Household Energy Bills: VAT
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I would say to my hon. Friend’s constituent that, under Labour’s plans, £600 would be taken off her bills in April compared with what will happen without Government action. That protects my hon. Friend’s constituent and many millions of constituents like her who are struggling through no fault of their own right now.
During his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the role of “Government should have limits.” I wonder if the Chancellor’s refusal to act so far is because he does not politically believe it is the role of Government to help alleviate soaring energy bills, or is it just that it is not a priority for him right now? The complete absence of action from Government speaks for itself. People deserve a Government who are on their side. Labour has a plan for action now to help with bills and to prevent the Government’s mistakes of the last decade from being repeated again. We want to give support and security to families now and to keep bills low for the future. That is why Labour will reduce our reliance on imported gas by accelerating home-grown renewables and new nuclear. Our plan to make sure that 19 million homes are warm and well insulated will save households £400 not just for one year, but each and every year on their bills. We will regulate the market better, with a pledge to never again let energy companies make promises to working families that they cannot keep.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but I am incredibly disappointed. She is making some very good points about the cost of living, but today’s motion is cynical. It has nothing to do with trying to save costs for consumers, and everything to do with Labour Members trying to make a point about taking control of the Order Paper, just as they tried to do during the Brexit debate, to try to undermine the Government. They know full well that the Government cannot possibly accept such a cynical tactic from Labour, so we will have to vote it down without any consideration whatsoever. She knows that. This is not about Labour trying to save costs for consumers; this is just about Labour playing politics, is it not?
Rachel Reeves
On 9 June 2016, the right hon. Lady said:
“We are unable to get rid of VAT on fuel bills”
because the EU prevents us from doing so, despite fuel poverty, but nothing prevents the right hon. Lady from doing the right thing today by voting with us this evening.
There is a straight choice in today’s vote. A cut in VAT will make a real difference. If someone is on a lower income, they will feel the benefit of a VAT cut on their bills because they spend more of their household budget on energy. If someone is a pensioner, they spend twice as much on energy and will be hit even harder by the rising energy price cap. A cut on VAT for home energy bills would be an immediate relief for all. I can understand why the Government do not want to back Opposition policies, as the right hon. Lady has said. However, they would in fact only be honouring the Prime Minister’s own commitments, because the Prime Minister was once the greatest advocate of the VAT cut on home energy bills. In 2016, he said:
“When we Vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax.”
Not once, but three times he has backed a VAT cut on energy bills. Many on the Government Benches have since joined that call. The Chief Secretary went halfway there just last year when he said that VAT on electricity should be cut. But now that the Prime Minister has a chance to actually do something, and he and his Chancellor say no. The problem is that you cannot pay bills on broken promises.
Speaking of the Chancellor, yet again he is in hiding. He was not here yesterday when we debated fiscal responsibility, and he is not here today to debate the cost of living. Maybe he has gone back to California. Had he been here, I would have asked him not just about his broken promises on VAT; I would also have asked, given that he lives and works next door to No. 10 Downing Street, how long he has known about the party on 20 May 2020, and what he has done or said about this disgraceful breach of lockdown rules. Was he at the party when it happened next door, or was he at his window taking the pictures? He might not want to answer my questions, but the country deserves to know whether he too has colluded in the 18-month cover-up.
In just 80 days’ time, on 1 April, working people will be hit—[Interruption.] Get on your feet. Tell your constituents why you will not be voting for a reduction in VAT this evening. Be my guest.
Proxy Voting
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I am the older sister, yet I have been called second today—we will be having words later, Mr Speaker.
I too thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for asking this urgent question, and the Leader of the House for answering it. May I just check the procedure for Monday? Is the intention to table a motion that we can vote on, or will it be introduced at the end of the day, in which case there is a risk that one Member will shout “Object” and stop the proposal going through? I know that the Leader of the House is trying to do the right thing, but we are all keen to ensure that we have proxy voting in place by the end of Monday.
Andrea Leadsom
Having had three kids, I have discovered a very useful piece of information, which I wish now to share with the hon. Lady: the oldest child makes the rules, the second child is the reason the rules are needed, and to the third child the rules do not apply. She is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have debated proxy voting a number of times and want to get on with it, so the plan is to bring it forward for the House to nod through. She is therefore quite right that if somebody objects, I will need to look at further measures, which I will do in very short order. This is the quickest way to get it through. Following that, as you have said, Mr Speaker, you will ensure that the detailed procedures are ready immediately thereafter. That will then need to be signed off by you, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party’s Westminster team. Once those signatures have been received, it will be possible for proxy voting to take place on the next sitting day.
Business of the House
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
As I have already said, the Government are under a statutory obligation, under section 13(1)(B) of the EU withdrawal Act, to have the withdrawal agreement approved by a motion in this House. In these circumstances, the business of the House motion agreed on 4 December would need to be updated through a further business motion. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady would allow, I will answer the question. The Government have never disputed the fact that any motion to approve the deal is amendable. That has not changed.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), can the Leader of the House be clear? The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) proposed an amendment, which was passed by this House, that meant that the motion under the withdrawal Act would be amendable. When they bring back the business motion, whenever that is, will the Government ensure that the amendment is incorporated into that business motion so that it is amendable by the House?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the Government have never disputed the fact that any motion to approve the deal is amendable. That has not changed. That means that, when the vote comes back to the House, the business of the House motion agreed on 4 December would need to be updated through a further business motion, and that in itself would be amendable.
Housing Benefit
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
In my hon. Friend’s local authority area—Nottingham city council—200 people have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax because of this Government’s mistakes. She is absolutely right to mention the number of people in her area who are in arrears and the difficulties they will have in moving.
The eviction warning letters that have gone to so many people raise the threat of millions more being wasted in eviction proceedings and the emergency accommodation that will be needed for those who are made homeless. What a shambles.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I have great regard for the hon. Lady, but as somebody who used to work at the Bank of England, she will know that this is not a bedroom tax. How does she calculate that saying in effect that people who have a spare bedroom should no longer have it paid for by taxpayers is somehow a tax?
Rachel Reeves
But as the hon. Lady well knows, the reality is that for many of these people it is not a spare bedroom. It is the bedroom that their sons and daughters who serve in the armed forces stay in when they come home; it is the bedroom that their sons and daughters stay in when they are home from university; it is the bedroom that is used to store the dialysis equipment; and it is the bedroom that the carer comes to stay in. These are not spare bedrooms; these are rooms that are needed by many people with disabilities or with children. We can debate whether it is a spare room subsidy or a bedroom tax, but what we do not have to debate is the impact it is having on people. In the hon. Lady’s constituency and mine, and in places across the country, people are suffering because of the decisions this Government are making. The Government should instead do the right thing and cancel the bedroom tax.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We also believe that this Bill should not pre-empt or cut across ongoing discussions—this builds on the point that he raised, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron)—between the Department of Health, NHS employers and NHS workers about the implications of working longer for some staff groups, especially those, such as paramedics, in physically demanding roles.
We think that the Bill should reflect Lord Hutton’s recommendations that the link between public service pension ages and the state pension age should be kept under review and that this should be conducted by a properly independent body, with public service employees and employers represented and consulted. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his speech that that will happen, but it is not guaranteed in the Bill—indeed, it is unclear whether it is even compatible with the Bill. These are all issues that we will be raising in Committee to get the commitments that public service workers deserve and thought they had been given during the negotiations behind the Bill. These are also issues that we will have in mind as we look to any future increases in the state pension age itself.
For our finances to be sustainable, and for decent pensions to be affordable, it is right that retirement ages rise with longevity. However, as Malcolm Wicks, the late Member for Croydon North reminded us in some of his most recent work, many people doing manual jobs started work at 16 or 18, with some doing so even earlier, and find it harder to continue work into their late 60s. We should be mindful of people’s capacity to work later and later, especially if support is not in place for them in the workplace.
Secondly, there are real worries that the Bill fails to take due account of the special characteristics of the local government pension scheme. Members will know that it is a fully funded scheme administered by local authorities and we should welcome the hard work of local councils and trade unions, who have made very valuable progress in negotiations on a mutually agreeable agenda for reform. The Bill threatens to unravel the agreements that have been reached and destabilise financially the local government pension funds by forcing a disruptive and potentially disastrous closure of existing schemes instead of facilitating a smooth transition to the new scheme design. That extension of Treasury interference into aspects of scheme valuation and design could prevent local authorities from delivering on the deal they have agreed with their work force. Indeed, the view of the pensions manager at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is that the relevant provisions in the Bill represent
“a major shift in the governance of local authority pensions and”
raise
“questions about future local democratic accountability for those pension funds.”
Again, we expect those concerns to be addressed in Committee.
Thirdly, on the question of good governance, the Bill must underpin and not undermine high standards of scheme governance. As Lord Hutton stated in his final report,
“there is a powerful case for…much stronger governance of all the public service pension schemes. This should keep government, taxpayers and scheme members better informed about the financial health of these schemes. There should be minimum standards set for scheme administration. There is also a proper and legitimate role for representatives of the workforce to be formally involved in these new governance arrangements.”
The Bill fails to include key recommendations from Lord Hutton’s report, such as the inclusion of member-nominated and independent members on pension boards; the establishment of pension policy groups to consider major changes to scheme rules; the need to ensure that pension boards are responsible for the oversight of financial management and, in the case of funded schemes such as the local government pension scheme, for investment management; and the commissioning of a review into how standards of administration in public service pension schemes can be improved. Those measures would improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of scheme administration and would ensure that public service pension schemes matched best practice in the private sector.
Finally, we must ensure that the Bill adequately reflects and reinforces the progress made in negotiations. We should give public service workers a system they can trust and pensions that they can save towards with confidence, ensuring protection against retrospective or arbitrary detrimental changes. We also have concerns in this regard, which some hon. Members have already mentioned, and we will seek to address them in Committee. For one thing, the Bill subjects many aspects of public service pension provision to unilateral Treasury control. Although it is right that mechanisms should be in place to ensure that costs to taxpayers are contained, public service employees also have a right to know that critical changes will be consulted on and that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to arbitrary interference and opportunistic cash raids.
Furthermore, Lord Hutton has stated that
“there must…be full protection of accrued rights”,
but the Bill does not rule out retrospective changes that reduce benefits already accrued, going against the fundamental principle that pension benefits accrued are pay deferred and must therefore be honoured. The Government have reiterated their commitment to maintaining defined benefits in the public sector, and the Chief Secretary reaffirmed that to the House last year. He said, as he has on a number of other occasions, that his commitment was that
“public sector schemes will remain as defined benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement”.—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 927.]
Clause 7, however, provides for the creation of new schemes that are
“defined benefits…defined contributions…or…a scheme of any other description.”
That should not be a means to drive a coach and horses through the commitments the Government have given and allow another round in the race to the bottom on pension provision.
In addition, the Government have made much of their promise of
“no more reform for 25 years”.
In his foreword to the Treasury’s document on new scheme designs, published last December, the Chief Secretary wrote that
“we need a long term solution that will last a generation”.
Clause 20 specifies “protected elements” of scheme design that cannot be altered for the next 25 years without clearing a “high hurdle” of comprehensive consultation and a report to parliament.
We think it is right that public service workers should be given an assurance that their pension savings will not be vulnerable to further arbitrary and unfair changes without adequate scrutiny and debate, but the Bill seems to be riddled with loopholes, excluding a number of important scheme features from the list of “protected elements” and stating that the “high hurdle” can be bypassed in order to meet a cost cap that is in turn set by the Treasury with no such requirement for consultation and report. Furthermore, it was a critical part of the agreements reached with employee representatives that protection should be provided to staff transferred to alternative providers as a result of public service outsourcing —the so-called fair deal policy. The Chief Secretary told the House last year that
“we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff. The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers, and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1203.]
Yet there is no guarantee in the Bill that public service workers transferred to new employers will be able to keep their public service pensions. We will seek to address all those issues in Committee to improve the Bill and the protections granted to public service workers.
In conclusion, we think public service workers with understandable fears for their financial futures deserve better than being treated as pawns in this Government’s political games, with the consequence that it has been harder to reach agreement on reasonable reforms that control costs to the taxpayer. Indeed, perhaps the best case for the Bill is that it should ensure that never again can an opportunistic Government create unnecessary conflict and disruption by imposing unfair and arbitrary changes without adequate consultation, scrutiny and accountability. Let us ensure that it fulfils that objective.
Finally, let us remember that the real pensions crisis is not in the public sector but in the private sector. It is right that we should ensure public service pensions are sustainable and affordable for the taxpayer, but we should not allow that to distract us from the unacceptable inadequacy of pension provision in the private sector. Too often, it has sounded as though the Government’s answer to disparities in pension provision across the public and private sectors is to level down, not level up. Indeed, we have seen more than a million lower paid workers excluded from automatic enrolment when we should be ensuring that the National Employment Savings Trust can deliver low-cost, high-quality pensions to all who could benefit.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that in the 10 years since the previous Prime Minister decided to get rid of advance corporation tax relief on pensions, that decision has destroyed £100 billion of private sector pension savings? Does she accept that that was the fault of her Government?
Rachel Reeves
I look forward to the hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill to restore that relief. The real crisis is that some people are not saving at all for their retirement and are not in any type of occupational scheme.
Rachel Reeves
I shall take another intervention so that we can hear about the hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill.
Andrea Leadsom
How on earth does the hon. Lady think that anyone can put right £100 billion wiped off the value of private sector pensions? How does she expect anybody to right that wrong today? It has been done; it is too late.
Rachel Reeves
It could be reversed so that dividends were not treated in such a way in the future, but the Government have no intention of doing that. I do not think the hon. Lady understands the real crisis: some people are not saving at all for their pensions and have no occupational pension to save into, and the 20% of people who earn less than a living wage do not feel that they can put money aside every month. That is the real crisis we face and the Government excluded 1 million people from automatic enrolment and have done nothing to tackle the excessive fees and charges automatic enrolment schemes can charge. The Government should be focusing on that challenge to bring up the quality of pension provision for everybody so that nobody risks retiring into poverty and having to rely on means-tested benefits.
Improving governance and reducing costs across private pension schemes while cracking down on the excessive fees and charges that erode pension income should be the Government’s priority, but it is not. Instead, to address disparities they want to level down the pensions enjoyed by those who work in the public sector.
Regional Pay
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. That is how the Government will get the economy moving again—by cutting the pay of the most vulnerable workers and introducing regional pay.
Rachel Reeves
It will be interesting to hear what the hon. Lady has to say to the 10,800 public sector workers in her constituency and whether she wants them to have a pay cut.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I was going to say that my 10,500 public sector workers will no doubt agree with me that the way to get our economy going again is by a private sector-led recovery, which requires that businesses begin to thrive. Does she accept that it is a private sector, business-led recovery that will turn around our economy?
Rachel Reeves
Perhaps those 10,500 public sector workers can give their verdict at the ballot box. Yes, we do need a private sector recovery, but we will not achieve that by cutting the pay of the people who deliver our public services.
Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses
Debate between Rachel Reeves and Andrea Leadsom(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks for the many families and young people in all our constituencies who are experiencing a crisis, and I give him credit for recognising their challenges.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady feel at all positive about the Government’s steps to create new apprenticeships for young people to get them into real jobs that will endure?
Rachel Reeves
The reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility has examined all the Government’s plans and predicts that unemployment will continue to rise all the way through this year, and the OECD predicts that it will rise next year as well. That is their verdict on the Government’s economic policy.