Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

T8. Last year, a Whirlpool tumble dryer caused a devastating fire at Shepherd’s Bush Green after Whirlpool told customers that it was safe to continue using them, contrary to advice from the fire brigade. There are still 1 million of these potentially deadly tumble dryers in people’s homes. What does the Minister think about that and what is she doing to ensure that all electrical goods are safe, and recalled if they are not?

[Margot James]

The Government take product safety extremely seriously. We established a working group on product recalls and safety that reported in July, and we will respond shortly. We are already taking action in the areas that have given the hon. Lady cause for concern. Whirlpool has now managed to withdraw or modify more than 2 million of those machines to an unprecedented degree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of the John Lewis Partnership, with which I concur. It is, indeed, a very good employer, but it is not alone: many other large companies engage with their employees in much the same way.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling that employment tribunal fees for workers are illegal? Will she now accept that it is the Government’s responsibility to end the use of bogus self-employment by companies that seek to avoid paying national insurance and giving workers the rights that they deserve? Will she commit to introducing the necessary legislative changes in this Parliament to give workers the rights that they need and to ensure that taxpayers get the tax revenue and national insurance that they deserve?

[Margot James]

Indeed, what the hon. Lady refers to as bogus self-employment is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister appointed Matthew Taylor to review employment protection in the context of the modern economy. She raises some good points, and I trust her Committee will be investigating them. My Department will co-operate fully.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. The Department for Work and Pensions is undertaking various measures to improve the chances of people with disabilities accessing the workplace, and my Department is giving all the support it can to that inquiry.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Matthew Taylor said today that he wants employers to pay national insurance for people with whom they have a controlling and supervisory relationship. Do the Government plan to implement that aspect of the Taylor review, and can the Minister reassure workers that the Government do not plan to U-turn on their U-turn and increase national insurance for the genuinely self-employed?

[Margot James]

I can assure the hon. Lady that, as the First Secretary of State said earlier this week, Parliament has spoken on the issue of national insurance class 4 contributions. That matter is now settled, and will not be revisited. I agree with her that we should pay close attention to ensure that people who are genuinely contracted to provide an ongoing service are given the protections that workers enjoy, and are not falsely labelled as self-employed.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hospital care costs more, but so does making adaptations to a new property, which is what will have to happen if people are moved.

People up and down the country are asking why. Why are we putting vulnerable families through this? Why are we hitting some of the hardest-pressed households in our country? Why are we hitting disabled people like this? Why did the Prime Minister introduce this policy on exactly the same day as cutting taxes for millionaires? It shows how out of touch this Prime Minister and his Government are.

The Government would like us to believe that the bedroom tax is cutting the benefits bill and dealing with under-occupancy in social housing, but it simply does not add up.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State is providing a litany of cases, half of which are exempt under the legislation while many others will be beneficiaries of the discretionary housing payment, which this Government have trebled to £190 million per year. Did not her party in government introduce the local housing allowance to cover tenants in the private sector? Why is it one rule for them and one rule for others?

[Rachel Reeves]

First, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government’s policy is retrospective whereas in the private sector it is not. Also, the discretionary housing payments are not nearly enough to cover this. In my constituency in Leeds—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked the question; perhaps she will listen to —[Interruption.]

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The average public sector pension in payment is under £6,000 a year, and it is considerably less for women who work in the public sector, so we are not talking about huge pensions in the vast majority of cases. Instead, we are talking about modest pensions to which people have contributed throughout their working lives.

We support in principle the main measures in the Bill, however, so we will not oppose it on Second Reading, but we will work in Committee to improve it, in order to ensure that it underpins, rather than undermines, the progress made in negotiations. We will seek to ensure it facilitates a smooth and stable transition to new scheme designs, entrenching good standards of governance, transparency, administration and consultation, thereby allowing those who give their working lives to serving the public to save for their retirement with confidence, while establishing a workable system for managing change and controlling costs to the taxpayer.

The Government and public service employees do need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. In government, Labour had agreed and established a framework for negotiating reform and the “cap and share” mechanism to manage long-term costs, and it was always clear that this would mean increases in contributions and, as the population lives longer, a rise in retirement ages.

We have always said that the Hutton report provided a useful starting point for negotiations. Lord Hutton was right to suggest that career average schemes could be fairer than final salary schemes, and we think his proposal that public service pension ages should rise with the state pension age is right in principle. Lord Hutton also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, however, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower paid public service workers, and for avoiding fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. Reform needs to be fair to taxpayers and public service employees, as well as being genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of political games.

The vast majority of public service workers retire on very modest pensions. The average public service pension in payment is less than £6,000 a year, and even less for women. Tearing up decent public service pension schemes, or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases, would be entirely counter-productive if that resulted in lower saving and inadequate retirement incomes.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Government have made great strides in protecting low-paid public sector workers in response to Lord Hutton’s report, so that anyone earning £15,000 or less will not have to make any increased contribution at all, and for those earning less than £21,000 the increase will be capped at 1.5%? Surely that is the evidence she requires?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is simply not true. There are 800,000 part-time public service workers earning less than £15,000 a year, 90% of them women, and their pension contributions will rise by, in some cases, 50% or more because their full-time equivalent salary takes them above the minimum salary threshold.

Instead of building on our reforms, the Government have ripped them up. They have made it much harder to make progress by seeking to impose, prior to any negotiations, a steep 3% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the indexation of future pension income from RPI to CPI. The “cap and share” arrangements agreed and established by the last Labour Government provided the mechanism for delivering the adjustments as needed, but the current Government chose to undermine that agreement and instead announced a 3% increase in contributions in the October spending review without any discussion or negotiation with employers or employees.

Regional Pay

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I will come to the regional flexibility that is already in the system in inner and outer London for teachers and those in the health service. The point is that it is not necessary to dismantle the national system in this way to get the flexibility that we need.

We can imagine the impact that these changes might have on regional economies. If the north-east had a further year’s pay freeze imposed on it next year and the 1% increase that the Chancellor has announced was concentrated in more favoured areas, it would deprive the region’s economy of £78 million a year. If the same happened in other regions, Wales would lose £97 million a year, Yorkshire and the Humber £130 million, the south-west £140 million, as I said before, and Scotland £162 million.

Does the Minister really think that this policy will contribute to economic rebalancing? Is it really the best that the Government can come up with? Their only policy for jobs is to make it easier to fire people and their only policy for the regions is to cut the pay of public sector workers. It is no wonder that we are back in recession. It would be laughable if it was not so depressing.

There is no credible evidence to support the claim that the difficulties faced by the private sector are the result of national pay frameworks in the public sector.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

On that subject, the hon. Lady may be aware that the difference between private and public sector pay scales is as much as 18% in parts of the country. She talks about money being taken out of the economy, but does she not accept that if the pay scales were not so divergent, there would be additional private sector investment in those areas?

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

In the 1980s and early 1990s, unemployment reached 3 million. Was that because Conservative Governments were clearing up a Labour mess? Really? I think it was because of the policies that Conservative Governments always pursue—policies that hurt young people and put more people out of work. That is the reality of Conservative Governments.

Labour Members are not complacent. We do not say that it is inevitable, that it has got to happen and that 3 million unemployed is a price worth paying. Labour Members are not prepared to give up on young people and we urge the Government not to give up on them, either.

In the coalition agreement, the Government said that a fundamental goal would be to

“sustain the recovery and to protect jobs.”

Before the election, the Prime Minister told voters that jobs would be his top priority. He said:

“I understand if you leave people unemployed, and short term unemployment becomes long term, then it becomes a lifetime of unemployment. It’s a waste of life. I must stop it happening.”

He was right then, but he does nothing now. The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier this month that

“supporting people into work is my priority for 2012”.

He is right, yet he does nothing.

We must—and we will—hold the Government to their promises because we cannot allow the next generation to be denied the chance of expanded opportunities that has always been the promise of Britain.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that long-term youth unemployment is falling—and, indeed, has fallen by 5%? Will she also acknowledge that half a million new jobs have been created in the private sector in the past year? Currently, there are 90,000 vacancies in retail, 44,000 in hospitality and 11,000 in construction. What matters is that the Government, through the Work programme and so many other interventions, are maximising the skills and training for young people to get them into work.

[Rachel Reeves]

In the hon. Lady’s constituency, long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 25% in the past few months. I do not know what she says to her constituents—“There’s loads of jobs out there. Just go and get one”? More people are chasing jobs than there are jobs available. That is because the Government are pushing more and more people out of work. I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not know the numbers for her constituency, but we know.

Industry (Government Support)

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Margot James

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) on his excellent maiden speech, with which I agreed in every respect. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on her excellent maiden speech, which was entertaining as well as informative.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on support for industry, but we cannot debate support for industry in a vacuum. I do not want to dwell on the past, but none the less we want to learn from it. A lot of the Opposition’s schemes for supporting business when they were in office had a rather half-hearted effect, at best. Many of the schemes, such as the capital enterprise fund, were only subscribed to by 50%. The trade credit insurance fund, which had an original budget of £5 billion, only had a take-up of less than £20 million. Apprenticeships have been hard to fill. A lot of the problems with these schemes are caused by low awareness among industry, eligibility criteria that are far too complex and rule out far too many worthy applicants, and a bureaucracy that small enterprises simply cannot cut through.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I am surprised by what she says about apprenticeships, because in my constituency of Leeds West, the number of apprenticeships has gone up from 70 to 210 in the last decade. At Leeds college of building, 400 people started on apprenticeship programmes supported by businesses this year—more than they have ever had before. I am very surprised that she says that people are not taking up places.

[Margot James]

There is a big problem with apprenticeships for a lot of people in my constituency. The college funds NVQ level 2 and 3 training programmes and more and more students are trying to stay in college because they simply cannot get the apprenticeships outside as the employers are too hard up to provide them.