whether the rate is 45p or 50p”, but the difference between those figures is £3 billion that could be used to pay down the deficit, help families who are struggling with the rising cost of living or get rid of the granny tax that the Chancellor is introducing next year. The principle of having lower taxes is fine, but we have a deficit to reduce. I thought the Government believed we should be cutting that deficit instead of giving tax cuts. The Chancellor said that in his first Budget, but he has thought again since then and is giving a tax cut to the wealthiest while asking ordinary families to pay more. That is not what my constituents want, and I doubt it is what those of the hon. Gentleman want either.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, strangely, because the cut in the rate of tax was announced and then postponed, a number of people will doubtless try to do in reverse what they appear to have done when the tax was introduced? The Government will then say, “Ah, but in this year, not enough was raised through that tax.” It will almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rachel Reeves
Exactly that point about income profiling and not being able to estimate the impact of the tax because it has not been in place long enough was made by the IFS and the OBR. It is a shocking indictment of the Government’s priorities that the Chancellor has chosen at this time to give a tax cut to the few at the top—a tax break for millionaires—while asking working people to pay more. They are the same, old, out-of-touch Tories, and not one of their accomplices—the Liberal Democrats—had the nerve to stand up to the Chancellor.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Studies show that those countries in the world that are happiest and have highest levels of contentment and well-being are the Scandinavian nations that have relatively high taxes and high minimum wages. Is it not strange for the Government to believe that we make the rich work harder by giving them more money but the poor work harder by taking money from them?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The work of Wilkinson and Pickett in “The Spirit Level”, and other academic research, has shown exactly that. Some people will be a lot happier next year—the 8,000 millionaires who will have their taxes cut—but ordinary working people who see their taxes go up will be a lot worse off and, I expect, not very happy with either their finances or the Government who have inflicted that situation on them.
In the same Budget as the Chancellor’s giveaway to the richest, buried in the small print as a tax simplification, was the Chancellor’s granny tax. The freeze in the age-related allowance for the over-65s will see 4.4 million pensioners who pay income tax losing an average of £83 each per year. People who turn 65 next year will lose most of all—up to £322. Listening to the Chancellor was like watching Robin Hood in reverse. Most pensioners who will be hit by the granny tax live on incomes that put them in the bottom half of income tax distribution. Those with a small personal pension of £67 a week—£3,000 a year—will be in line to lose under this measure. How insulting to pensioners who have worked hard all their lives, who have not earned large salaries, but who have done the right thing and saved responsibly so they could provide for themselves in later life.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise figures from Hansard that show that in the north-east some 4,000 taxpayers will benefit from the changes, but more than 278,000 will be worse off and they will mainly be pensioners? Does that not show all we need to know about the Conservative party?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes an important point. People on modest incomes such as pensioners will lose out, while those at the top get a little bit more—well, not a little bit more; they will get £107,000 more next year from the Government. How insulting for those pensioners to see their taxes go up on the same day that millionaires have their taxes cut. Families, pensioners and young people cannot escape the Chancellor’s austerity programme—only millionaires can do that.
Pensioners have already seen their winter fuel allowance cut and their pension indexed to a lower measure of inflation. The increase in the state pension age for women has been brought forward, and the rise in VAT has added £275 to the costs faced by an average pensioner couple. Services such as the national health service, social care and local transport have been cut, and the TUC estimates that a single pensioner will lose access to services worth 11% of his or her income. No wonder so many people have spoken out against what the Chancellor is doing.
Age UK has stated:
“We feel it is disappointing that the budget offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes who are already squeezed.”
The chief executive of Saga has said:
“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected”.
The National Pensioners Convention has said:
“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax…whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced…This is seen by many as the last straw…Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich…and it’s simply not fair.”
The Opposition could not agree more. It is the same old out-of-touch Tories.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
To add to that litany of taxes on pensioners, annuity rates are in freefall; one cardinal fact of the past two and a half years is the collapse in annuity rates for pensioners. On top of those other attacks on their income, pensioners now find that their annuity rates are collapsing.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend, who is the shadow pensions Minister, for his intervention. I am sure he could add many other examples of pensioners being hard hit by the Government. The change in annuity rates is one example as the economy continues to flatline.
The rest of the taxpaying public look with disbelief on what the Government are doing, including the families with children, who are, on average, £450 a year worse off because of last year’s VAT rise, and another £511 a year worse off this year because of further cuts, freezes and reductions to benefits and tax credits; the couples with children who cannot increase their hours to the higher threshold introduced by the Government and who will have working tax credits withdrawn, which, in many cases will drop them below the poverty line; the families with incomes above £26,000, who are now losing all their child tax credit, contrary to the Prime Minister’s promises before the general election; and those on modest earnings with children at school, who will suffer cuts to services equivalent to 13% of their incomes.
The deterioration of the economic outlook on this Chancellor’s watch has led to the OBR revising projections on real disposable income per household down by £800 last year, by £1,100 this year and by £1,700 next year.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On tax credits, what does my hon. Friend think about a case I heard about two or three days ago, in which the application for tax credits was not even opened for three months?
Rachel Reeves
Given the cuts to departmental budgets, it is not surprising that some applications are not being processed and that, as a result, families are missing out on the tax credits to which they entitled, pushing them further into hardship.
How will households throughout the country feel next year, when those earning more than £1 million get a tax cut of £107,000? What is the Government’s message to people who work hard and want to get on in life? We remember when the Conservatives liked to think of themselves as the party of aspiration. Baroness Thatcher liked to claim she stood up for people who wanted to work their way up, and yet, under this Government, people who get a pay rise or promotion lose their child benefit. Imagine that! A person who earns £49,000 a year and has three children will lose thousands of pounds in child benefit if they take a pay rise or promotion. What a terrible position to put people in.
The truth about the Government is this: pensioners pay more, low-paid parents pay more, and a family working hard to get on in life and provide for their children pay more, but millionaires pay less. That tells us everything we need to know about the Government and their values. For many, 2012 will be remembered as the year the Chancellor’s drastic cuts began to hit home, but for the richest, 2013 will be remembered as the year they received their tax give-away from this Robin-Hood-in-reverse Chancellor.
Last week, the Prime Minister compared the economic situation we face to war. It is true that we are facing a period of national upheaval, but that is why it is crucial that the Government are a uniting force, not a dividing one. Is this really the time for a tax cut for the richest? During the second world war, the public queued to get their copy of the Beveridge report, because it set out the beginnings of a welfare state in which everyone had a stake. In the period of reconstruction after the war, that spirit and sense of national mission led to the creation of the national health service.
The Government do not understand the need for one nation politics, or the need to take people with them and share the burden of sacrifice fairly. Instead, they will be remembered as a Government who divided. Indeed, of the richest who are receiving the tax give-away, 85% are men, but around 70% of the revenue raised from direct tax and benefit changes will come from women. Fifty-two per cent. of those benefiting from the millionaires’ tax give-away are based in London and the south-east, but long-term unemployment is rising in the north. The poor are expected to work harder, because otherwise they will be made poorer, but the rich will work harder only if they are made richer. There is one rule for the very richest and another for everybody else. It is the same old out-of-touch Tories.
When the Chancellor came to the House to deliver his 2011 Budget, he said that
“now would not be the right time to remove it when we are asking others in our society on much lower incomes to make sacrifices”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 957.]
He was right then, and he is wrong now. He revealed his true colours in this year’s Budget.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend recall the remarks of the parents whom she and I met at the Pen Green centre in Corby, who spoke about many local priorities, including vital local services such as our hospital? They did not believe the millionaires’ tax cut was the right priority for people in Corby and east Northamptonshire or for people throughout the country.
Rachel Reeves
Although my hon. Friend has been in the House for a lot less time than many Government Members, he speaks more sense than they do, on behalf of his constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, who sent a clear message to the Prime Minister two weeks ago when they elected my hon. Friend and booted out the Conservatives. He is right to stand up for their interests. They do not want the tax cut for millionaires; they want help for ordinary families, for pensioners and for young people getting back to work. That is what people in Corby and the rest of the country want.
The Chancellor waved goodbye to the pretence of being on the side of working people in this year’s Budget. He waved goodbye to saying, “We’re all in this together,” and, “Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.” The Budget was the U-turn that revealed his true motives and told people for whom he stands. People will not forget that, when times were tough and they needed support, the Government cared only for those who needed it least. The Tories are back to doing what they do best. It is the same old out-of-touch Tories.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, not least because of the maiden speech made with such distinction by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whom I warmly welcome to the House. He spoke in a way that was assured and fluent and with a degree of geniality that I think will make him many friends throughout the House. I have one issue of contention with him. He outed himself as a fan of Cardiff City and, since they are locked in a promotion battle with my hometown club of Middlesbrough, that will be a point of disagreement between us during the weeks and months ahead.
Call me naive, but I had hoped that, during an Opposition day debate, we might have heard something—anything—about the Opposition’s policy, but sadly it was not to be. At the end of this debate, their economic policy is, if possible, even more obscure than it was at the beginning. There are four fundamental matters crucial to this debate that both shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—failed to address.
The first could not be more basic. What do the Opposition believe to be the purpose of the 50p rate of income tax? Is it to raise revenue, to punish the rich, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has said, or to serve as a piece of rhetoric? We need to know, because if the Opposition are clear that its purpose is to raise money, will the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North say—she is welcome to intervene—whether they will drop their support for the 50p rate if the evidence continues to support our assessment and those of HMRC and the OBR that it raised very little indeed and would be likely to cost the public purse even more? Will she be clear—is the argument that the rate raises money the criterion for the Opposition’s support for it, or is it a price worth paying just to send a message that they want to soak the rich?
Secondly, do the Opposition accept, in the words of HMRC, that
“high tax rates in the UK make its tax system less competitive and make it a less attractive place to start, finance and grow a business”?
Do they accept HMRC’s assessment that high taxes are bad for the international standing of the country? I would be pleased to take an intervention from the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) asked the shadow Chief Secretary whether she subscribed to that view, and she could not answer. Is tax competitiveness important to the Opposition? We do not know. In their view, does it matter if the UK has the highest tax rate in the G20? Is that a concern or not? Does it make a difference to British competitiveness? The last time the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) was asked he said, “I don’t know.”
The third issue is whether the Opposition agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who said that this measure should be only temporary. We have had no clarity on that from Opposition Front Benchers.
The fourth matter that the Opposition need to consider, given that they regard this tax as being so crucial—so totemic—that they wanted to call this debate about it, is whether they will send a clear message that they would restore it if they came to power. Again, we have silence. Let us bear in mind that we are now in the second half of the Parliament, and the time for posturing and procrastination is over. The time has come for the Opposition to tell the country what they would do in government—or do they simply not have the courage to face up to the need to be straight with the British people? I strongly suspect that this will be one of the last occasions when we debate the 50p tax rate as it gets shuffled off to the retirement home of meaningless gestures that the Opposition no longer have time and use for.
Labour is, to its core, the party of tax and spend, and, to be fair, it takes a very consistent view of both sides of the equation. With regard to spending, it is always a matter of “How much?” and not “To what end?”—of inputs, not outcomes; of the number in the headline on the press release, not what is achieved with the money. On taxation, too, for Labour it is all about the price tag—the headline rate, not the revenue actually raised, nor, indeed, the amount of tax that the wealthy actually pay. The top rate of tax paid by the rich in all but the last month of the previous Government was lower than what they pay now. The top 1% of earners now contribute over 27% of income tax revenue—far more than they did under Labour—and the effect of this year’s Budget is to take from the richest five times what they gave through the reduction of the 50% rate.
Of course, the tax system that we inherited from the previous Government was a mess—a typically socialist tangle of tripwires and loopholes which, as my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary made clear, we are taking action to close. Too much of the money made under the previous Government was in keeping with the ethos of the previous Government—short term, reckless and unsustainable; the boom before the bust. In future, if there is money to be made it will be done in the responsible way, through real enterprise and real innovation. As we seek to rebuild a productive economy on the ruins of Labour’s cardboard economy, this is the worst time to punish the producers, innovators and entrepreneurs on whom our future depends.
Rachel Reeves
If the Government are doing so well on the economy, why has it shrunk over the past year, and why is Government borrowing now rising, not falling?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady will be aware that the record structural deficit in the G7 bequeathed by the previous Government has been paid down by a quarter.
As we seek to rebuild our productive economy, Labour Members know all about the power of the headline figure—that is why they have made such big play of the top rate of income tax. It is interesting that the shadow Minister was more familiar with the opinion polls than with the cost of this measure to the economy. If they think that it plays well to the gallery, then how do they think it plays to those who might or might not want to invest in this country, and who might create the new private sector jobs that a financially exhausted public sector can no longer pay for?
For our part, we want to create an economy in which those who prosper most are those who are best at creating wealth for all. That will require moderate tax rates, properly enforced, and the long, hard slog of tax reform and simplification. As in so much else, we have chosen the difficult path but the right one. Today’s debate provides further proof that Labour has made the opposite choice. As always, the politics are cheap but the consequences would cost our country dear.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Fuel Duty
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end and add:
“notes that as a result of the action this Government has taken to cut, cancel and delay fuel duty rises families will save around £159 on fuel costs by April 2013; further notes that under the previous administration’s plans, voted for by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, pump prices would be 10 pence higher than they currently are; also notes that motorists in island communities are benefiting from the fuel duty discount pilot scheme; recognises that this Government has introduced a number of other measures to support families including a £1,100 increase in the personal income tax allowance from April 2013, three years of council tax freezes and a cap on rail fares; commends that these measures have been in part affordable because of the Government’s record of success in tackling tax avoidance and evasion which is on track to raise an additional £7 billion per annum by the end of this Parliament; and welcomes the Government’s commitment to do more to help with the cost of living in the future subject to the constraints of the public finances.”
I see that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has been abandoned by her boss—
Sajid Javid
My boss is in Brussels on Government business. The hon. Lady’s boss is probably too busy cooking lasagne for someone. As usual, he is busy chasing the headlines and has left her to pick up the pieces.
Rising living costs have made life difficult for millions of households. I know that first hand. Like millions of others, I have lived under financial distress, so I know what it is like to worry about paying the bills and living within a tight budget, and the Government know about that, too. Times are tough. We inherited the biggest deficit in the developed world and the largest in our peacetime history, and international commodity prices continue to rise, raising the cost of living. Since May 2010, the price of wheat is up 72% and the price of Brent crude is up 31%. While talking about commodity prices, I note that the price of gold is up 40%. Had the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), not recklessly sold off the nation’s gold reserves, our country would be £10 billion richer. That is money we could have used to help hard-working families.
To clear up the mess left by the Labour party, we have had to make tough decisions, but we have prioritised the cost of living wherever we can. We have cut income tax, frozen council tax, capped rail fare increases and, moving on to the Opposition’s motion, we have delayed and cancelled the fuel duty rises that they supported.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about care leavers. These ideas have been floated as part of a discussion within Government on the next phase of welfare reform. I will certainly make sure that his point is brought to bear in any discussions on that proposal.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
At a time when we are seeing cuts to the budgets for police, NHS and schools, it is right that last week this House gave the Government a mandate to negotiate a real-terms cut in the EU budget. However, instead of developing a strategy to deliver this, the Prime Minister has simply resorted to threatening a veto before negotiations have even begun. Of course, walking away is always an option for any EU Government, but can the Chief Secretary confirm that if Britain or any other country just turns up and uses the veto, the budget will rise in line with inflation anyway, costing British taxpayers an extra £310 million?
Danny Alexander
I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on the news that she is expecting a child, which was announced a few weeks ago. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in that.
Labour’s position becomes ever more extraordinary; its opportunism on Europe seems to know no bounds. That is why we have heard words of unease from several Labour Members who thought that Labour was a pro-European party. This Government have taken the toughest position of any European Government in these negotiations. We saw what happened with the previous Government’s negotiating tactics when they gave away half of Britain’s rebate. We are not going to do that all over again.
Rachel Reeves
I am not sure whether I caught an answer there. Frankly, the Chief Secretary should know better. After all, he was not only the chief press officer for the Cairngorms national park but the chief officer for Britain in Europe, and he should know that the only way to deliver a real-terms cut is to argue for one and build alliances to deliver it. Perhaps he should listen to his Cabinet colleague who said last week that it is “absolutely ludicrous” to threaten the veto now, weeks before the summit. Is that not just the desperate ploy of a weak Prime Minister with no influence, no allies and no strategy? He should get a good deal for Britain—a cut in the budget.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady was a pro-European once; I still am. We seem to be seeing an outbreak of amnesia on the Labour Benches. Not only has the hon. Lady forgotten what Labour did in the last multiannual financial framework negotiation, when it gave away half of Britain’s rebate by not forming any alliances and instead giving up vast amounts—billions of pounds—of Britain’s money, but the shadow Chancellor seems to have forgotten that more recently his party was running the largest structural deficit in the world economy in the good times, leaving this country more exposed than ever to the financial crisis. This country does not want amnesia from Labour—it wants an apology.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Rachel Reeves Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
With advances in medical science meaning people are living longer and a pressing need to ensure that our public finances are on a sustainable path, it is right that we put in place the long-term reforms we need to manage the cost of public service pensions. That is why when in government we took important steps to ensure public service pensions were sustainable, and it is why we regret that this Government have behaved in a way that has made reform harder and that has undermined confidence in occupational pensions for teachers, nurses, police officers and others who work in the public sector.
We remain of the view that the Government’s imposition of steep contribution increases across the board and a permanent switch in the uprating of pensions to a lower measure of inflation were unfair and unnecessarily provocative. However, we support in principle the Bill’s main measures.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Do the hon. Lady’s comments mean that if she were the Minister, she would reverse that Government reform?
Rachel Reeves
We have said that we support the shift from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index for the period of this Parliament to reduce the deficit, but we do not support a permanent shift from RPI to CPI that will continue long after the deficit has been eliminated. I will discuss shortly some evidence from the Pensions Policy Institute and the Royal Statistical Society on the appropriate measure of inflation for uprating pensions.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend realises that the vast majority of public sector workers do not have massive gold-plated pensions. Instead they have very modest pensions, and they are concerned about their employment prospects as well as their contributions. Does my hon. Friend agree that those are the kinds of concerns that people out in the real world we speak to are talking about?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The average public sector pension in payment is under £6,000 a year, and it is considerably less for women who work in the public sector, so we are not talking about huge pensions in the vast majority of cases. Instead, we are talking about modest pensions to which people have contributed throughout their working lives.
We support in principle the main measures in the Bill, however, so we will not oppose it on Second Reading, but we will work in Committee to improve it, in order to ensure that it underpins, rather than undermines, the progress made in negotiations. We will seek to ensure it facilitates a smooth and stable transition to new scheme designs, entrenching good standards of governance, transparency, administration and consultation, thereby allowing those who give their working lives to serving the public to save for their retirement with confidence, while establishing a workable system for managing change and controlling costs to the taxpayer.
The Government and public service employees do need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. In government, Labour had agreed and established a framework for negotiating reform and the “cap and share” mechanism to manage long-term costs, and it was always clear that this would mean increases in contributions and, as the population lives longer, a rise in retirement ages.
We have always said that the Hutton report provided a useful starting point for negotiations. Lord Hutton was right to suggest that career average schemes could be fairer than final salary schemes, and we think his proposal that public service pension ages should rise with the state pension age is right in principle. Lord Hutton also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, however, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower paid public service workers, and for avoiding fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. Reform needs to be fair to taxpayers and public service employees, as well as being genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of political games.
The vast majority of public service workers retire on very modest pensions. The average public service pension in payment is less than £6,000 a year, and even less for women. Tearing up decent public service pension schemes, or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases, would be entirely counter-productive if that resulted in lower saving and inadequate retirement incomes.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Government have made great strides in protecting low-paid public sector workers in response to Lord Hutton’s report, so that anyone earning £15,000 or less will not have to make any increased contribution at all, and for those earning less than £21,000 the increase will be capped at 1.5%? Surely that is the evidence she requires?
Rachel Reeves
That is simply not true. There are 800,000 part-time public service workers earning less than £15,000 a year, 90% of them women, and their pension contributions will rise by, in some cases, 50% or more because their full-time equivalent salary takes them above the minimum salary threshold.
Instead of building on our reforms, the Government have ripped them up. They have made it much harder to make progress by seeking to impose, prior to any negotiations, a steep 3% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the indexation of future pension income from RPI to CPI. The “cap and share” arrangements agreed and established by the last Labour Government provided the mechanism for delivering the adjustments as needed, but the current Government chose to undermine that agreement and instead announced a 3% increase in contributions in the October spending review without any discussion or negotiation with employers or employees.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
As the hon. Lady is discussing the previous Labour Government’s reforms, will she say whether she accepts any responsibility on behalf of the Labour party for the decimation of private sector defined-benefit pensions as a consequence of the disastrous decision in the 1997 Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to end the repayment of dividend tax credits?
Rachel Reeves
If that was such a disastrous thing, why have this Government not reversed it or made any efforts to do something about it? They have no intention of doing so.
The contribution increases in this Bill were based on no assessment of the future funding needs of public sector pensions and were simply a tax on public service workers who were already facing a pay freeze and redundancy risks. The increases came long before Lord Hutton had published his final report. He warned that excessive increases could hit lower-paid workers hard and result in a counter-productive increase in opt-out rates. He has said that although it is for Ministers to decide by how much contributions should rise,
“there must also be a careful examination of the implications of any possible increase in opt out rates in these schemes as well.”
But the Government chose to plough on, not mindful of the increase in opt-out rates and with little regard for the consequences.
The Government promised that lower-paid workers would be protected from excessive and unaffordable increases, but the reality is that as many as 800,000 part- time workers earning less than £15,000 a year are already paying higher contributions. As I said, for many of them the contributions are 50% higher, because their full-time equivalent salary takes them over the minimum threshold. That approach had nothing to do with long-term reform and everything to do with a cash grab by the Treasury, which made it much harder to deliver progress on the real reform we needed, because the Government acted arbitrarily before Lord Hutton reported and lost the trust of public service workers.
In addition to imposing that hike in contributions, the Government used their June 2010 Budget unilaterally to change the indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI. On average and over time, public service workers will be 11% worse off in retirement as a result. According to analysis published last week by the Pensions Policy Institute, this is a bigger hit than the extra contributions, the raised retirement age and all the other changes to pensions put together. Independent experts, such as the Royal Statistical Society, have emphasised that CPI fails to reflect the spending patterns of pensioners and the rising costs they face. As pensioners worry about the hikes in energy bills this winter and expected steep increases in food prices, we should be particularly mindful of the challenges that retired people face in meeting ever-rising costs.
Again, those changes were imposed on public service workers without any negotiation or discussion. Lord Hutton stated:
“If these reforms have any chance of succeeding then people need to know that they are being treated fairly. We have seen…the anger that has been triggered on the state pension when older women feel the finishing line is being put back at the last minute with very little time to adjust. So there should be full and proper consultation and discussion with the trades unions. That is how we do things in Britain—the public would take a very dim view of any government that fails to honour this basic requirement. We must try and avoid the confrontation and division that marked previous decades and must not turn the clock back.”
I regret to say that the Government did not follow that advice. Sometimes it seems that they are turning the clock back to the conflicts and divisions of the 1980s, and perhaps that was exactly their objective. Their aggressive and provocative approach to these serious and sensitive issues resulted in months of stalemated negotiations and several days of strike action, which resulted in closed schools, cancelled operations, and disrupted lives for families and businesses across the country.
Richard Fuller
There are times when the hon. Lady seems to be making a coherent argument and then she goes back to using rhetoric. She said that the change from RPI to CPI is the most significant one. If she seeks to make amendments on that issue and she does not want to make savings on the basis of a change from RPI to CPI, will she set out where she would make the savings in order to make the overall numbers add up as they are at the moment?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. The RPI to CPI change was imposed before it, so it is not contained in the Bill and we will not be able to make any amendments in terms of RPI and CPI when discussing it. The point is that the Government acted arbitrarily before Lord Hutton reported, thus making it harder to deliver the long-term reform to public service pensions that we need.
Labour Members think that those strikes could and should have been avoided last year, and that it is a matter of deep regret that this Government have lost the trust and damaged the morale of millions of public service workers, whose engagement and commitment is vital at a time when they are being asked to accept prolonged pay restraint while delivering continued improvement in the quality and efficiency of public services with fewer resources.
Let me turn from the Government’s mishandling of the issue to the specific provisions in this Bill. The Bill is designed to put the new schemes on a clear and consistent legal footing, with clear lines of accountability to scheme members, public service employers and taxpayers. That, in itself, is a worthwhile objective. I have already emphasised that our big disagreements with the Government’s approach to public service pensions lie elsewhere, so we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading.
However, we have a number of concerns about the Bill that we hope to address in Committee. It is an ill-prepared and poorly drafted Bill containing a number of mistakes, including giving the wrong dates for the transitions to new schemes. The Bill fails to deliver on the commitments and assurances given by this Government to underpin the provision of decent pension schemes that allow public service workers to save for their retirement with confidence. In short, as we have come to expect from this Government, it is a shambles of a Bill that has not been properly thought through, risks creating more problems than it solves and fails to deliver on the promises that Ministers have made.
First, we think it is right that pension ages rise in line with longevity, but it is essential that that is done carefully and fairly, with due notice given to people whose retirement plans may need to change and due consideration given to the impact of working longer on people in front-line or particularly strenuous occupations.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of my constituents contact me about the impact on pensioners of the wholesale changes that the Government are proposing and have made in respect of this notice period and the fact that people are having to change their plans. That has caused great distress and worry to many of my constituents. I am pleased that she is addressing the point, because the Government seem to be ignoring it.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We argued exactly the same point when the Government arbitrarily increased the state pension age for women in their late 50s with just six years’ notice given. When Lord Turner carried out the review of state pensions for the previous Government, he recommended a 15-year notice period be given, and the Pensions Policy Institute recommends a 10-year notice period. Such notice needs to be given and it is not enshrined in this Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the reasons why that notice period is required is that as the retirement age rises careers may also have to change to ensure that employees are not forced into ill health and are not forced to do work that is unsuitable for their age?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We also believe that this Bill should not pre-empt or cut across ongoing discussions—this builds on the point that he raised, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron)—between the Department of Health, NHS employers and NHS workers about the implications of working longer for some staff groups, especially those, such as paramedics, in physically demanding roles.
We think that the Bill should reflect Lord Hutton’s recommendations that the link between public service pension ages and the state pension age should be kept under review and that this should be conducted by a properly independent body, with public service employees and employers represented and consulted. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his speech that that will happen, but it is not guaranteed in the Bill—indeed, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with the Bill. These are all issues that we will be raising in Committee to get the commitments that public service workers deserve and thought they had been given during the negotiations behind the Bill. These are also issues that we will have in mind as we look to any future increases in the state pension age itself.
For our finances to be sustainable, and for decent pensions to be affordable, it is right that retirement ages rise with longevity. However, as Malcolm Wicks, the late Member for Croydon North reminded us in some of his most recent work, many people doing manual jobs started work at 16 or 18, with some doing so even earlier, and find it harder to continue work into their late 60s. We should be mindful of people’s capacity to work later and later, especially if support is not in place for them in the workplace.
Secondly, there are real worries that the Bill fails to take due account of the special characteristics of the local government pension scheme. Members will know that it is a fully funded scheme administered by local authorities and we should welcome the hard work of local councils and trade unions, who have made very valuable progress in negotiations on a mutually agreeable agenda for reform. The Bill threatens to unravel the agreements that have been reached and destabilise financially the local government pension funds by forcing a disruptive and potentially disastrous closure of existing schemes instead of facilitating a smooth transition to the new scheme design. That extension of Treasury interference into aspects of scheme valuation and design could prevent local authorities from delivering on the deal they have agreed with their work force. Indeed, the view of the pensions manager at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is that the relevant provisions in the Bill represent
“a major shift in the governance of local authority pensions and”
raise
“questions about future local democratic accountability for those pension funds.”
Again, we expect those concerns to be addressed in Committee.
Thirdly, on the question of good governance, the Bill must underpin and not undermine high standards of scheme governance. As Lord Hutton stated in his final report,
“there is a powerful case for…much stronger governance of all the public service pension schemes. This should keep government, taxpayers and scheme members better informed about the financial health of these schemes. There should be minimum standards set for scheme administration. There is also a proper and legitimate role for representatives of the workforce to be formally involved in these new governance arrangements.”
The Bill fails to include key recommendations from Lord Hutton’s report, such as the inclusion of member-nominated and independent members on pension boards; the establishment of pension policy groups to consider major changes to scheme rules; the need to ensure that pension boards are responsible for the oversight of financial management and, in the case of funded schemes such as the local government pension scheme, for investment management; and the commissioning of a review into how standards of administration in public service pension schemes can be improved. Those measures would improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of scheme administration and would ensure that public service pension schemes matched best practice in the private sector.
Finally, we must ensure that the Bill adequately reflects and reinforces the progress made in negotiations. We should give public service workers a system they can trust and pensions that they can save towards with confidence, ensuring protection against retrospective or arbitrary detrimental changes. We also have concerns in this regard, which some hon. Members have already mentioned, and we will seek to address them in Committee. For one thing, the Bill subjects many aspects of public service pension provision to unilateral Treasury control. Although it is right that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that costs to taxpayers are contained, public service employees also have a right to know that critical changes will be consulted on and that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to arbitrary interference and opportunistic cash raids.
Furthermore, Lord Hutton has stated that
“there must…be full protection of accrued rights”,
but the Bill does not rule out retrospective changes that reduce benefits already accrued, going against the fundamental principle that pension benefits accrued are pay deferred and must therefore be honoured. The Government have reiterated their commitment to maintaining defined benefits in the public sector, and the Chief Secretary reaffirmed that to the House last year. He said, as he has on a number of other occasions, that his commitment was that
“public sector schemes will remain as defined benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 927.]
Clause 7, however, provides for the creation of new schemes that are
“defined benefits…defined contributions…or…a scheme of any other description.”
That should not be a means to drive a coach and horses through the commitments the Government have given and allow another round in the race to the bottom on pension provision.
In addition, the Government have made much of their promise of
“no more reform for 25 years”.
In his foreword to the Treasury’s document on new scheme designs, published last December, the Chief Secretary wrote that
“we need a long term solution that will last a generation”.
Clause 20 specifies “protected elements” of scheme design that cannot be altered for the next 25 years without clearing a “high hurdle” of comprehensive consultation and a report to parliament.
We think it is right that public service workers should be given an assurance that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to further arbitrary and unfair changes without adequate scrutiny and debate, but the Bill seems to be riddled with loopholes, excluding a number of important scheme features from the list of “protected elements” and stating that the “high hurdle” can be bypassed in order to meet a cost cap that is in turn set by the Treasury with no such requirement for consultation and report. Furthermore, it was a critical part of the agreements reached with employee representatives that protection should be provided to staff transferred to alternative providers as a result of public service outsourcing —the so-called fair deal policy. The Chief Secretary told the House last year that
“we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff. The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers, and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]
Yet there is no guarantee in the Bill that public service workers transferred to new employers will be able to keep their public service pensions. We will seek to address all those issues in Committee to improve the Bill and the protections granted to public service workers.
In conclusion, we think public service workers with understandable fears for their financial futures deserve better than being treated as pawns in this Government’s political games, with the consequence that it has been harder to reach agreement on reasonable reforms that control costs to the taxpayer. Indeed, perhaps the best case for the Bill is that it should ensure that never again can an opportunistic Government create unnecessary conflict and disruption by imposing unfair and arbitrary changes without adequate consultation, scrutiny and accountability. Let us ensure that it fulfils that objective.
Finally, let us remember that the real pensions crisis is not in the public sector but in the private sector. It is right that we should ensure public service pensions are sustainable and affordable for the taxpayer, but we should not allow that to distract us from the unacceptable inadequacy of pension provision in the private sector. Too often, it has sounded as though the Government’s answer to disparities in pension provision across the public and private sectors is to level down, not level up. Indeed, we have seen more than a million lower paid workers excluded from automatic enrolment when we should be ensuring that the National Employment Savings Trust can deliver low-cost, high-quality pensions to all who could benefit.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that in the 10 years since the previous Prime Minister decided to get rid of advance corporation tax relief on pensions, that decision has destroyed £100 billion of private sector pension savings? Does she accept that that was the fault of her Government?
Rachel Reeves
I look forward to the hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill to restore that relief. The real crisis is that some people are not saving at all for their retirement and are not in any type of occupational scheme.
Rachel Reeves
I shall take another intervention so that we can hear about the hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill.
Andrea Leadsom
How on earth does the hon. Lady think that anyone can put right £100 billion wiped off the value of private sector pensions? How does she expect anybody to right that wrong today? It has been done; it is too late.
Rachel Reeves
It could be reversed so that dividends were not treated in such a way in the future, but the Government have no intention of doing that. I do not think the hon. Lady understands the real crisis: some people are not saving at all for their pensions and have no occupational pension to save into, and the 20% of people who earn less than a living wage do not feel that they can put money aside every month. That is the real crisis we face and the Government excluded 1 million people from automatic enrolment and have done nothing to tackle the excessive fees and charges automatic enrolment schemes can charge. The Government should be focusing on that challenge to bring up the quality of pension provision for everybody so that nobody risks retiring into poverty and having to rely on means-tested benefits.
Improving governance and reducing costs across private pension schemes while cracking down on the excessive fees and charges that erode pension income should be the Government’s priority, but it is not. Instead, to address disparities they want to level down the pensions enjoyed by those who work in the public sector.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pathetic performance of private sector schemes. Is not the answer a compulsory state earnings-related pension scheme for everyone in the private sector?
Rachel Reeves
Automatic enrolment could bring into saving for retirement 10 million people who are currently not saving. They would not just be contributing their own money, but getting a contribution from their employer that they have never had before. That scheme started in October this year and by October 2017 it will be fully rolled out.
The pensions Minister is now in his place. It is disappointing that people on low pay and in part-time work are excluded from that scheme, and that the waiting period was increased to three months, which means that some people who could have benefited from it, particularly those who change jobs regularly, will be excluded. The Government need to do more to bring people into saving for occupational pension schemes through automatic enrolment, and they need to ensure that excessive fees and charges do not erode that pension income. We urged the Government to amend the Pensions Act 2011 to cap those fees and charges, but the Minister did not take those proposals on board.
Lord Hutton argued that public service pensions should remain a gold standard, so let us make sure that the Bill delivers on that objective and then seek to spread that standard across the wider economy so that everyone can benefit from good quality pension schemes. Instead of this Government’s divisive political games, pitting public sector against private sector, union member against taxpayer, we need to work together—Government, businesses, employees and civil society—reforming our economic institutions to give everyone a stake and a fair share in prosperity, building the one-nation economy that our nation needs to succeed.