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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He is, of course, right to say that the recent figures show that unemployment has been falling, and that is good news, of course. Inflation is also coming down, which is good news for hard-pressed consumers.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Does the Chief Secretary think the fact that the economy is in recession explains why today’s figures show that borrowing is going up, not down as the Government intended?

[Danny Alexander]

As I said to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the figures reflect a combination of things, including the fact that departmental spending has been held down by more than was forecast, but the automatic stabilisers in the economy are operating. That is the flexibility in our plan. It is because of the fiscal credibility the Government have brought to this country that we can do that.

[Rachel Reeves]

I do not think the Chief Secretary answered the question. Figures out this morning show that, with the economy in recession, tax receipts are falling, and the benefits bill is going up, so borrowing is already £4 billion higher this year than last. Is it not time that the Government admitted their plan has failed, and without action on jobs and growth, borrowing does not go down, it just goes up?

[Danny Alexander]

That is an astonishing question from the party that made the mess in the British economy that we are trying to clear up, and the party whose plans wanted this Government to borrow even more. That just goes to show what would have happened to the UK economy if we had been unfortunate enough to have the Labour party stay in power.

Changes to the Budget

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement on the changes that the Treasury has made to the Budget, which was presented to this House on 21 March 2012.

[Hon. Members]

Where’s the Chancellor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but regret the absence of both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to explain this series of U-turns.

This statement leaves a number of questions unanswered. On 16 April, the Exchequer Secretary told the House:

“The same approach should apply to mobile caravans as to static, non-residential caravans, and to a hot pie served in a fish and shop and one served in a bakery.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 130.]

On 12 April, in relation to the proposed cap on income tax relief for charitable donations, he said:

“The policy that we’ve announced is a sensible one.”

What new evidence has come to light since then and during the recess that has led the Government to change their mind? The reality is that the facts have not changed. This is a Government who do not like to be held to account for their mistakes. The Minister has tried to make a virtue out of the Government’s abandonment of policies that prove to be unpopular and unworkable by saying that they are listening. However, failing to do the necessary work on a policy before announcing it and then sneaking out a reversal when they hoped no one was looking is not consultation—it is total incompetence. Is it not the truth that this Government were so desperate for money-making measures that they took from whomever they thought they could, hoping to get away with it? The result: a total and utter shambles of a Budget.

The mistakes that are still in the Budget are, however, the worst ones of all: a tax cut for millionaires while asking millions to pay more, and no plan for the jobs and growth that we desperately need to get our economy back on track and our deficit down. As the Minister and his colleagues are making such a virtue of listening and of their readiness to change course and make the occasional U-turn, perhaps now they will listen—to the millions of pensioners hit by the granny tax; to the millions of families hit by cuts to their tax credits; to the 1 million young people out of work; to the businesses struggling to break even; and to everyone in this country suffering from the double-dip recession made in Downing street and crying out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House needs to calm down, on both sides. I remind the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the narrow focus of the question covers changes to the announced policy. I know that she will concentrate on that narrow matter, as this is not a Second Reading debate on the Budget.

[Rachel Reeves]

Given the number of U-turns that the Government have made in the past two weeks, it is difficult to know where to start. Will they now change course on the biggest mistakes in the Budget—cutting tax credits for working families, the granny tax and cutting tax for millionaires while asking ordinary people to pay more? The country is crying out for the Government to change course and to get a grip on their policies, which dug us into this hole and this recession.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady says that the Government were desperate for money-making measures. Why does she think we needed such measures? She might have noticed that her party left the biggest peacetime deficit we have ever faced. The extraordinary thing about the Labour party is that it always believes that there is a magic money tree that we can get money from. I am afraid, however, that we have to take steps to reduce the deficit. Even with these changes, we remain on the course that we set out. This was a fiscally neutral Budget, and we are not taking risks with the public finances, which is the U-turn that the Opposition want us to take.

The hon. Lady asked how a Budget could be changed and why we had departed from what it set out to do. I should like to remind the House what happened four years ago. In 2007, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the doubling of the 10p rate. A year later, his successor had to come to the House—not in a Budget, but weeks later—and set out additional tax cuts of over £3 billion. They had got their policy wrong and they had destroyed their credibility by doubling the income tax rate for the poorest earners in this country. That is an example of a Budget shambles.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for providing advance notice of it. We welcome this review of the pay and tax arrangements of senior public servants.

At a time when ordinary families and businesses are bearing the brunt of the recession that this Government have created and at a time when more than 700,000 jobs in the public sector are being cut while ordinary public service workers who keep our NHS, schools and police services running have had their pay frozen and their pension contributions increased, people will be shocked that more than 2,000 senior public servants, many earning several times the average public sector wage, have been paid in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and that 1,200 of these deals have been done by the present Government in the past two years.

The vast majority of working people in this country have no choice over how or whether to pay the tax that they owe and they will feel that those who benefit from the highest public sector salaries have a special responsibility to make their proper contribution to the funding of the public services on which we all rely and to which they owe their generous salaries. We should all be clear that if the taxpayer is paying someone a living, particularly a better living than the vast majority of taxpayers enjoy, that person has a duty to pay their fair share of tax and the Government have a duty to ensure that they do so.

The statement is a valuable step towards greater transparency and accountability and we welcome that, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Chief Secretary can answer today. First, on the question of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, we now know that he was appointed at a salary significantly higher than that of his predecessor and that he potentially avoided paying around £42,000 annually in tax, an amount almost twice the average public sector salary. Will the Chief Secretary tell us which members of the Government agreed to the arrangement made with the chief executive of the Student Loans Company and which members of the Government were aware of the arrangements before the matter came to the public attention in February? Have changes been made to his payment arrangements since then and can we be assured that he is now paying his full share of income tax and national insurance? If not, when can we have that assurance? If his contract has been altered, has there been any cost to the taxpayer in doing so?

The Government committed to publishing details of all public servants paid more than £150,000, yet the chief executive of the Student Loans Company was not on the list published in 2011 despite, as we know, earning £182,000 and despite the fact that his predecessor was listed. Will the Chief Secretary explain why the chief executive’s name was not on that list and can he tell us if any other public servants paid more than £150,000 have not been listed so far and whether they will be listed in the 2012 publication?

Secondly, on the subject of the extent of the problem and the scope of the review, will the Chief Secretary confirm how many such deals were signed off since February, when the affairs of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company came to light? Will he confirm that those individuals paid more than the Prime Minister will have been personally approved by the Chief Secretary? How many has he personally approved? If any did not come to him for approval, can he explain why?

The review’s findings cover only people who earn more than £58,000, which is more than twice the average annual salary in this country. Will the Chief Secretary tell us why his review excluded anyone on less than £58,000 a year, and if he will return to the House with findings that include all such cases? In those cases where a public servant was not being paid on payroll, were the individuals concerned paying their proper share of income tax or national insurance? What was the cost to the Exchequer of those arrangements?

Despite the emphasis on transparency, the findings presented today do not include local authorities, non-maintained schools, public broadcasting authorities or other publicly owned companies. Those areas account for a substantial portion of the public sector pay bill. When will the Chief Secretary come to the House with figures that cover those areas? It is not enough for him merely to encourage the publication of that information by others.

The findings also do not cover publicly owned banks. I think that taxpayers who have paid to rescue those banks would expect those employed by the banks to be paying their tax at the appropriate rate. Will the Chief Secretary conduct a review of the extent of such arrangements in the publicly owned banks?

The findings also do not cover privatised or contracted-out services. Does the Chief Secretary think that those earning large incomes from taxpayer-funded contracts should be expected to pay their proper share of tax, and what steps will he take to ensure that that is happening?

Thirdly, as regards what the Government will do next, the Chief Secretary has told us that there will be a new presumption that the most senior staff must be on the payroll. How does he define “the most senior staff” for those purposes? Will he give a clearer definition of the exceptional circumstances in which he will allow some public servants to continue receiving their salaries off the public sector payroll? Will he give an undertaking that those cases for which those exceptions have been made will be made public and that the exceptional reasons for them will be given?

In future cases, will Departments be allowed to seek assurances about the tax affairs of public appointees with off-payroll arrangements, or will they be required to do so, as this morning’s news reports imply? If they will not be required to do so, why not? Why not have that duty to seek such assurances?

Where these arrangements are disallowed for current or future appointees, can the Chief Secretary give us his assurance that their salaries will not rise to compensate them for the loss of net income that may result? Can the Chief Secretary confirm that in accordance with previous commitments given on transparency and accountability, all those covered by the review whose earnings exceed £150,000 will be included in the Government’s annual list of people earning more than this figure?

On the wider issue that the Chief Secretary mentioned—how IR35 laws are used to avoid tax beyond the public sector, which clearly needs to be addressed—can he guarantee that HMRC will have sufficient resources to monitor, manage and enforce the full payment of taxes at a time when it is being asked to absorb £2 billion-worth of cuts to its budget?

In conclusion, the Government need to ensure value for money for every pound of taxpayer money spent, especially at a time of wage restraint for nurses, teachers and police, and huge cuts in the number of people working in the public sector, so the Opposition welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to rein in the avoidance of tax, but I hope this will apply to all those who are paid by the taxpayer, and that there will be genuine transparency in pay and in any exceptions to the rules set out today.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the shadow Chief Secretary’s welcome for the steps that I announced today, though it was striking that in her response there was no reference at all to the fact that many of these arrangements date back to the time of the previous Government. About 40% of the cases identified began work under the previous Government.

If the hon. Lady wants to know more about why those arrangements came into place, she could ask her Front-Bench colleagues if they were here. She could ask the Leader of the Opposition, for example, as two cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She could ask the shadow Home Secretary, as nine cases date back to her time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She could ask the shadow Health Secretary, as 45 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Health. She could ask her colleague the shadow Chancellor, because at least 24 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Education. Yes, it is once again their mess and we are cleaning it up.

The hon. Lady asked a few questions. With reference to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, as I said in answer to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) in February, the individual concerned went on the payroll straight away—that day. I announced that at the time of that statement, which I think the hon. Lady responded to. Of course, going on the payroll was the appropriate thing to do. As I made clear then, I had no knowledge of any tax benefit to an individual. As is the practice with cases where those involved are earning more than the Prime Minister’s salary, the approval is given within the Department. My role as Chief Secretary is to examine the salary level to make sure that it is consistent with the pay restraint that we are properly putting in place across the public sector.

This review looked at the salary level above £58,200 because that is the minimum salary level in the senior civil service, and it focused on senior public service appointments. These rules will be available for Departments to apply more generally, should they wish to do so. As I said in my statement, the review was not looking for evidence of tax avoidance because individual tax arrangements are a matter of taxpayer confidentiality, but all the results of the review from across Government have been passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they can investigate if they choose to do so.

I referred in my statement to organisations that are not within the control of central Government, such as local authorities, the BBC and so on, but I am sure the many Labour councils around the country will have heard the shadow Chief Secretary’s remarks and will be bringing forward as a matter of urgency transparent publication of all the arrangements in their local authorities. I look forward very much to seeing that.

In relation to IR35, I should remind the House that in the spending review we provided an additional £900 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs specifically to focus on their work tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. That will include resources to investigate cases caught out by the review or cases under IR35. The hon. Lady will know that the Office of Tax Simplification looked at the operation of IR35 last year and we are carrying forward some of its recommendations, but the proposal on which we are launching a consultation today—that controlling persons in organisations should, as a matter of course, be on the payroll—will strengthen the IR35 regime, which I hope Members on both sides of the House will welcome.

Business and the Economy

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

This has been a valuable debate on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, with 44 speeches from the Back Benches, which reflects the concerns raised in all our constituencies about jobs, business and growth. We heard 26 speeches from the Opposition and 18 from Government Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about 20 minutes ago that at this stage in the evening it is difficult to say anything new, given that so many people have made the points already. We have heard several thoughtful and provoking interventions. We even had a song from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), which livened up our afternoon.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

rose—[Laughter.]

[Rachel Reeves]

I am happy to take an intervention if my hon. Friend wants.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government have serious questions to answer after this debate, because there remains concern about the stewardship of the economy. As my hon. Friends said, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), there is a lack of vision, leadership and imagination in the Queen’s Speech on the economy and business. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), too, said that the Government needed a new narrative.

The facts are undisputed. Our economy is in recession—the first double-dip in four decades—with unemployment rates too high and business investment too low, although to listen to some speeches from Government Members we would think that the economy was booming, with businesses spoilt for choice over whether to invest. In contrast, we have heard excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House about the concerns raised by our constituents. We heard particularly powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)—on the human stories behind the raw statistics, sound and successful businesses shutting up shop because no one is buying, families facing rising bills, rents and mortgage payments while wages are not keeping pace, school leavers and university graduates losing hope as months on the dole turn into years.

However, the Government’s legislative programme seems utterly disconnected from those realities. There was no mention of the new jobs that we need, and nothing to turn round the crisis of more than 1 million young people being out of work. The modest measures that the Government have claimed will help struggling families and businesses are turning out, under examination, to be woefully inadequate to the task with which we are confronted. Perhaps it is because, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the Government think that it is just not their responsibility and that the reasons for the recession are to be found not in their own failure, but in the fact that the rest of the country is just not working hard enough. That is a view backed up by the Business Secretary, who referred to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks as “commercial diplomacy”, and by the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who criticised businesses for their ill-advised criticism of Government policy. I am not surprised that the Foreign Secretary’s comments have been met with incredulity by small business owners, who are working every hour of the day to keep their books in balance.

[Julian Smith]

Does the shadow Minister welcome the £50 billion increase in exports in 2011 from the UK to international destinations?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure that businesses welcome the fact that sterling has depreciated, which has made it easier to export, but that is because of the Bank of England’s decision to cut interest rates, under the last Government, and quantitative easing, also under the last Government.

We have seen another example of how out of touch Government Members seem to be with the reality facing businesses, families and young people. School leavers and graduates are filling out dozens of job applications week after week—should they be working harder? Millions of people who would work extra hours if the work was available; families feeling more squeezed by the month, worried sick about how to make ends meet—is it their fault that we are back in recession? Should they be working harder?

Let us remind ourselves—for the Government seem to be in denial—that the backdrop to this debate is the first double-dip recession that the UK has experienced in 37 years, an outcome that the Government assured us would not happen. However, less than two years after boasting that the British economy was

“out of the danger zone”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901]

and was now a “safe haven” from the storms raging through the global economy, the Government have succeeded in steering us into a recession of their own making. They have tried to blame the instability of the eurozone, but I point them to the European Commission’s spring forecast, which says of the UK economy:

“The main cause of weakness in 2011 was household consumption, which contracted for four consecutive quarters…Investment, which had been expected to contribute positively to growth, actually fell by 0.6% in the final quarter of 2011 and by 1.2% over the year.”

Indeed, contrary to Government claims that storm winds from the continent blew their plan off course, the European Commission confirms that for the UK:

“Net exports were the main source of growth in 2011, contributing 1% to GDP growth.”

We should therefore be in no doubt and under no illusion: this is a recession made in Downing street.

With the eurozone now teetering on the brink of another downward spiral, the real worry is that we have yet to feel the full effect on the UK of the economic turbulence on the continent. The Business Secretary is right to warn that the worst may be yet to come, which makes it all the more serious a failure to have put the UK economy in such a weak position to withstand further deteriorations in financial market confidence and export demand. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor warned over a year ago, when a hurricane is brewing, we do not rip out the foundations of the house, but that is exactly what the Government have done, and the hurricane is now gathering force.

Let us look at what this recession means for jobs and business in our country. The latest jobs figures show that unemployment remains at a 17-year high. Youth unemployment is at more than 1 million—an issue raised in today’s debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming dole for more than six months has gone up by 115% over the past year. The number of those claiming for more than 12 months is up by 213%. In the Prime Minister’s latest desperate dissimulation, the austerity he is inflicting on the country is now called simple efficiency. However, I do not see anything efficient about presiding over rising youth unemployment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) also pointed out.

There is surely no greater waste than the waste of youth unemployment. It is a waste of talent and of life chances that will cost our economy and our Exchequer for decades to come, as the commission headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) set out so lucidly in its report. There is no more egregious an example of Government mis-spending than the billions that they are spending on benefits—the cost of their own economic failure. They are now borrowing £150 billion more to cover rising benefit bills and the loss of tax revenues as businesses go out of business.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once this evening.

Meanwhile, caught between the pincers of a squeeze on lending and horrendous trading conditions, more and more businesses are going under. The Government cannot create jobs, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, they can and should do more to create the right environment for job creation. That is what has been so lacking in the Budget and in the Queen’s Speech.

Figures released by the Bank of England last month show that, in February, bank lending to companies fell by £4 billion—the sharpest drop for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Nationwide consumer confidence index fell by nine points last month. The inevitable result is that insolvencies are rising and rising. In the last three months, we saw 4,303 insolvencies in England and Wales alone—an increase of 4.3% on the same period a year ago, and the highest figure since 2009. The lack of policies for growth were highlighted today in thoughtful contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley and for Wansbeck.

The businesses that are staying afloat are doing so by battening down the hatches. The latest industrial production numbers show a further decline, and we now know that construction output fell by 4.8% in the first quarter of this year, suggesting that the initial estimates of first quarter GDP, if anything, understated the extent of the economy’s contraction. But the truth is that, whether they are revised up a decimal point or two, or down, the statistics only confirm what we should already know from talking to families, businesses and young people in our constituencies.

Families and businesses desperately need the Government to get a grip and get us out of the deep hole that they have dug us into. Instead, we have a programme of Bills that lack any sense of urgency or, indeed, relevance to the reality of life for most people in this country right now. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet seem to be living in a parallel universe. Indeed, the only person whose employment prospects the Prime Minister seemed to care about was the head of News International. I can tell him that the million people who have lost their jobs since he came to power do not need a text message telling them to keep their heads up. They need a real plan for jobs and growth, and a Government working night and day to find ways to help them to get by and to get on in life.

This Government give the impression that there is nothing they can do, and that we should just resign ourselves to years of hardship while waiting for something to turn up, but the reality is that a Government who really cared could do so much more to make a difference to the lives of our constituents. Labour Members have made proposals that could help to turn our economy around, and that could help businesses struggling to break even and families struggling to make ends meet. Why will the Government not implement a national insurance holiday for small firms taking on extra workers, to help businesses struggling to survive and young people desperate to get into work? Why will they not bring forward investment in vital infrastructure projects, so that we could create new jobs in the construction sector at the same time as securing our future economic strength?

Why will the Government not reverse their damaging VAT rise? That would boost business and consumer confidence, and kick-start the growth that we need to get the deficit down. Why have they refused to repeat the tax on bank bonuses, so that money squandered on bonuses by banks that are not doing their bit to get our economy growing could be clawed back and put to better use, funding 100,000 jobs for young unemployed people and the construction of 25,000 new and affordable homes?

Why have the Government not taken the opportunity of this Queen’s Speech to announce legislation that could protect and improve the living standards of families feeling the squeeze—for example, by creating a more competitive energy market, with guaranteed low tariffs for 4 million people over the age of 75, by stopping train operators clobbering commuters with high fares, and by empowering consumers with new rights against rip-off surcharges by banks, airlines and pension providers? As my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) have said, why was there no Bill in the Queen’s Speech on higher education or on co-operatives? What do we get from this Government? Just the hope that something will turn up—a hope that their own inaction and inadequacy will spur the British people to greater efforts.

This is a legislative programme that falls well short of what is needed. We need investment flowing into energy-efficient infrastructure and green technologies. Instead, we get a green investment bank that has nothing to invest. We need action to bring responsibility and restraint to the boardroom, ending unjustifiable pay packages that reward failure, but the Government’s proposals fall far short of what is needed. While this Government state that the priorities of the Queen’s Speech are economic growth, deficit reduction and help for businesses, there is nothing to boost bank lending to small businesses, nothing to help hard-pressed families and nothing to turn around the tragic rise in youth unemployment.

In conclusion, we heard great claims for this legislative programme—a Queen’s Speech that was supposed to mark the re-launch of this coalition, a plan of action that the Prime Minster said was about supporting growth and business, and giving a helping hand to families and those he called the “strivers”. The reality is, however, that people are striving to find anything in this programme that lives up to the rhetoric. This is a Government whose idea of a growth strategy is giving a tax break to millionaires, while cutting tax credits for those working for modest wages.

Having choked off the recovery and taken our economy back into recession, the Government who first blamed the snow, then the royal wedding and the eurozone now seem to be blame everyone but themselves for not working harder. The truth is that it is this Government who need to work harder. It is time the Prime Minister started taking responsibility for the recession he has created. It is time the Prime Minister started taking responsibility for turning our economy around. Yet there is precious little in this legislative programme to suggest that the lessons have been learned, and precious little to stop the economy from sinking further into recession. There is no sign that the Government understand the scale of the task before them, and nothing to reassure the businesses and working people of this country that we have a Government who are up to the job that now confronts us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

I was about to come on to the mess that the Labour party made of our economy, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question causes me to bring those remarks forward. One of the most calamitous failures of the last Labour Government was the complete failure to regulate the financial sector and to control the excesses that built up in the banking system, and the figures he gave are just one example of that. The banking Bill will implement the reforms that are necessary to deal with some of the excesses and, more importantly, to protect the taxpayer and the British economy from the sorts of problems that previously arose. It was very striking that in neither Labour Front-Bench speech did we hear any apology for the previous Government’s failure to regulate the banks properly, just as we heard no apology for the mess they made of our public finances and the many other mistakes they made, too.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the Chief Secretary give way?

[Danny Alexander]

No. I have given way to the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleague three times, and I am now going to press on. I have only two minutes left, and she used up plenty of time.

There were a number of speeches about the groceries code adjudicator, including by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who played an important role in promoting the idea of the GCA and rightly welcomed the fact that the Government will take that forward. A number of comments were made, especially by Opposition Members but also from the Government Benches, on the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill. By and large, its measures on directors’ pay were welcomed, although concerns were expressed, particularly by Labour Members, about the proposals on employment law. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made that a key point in her speech, although I noticed that she welcomed the substance of the measures in the Bill, which are to do with providing more options before a tribunal is reached to enable complainants to resolve their case without the need to go through what she rightly describes as an often painful and expensive process. It is important that those measures are carried forward, and they will make a difference for many small businesses.

The economic context was an important theme in this debate, and Members on the Government Benches are fully aware that addressing the key issues is no easy task in the current economic climate, not least because of the crippling legacy the last Government left to us: a decade of unbalanced growth that left the UK one of the most indebted countries in the world; a decade that resulted in our having the most highly leveraged financial system of any major economy; and a decade that meant the UK entered the economic crisis with the highest structural deficit in the G7. All that meant that the UK was one of the hardest hit countries in the world when the crisis came.

Our recession was among the deepest and our deficit among the largest, which means that our challenge to deliver a sustainable recovery is among the greatest. Let me remind the House that when this Government came into office we inherited the largest peacetime Budget deficit this country has ever faced and the largest forecast deficit in the G20—larger than those of many of the countries mired in the sovereign debt storm in the euro area. It is only because of the decisive and immediate action we took that we have sheltered the UK from the worst of that debt storm.

The measures in the Queen’s Speech represent part of a bold and wide-ranging programme of economic reform: a strategy to rid the economy of the debt burden left by the previous Government; a strategy to secure our stability at a time of global instability; and a strategy that puts private sector enterprise, ambition and innovation at the heart of our recovery. It is the right recipe to clean up the mess that the Labour party left us and to bring this country back to sustainable prosperity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 160,000 wage incentives, worth up to £2,775 each, are available for employers who recruit an 18 to 24-year-old through the Work programme.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us how many young people have now been out of work for more than six months, and how that compares with the figure of a year ago?

[Mr Hoban]

I would have thought the shadow Chief Secretary would have welcomed the fact that youth unemployment fell last month. That demonstrates that the Government are taking action to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment—a problem that did not emerge under this Government, as youth unemployment also rose when her party was in government.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Minister failed to answer my question, so let me tell the House that 170,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months. That is an increase of 114% since just a year ago. Does the Minister think it is fair that families with children are being asked to pay a higher price for deficit reduction than the banks, and if not, will he reconsider reinstating the bank bonus tax to support young people back to work—especially as his Budget has given a tax cut worth £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires?

[Mr Hoban]

I just point out to the hon. Lady that the last Labour Government ruled out introducing a bank levy. That levy is raising £2.5 billion, and it will raise £10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. I think it is right that banks should pay a fair contribution for the risks they have posed for the UK economy, and I would have thought she would have welcomed both the bank levy and the fall in youth unemployment last month.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 65, page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 66, page 3, line 5, leave out

‘was born after 5 April 1938 but before 6 April 1948’

and insert

‘is 65 or over at some time in the tax year, but under 75 throughout the tax year.’.

Amendment 67, page 3, line 17, leave out

‘had been born after 5 April 1948’

and insert

‘is under the age of 65 throughout the tax year’.

Amendment 68, page 3, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment 69, page 3, line 26, leave out

‘was born before 6 April 1938’

and insert

‘is 75 or over at some time in the tax year.’.

Amendment 70, page 3, line 38, leave out

‘had been born after 5 April 1948’

and insert

‘is under the age of 65 throughout the tax year.’.

Amendment 71, page 3, line 40, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment 72, page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 73, page 3, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

Amendment 74, page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (7).

Clause stand part.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo.

I rise to speak to the amendments and to oppose clause 4, which will freeze age-related allowances for those who are receiving them and abolish them for those who are approaching retirement. I hope that Members from all parts of the Committee will join us in our opposition this afternoon. Defeating the clause would prevent a real-terms increase in tax for millions of older people in this country, which will cost £83 a year for 4.4 million people on modest incomes and as a much as £322 for 360,000 people who will reach the age of 65 next year.

We are seeking to reverse the Government’s freezing and abolition of age-related allowance for three simple reasons: first, that tax increase adds to the financial pressure already felt by older people on modest incomes facing rising costs; secondly, it picks the pockets of pensioners to fund an irresponsible tax cut for millionaires; and thirdly, the way in which it has been introduced adds insult to injury, breaking a promise made by the Chancellor just a year ago and using the language of tax simplification to cover up what is clearly and simply a tax grab.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is expressing opposition to the freezing of the age-related allowance. Did she express the same opposition when the last Chancellor did exactly the same in the Labour Government’s last Budget?

[Rachel Reeves]

This is a permanent freeze, and the allowance is being abolished entirely for people coming up to retirement next year, so it is very different from a one-year freeze.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make some progress.

For the reasons that I have given, pensioners from the National Pensioners Convention have come to Parliament today to lobby MPs to vote against the change. Let us take each issue in turn and consider who will be hit, because there has been some myth making by defenders of the granny tax about how only well-off pensioners will be affected. The truth is, those who will be hit have very modest incomes.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady refers to the “granny tax”. I know that she, like me, would really like to see older women retiring with the same income as men over time. Does she therefore accept that 60% of the effect of the freezing of the age-related allowance will be on men and 40% on women, so it should not really be referred to as a granny tax?

[Rachel Reeves]

The money involved will not alleviate the pressure on women in retirement. It will all be used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. The hon. Lady talks about women in retirement, and it was Government Members who voted to increase the state pension age for women with just five or six years’ notice, hitting them by up to £15,000 in lost retirement income. We will not take any lectures from them about the matter.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I notice that we have not heard much about fairness or about the big tax cuts being given to millionaires in the interventions by Government Members. Is it not true those retiring next year with personal or occupational pensions of as low as £67 a week could be affected by the change to age-related allowance? The Government are attacking a group of pensioners with modest incomes, which will be a particularly devastating blow in the most deprived areas such as Halton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that my hon. Friend sticks up for pensioners in his constituency, unlike Government Members, who want to grab the incomes of pensioners in their constituencies.

My hon. Friend points out the evidence that we have commissioned from the House of Commons Library, which shows that a small personal or occupational pension of just £67 a week, or little more than £3,000 a year, would be enough to put someone in the firing line of the additional tax. People with such pensions are not the privileged few, living a life of luxury in retirement. The measure will hit millions of people who have worked hard in ordinary jobs and managed to set aside just enough to give them a small pension that relieves them of reliance on means-tested benefits and allows them to have some security in retirement.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Can the hon. Lady tell the Committee how much tax somebody getting an occupational pension of £67 a week would pay under the new arrangements?

[Rachel Reeves]

If they were being taxed at 20%, that would mean tax of about £13 a week on their pension. Such pensioners will be hit hard by the changes.

We know how hard it already is for many people to save enough for a modest pension, so why have the Government picked on pensioners to pay more? As the chief executive of Saga has put it:

“Amid all the talk of tax cuts…the main tax-raising measure”

in the Budget

“consisted of a stealth tax increase on older people who did actually work and save hard for their future.”

Gransnet has warned that

“this tax change offers no incentive to save”,

and the National Association of Pension Funds has stated that it will

“come as a blow to millions of pensioners who have paid in to the tax system throughout their working lives. Pensioners with modest amounts of pension saving stand to be the biggest losers.”

Let us be clear that the change will hit people with small pensions who have made sacrifices to save and are now being penalised for doing the right thing.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Putting aside the fact that people on incomes such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned would pay zero in tax, which makes the hon. Lady’s argument purely academic at best, is it not true that she is referring to the same group of people who have just had the biggest ever increase in their pension? That is much different from the previous Labour Government’s 75p insult.

[Rachel Reeves]

The people who will be hit by this tax are those who have an income in retirement of between £10,500 and £25,000 a year. They will pay tax at 20% on any income over £10,500 a year. That is why 4.4 million pensioners will lose out by an average of £83 next year. People retiring next year will lose out by up to £322. That is the reality of the change that we will vote on this afternoon.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I understand that age-related benefits were an idea put forward by Winston Churchill. Does my hon. Friend think that George Osborne knows better than Winston Churchill?

[Rachel Reeves]

Government Members would do well to look to Churchill rather than to their current leaders when deciding how to vote today.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Winston Churchill, a very great man, took us back on to the gold standard as Chancellor. If we were to follow every proposal of Winston Churchill’s as Chancellor, we would find it very difficult to run the economy.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. His constituents have had a hard time in the past few days. Older people will be hit by the changes to pensioners’ tax allowances, and of course the pasty industry in Cornwall and the south-west will be hit hard, so there is a double hit for his region.

We need to remember the situation that most pensioners face. They do not have ways of making up for a loss of income by going out and finding work. That is what it means to be retired. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to rises in the cost of living and to unanticipated changes in their financial circumstances. The Office of Tax Simplification report notes that the current age-related allowance was

“introduced to reflect potentially higher costs of living of older people.”

That was why Winston Churchill introduced it in 1925. As the OTS has stated:

“Older people can struggle to meet living costs. They are often on a fixed income once they have retired, or perhaps on a declining income in real terms where flat annuities have been purchased”.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I understand that one reason why the age-related allowance was originally introduced was the higher cost of heating when people are older. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is particularly important now given the rising cost of fuel, and even more so in parts of the country where the weather is worse, such as the north and Scotland?

[Rachel Reeves]

It has been pretty cold in my constituency in Leeds this winter, as well. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, because people face many extra costs as they get older, such as in heating their home.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech, and she is being extremely generous in allowing hon. Members of all parties to intervene. To continue her point, pensioners now face an increase in the cost of not only gas and electricity, but of a decent, healthy meal that will sustain them. As people get older and more frail, they need to ensure that they eat proper, decent, balanced meals. Costs are going through the roof all the time and constituents such as mine will look at their weekly household bills and be horrified. To add this insult to that injury is simply a disgrace.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, Citizens Advice said that the change

“has to be considered in terms of the cumulative impact. Fuel prices continue to rise, and that is a key worry; 43% of the people who come to us are worried that they will not be able to meet their fuel bills. We have examples of people coming into our bureaux who do not heat their homes because they are worried about not being able to afford it... This group of people very often have to rely on their savings in order to live in their retirement, and they are getting very low interest on them.”

My hon. Friends have therefore made good points, which represent their constituents’ very real concerns.

Moreover, pensioners have already been hit hard by the Government. The winter fuel allowance has been cut; pensions have been indexed to a lower measure of inflation; the raising of the state pension age for women has been brought forward, and last year’s VAT rise has added £275 to the costs that an average pensioner couple faces. Evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the Treasury Committee confirms that, as a result of the tax and benefit changes that the Government have implemented, the incomes of pensioner households have fallen by 1.4%, and most have little prospect or opportunity of making up that loss.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I have a very simple question: will the hon. Lady reverse the policy on the allowance?

[Rachel Reeves]

We do not know what the economy will look like in three weeks, let alone in three years. The Government’s choices are making our economic prospects worse and worse. In the past year, the Office for Budget Responsibility has had to revise down its forecast for UK growth three times. It is now expected to be a third less than it was a year ago. We will publish our manifesto before the next election, but it will be very different from Government Members’ manifestos because we prioritise hard-working families, not a tax cut of £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. That is why we will vote against the provision this evening.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

On the Government’s treatment of pensioners, the hon. Lady mentioned uprating the state pension. She will know that we have introduced a triple lock so that the state pension increases by the higher of 2.5%, CPI or earnings. She will also know that, according to the plans we inherited, pensions would rise in line with earnings. As a consequence of the increases by CPI rather than earnings, the state pension has increased by £127 more a year than it would have done under the plans that we inherited. Does she accept that?

[Rachel Reeves]

Not many Governments would want to take credit for the fact that inflation has reached 5.3%. Pensions have had to rise by just over £5 to compensate for the increase in the cost of living for pensioners. The Government increased VAT and took no action to tackle excessive gas and electricity bills, and that is why inflation is so high for ordinary working families and pensioners.

[Mr Gauke]

I perhaps forlornly hoped that the hon. Lady would concede the point that the state pension has increased more under us than it would have done under the previous Government’s plans, which would not have increased it in line with the rate of inflation.

[Rachel Reeves]

That is like suggesting that if inflation was 10% and the Government had to increase pensions by £10 a week to keep pace, pensioners should celebrate and thank them. Of course they will not thank them because the increase in pensions only keeps pace with the rising cost of living. If the Government want to take credit for record high inflation, be our guest.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

No. Cuts to vital services such as the NHS and to social care and local transport also hit pensioners hard on top of the increases in VAT and the cuts to their pensions.

Many of the worst cuts are still to come. Analysis of the 2010 spending review showed that, on average, pensioner couples would be hit hard by cuts to services, amounting to £1,275 a year or 6% of their household income, while single pensioners stood to lose services worth £1,300 a year or 11% of their income. As we heard from the Treasury Committee yesterday, many pensioners are also paying a price for the Government’s failure to get the economy moving because the Government are relying on the Bank of England to undertake more quantitative easing to prevent the economy from sinking deeper into recession. That means that annuity rates and returns on pensioners’ savings are lower than they would otherwise be.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady referred to the increase in the pensioners’ allowance and linked it to inflation. How high would the Labour Government have moved it in the current circumstances of inflation? How would they have paid for that with council tax rises elsewhere?

[Rachel Reeves]

I return to my earlier point: if inflation was 10% and pensioners got a £10 increase in their pension, would Government Members celebrate and say that that was huge largesse for pensioners? It is not; it just keeps pace with the cost of living. The increase in VAT, and the increases in gas and electricity prices, which the Government have done nothing to tackle, and the rise in petrol prices, mean that the cost of living for pensioners and other families has increased enormously because of the Government’s choices.

There is a further hit to pensioners’ incomes, buried in the detail of the Budget documents. This year, an estimated 300,000 pensioners stand to lose their savings credit, while others stand to lose as much as £276 a year as a result of reduced rates of savings credit. Under the Chancellor’s latest plans, the savings credit will be abolished completely, costing more than 100,000 new pensioners as much as £897 a year: another stealth tax that the Chancellor tried to slip past pensioners; another slice taken from the constrained budgets of ordinary families.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I support my hon. Friend’s comments. Rather than speculate about what the next Labour Government will do after the next election—I like to think that Government Members have already conceded defeat—what about the Government’s backing off now and reversing the dreadful decision?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on hosting the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament today. It came to make the very point that my hon. Friend just made, and that pensioners made to us in the Committee Room earlier. Some Government Members would do well to listen to some of the pensioners in their constituencies.

It adds insult to injury for the Prime Minister and other Government Members to tell pensioners that they should be grateful for a rise in the basic state pension that merely matches the rate of inflation. It is not a rise—it simply keeps things level. If Government Members do not know the difference, they should get out into the real world, where the costs of food and fuel are going up and it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet.

[Richard Harrington]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

The idea that pensioners have been protected from the squeeze on living standards is simply not true. It is divisive and distorts reality when Government Members try to make that point, and conceals the fact that many older people are under genuine pressure. We should do what we can to help them, not see pensioners as a soft target for stealth taxes, as the Chancellor so clearly does.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The increase in pensions has not actually kept up with the cost of living, because if the Government had not been so mean as to change to CPI, but had used RPI, pensioners would have an amount of money that kept in touch with the increasing cost of living.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All hon. Members know that the average rate of inflation for pensioners is often very high—higher than it is for ordinary families—because they spend more of their income on gas, electricity and food, the rates of inflation for which are going up at a higher rate.

[Richard Harrington]

rose—

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I believe my hon. Friend wants to intervene.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

In constituencies such as mine, many pensioners live in rural communities without access to public transport, so we need to add into the mix the cost of running a car, which is essential to their quality of life.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend sticks up for pensioners in her constituency, where, as she says, there are many pressures on their costs and standard of living.

In fact, the only people insulated from the Government’s unfair choices and economic failures are the wealthiest. The richest 10% of people over the age of 65 will be wholly untouched by the tax increases that we are debating. Indeed, those with incomes over £150,000, including, we might note, some members of the Cabinet, will benefit from the cut in the 50p rate of tax that we debated yesterday.

[Richard Harrington]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Richard Harrington]

I am so extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—I hope she will forgive my perseverance. Having listened to her argument in some detail, I should like to ask her a question. Principle is very important to her. Does she believe that under-65s should have a lower personal allowance than over-65s as a point of principle?

[Rachel Reeves]

Winston Churchill was right in 1925 when he introduced that measure. People who are retired have fixed incomes, as a result of which there are more pressures on them and they cannot make up the additional changes. That is why the Opposition will vote against the Government’s change. We do not think it is the right priority or the right thing to do at this time, especially because the money is not being used to help young people to get back to work, to help the poorest pensioners or to help families of children who are struggling with the rise in the cost of living. Instead, the money is being used to give a tax cut of £40,000 to 14,000 millionaires. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my principle is: we should prioritise ordinary families, ordinary pensioners and young people who are out of work, not those on multi-million pound salaries. That is my principle and those are my priorities. I am sorry that Government Members do not share them.

That is the second reason why the Opposition are opposing the tax increase on millions of modest-income pensioners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) so eloquently expressed on Monday, the measure is unfair and unnecessary when the Government are spending £3 billion on a tax give-away for the richest 1%. Hon. Members will remember that, originally, the Government said that the 50p tax cut would be paid for by a mansion tax and a crackdown on tax avoidance. However, the cut costs 10 times as much as is raised by the new measure on stamp duty—the Chief Secretary’s sorry substitute for a mansion tax—and more than three times as much as is raised in the Budget by reductions in tax avoidance. In fact, cutting tax avoidance should be part of every Budget anyway, and the money raised by measures to tackle tax avoidance in this Budget is less than the average reductions in tax avoidance achieved by Labour’s Budgets. In addition, we have since discovered that the Government’s definition of tax avoidance includes donations to UNICEF, Macmillan, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that do fantastic work in our communities. That the Government cannot see the difference between tax avoidance and giving money to worthwhile causes again shows how out of touch they are.

Meanwhile, the single biggest revenue raiser in the Budget is the measure before us. More than £3 billion over the next five years will be raised from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. Where does it all go to? Does it go towards paying down the deficit? No. Does it help young people to get back to work? No. Does it help poorer pensioners? No—they have been hit too by VAT rises and service cuts. Instead, the money, which is being taken from those with pensions of just a few thousand pounds a year, is being spent on a tax cut for people for whom this tax grab would have counted as mere small change.

The Government were said to have been surprised by the anger that the measure has aroused, but that again goes to show how out of touch they are with the reality faced by most people, and how far they have strayed from the values and priorities of the British people. It goes to the heart of the problems that the Government face and the problem with their conception of fairness, and the callous arrogance with which they have abandoned the pretence that we are all in it together.

Age UK responded to the Government’s measures by stating:

“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 being squeezed”.

The chief executive of Saga 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, which I met earlier today, stated:

“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.”

Age UK, Saga, and the National Pensioners Convention have hit the nail on the head. It is just a shame that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are so blinded by the demands of the super-rich that they fail to see it.

Finally, it is worth recognising that the measure is not the only reason why people are so angry. It is not just the blatant unfairness that has offended people, but the way in which the change was announced. Most people believe that our older generation deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, yet this Government and the Chancellor tried to get away with going back on a previous promise by dressing up a tax grab as a “simplification”. Just one year ago, on page 35 of the 2011 Budget Red Book, people were told:

“For the duration of this Parliament…the age related allowance will be over-indexed”

according to

“CPI and will increase by the equivalent of the…RPI”.

What the Chancellor said then was clear and unmistakeable, but that is another broken promise by the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends. The Institute for Fiscal Studies agrees. It says that the Chancellor

“should have avoided dressing up what is clearly a tax increase as merely a simplification”.

In the same letter from Age UK to the Chancellor that I have quoted, it also states:

“We are concerned that you announced the change to age allowances as a way to simplify the tax system and indeed the Budget Report lists the change under…‘Simplification’... rather than under ‘Personal and Property taxes’”.

The Chancellor also attempted to hide behind the Office of Tax Simplification, but its director has told the Treasury that attempts to use its recommendations as a cover for his tax grab are “not 100% accurate”. The relevant report by the Office of Tax Simplification states clearly:

“we would stress…that the Office of Tax Simplification has not reached any conclusions as to the best way forward with age-related allowances, nor have we formulated detailed recommendations”.

It is all too clear why the Chancellor did not bother to wait for the final OTS report: he was not really interested in simplifying taxation for older people. Rather, his single-minded focus and overriding priority was getting his millionaires’ tax break through, and he was willing to fund it by cutting the incomes of pensioners.

In conclusion, we all know what an embarrassment this Budget has become to Government Members. We know how it has shaken their confidence in the strategic genius of the Chancellor and that many of them have heard from constituents who are anxious about the impact that the measure will have and angry about how the Government have treated people who deserve better.

Therefore, today, the Opposition are glad to be giving Government Members an opportunity to make amends and a chance to dissociate themselves with this disreputable raid on the incomes of older people. They have a choice. Do they stand with the millions of people who have worked hard and saved what they can? Or do they stand with the Chancellor and his friend, the Chief Secretary, who see pensioners as a soft touch ripe for a sneaky tax grab? The Opposition know whose side we are on. We are about to find out whose side Government Members are on.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in this important debate. It is important because it touches on perhaps the greatest challenge facing politicians and representatives in this Chamber. She is a luminary of the new Labour party and one of the stars of her intake, and it is always a pleasure to hear her in the Chamber and on the television. No doubt, at some point, she aspires to high office not only in her party but in government. [Interruption.] There is no punch line. The hon. Lady is no joke. It is important to remember that, at some point, Labour will form a Government. I hope it is not too soon, but it is in the nature of our democracy, and a fine thing, that we swap sides now and again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman, too, is welcome to intervene on me again and say what he thinks the proportion is if he thinks the BBC is wrong. He said it might be 10% or 20%. No? Okay.

[Rachel Reeves]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that hon. Members will vote on the matter today without having any idea what proportion of older people it will affect? She is correct to say that 40% of pensioners will be affected, and I am pleased that Opposition Members know their facts, unlike Government Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I wholeheartedly agree with all those sentiments.

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Gentleman is such a strong advocate of saving, will he join me in expressing disappointment about the fact that this Government have abolished the savings gateway and the baby bond, and have watered down automatic enrolment so that it will be introduced at a later date, and for people earning higher incomes than envisaged under the last Labour Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the Committee of that.

We must ask ourselves whether pensioners are disproportionately affected by Government policies. The answer is clearly no. The evidence is very clear on that. After the reforms, does the tax system treat pensioners unfairly? No. By definition, having one personal allowance across the board, regardless of age, is not unfair on pensioners. Is there a strong, principled case for different personal allowances based on age? We have not heard that case made today, other than the fact that Winston Churchill thought it was a good idea in 1925. The official Opposition’s policy is to tell everyone under 65 that they should have a lower personal allowance than those over 65.

Clause 4 supports the Government’s long-term aim of simplifying the tax system by creating a single personal allowance. It removes the complicated tapering system, making personal allowances easier to understand. In the longer term we will have a single, generous personal allowance for everyone while ensuring that no one is a cash loser. I ask the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to withdraw the amendment.

[Rachel Reeves]

If you believe what the Exchequer Secretary said, Mr Williams, you would think that pensioners would have come to Parliament today to thank the Government for everything they have done for them. The reality is that pensioners up and down the country feel seriously let down by the Government. In contrast to the out-of-touch speech we heard from the Exchequer Secretary, we have heard concerns from Opposition Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), and we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). They stick up for their constituents, listen to them and understand their concerns that pensioners will lose £83 this year and those who will retire next year will lose £322, with very little notice, and that is after many other hits, including the increase in VAT, and despite the fact that pensioners face additional costs, such as heating, compared with other people, and that the Government have done so little to consult on these changes before they are introduced.

The fact is that this tax raid on pensioners is being used to fund a tax cut for millionaires—a tax cut worth £40,000 for 14,000 millionaires. That shows where the priorities lie for Government Members. The priorities for Opposition Members lie with ordinary families, young people and pensioners, who are feeling the full impact of the Government’s policies. All Members now have a chance to show where their priorities lie; are they with millionaires or with pensioners? Will Government Members listen to the leadership of their former leader, Winston Churchill, who introduced the age-related allowance in 1925, or to their current leadership, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who are making a tax grab on pensioners? It is up to Government Members to decide how they will vote, but pensioners up and down the country will be watching this afternoon to see where their priorities lie, because the reality is that the Government are introducing these reforms because they want to help millionaires and hurt pensioners. We will vote for amendment 65 and against clause stand part.