The Economy

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

[Hon. Members]

Bye, bye!

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Income Tax

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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 (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I give way, and I look forward to hearing a justification for that.

[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.]

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Where is your 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

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[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

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the headline plan set out by the previous Chancellor and Government included cuts to capital spending that were substantially greater than those being implemented by this Government.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Danny Alexander]

I will gladly take another intervention after responding to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). He will know that the low interest rates to which he has referred are in part a consequence of the fiscal credibility that this Government have established. It is precisely because we wish to use the strength of this country’s balance sheet which comes from that credibility that we are able to announce this guarantee scheme, which I will go on to describe in a moment. However, I shall take an intervention from the shadow Chief Secretary first.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the previous Labour Government’s plans would have led to £6.6 billion more investment in infrastructure than that planned by this Government over the next three years. Will he confirm those numbers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but we do not think it remotely adequate to meet the scale of the challenge we now face: the longest double-dip recession since the war, record levels of youth and long-term unemployment, dangerously low levels of business investment, and as a result, deficit reduction way off track, with borrowing up by a quarter this year. The longer this situation continues, the higher the price for businesses, taxpayers and working families in the future: permanent damage to our long-term productivity and competitiveness, and billions of pounds in additional unplanned Government borrowing.

The Opposition have been urging the Government to act and we have repeatedly identified infrastructure investment as an urgent priority. However, this is not the plan it purports to be. The Prime Minister said that he would “cut through the dither”, but he has simply created another distraction—a fig leaf for their own inaction; a peashooter where we needed a big bazooka. At a time when we need to be bold if we are to boost business confidence, to come out with something half-hearted and hesitant risks making things worse.

Before proceeding, I would like to apologise for that fact that, as Mr Speaker and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are already aware, I cannot be present for the winding up of this debate.

Let us remind ourselves of the background to the Bill. Over the summer, we learned that the UK economy had entered its third quarter of negative growth—the longest double-dip recession in British post-war history. Unemployment remains unacceptably high; youth and long-term unemployment is a national disgrace; and headline employment figures conceal endemic under-employment. Record numbers are working fewer hours than they want to, and record numbers are trapped in temporary work. The Chancellor’s promise of expansionary fiscal contraction has come to nothing.

A Government who proudly proclaimed on page 1, paragraph 1 of their coalition agreement that eradicating the deficit and securing the recovery were their No. 1 priority are now midway through their term of office. What do they have to show for themselves? They have an economy that is smaller than when the Government’s measures began to take effect and, at the last count, £150 billion in additional debt—a figure that is likely to rise further, with borrowing up by a quarter this year. As the former US Treasury Secretary writes in this morning’s Financial Times,

“the reality is that the primary determinant of fiscal health in both the US and UK over the medium term will be the rate of growth. An extra percentage point of growth maintained for five years would reduce Britain’s debt-to-GDP ratio by close to 10 percentage points whereas austerity policies that slowed growth could even backfire in the narrow sense of raising debt-to-GDP ratios and turning debt unsustainability into a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

[Hazel Blears]

Would my hon. Friend describe this as plan A, plan A-plus, or plan B? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Reeves]

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) suggests “plan F for fail”, and I could not agree more. I wish this was a plan B, but I do not think it is. It is more words, when what we require is action. Yet the Government do not listen to the evidence—they just plough on with a plan that everybody else knows has failed.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Can the hon. Lady clear up a bit of confusion? Today, she wrote in The Guardian that the Labour party would fix all this with a bankers bonus tax to build new affordable homes. However, it seems that this tax has been spent a number of times. Back in March, the Leader of the Opposition said it was going to be used to fund the young unemployed. Which is it?

[Rachel Reeves]

The bank bonus tax is being used to do two things: first, to create 100,000 jobs for young people; and secondly, for the construction of 25,000 new affordable homes. The Opposition believe that the priority right now is construction and getting young people back to work. The Government believe that the priority is a tax cut for the bonuses. That just shows how out of touch this coalition Government are.

Nothing better illustrates the long-term costs of this Government’s short-sighted complacency than the shocking shortfall in infrastructure investment. If we want to build a productive, competitive economy for the future, we need to invest in the road and rail systems that keep this country moving; in the energy supplies that power our industries; in the information and communication networks that turn ideas into real innovations. With study after study confirming Keynes’s original insight—that construction projects can maximise the multiplier effects of new investment, creating skilled jobs in the construction sector as well as in engineering and design—there is no better time than now.

Instead, we have had from this Government countless speeches, statements and strategy documents. People are asking, “Where is the delivery?” As the CBI is asking, where are the diggers on the ground? When are we going to start turning blueprints into bricks and mortar? It was the Prime Minister who said,

“This autumn, the government is on an all-out mission to unblock the system and get projects underway”.

That sounds promising—until we realise that he said this a year ago. Since then, what have we seen? None of the road building projects in the autumn statement package have begun construction. The number of housing starts is down on 2011. Planning applications are taking longer to approve. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said:

“In terms of job creation today, getting construction projects off the ground is critical.”

But in the year since he told us that barely one in 10 of the projects listed in the Government’s construction pipeline have moved forward to procurement or construction, and almost as many of them have moved backwards. Total UK construction output is down by more than 10% and last week’s jobs figures showed that the number of jobs in the construction sector has fallen by 89,000, bringing the total number of construction jobs lost since this Government came to power to 120,000.

The Deputy Prime Minister has promised that support for infrastructure and other private sector projects from the regional growth fund would offer a

“boost to business, which will jump start growth and create jobs that last in the places that really need it.”

That sounds like just what we need, but that was said a year ago. We know that since then just £60 million of the promised £1.4 billion has been released to businesses, creating barely 5% of the 37,000 jobs promised.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £20 billion in new infrastructure investment to be funded by the pension funds—that was a year ago. We now know that this scheme will be launched next year, with funds amounting to only a tenth of what was promised back then. As the failure of this Government’s promises increases, their rhetorical displays have become ever more strident. Two weeks ago, in response to questions from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:

“If we look at what is planned by this Government, we see that between 2010 and 2015 we will be investing £250 billion in infrastructure.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 230.]

It is true that the national infrastructure plan sets out £250 billion-worth of projects— would government not be easy if you were judged only on what you had planned? If we look instead at what has been delivered, we see that the picture is rather different. The Office for National Statistics shows that new infrastructure orders since the second quarter of 2010 average less than £2 billion a quarter. At this rate, it will take not five years but more than 30 years for the Government’s grand plan to be delivered. The latest construction output figures released last week show that progress is slowing, not accelerating. It is no wonder that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has described the national infrastructure plan as

“hot air, a complete fiction”.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister boasts of an extra 1 million jobs in the private sector. Does she agree that many of those jobs are where people are moving into part-time work having lost full-time work? It is wrong that the Government penalise people who are now working less than 24 hours but used to do more, by cutting their working tax credits by £3,750. The Government are saying, “Get some more work” but these people have just come down from full-time employment.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will know that there are 1.42 million people working part time who wish that they were working full time. As of April, about 200,000 families lost support through working tax credits because they could not find the additional hours that they need to still be eligible for that extra support to help them when they are in work; that support helps them to avoid poverty.

It is no wonder that people are asking whether they can have faith in anything the Government are saying, given that in every area we see dither and delay. In communications, the Government have put back the 2012 broadband target to 2015 and may not meet that new deadline. In house building, recent statistics show that new housing starts are down by 24% on a year ago. In waste management, the plan promised for spring this year will now not be delivered until the end of 2013. In energy, the CBI has warned that policy changes such as the cuts to feed-in tariffs have been

“damaging to business confidence, with implications not just for immediate investment decisions but for longer-term trust in government policy”.

In transport, we still await the long-promised national policy statement on transport networks and aviation, and tough decisions on airport capacity have been kicked into the long grass. Instead of the drive, decisiveness and clarity of vision that businesses are crying out for, what do we get in sector after sector? We get dither and delay; we get initiatives and announcements driven by the desire to hit headlines rather than to deliver results.

The Bill—the Government’s latest scheme—is a strange piece of legislation. It is being fast-tracked through Parliament, with the justification that the situation is immediate and urgent. However, given this need for speed, we are bound to ask whether legislation is necessary, particularly given that, as the House of Commons Library note explains, such commitments

“do not typically require…legislation”.

The UK guarantee scheme at the centre of the Bill was first announced by the Prime Minister in a speech in May. It was re-announced by the Chancellor in a speech in June. The press release came from the Treasury in July. It is therefore hard to resist the conclusion that the Bill is designed more to create the impression of activity and delivery than to get real results in the quickest way possible.

However, the Opposition’s biggest concern with the Bill is that it is simply inadequate to meet the challenge we face. Many in industry are sceptical that it will make any difference. Even where it is taken up, the tight criteria of economic and commercial viability may mean that it amounts to only a deadweight subsidy, aiding projects that would have gone ahead in any case. The best anyone has been able to say for it is that it might help some schemes at the margin, but that is hardly commensurate with the challenge we face.

The schemes that have been most frequently mentioned as strong candidates for assistance are those the Government have announced are going ahead several times already. Let me cite one example, which the Chief Secretary mentioned in his speech. Earlier this month, he said:

“Detailed discussions are already taking place with the Mersey Bridge Gateway project”.

We certainly welcome progress, but many may experience a strange sense of déjà vu, given that a year ago the same project was announced by the then Transport Secretary, who noted that although some transport plans are long term, this one could be

“implemented more quickly…creating jobs when they are needed most.”

What happened in the past year? It is no wonder the Government are gaining a reputation for more talk than action. As the director general of the CBI said today,

“firms fear initiative overload and are becoming impatient with delivery, leaving many companies still sceptical about the overall impact on investment.”

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that this Bill is, in effect, pure Keynesianism? If she had the opportunity to read Nicholas Wapshott’s recently published and excellent book on the arguments between Keynes and Hayek, she might conclude that elements in this hoped-for infrastructure programme carry with them the germs of really serious difficulties if we pursue a policy of pure Keynesianism and do not take into account the arguments of Friedrich Hayek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I look forward to reading the book that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I do not think that the Bill is pure Keynesianism—that would be doing things that Labour Front Benchers are recommending, such as introducing a temporary reduction in VAT, a tax on bank bonuses, genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment and a national insurance holiday for small businesses. Those are the things that would kick-start the economy, get people back to work and get the deficit down in a sustainable way, because there would be more people in work and more businesses succeeding, unlike what we have from this Government, which is £150 billion of additional borrowing because more people are on welfare and fewer businesses are succeeding.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her excellent speech and may I say that Friedrich von Hayek has caused more damage in this century and the last than any other economist in the history of the world? Nevertheless, she is absolutely right; this is about a supply-side measure which is not Keynesianism. Assisting and providing a little bit of investment with a little bit of Government subsidy is not Keynesianism. Keynesianism is direct spending to create demand in the economy. The private sector will not create demand. Only government can restore the demand where there is the vacuum at the moment.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course he is agreeing with something that the Business Secretary said, which is that the real problem in the economy is a lack of demand. Supply-side measures will not do very much to help with that. When the Chief Secretary was asked in intervention what projects would be supported by this Bill he could name not one. That is the problem; this is a guarantee scheme, but we do not know what it guarantees. This is a project to help infrastructure investment, but we hear no announcement about which infrastructure investments will go ahead that would not have done previously. No wonder businesses and Members are sceptical and no wonder we are still in recession, if this is as good as the Government can get.

We will not oppose the Bill, but nor will we allow the Government to use the scheme as a substitute for the real plan that the economy and businesses so desperately need. Instead of devoting themselves to the task of getting our economy moving again, the Government have put before us an infrastructure investment guarantee that guarantees no infrastructure investment—fast-track legislation that has had the effect of getting the scheme stuck in the slow lane. The Government are preoccupied with distracting us from their fundamental failure and inaction, but people’s patience is wearing thin. We have had enough of initiatives and announcements: no more excuses, no more evasions—the Government need to get serious.

Two years ago, we warned that the Government’s economic plan would choke off recovery, shatter business confidence and add to borrowing, and that it would make it harder, not easier, to balance our books and pay our way in the world. A year ago, we called on the Government to bring forward infrastructure investment; we called for a bank bonus tax to fund the construction of 25,000 new affordable homes and to deliver a programme of youth jobs. If the Government had taken our advice then, just think how much progress we could have made by now.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Before the hon. Lady reaches the end of her speech, perhaps she will comment on this point. If all the things that have not been done are so bad, why did Madame Christine Lagarde say that she shivered to think what would have happened had the Government not taken the action they did?

[Rachel Reeves]

Olivier Blanchard and the International Monetary Fund have been saying for a year that if growth does not materialise the Government should think again. How much longer do we need to be in recession? How much longer must we have rising youth unemployment and rising long-term unemployment before the Government act? The IMF now forecasts that the economy will shrink this year and will barely grow at all next year. That is evidence that the Government need to rethink their strategy, and it is a shame that they have not heeded the advice of the IMF.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason consumer demand is so awful is that the Chancellor announced that 700,000 people in the public sector would lose their jobs? People in the public sector do not know whether it will be them or their neighbour, or whether it will be this year or next year, so they are saving not spending. That is why there is no growth.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is not just people in the public sector; people in the private sector, particularly in construction, which has shed 120,000 jobs since the Government came to power, are also worried about their jobs and futures and about how they will get the money to feed and house their families. There is real concern and a real lack of confidence among households and businesses.

This summer showed that things could be done differently. The Olympics showed what can be achieved with an inspiring vision—the right combination of public, private and social enterprise, with the nation united behind it. We delivered on time and on budget, and it was a perfect platform for Britain at its best. Let us hope that the Olympics provided a much-needed boost for our economy, but the lesson to learn is not that we can now rest; if we really want to seize the economic opportunities before us and build a better future, we need to repeat that effort on a much bigger scale, with a nationwide plan for jobs and growth. Let that be the lesson for today and let us get to work on laying the foundations of the economy we need to build for the next generation. Let us have a Government who follow up their rhetoric with real action.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that the limit on Back-Bench speeches will be nine minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I agree that we want to see private sector investment, and tens of billions of pounds of private sector investment is coming into the United Kingdom. Indeed, today the Chinese company Huawei has announced a $2 billion investment in the UK. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. We want to create the low-tax, competitive conditions for the UK economy in which the private sector can grow, but I think he would recognise that there is a role for public money in providing large-scale transport infrastructure, for example, which these companies need to succeed.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

In a speech yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury declared that

“infrastructure is at the centre of our strategy to kick-start our economy.”

With that in mind, will the Chancellor tell the House whether the value of orders for infrastructure investment made by the private sector rose or fell between 2010 and 2011?

[Mr Osborne]

For a start, we have just announced £40 billion of additional guarantees for private sector infrastructure. If the hon. Lady wants the figures, £113 billion was invested over the period from 2005 to 2010, and £250 billion of investment for both the private and public sectors has been announced in this Parliament.

[Rachel Reeves]

As the Chancellor will know, there is a difference between announcing something and actually delivering it. The answer to my question is that those orders fell by a fifth, from £7.3 billion in 2010 to £5.9 billion in 2011—a result of the collapse in business confidence that the Chancellor’s disastrous decision to cut too far and too fast has resulted in.

Is it not the truth that next week’s Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill is necessary only in order to create the impression of activity and to distract from this Government’s complete and utter failure to deliver the infrastructure investment that they have been promising and that the country is crying out for?

[Mr Osborne]

There is a difference between announcement and delivery: Labour announced no more boom and bust, and delivered the biggest boom and the biggest bust. We know all about the record of the last Labour Government. One of the quite extraordinary things is that, despite spending and borrowing all that money, they did not actually invest in the modern infrastructure that the private sector needs to create sustainable jobs. That is the lesson that the hon. Lady should learn from their last period in office.

Finance Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and others for serving on the Public Bill Committee with me over the past several weeks. I also thank our able Chairs for supervising us during that process and the Commons Clerks for their advice and assistance throughout the process in Committee and in the House.

The Bill has been on quite a journey since it was first presented to the House just a few months ago. I fear that the Exchequer Secretary spoke too soon last December when he announced that

“the Government’s more open, predictable and simple approach to tax policy making is working well.”

He said that by publishing tax legislation in draft form first,

“we are giving greater certainty and stability to taxpayers and businesses”.

I do not think that taxpayers and businesses, or indeed Members of this House, realised that the Finance Bill itself was still only a draft when it was published in March. This Finance Bill has been through so many stages of crossing out and rewriting that it would have been easier for the Government to have scrapped it and started again, perhaps with some measures that would have supported jobs and growth.

As we have heard throughout the Committee and Report stages, the Budget has been a total and utter shambles. When we first saw this Bill back in March, it contained provisions to raise VAT on hot food, on static caravans and on improvements to listed buildings.

[Mr Reid]

What was in the Budget back in March was a consultation exercise on VAT on static caravans and so on. I am glad that after that exercise the Government listened and amended their proposals, but it was a consultation. This Government, unlike the previous one, listen to what people say in consultations.

[Rachel Reeves]

That is the first time I have heard a Finance Bill being called a consultation—I do not even know where to start.

The Budget in March also included a 3p rise in fuel duty in August and limits on charitable donations. All this was necessary, we were told, to deal with the deficit. Yet the Bill before us, as we reach Third Reading, contains none of those measures. We have had a series of abrupt reversals that, according to one estimate, will cost the Exchequer nearly £700 million.

Opposition Members argued that these measures were misconceived from the start, and that adding to the costs faced by families and small business at this time would make it even harder for our economy to climb out of the recession that this Government have dug us into. But it must be a matter of regret that so much uncertainty and confusion has been created for those affected, doing real damage to businesses, charities, pensioners and families, and that at a time of tight public finances the Government’s financial and fiscal planning seems to be in such disarray, with no one at all clear what the Government’s priorities actually are.

Despite the Government’s belated change of heart on those matters, the Bill remains a deeply flawed, unfair and utterly inadequate response to the problems facing our country today and that is why the Opposition will vote against it this evening. The Bill still offends against the most basic principles of fairness by giving priority to a reckless and irresponsible tax cut worth tens of thousands of pounds for a few thousand millionaires while at the same time asking millions of ordinary people who are already under pressure from rising prices, falling wages and cuts to tax credits and benefits to make further sacrifices and endure further hardship.

The Bill breaks a promise that the Chancellor made in the Budget last year to Britain’s pensioners that their age-related allowance would rise in line with inflation for the rest of this Parliament and instead imposes a stealth tax that will hit 4.5 million people over the age of 65, all of whom live on modest pension savings. The Bill is breaking the principle of universal child benefit and still means that one-earner families will lose thousands of pounds a year while a two-earner family on almost twice as much will keep all their benefit. It is a botched, half-baked measure dreamt up for a party conference speech but the measures are described by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as a “policy disaster” that are

“in danger of becoming a practical disaster when they come into effect”.

We have raised a number of other concerns about the Bill, such as the controlled foreign companies changes and the impact that they will have on developing countries. What is most wrong with the Bill, however, is that it represents a massive missed opportunity to end the recession and get our economy working for ordinary working families, pensioners, businesses and young people. It could have been a Bill that took the tough decisions necessary to ensure that those who could make a fair contribution to deficit reduction did so, so that those hit hardest by the current crisis were not put under even more pressure.

It could have been a Bill that cut VAT, giving immediate relief to hard-pressed families and giving our economy the stimulus it needs to get growth under way again and to make unemployment fall. It could have been a Bill that redirected money wasted on excessive bank bonuses and put those resources to better use, helping young people get back to work and constructing new affordable homes.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Where would the money have come from?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Government are borrowing £150 billion more. That is the cost of the Government’s failed economic policies. The reality is that with more people out of work claiming benefits and fewer people in work paying taxes, Government borrowing is higher and not lower.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but there is a little problem with her maths. She is accusing Her Majesty’s Government of spending £150 billion more and then wants to spend umpteen billions on top of that on a VAT cut. There is absolutely no sense in that.

[Rachel Reeves]

We have seen that this Government’s plan has failed, as unemployment remains far too high, with a million young people out of work. It has failed, and the economy is back in recession—we are one of only two countries in the G20 that are in recession—and the Government are borrowing more. In fact, in the first two quarters of this financial year, the Government are borrowing £4 billion more than they were last year. Their plan has failed and it is time to try an alternative that gets the economy moving again and that gets people back to work and paying taxes so that the economy can grow and the deficit can be brought down sustainably.

We have proposed a bank bonus tax because we think that it is right that those people with the broadest shoulders should pay a little more. On the day that Bob Diamond has resigned after taking £100 million of bonuses in just a few years, would it not have been far better tonight if we had supported the bank bonus tax and used that money to fund a programme of youth jobs to get our economy working again?

We could have used the Budget and the Government could have used the Finance Bill properly to accelerate infrastructure investment to help the struggling construction industry and to create much needed jobs in our economy. Instead, we have a Bill that will go down in history as a monument to this Government’s incompetence, complacency and inability to grasp that what the current economic situation demands is a Government who stand up for ordinary working people. The Bill fails on fairness and asks millions to pay more so that millionaires can pay less. It fails to address the real challenges that this country faces—a recession made in Downing street and a Government with no plan to get us out of it.

Finance Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Nobody will lose out in cash terms; that is the point.

Age-related allowances are complex and hard for older people to understand, as the Public Accounts Committee confirmed in a 2009 report. The same report also stated that too much emphasis is placed on older people having to prove their eligibility, resulting in erroneous claims and potential overpayments of tax. Furthermore, in March this year the Office of Tax Simplification published its interim report on its review of pensioner taxation in which it highlighted no fewer than nine complexities with the age-related personal allowance.

Half the people aged over 65 in 2013-14 will pay no income tax at all and are therefore unaffected by these changes. Those who will now not receive an age-related allowance will benefit from a £1,100 increase in the personal allowance, which represents the largest cash increase ever. At the same time, those who are affected by the withdrawal of age-related allowances will still see the total deductions they pay reduce significantly because we have retained the exemption from national insurance contributions for those of state pension age.

It is important to consider these changes to age-related allowances in the context of the wider support that the Government offer to pensioners. Only 40% of pensioners benefit from age-related allowances, about 50% are unaffected by the changes made by the clause because they pay no tax and will continue to pay no tax, and the remaining 10% have incomes above the taper limit for age-related allowances and are therefore unaffected by these measures.

Let us also remember that the triple lock ensures that each year, the basic state pension will be uprated by the highest of these: inflation, earnings or 2.5%. This April, the basic state pension increased by the consumer prices index inflation rate of 5.2%. That meant that there was an increase of £5.30 a week in the full basic state pension—the largest ever cash increase in the basic state pension. Under the previous Government’s plans, the basic state pension would have increased by only 2.8% from this April—an increase of only £2.85 per week. That means that the full basic state pension is £127 a year higher in 2012 than it would have been under the previous Government’s plans. Next year, a full basic state pension is forecast to be £130 a year higher than under the previous Government’s plans, and the year after that, it is forecast to be £133 higher.

Each year, more than 11 million pensioners will benefit from the introduction of the triple lock. An existing pensioner with a full basic state pension will gain more from the triple lock in each of the next three years than they will lose from the freeze in age-related allowances. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“Our analysis shows that they have lost considerably less from recent tax and benefit changes than any other demographic group. And over the past decade and more pensioner incomes have risen faster than those of the working age population.”

To conclude, the Government are making changes to ensure that there is a fair and competitive tax system. Some of them are controversial, but we should look at the evidence, not the Opposition’s rhetoric. The 50p rate is not sustainable. The introduction of the triple lock on state pensions means pensioners continue to be better off. These changes are good for our long-term tax revenues, good for our economy and good for the UK as a whole. I ask the Opposition to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is good to have plenty of time to wind up for the Opposition. We will press for a vote on amendments 1 and 23 this evening, because as today’s debate has confirmed for anyone who was still in any doubt, this is not only an omnishambles of a Budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) said, but a flawed and unfair Budget.

We have heard contributions about the hardships that the Government’s economic failure and unfair austerity measures are causing for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) talked about the cuts beginning to bite. She rightly said that pensioners are the victims and millionaires are the victors from the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said that the tax cut for millionaires is worth more than the money that most of our constituents take home in a year. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke about a tax cut for the mega-rich that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Instead of taking serious steps that might repair the damage that has been done, the Chancellor and his Ministers have turned from their failed experiment in expansionary fiscal contraction and resorted to the notorious Laffer curve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, they are testing that economic philosophy to its limits. It is their latest excuse for an economic policy that rewards those who are already very wealthy and is the last refuge of a Government who have lost any sense of purpose beyond the protection of privilege.

The argument that cutting tax for the very richest is the only way of improving the economic prospects for the rest of us was made by the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). They were suggesting that cutting taxes for the rich is what makes them work harder, but that cutting benefits for the poor is what gets them out of bed in the morning. They were saying that although these policies will hurt their constituents, they will vote for them anyway. I am sure that their constituents will sit up and take notice.

It is the same old Tories dusting down the same old trickle-down theories. They did not work in the 1980s and they will not work today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, the Government seem to think that if they cut taxes for the richest, somehow the rest of us will be the beneficiaries. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the Government’s perverse priorities than the fact that, when ordinary families are going through the toughest times in living memory, clause 1 of chapter 1 of part 1 of this Finance Bill gives a £3 billion tax cut to the richest 1% of the population, and the rest of the Bill is peppered with dubious means of making other, far less fortunate people in society pay for it.

Among those means, the largest and most flagrant is the abolition of the age-related allowance. The Government call it a tax simplification; we call it a tax grab from pensioners with occupational pensions of little more than £5,000 a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, it will cost pensioners £83 and people coming up to retirement £323.

May I just say how disappointing it was—

LIBOR (FSA Investigation)

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Chancellor for advance notice of his statement, which was handed to me at 12.19 pm—two minutes before he delivered it. [Hon. Members: “Where’s Balls?”] As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor is addressing the Local Government Association’s annual conference in Birmingham, I am responding for the Opposition.

Nine months ago, the Leader of the Opposition talked about “irresponsible, predatory capitalism”, of which this is one of the worst cases yet. The public had been assured that the banks had cleaned up their act. Ordinary borrowers and savers were told they could trust the banks again, but these unfolding revelations shine a new light on shocking practices in one of Britain’s most important banks. What should have been an impartial process of reporting independent interest rate statistics became an exercise in cooking the books, cheating the system and fixing the market.

Financial stability and the effective regulation of our banking and wider financial services industry are vital for stability, for consumers to save and for businesses to invest. Getting the balance of regulation right is an important task for the Government, especially when hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on the industry and when all of us and small businesses in all our constituencies rely so much on the financial services sector.

There are three areas in which I have questions for the Chancellor, the first of which is dealing with the people who are responsible. Are those responsible in the banks being held—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an extremely serious matter which warrants serious consideration. Let it be absolutely clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they want to shout out, they will not be called to ask a question on the statement. They should not shout, but if they think they are going to shout and then be called to ask a question, I am afraid they are rather deluded.

[Rachel Reeves]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not agree more with you about the importance of this issue.

On dealing with those who are responsible, are those responsible in the banks being held accountable, or will this whole thing just return to business as usual? Are criminal investigations progressing, and which law authorities will be leading the conspiracy and fraud cases that might arise? Has the Chancellor reflected on the consequences for competition and has he considered involving the Office of Fair Trading, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police? We need to know who knew what and when, and criminal prosecutions should and must follow against anyone who might have broken the law.

Millions of home owners with variable rate mortgages, small businesses with floating loans and consumers who depend on affordable credit could have lost money because of what amounts to a price-fixing scandal. What support will be available for individuals and small businesses who have potentially lost out because of the market fixing and who contact the Financial Ombudsman Service or the bank directly? Is the FSA also investigating the role of the bank’s auditors in tracking and reporting the manipulation of the figures between the rate submitters and the traders involved? What is happening to ensure that other banks that have manipulated markets in a similar way are brought to justice?

Secondly, what is being done to prevent anything like this from happening again? We raised our concerns with Treasury Ministers about the regulation of LIBOR recently. On 6 March, during a debate on the Financial Services Bill about the set of unregulated financial activities that the Chancellor evidently felt should remain unregulated, the shadow Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked the Financial Secretary directly about the

“billions of pounds of trades that are subject to the LIBOR rating”––[Official Report, Financial Services Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2012; c. 359.]—

and why that might need to be regulated. When asked whether he had a view—any view at all—about ending self-regulation, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had a one word answer: “No.”

The Chancellor made a conscious decision to exclude LIBOR from the Financial Services Bill in its current form, even when he must have known that a massive FSA investigation into precisely that matter was under way. The reputation of the City of London and our financial services sector is at stake. Instead of Ministers’ saying that the Treasury has no view, surely we need swift action to prevent the market abuse? Will the Chancellor urgently revisit his decision not to regulate LIBOR arrangements and instead amend the Financial Services Bill, which is still before Parliament?

Thirdly, a much wider issue is the culture in the City of London. As Bob Diamond said only last year, culture is about

“how people behave when no one is watching,”

but people in his organisation thought they could do anything they liked, just to make a fast buck. They thought they would never be held to account and that they were effectively above the law. We cannot allow Britain to become a place where the privileged and the powerful act according to their own set of moral standards. That is why we are calling for the strongest punishment for those who have broken trust and broken the law, tough regulation to prevent such practices in future and a culture change in our banking industry. We must get our economy working for the majority, not just a few at the top. The Government must act.

[Mr Osborne]

The whole House will be both surprised and disappointed that the shadow Chancellor is not here to account for himself today. He was certainly there every single day while these abuses were taking place, as the City Minister responsible for regulating Barclays and other banks. The hon. Lady says that the Government should do this and that. We are doing all those things; the question is why did the Labour Government not do those things when all this was actually happening?

Let me answer the hon. Lady’s specific questions. She asks whether the individuals responsible will be held to account. Absolutely, and the authorities are carrying out investigations into individuals. She asks whether people who have broken the criminal law will be held to account. That is absolutely what the authorities are looking at but as I have said, the FSA’s criminal powers granted by the previous Government do not extend to criminal sanctions for manipulation of LIBOR. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) asks, “Why is it unregulated?” It is because he did not regulate it—that is why. We are introducing a major Financial Services Bill, which has been through the House of Commons and is going through the House of Lords, to deal with the abuses that happened under the previous Government.

Secondly, the hon. Lady talked about the regulation of LIBOR. Of course the Government have been reviewing LIBOR while awaiting the publication of this report, which we knew was coming. As I have said, we have considered it carefully and we are looking at criminal sanctions for market manipulation. The hon. Lady did not ask about this, but it is an important point so I shall repeat that we are looking at what can happen to the fines levied on companies under the Act passed by the previous Government. Those fines are used simply to reduce the levy that is paid to the FSA by the rest of the financial sector, so the money paid by Barclays would just go to reduce the levy paid by other banks to the FSA. We are considering changing that, looking at whether that is appropriate in all cases and, specifically, whether the fine that Barclays will pay can go to the general taxpayer, who has suffered so much as a result of the failures of the financial system.

Finally, the hon. Lady talked about a culture change in the City and in banking. I completely agree. That is why the Government have introduced very tough new rules on remuneration and the clawback of remuneration, which is what will happen in this case. It is why we asked John Vickers to look at the whole structure of our banking industry, and the Business Secretary and I are implementing reforms that will ring-fence our retail banks to protect them better. It is why we have before Parliament as I speak the Financial Services Bill, which will sweep away the financial regulatory system that failed this country so badly. The Labour party’s trouble is that it is led by the cheerleaders for the age of irresponsibility, but they have yet to say sorry for it.