Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I would first of all say to the 3,000-odd people in the hon. Lady’s constituency of Lewes who are going to be hit by the changes that they should be ringing her up and asking her why on earth she is voting for a 10% reduction in their income. I think they would be interested to hear her justification.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes are obviously a problem for some Government Members, and that they are in absolute denial about them? Does he agree that the Government’s inertia over intervention to save steel jobs and last night’s defeat in the Lords firmly put to bed the falsehood that the Tories are the party of the workers?

[Owen Smith]

Completely. It is one of the more risible statements I have heard from the Government. It is, once more, a measure of the contempt with which they hold certain sections of the British public that they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of people. They describe themselves, laughably, as the party of labour and the party of the workers, while they are cutting the wages of working people: 3.3 million families will be hit to the tune of £1,300; 200,000 children will be put into poverty next year, and 600,000 children over the period; and 70% of the cuts will fall on working mothers. The tax credit cuts will destroy the “economic miracle” the Tories like to talk about. Some 90% of the cuts will be devastating for the people involved. The statistics speak for themselves. After I have given way to my hon. Friend, I will describe the human impact of the cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

No, I am talking about £4.4 billion-worth of support that is offered to working people in this country, including 3,800 in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He has a choice to make on their behalf today. Is he going to stand up for them? Is he going to speak for those almost 4,000 families in his constituency, or is he going to roll over and vote with the Government to cut their wages by 10%? That is the choice he faces, and it is a very real political choice for him. As he is a new Member, he should think very carefully about that.

Let us deal with what the Government are proposing by way of mitigation. We heard a lot from the Chancellor yesterday evening. He looked a little ratty as he told the cameras that he was going to think again—he was obviously not very keen on having to do it—but there was at least some hint that there would be transitional measures. We have had hints over recent days as to what they might be. Let me run through a few of them and put the Government on notice that we will scrutinise extremely carefully, as we have done today, the net impact of any such measures.

First, there is the minimum wage. It is welcome that the Government propose to increase it from £6.50 to £7.20 next year and thereafter to get it up to £9.20 by 2020—it is a good measure. Unfortunately, however, even if the Government were to take it to £9.20 on 1 April—the day on which tax credit cuts are introduced—it would not offset the losses for average families, not by a long chalk. Most families on 40 hours a week with one parent earning would, if they were earning around £15,000, still lose £600 a year. The minimum wage increase is clearly not going to offset the losses.

The second element that has been talked about is childcare allowance. Even if the Government were to move straight away to the proposed 30 hours a week for England—again, a welcome measure, although it looks rather under-resourced to me, given that we were told it would cost us over £1 billion if we were to implement it and the Government are planning to invest around £300,000; we will see what happens with that—that same family, banking the £9 minimum wage, would still be around £500 worse off.

Let us build in the third element, which is of course the increase in the personal allowance. The Government have made other welcome measures in increasing the personal income tax allowance from £6,500 to £11,000 and they are talking about taking it up to £12,500 at the end of this Parliament. Again, that is a welcome measure, but it misses the target. Those people who earn between £3,500 and £12,500 will all be worse off if the Government start taking away their tax credit entitlement. They are two different tribes. It is completely fallacious to suggest that if we give extra money by increasing the personal allowance or the national minimum wage, we will offset the losses. Only 25% of the losses will be offset by the national minimum wage and only for 25% of the population. It is very straightforwardly a con. As we heard in the excellent evidence session before Thursday’s debate, the Resolution Foundation said very clearly that if we need to deal with the question of tax credits, the answer is, unfortunately, tax credits.

[Steve Rotheram]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 6,700 families that will lose out from the tax credit cuts to their incomes will not be compensated, and that it is arithmetically impossible that the Government’s proposed changes would do that?

[Owen Smith]

There is no need to take just my word for that; it is precisely what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said—that it is arithmetically impossible for the Government’s offsets, which I have just listed, to compensate for the losses that these hard-working families in all our constituencies are going to face. The Government know that that is true, which is why they have been so absent from the television studios in recent days. They do not need to hear the truth from me: they know it.

Productivity

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

Solving the productivity puzzle is a vital component of the journey we have been on since 2010—the journey to long-term prosperity through a comprehensive long-term economic plan. In 2010 this country urgently needed financial stability. We provided it. We needed to get public spending under control. We did so. We needed job creation, because that is the best way to help people support their families, and 2 million jobs were created—1,000 a day.

Rebuilding an economy takes time. It is a long journey, and we have always known that improving productivity is a key part of that journey. Our productivity plan, which the Chancellor announced last month, will set out how we develop that further. Forty-five years ago, when I was born, UK output per hour was 37% below that of the United States, a significantly bigger gap than there is today. What happened 45 years ago is of limited significance and, I suspect, interest to anybody sitting here right now, but it highlights the partial picture presented by the words of the motion, that UK productivity has been an issue “for several years”. It has been an issue for several decades.

Ever since we returned to government in 2010, productivity growth has been central to our mission of sustainably rebuilding the economy. In 2010 our overarching priority had to be keeping people in jobs while we set about the task of returning to fiscal balance. I make no apology for that. At the same time as pulling us back from the financial brink, we were also bringing in key supply-side reforms to boost efficiency and productivity. We created a national infrastructure plan and, as a result, infrastructure investment was 15% higher in the previous Parliament than in the preceding one. On road, on rail and online, thousands of infrastructure projects are connecting people and communities.

Our support for science and innovation has increased our competitive advantage by focusing on the UK’s great areas of strength. Even as we had to trim departmental budgets across the board, we protected science. We helped our universities to get on a firm financial footing to maintain their world-class position as centres of excellence. To rebalance the economy we put together a radical programme for growth outside London and the south-east, combining investment and devolution.

All this has helped to deliver jobs and growth. Last year we saw productivity begin to rise. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects productivity growth of 0.9% this year, and after that it grows at 2% or above in every year of the forecast period. We are now ready for the next step. Our productivity plan, as the Chancellor announced on 20 May, will explain how we shift our economy up a gear. It will be ambitious, long term and wide-ranging. Our manifesto is a programme for long-term sustainable growth: £100 billion of infrastructure this Parliament, as well as the big infrastructure questions for the decades ahead; skills for the long term, at every stage of people’s education and career; a better balanced Britain, and not just a northern powerhouse because, as I am sure Members will agree, there should be no monopoly on powerhouses.

We will deliver the affordable homes that people need. We will cut red tape, help businesses to access finance, and maximise workforce participation, including giving parents who want to return to work the support to do so—this, and much, much more, is a blueprint for a more productive Britain.

Today we have had interesting and powerful speeches from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, many drawing on their own business experience. Two speeches that we heard, which were maiden speeches, were particularly outstanding. The first was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden)—as expected, a highly erudite maiden speech from the former deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister. He reminded us of the rich lineage he has in his constituency predecessors. I am sure he will make an extremely admirable addition to that line. The second was that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham). He, too, knows what it is to have big shoes to step into—those of David Blunkett, who is so respected right across the House. The hon. Gentleman follows in his footsteps from local government into this place. He put EU renegotiation in a very interesting, long historical context. As for the topic of today’s debate, he rightly put productivity in its proper context—that of raising living standards and spreading prosperity.

There were a number of other interesting speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reminded us of the sectoral shift that has been going on. He spoke about the maturity of the UK continental shelf and the fall of the oil price, and what that has done to the North sea oil sector, as well as the shift away from financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) reminded us of his own lack of productivity when he challenged Madam Deputy Speaker electorally in North East Derbyshire. He also described the contrast between this country and France, and how we should be careful who we follow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh) talked about the importance of services as well as manufacturing in productivity growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) spoke of the importance of cutting red tape. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) welcomed employer involvement with schools in building skills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) talked about all the things that Labour did not choose to debate today, which are just as instructive as the things that they chose. There were excellent speeches from my near neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Alan Mak) and for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

I want to mention the contributions of two Opposition Members in particular. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) talked about the success stories of the automotive and aerospace sectors, and the importance of research and development spending. He asked about the Government’s industrial strategy. Our entire programme of government is an industrial strategy. It is integrated with what we do, not something that we add on. Of course, we stay in constant contact with industry.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke of his own experience in training and development, and the key role that management quality plays in productivity. He is quite right, and I remind him that our postgraduate loans will be available to MBA students as well. More broadly in terms of skills-building, we have an ambitious programme to deliver 3 million quality apprenticeships. To date, there are 50 higher apprenticeships available up to degree and masters level. Last year, there was a 40% increase in the number of people participating in higher apprenticeships.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm how many of those 3 million quality apprenticeships will be conversions from other programmes?

[Damian Hinds]

We have a track record in the previous Parliament of delivering 2.2 million quality apprenticeships. We will carry on delivering that important investment in the young people of this country and in our industrial future.

The reforms of the past five years have delivered jobs, growth and security for the people of our country. We now have a chance to take things to the next level through our bold and ambitious productivity plan. We have a track record of making the right economic decisions—a record that, I am glad to say, the British people strongly endorsed five weeks ago. There is a real ambition to achieve the step change in productivity that our country needs. Our cities want it, our businesses want it and the people of this country want it. With them, we will make it happen.

Question put.

Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I could not agree more. Put simply, the regulator should be regulating its own redress scheme. It is simply not good enough for the FCA consistently to say that the decision has been approved by the independent reviewer if there are doubts about their behaviour.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue to the House’s attention. The only thing that is consistent and transparent is that the banks that caused the financial crash are profiting from selling products such as interest rate hedging products, which were bought by a company in my constituency, the Flanagan Group, and have caused it great difficulty. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that the banks should be profiting as a result of mis-selling products?

[Guto Bebb]

Of course not. The whole reason behind establishing the redress scheme is to try to deal with the wrongdoing of the banks. My concern is that the scheme has not succeeded as expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

Indeed, not only have the banks failed but the regulators have failed to show their teeth. Indeed, in the recent judgment on Crestsign the courts have only added to the uncertainty, and it behoves the Government to try to clear that up.

DK Motorcycles runs the largest motorcycle showroom in the country, selling high-value items from a single premises. It is a partnership, owned by father and son Derek and Kevin Neesam—hence the DK. At the time of the refinancing in 2008, it had a bookkeeper but not a specialist finance director. Ewan, the general manager, joined later and now looks after finance, as well as running the showroom. By no stretch of imagination could DK be called “financially sophisticated” in a world of complex derivative products. However, by dint of employing up to 75 people—both full and part time—and having a business turnover of £20 million, it failed two of the FCA’s tests. In response to the pilot, the FCA admittedly amended some of its tests, but no flexibility was applied to the turnover test. As I pointed out to the FCA, that caught different types of businesses indiscriminately and left businesses such as DK bracketed together with the likes of BP or BT as so-called sophisticated, and therefore with no help against predatory banks such as RBS.

There was a further iniquity in the redress scheme, as the campaigning group Bully-Banks has repeatedly pointed out, because under the scheme, banks have a get out. Notwithstanding the tests, if they can offer evidence that a business was financially sophisticated, it would be excluded from the review. However, there was no reciprocal ability for businesses like DK—a father and son partnership that just happened to be successful and passionate about selling motorbikes—to offer evidence suggesting the contrary.

I did not get a reply directly from the chief executive of the FCA. Instead, at the end of June 2013, a reply came from Christina Sinclair, then acting director of retail banking in the supervision division. The reply did not tell us any more than we already knew, and it still stressed DK’s ability to lodge a complaint with RBS directly. Ms Sinclair singularly missed the point made by DK and many other businesses that, given their experiences so far, they were frankly petrified of making a formal complaint for fear that the bank would pull the plug on the business. From what I have seen of RBS, they were right to be frightened.

In the interim, DK, like me and all hon. Members in the Chamber, had seen the Tomlinson report and all the stories about the global restructuring group into which DK had been shunted. At the end of last year, DK finally found alternative bankers who were willing to take a proper, unsullied credit decision, but as a parting shot, RBS, in the form of their so-called relationship manager, the inaptly named Vicky Smart of the global restructuring group, said it did not want any of DK’s business any more and withdrew crucial direct debit support for DK’s customer finance arm. Fortunately, DK managed to overcome that apparent act of spite and the new bank put alternatives in place. RBS has continued to deal with DK in that way, refusing any meetings about redress and insisting on communicating through lawyers.

[Steve Rotheram]

It will be cold comfort to DK that the sorry tale my hon. Friend outlines is almost a mirror image of what has happened to a business in my constituency. I am sure other hon. Members will extol the virtues of companies that have also fallen foul of RBS. As I suggested to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), does my hon. Friend think that it is a disgrace that the very banks that caused the financial crash benefit from selling sophisticated derivatives to organisations that did not fully appreciate what they were getting into?

[Paul Farrelly]

It is indeed a disgrace. RBS has form not only outside the House, but inside it. The Chair of the Treasury Committee recently said that the bank had misled it. He said:

“If this is how RBS deals with a parliamentary committee, how much can customers and regulators rely on it to be straightforward with them?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I continue this sorry tale, he will see that the business went into litigation on this issue.

[Steve Rotheram]

We have heard the word fear on a number of occasions in this debate. Companies such as the Flanagan Group felt fearful of what the banks might do, but fearful, too, of the reputational damage that might have occurred from an external view of the company. Does my hon. Friend think that this is an appropriate way for banks to act?

[Mr Brown]

We all believe in the role that banks have in our day-to-day lives, whether as individuals, households or businesses. We need to think there is an element of trust. What we have discovered, however, is that there has been far too much mistrust. In addition, some senior people had no idea what their banks were doing. They allowed their managers to carry on selling products, while having no idea of their complexity. One person who worked for Barclays and sold some of these products came to meet me. He was in the Penrith area and decided to come and speak to me about my constituent. He told me that on being introduced to the products, which he was about to sell to customers, he asked his seniors, “What if this or that question is asked?” He was told just to move on, because there were no answers.

The long and short of this tale is that the banks eventually moved in with a team of administrators. I approached the administrators to tell them that I thought what was going on was wrong and that if my constituent went to court he would win his case. The administrators made out that they had to carry on with the business they had been pulled in to conduct, and they went ahead with it. My constituent owed the bank £1.2 million, of which £900,000 was bank charges—an absolute disgrace. As I said to the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), my constituent went to court and he won the case. But that matters for nothing. Gone is more than 20 years of a family working together to build a business that was going reasonably well but went badly wrong when they were encouraged to take out products that they did not really understand, and which those selling the products did not really understand either.

I want briefly to mention another, more recent, case relating to another constituent in the far west of my constituency, down in Stranraer. This is a really tragic case. People and businesses do not just have problems with the banks. There are other issues lying in hiding too and some relate to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This gentleman told me:

“For the last 6 years I have been a victim of the mis-selling of an IRHP SWAP Termed Business Loan.”

The last three years, in particular, had been very difficult. He had been fighting off the bank that had been battling with him because it would not accept that it had mis-sold him a product. I could tell from the number of occasions I met him over the last three years that this was really getting him down. It got to the stage where he had to sell off his mother’s family home of some 44 years. He had remortgaged his own home, incurred legal costs of over £8,000 and had put the family business of over 54 years standing in real jeopardy.

My constituent was eventually on the receiving end of a phone call from the bank to say that it was about to make him an offer within a two-month period, which it has now done. However, that offer of some £76,000 goes nowhere near to meeting the cost to him as a family man who had done nothing else but work morning, noon and night for such a sustained period of time that he missed his family growing up. The offer put him under real pressure. On the second last occasion he came to see me, he was seeking advice but knew in himself that he was being forced to “take it or leave it”, as I mentioned before. The advice from the bank was that this was a “full and final” offer, with no recourse to consequential losses.

Had my constituent not got involved in this loan, he would have been building up his business, but it actually suffered. He wanted to develop the business and the properties he had available for rent. All that was put on hold, however, because he was struggling to meet the bank’s regular demands. My constituent has had to go to Revenue and Customs to strike a deal, agreeing that he would pay the bulk of the VAT he owed and that between now and the end of February everything would be cleared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend once again puts forth his points coherently. I am sure the Minister is considering her response. We must always look for unintended consequences. Did the review pull in all possible situations? Perhaps it could pull in more if the Minister is of a mind to look at things slightly differently.

Non-advised sales perhaps strayed into advice. The FCA describes non-advice sales as ones in which

“no personal recommendation is made and you leave the customer to decide how they wish to proceed.”

There is an analogy with other generic advice. If someone recommends that a person should buy household contents insurance without mentioning a specific insurer or policy, and if the recommendation is unconnected with the sale of a contract, that would not fall within the definition of advice. The FCA is clear that sales staff should avoid making personal recommendations, and therefore giving advice. It states that sales staff

“should confirm that the decision is the customer’s and that the”

salesperson “cannot give them advice.” The problem in many of the situations we have heard about today appears to be that sellers actively recommended and even promoted IRHPs to customers. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) outlined that in some detail, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway. There were devastating consequences for businesses and lives in those situations.

I have criticised the sales-driven culture—the culture of targets, rewards and incentives—in the past. The banking sector will say that it is trying to address that culture and to move to a different approach, but the reality is that the culture was imported into retail banking from the more speculative areas of investment banking, where the risks were greater and the rewards higher. It simply was not appropriate for many of those small businesses and customers. Some of the overt incentives to sell such products, whether or not they were in the customer’s interest, have been removed, but I continue to worry. I want the Minister’s assurance that we are on top of the situation, and that there is no indirect pressure on staff to sell those products. We need to continue that culture change in our banks. That has to come from the top and go right through to the bottom.

On the perceived problems with the FCA scheme, the scheme was supposed to ensure that small business customers who were mis-sold products received an offer of fair and reasonable redress as soon as possible. The FCA tells us that more than 99% of redress offers have been communicated to almost 17,000 small businesses. More than £1.5 billion has been paid out in redress so far, including £300 million in compensation for lost opportunities. However, I think it would be fair to say, given the debate this afternoon, that it is evident that people still have concerns about the scheme’s shortcomings. I hope the FCA will take that into consideration, with support from the Minister. Customers who purchased caps that place a limit on interest rate rises are not included in the scope of the review, unless they have complained to the bank during the course of the independent review and are non-sophisticated customers. Other types of hedged loans were not included in the review process either.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned the case of Crestsign v. NatWest, illustrating the difficulty that some small businesses have experienced in getting redress from banks. The judgment in the case concluded that the bankers

“did not show themselves worthy of the trust that was placed…but unfortunately for Crestsign, the common law provides…no remedy because the banks successfully disclaimed responsibility for the advice they gave on the suitability of the swap, which was negligent but not actionable.”

In this case the bank managed to successfully argue that, since it did not owe its customer any duty of care, it had no obligation to pay compensation. We can see why people are concerned. The bank was able to argue its case after the event and was not held to account on whether it should have sold the product in the first place. Worryingly, the independent reviewer KPMG—independent reviewers are a crucial part of the FCA redress process—seemed to agree with the verdict. Does the Minister think that appeals need to be looked at?

I argued at the start of my speech that what we really need is cultural change.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I apologise, but I am at the limit of my time.

Will the Minister please address the lack of an appeal process? Will she address tax treatment by HMRC and look at having a review of compensation levels? I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

National Minimum Wage

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

There is an apprentice rate for the minimum wage, which is important, but we need to ensure that more people are doing good-quality apprenticeships so that at the end of them they can get jobs not only at the minimum wage, but above it. My worry is that too many of the current apprenticeships do not offer the decent training that will enable people to get a good-quality job.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that while it was a brave Labour Government who brought in the national minimum wage, they were working in conjunction with the unions, which were pivotal to bringing in the policy? It will be the unions, working together with the Labour Government in 2015, that will introduce a living wage.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Trade unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, of which he is a member, did a huge amount of campaigning for the introduction of the minimum wage and campaign today to ensure that more people are paid a living wage. I will say a little more about what we are willing do in government to ensure that more people are paid a living wage above the national minimum.

Professional Standards in the Banking Industry

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

May I at least make this point to those on the Opposition Benches about the proposal in their motion to have a judge-led inquiry?

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Mr Osborne]

No, I am not going to give way; I am going to make this point.

If we go ahead with a judge-led inquiry, it will almost certainly take longer than the shortest inquiry that has ever taken place under the Inquiries Act 2005. Why? Because we are talking about an inquiry into the professional standards of the entire banking industry, which is a pretty big subject for an inquiry. Even if we assume that we could find a judge very quickly, that the inquiry was up and running at some point in the autumn, that took a year and a half—which is how long the inquiry in Glasgow took—and that the Government were allowed six to nine months to respond to the inquiry’s conclusions, have a White Paper and do the consultation required under Labour’s laws, that would make it impossible in this Parliament to make the changes to the law that might be required. This Parliament would be saying, “We are simply not able to change the law to deal with the scandal,” which would have happened almost a decade ago.

Finance Bill

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I made that very point when I expressed surprise at the impression being given that the static caravan industry warmly embraces and welcomes the change. A more rational description is that the industry accepts it as a much better deal than the one they were originally given by the Government—a slapped-on VAT increase to 20%, which would certainly have had an impact on jobs and compounded the lack of growth in the economy.

Once again, the change was announced during a parliamentary recess, the same day as the U-turn on the dreaded pasty tax. As Parliament was not sitting, there was no opportunity for the House to scrutinise the details of the Government’s plan—details such as where the money to pay for the change of heart would come from. The Government have yet to provide an answer to that question. We know the money will come from “underspends” in unidentified Departments, but we do not know where those underspends have occurred, whether they were planned, or why the coalition’s No. 1 priority of deficit reduction is no longer the default destination. The two measures—pasties and caravans—were supposed to raise £70 million, which is now unaccounted for. I hope that someone somewhere knows how to make up those sums. Many ordinary people consider £70 million quite a big hole to fill. How do Government plan to deal with it?

The third U-turn is the Government’s partial reversal on the so-called church tax. Ministers claimed that, in future, VAT would be payable on alterations to listed buildings, which are currently exempt. Of course, as the Government acknowledged today, half the listed buildings in this country are owned by the Church of England, which pointed out immediately that the change would cost it at least £20 million. Many churches collect donations from their congregation to pay for necessary alterations—often basic alterations, such as to provide a toilet and to ensure that the whole community can access the building. Without greater reassurances, the Church told the Government, the extra 20% payable would result in projects already scheduled having to be cancelled, and many of those projects were part of initiatives that churches had been encouraged to undertake through the big society.

The Government did not agree to a U-turn as such. I imagine they felt a bit embarrassed by that point, although that did not stop them performing another U-turn just days later—again, when Parliament was not sitting—on the charity tax. Instead, when they realised how hard churches would be hit, they agreed to give an extra £30 million to the listed places of worship scheme, so that churches could claim the money back in grants.

It is welcome that churches will no longer be hit with the huge extra cost of VAT, but my understanding of the Exchequer Secretary’s comments today is that churches will be asked to pay the VAT up front, then claim it back. They will have to raise the money to pay for the work they need to carry out, then wait for months to—hopefully—get it back. The hon. Gentleman says that measures have been put in place to make sure that churches do not suffer cash-flow problems, but I am not clear how much reassurance that provides. If he gives more detail when he winds up the debate, I am sure the House will be grateful. For a Government who say that they are waging war against red tape, it seems a bureaucratic process to put in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) raised concerns not just about the bureaucracy for HMRC and the Treasury in processing the payments and rebates, but the bureaucracy for the churches, which could well do without it.

I also understand that, contrary to what the Minister said about the Church of England’s being entirely happy with the proposal, many churches have expressed concern that the uncertainty would put them off accessing the scheme and relying on the VAT rebate. Churches could be deterred from undertaking necessary alterations and repairs. The other concern is that the measure does not help non-religious listed buildings, which still have to pay the 20% tax. Many people will choose not to go ahead with their projects. Among other things, that will hit jobs in the construction industry, and we all know how hard that has been hit by the downturn and the double-dip recession. It is an extra setback for that industry that listed building projects will not go ahead because of the 20% increase in cost.

We have seen at least partial U-turns on the pasty, the caravan and the church, but the Government have refused to budge on two issues. Sports nutrition drinks are still being subjected to a 20% price hike while sugary milkshakes will still be VAT exempt. The Government want to put VAT on sports drinks that are advertised or marketed

“as products designed to enhance physical performance”

or “accelerate recovery after exercise”.

The Minister sought to provide clarification for the Opposition, but I, for one, am none the wiser about the rationale behind the policy. No rationale has been offered for why a sports drink designed to provide and facilitate exercise and fitness should be targeted for VAT while drinks laden with refined sugars and fats are still exempt. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said earlier, the industry has raised serious concerns about whether milk and milk products will unintentionally be caught up in the ruling. From the Minister’s comments today, I wonder whether that is unintentional at all.

We all remember the “Make mine milk” ads in which well known sportspeople such as Denise Lewis promoted the benefits of milk for sport. If milk has been marketed as something that enhances physical performance and sporting prowess, will the Government levy VAT on it? My understanding from the Government’s comments today is that they would. There is no indication about how the anomaly would be resolved by the Government or whether they even have an issue. For that reason, we will vote against this shambolic VAT reform.

The final issue on which we have concerns is the VAT levied on hairdressers’ chairs. The Chancellor wants self-employed hairdressers to pay 20% VAT on hiring a chair in a salon. With the cost of chair hire up, hairdressers will have to choose between passing the cost on to their customers or absorbing it themselves. Industry data show that that will disproportionately hit small businesses and their customers, especially women between 16 and 44 years old. Why do the Government think that a good idea?

If the measure is just another routine closing of an anomaly, have the Government considered who they are hitting with it and why? I am truly concerned that the measure looks as if it was worked out on the back of an envelope, without any consideration of how many jobs it might cost. Our amendment would force the Government to consider carefully the impact on jobs and growth before imposing VAT on any previously exempt products. It is not clear that they have given any thought to the change that I have mentioned.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

On haircuts, I wonder whether the increase in VAT in the case of hairdressers will precipitate a return to hairstyles such as the one that I currently sport.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend read my mind as I gazed across the Chamber.

Giving a tax cut to millionaires and the banks but making it harder for self-employed women and their customers reveals a Government who are, once again, truly out of touch with ordinary people’s lives. New clause 12 seeks to go further on VAT and create a temporary reduction in the rate from 20% to 17.5%. The Liberal Democrats ran for election on a manifesto that warned of the dangers of a VAT rise with their pledge to protect constituents from the “VAT bombshell” threatened by the Conservatives. The Deputy Prime Minister pledged:

“We will not have to raise VAT to deliver our promises…Let me repeat that: Our plans do not require a rise in VAT.”

Why were they so against VAT? Perhaps it is because the evidence clearly shows that people on lower incomes are hit proportionately much harder than the rich by VAT because they tend to spend more of their income rather than save and invest it. Government Members will claim that, looking at different measures, more VAT is paid by the rich—the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) fell into that trap—but there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that VAT is regressive and that those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on it than those on higher incomes. Even the Prime Minister agrees. In 2001, he said:

“If you look at the effect...as compared with people’s income then, yes, it’s regressive”.

Jobs and Growth

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I was supposed to attend an event hosted by Her Majesty this afternoon on her visit to Liverpool to celebrate her diamond jubilee, but I thought this debate was too important to miss—even for the Queen. I suspect that she was as unimpressed as were Labour Members on having to deliver a speech last week that was more to do with renewing coalition vows than it was about restoring the economic future of her country, which she serves so dutifully.

Liverpool Walton has seen a 165% rise in youth unemployment in the last 12 months, while total unemployment in the constituency has risen to more than 5,000, making the unemployment count the fifth highest in the country. I know that thousands of people in Walton, and millions around the country, are having conversations about their own lives. What are they thinking? They are thinking: “Do we have enough money for the weekly shop?”; “Do we have enough money to put petrol in the tank?”; “Who is going to tell the kids that they can’t do extra-curricular activities any more becausewe can’t afford the weekly subs?”. Some are even having to explain why their gas and electricity have been cut off.

The Government are simply wrong when what they do results in tearing families apart, providing tax breaks for the very rich and hitting the poorest families hardest. That is the human cost of Tory-Lib Dem policies. In Parliament, however, the Lib Dems still blindly walk through the voting Lobby with their Tory masters.

In the short time available, I would like to challenge a particular Tory-Lib Dem myth—the one suggesting that the only economic factor that relates to improvement in the living standards of lower-paid workers is raising the income tax threshold. Let me make it absolutely clear that that is not a bad ideal in itself, but here are the facts. I will paint an upbeat picture based on average earnings of £30,000, to which many of my constituents could only ever aspire. For the current financial year, 2012-13, the personal allowance is £8,105. That means that that anyone earning up to £30,000 will be £186 better off this year, making people better off by the grand total of an extra £15.50 in their pockets each month. In the next financial year, the personal allowance will rise to £9,205. That means people will be £346 a year better off, working out at a whopping £28.83 a month in people’s pockets.

That sounds great, and nobody is arguing that putting more money in pockets of the lower-paid is not a good thing. But—and there is a big “but”—there is a snag. The Liberal Democrats allowed the Tories to raise VAT to 20%, despite their manifesto pledge and the “VAT bombshell” posters that all Opposition Members probably remember. That 2.5% rise is estimated to cost each household with children an average of £450 a year.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that by 2015—even if the tax income threshold has been lifted to £10,000—the Government’s tax and benefit reforms, as a package, will result in an average 4.2% reduction in the incomes of families with children during the current Parliament, which means that a couple with children will be £1,250 a year worse off by 2015. That is simply not acceptable, and it is not the full story. An extra £28 a month is clearly no recompense for such a disproportionate hit on families and their living standards.

The sober eye of history will view this Queen’s Speech more for what was not in it than for what was in it. There was nothing for the young unemployed, nothing for families struggling to get by, and nothing for the record number of women who are waiting and wanting to work. There was not even a single mention of the word “jobs”.

Financial Services Bill

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

In speaking to the new clauses and amendments in this group, the Minister appeared to say that many of them were unnecessary because the issues would be dealt with through the setting up of the Financial Conduct Authority. However, it is our role as parliamentarians to take up these issues, to state explicitly that we need to give political guidance on the matters that our constituents find important, and to discuss the work that needs to be done by the FCA. There is no reason why these measures should not be incorporated into the Bill. That is surely better than waiting for four or five years, only to discover that the problems have not been addressed because the means of doing so had not been set out as clearly as they might have been. I hope that the Government will therefore reconsider their position on this.

I am surprised at the way in which the Minister dealt with amendment 55. His objection to its proposals on legal aid and legal advice seemed to be that they would undermine the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Perhaps I have got this wrong, but I had understood that the justification for restricting legal aid was a financial one. We have been given the usual argument that the country is in a financial mess, we have a deficit and we have to save money on the legal aid bill, among many other things. It is therefore disappointing, when someone comes up with another way of financing legal advice for complicated cases, that that is not acceptable either. The Government therefore seem to be suggesting that granting legal aid in such cases is, in itself, a bad thing.

After all, we are not stopping litigation, and we are not preventing people with plenty of money from litigating on any issues. The ending of legal aid will simply result in considerable detriment for people who do not have the money to pay for their legal advice. It is regrettable to say that the proposals would somehow undermine the Government’s intentions. When we were debating the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, various speakers on the Government Benches said, “We would like to do these things, if we had a way of funding them.” They were not saying, “We really do not want to do these things at all.” They seemed to be saying that the measures were being brought in with some sadness, so when someone comes up with a partial solution, it is a shame that we cannot investigate it further.

Amendment 37 seeks to make it explicit that the work of the Money Advice Service should be to help those with the greatest problems who are suffering particular difficulties as a result of financial exclusion. The previous Government tried to address those problems through various formats. The present Government are suggesting that this will be done anyway, and that the service will be the same for everybody. However, that assumes that everyone is starting off on the same footing, which is not the case. Many people have limited choices and are therefore more likely to get into financial difficulties. The Money Advice Service should be giving those people a specific amount of its attention, and to spell that out in the Bill would not be unreasonable.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said about the phasing out of debt management companies. We are not saying that such companies that operate on a commercial basis should disappear. The amendment suggests that it should not be the individual consumer who pays the up-front price for those services. There are alternatives, and some commercial companies could continue to operate if the financial organisations were to foot the bill. We shall be seeking to achieve that.

Finally, I want to say how important it has been that people have campaigned on these issues; for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has campaigned hard on debt management companies, while my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has campaigned on high-cost credit. We are now some considerable time on from when we had a big debate in this place, with many Members attending and speaking on these issues, yet we are so little further forward.

If we look at the wording of amendment 40, it makes no specific pitch for a particular cap or how exactly to achieve the aim; it simply asks the FCA to make the rule. Further discussion and consultation will be necessary about what those rules should be, but the amendment asks the FCA to make this an important and early part of the work it does. I do not view that as at all unreasonable.

The alternatives proposed are not good enough. Financial education is fine, but when facing a difficult situation, no amount of financial education is good enough when there is so little choice. Sometimes regulation and financial education are proposed as alternatives, but I do not think they are. It would be great if people were better financially educated, but in a tight spot, that is not enough.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

One of my constituents wrote to me to say that he thought he had had a particularly good deal because the APR was at 5,200%. He thought that that was better than what the banks were offering, which was obviously just a two-digit figure. Does that not show that financial education is something that this Government need to take on board, because it shows how people get into debt when they do not understand the ramifications of those high interest rates?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think financial education is extremely important, but on its own, it will not necessarily equip people to avoid the enticements of the lenders.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If we are to put the money where our mouth is, it is extremely important that we do not just sit in the House constantly agreeing about how bad something is; we need to take action. On that basis, I urge Members, and perhaps even the Government, to accept the new clause.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I thank the House for its indulgence. I was at a meeting of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government so I missed the beginning of the debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible, because I am sure that Government Members will have heard the compelling case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my colleagues and will have been won over by the powerful arguments they articulated.

Those outside the Westminster bubble sometimes question what we as Members of Parliament do in this place. I am sure that there are moments when even we wonder what it is all about and why we parliamentarians put ourselves through the rigorous demands of elected office. I realise just how privileged I am to be here and to represent not only the people of my community, for whom I have the highest regard, but a great city such as Liverpool, and then I have the opportunity, such as the one put forward tonight, to change the lives of ordinary people and realise that my time here is anything but wasted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

There is of course wide acceptance across the House that some regulation is needed in this area, but why should it be about taxation? A Finance Bill obviously provides an opportunity to raise the issue, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a risk—[Interruption.] He should at least let me ask the question before learning the answer from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Does he not agree that there is a risk, through the law of unintended consequences, of high-cost companies simply passing on the costs of higher taxation to the poor people in Liverpool he is worried about?

[Steve Rotheram]

I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, as she is much more of an expert on these matters than I am. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is not indicative of the thinking of all Government Members.

I have a particular reason for wanting to see a cap on the cost of credit. I come from a family of eight kids, and unfortunately my beloved mum was often a victim of door-to-door credit. She took it not to pay for luxury goods, but so that she could afford to buy us things like school blazers and winter coats. She would get a Provident or Sterlers cheque and pay it back on the “never-never”, as it was known colloquially. This meant paying back hundreds of per cent. of the original loan in interest charges, but like millions of others she did not really understand the rudimentary economics and looked only at how much she could afford to pay back each and every week, rather than the interest rate or the cumulative payment total. Unfortunately, she was not unique in this respect and, even four decades on, far too many people are still caught in this poverty trap.

The high cost of credit has not improved much for families at the wrong end of the socio-economic ladder. Home credit lenders often charge astronomical annual percentage rates of up to 3,000% or 4,000%. I had to check those figures, because the current bank base rate is only 0.5%, but I found that interest charges of thousands of per cent. are not uncommon. In fact, the UK’s poorest pay the highest price for credit in Europe. This is an obscene state of affairs and the Government must act. Before we hear the same old mantra from Government Members, I admit that we in the Opposition did not do enough to tackle the issue head-on when we were in power. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly pointed out, this is an escalating problem that needs to be tackled immediately.

I urge Members on both sides of the House to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is trying to do to stop this most socially iniquitous of practices. Even Boris supposedly supports measures to protect the financially vulnerable, and if he can do it, there should be nothing stopping Government Members doing the same.

Members on both sides of the House have highlighted the problem and provided examples of the unfairness, but it is worth reiterating that credit lenders can charge, in real terms, £82 in interest and collection charges for every £100 lent. A gentleman came to my constituency advice surgery only last Friday and told me that his wife was suicidal because of the level of debt that they had got themselves into. I highlighted last week in a Westminster Hall debate the fact that the banks are failing to meet the Project Merlin targets for lending and the adverse effect that this is having on the construction sector. The banks are also failing ordinary families as they are refused credit from high street lenders, which often results in them taking the only option left: high-cost lending through payday and doorstep loans and hire purchase.

The rising cost of credit traps those least able to cope with the pressures of economic stagnation as they struggle to make ends meet, and believe me, the VAT increase has not helped those families. Some payday lenders are rubbing their hands at the expansion in their “target audience”, as one put it, 70% of whom have a household income below £25,000. I know that we will never completely stop this most lucrative of immoral trades, but we can certainly put a cap on lending to regulate the total amount that can be charged for supplying credit.

This is one of the occasions on which I do not understand how a proposal could not receive unequivocal support from both sides of the House. I have listened to some of arguments against taking action, such as the suggestion that it might make things worse or restrict credit to those who need it, but that is an absolute cop-out with no basis in evidence. Therefore, I ask Government Members to support the new clause to ensure that consumers are protected and simply pay a fair price for credit.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I think that the debate has demonstrated the potential for cross-party support for the analysis underpinning the discussion we have had this afternoon, but I gently point out to Opposition Members who seek to turn this into a partisan political issue that their Government had the opportunity over 13 years to tackle this. In fact, we had a debate on it while the Financial Services Act 2010 was going through Parliament, not long before the general election, during which my opposite number at the time ruled out acting on interest rate caps because of the impact of depriving the most vulnerable of credit services. It is not a new issue, or one that is fresh to this Parliament. Ministers in the previous Government were opposed to the idea of caps because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) indicated, it could restrict the supply of credit, forcing those who need it into the hands of illegal moneylenders, an outcome that Members on both sides would not want to see.

Let us be clear that credit can be a good and positive force that enables people to meet needs when there is a sudden shock, such as an unexpected expense or a cut in income, but it must be used sensibly and sustainably. When people decide to borrow, they must be mindful of what that means for them and realistic about their ability to repay the loan. That is true whether the loan is over 10 years, five years or a matter of days, as is the case with some instant or payday loans. However, all lenders have a responsibility in this regard. Lending more than borrowers can afford to repay does not benefit anyone. Under the recently introduced consumer credit directive, all lenders, including high-cost credit lenders, must ensure that when they decide to advance a loan they do so after making a thorough assessment of the lender’s ability to repay.

We know that consumer debt grew significantly under the previous Government, more than doubling from £620 billion in 2000 to more than £1.4 trillion by May 2010. Some of this debt is now being repaid as consumers begin to come to terms with their borrowing, with the amount of unsecured debt reducing in the past two years. Although much of this debt will be repaid without any problems, some borrowers get into difficulty. Lenders have a responsibility to help customers and treat them fairly when they get into difficulties with loans, not push them further into debt. Continuing to add excessive arrears and default charges is a lose-lose situation; the debt increases out of all proportion to the amount borrowed, the lender is less likely to be repaid and the borrower may have difficulty borrowing again. Lenders should work with borrowers, not against them.

We should all be concerned about people borrowing at high rates of interest. However, the high-cost credit market, whatever its faults, provides a service for those who cannot get credit from any other source. We should be careful about describing high-cost credit providers as legal loan sharks. We all recognise from our own communities that real loan sharks are far worse, resorting to violence and intimidation to recover their debts. High-cost lenders are licensed and operate within a regulatory framework, which provides some recourse when things go wrong.

We should be clear that action has been taken over the past year to improve consumer protection in this area. First, under the consumer credit directive, which came into force earlier this year, consumers now have a right to withdraw from any credit agreement within 14 days. If they do so, they have to pay back only the money lent and the interest accrued over that time. Secondly, consumers have a right to repay a loan early at any time, in part or in full. Thirdly, lenders now have to provide information in a standard format so that borrowers can easily compare the costs of different loans. Improving the transparency of information will help consumers. Fourthly, lenders must conduct a full credit assessment before advancing any loan. Lenders will also have to explain the key features of the credit agreement.

In addition, the Office of Fair Trading has recently published its guidance on irresponsible lending, which clearly sets out that deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair lending practices are not acceptable. The OFT, which is responsible for the regulation of credit—something that whoever tabled the new clause seemed to forget—has the power to remove the licence of those who breach the irresponsible lending guidance.

Much good work is going on, including the excellent work of credit unions, which many of my hon. Friends have mentioned. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is not in her place. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that there is £73 million to help to expand and modernise credit unions. The money that the previous Government put into credit unions is diminishing, because the money that credit unions were able to earn on the debt was lower than the default rate on the loans given. I therefore welcome the money that the Department for Work and Pensions has found to strengthen credit unions.

As a number of hon. Members have said, we are reviewing the wider consumer credit landscape. At the end of last year, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a joint call for evidence on the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, which covers all aspects of the consumer credit life cycle, including what happens when things go wrong. This is an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework is fair to consumers and the industry. Part of that review focuses on the high-cost credit market. Following an OFT review that took place under the previous Government, we have asked for evidence on five of its recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of unemployment.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of trends in the rate of unemployment.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The unemployment rate has fallen recently: in the latest data, it was 7.7%—down from 7.9% on the quarter. The Office for Budget Responsibility assumed at Budget 2011 that the structural rate of unemployment was unchanged from its previous trends at 5.25%. In the medium term, unemployment is expected to fall as the economy recovers, supported by the action taken by the Government, including measures published in the Budget and “The Plan for Growth.”

[Danny Alexander]

If the hon. Gentleman was being fair, he would recognise that youth unemployment was growing substantially under the previous Government as well. The country has faced the problem for many years, which is why in the Budget we announced a £200 million package of support, including work experience placements for young people, skills training, guaranteed interviews and progression to apprenticeships. Including the measures in the Budget and the spending review, we will deliver at least 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years, compared with the previous Government’s plans.

[Steve Rotheram]

Since this nightmare coalition came to power, the number of people out of work in my constituency has increased, and that is even before the cuts really start to bite. Is it not a fact that the Chancellor, like many Members on the Government Benches, still believes that unemployment is a price worth paying?

[Danny Alexander]

Certainly not. That is why in Merseyside, we have announced a new enterprise zone that will encompass the Liverpool Waters and Mersey Waters regeneration projects. The regional growth fund has announced several projects in Merseyside, and the Work programme in Merseyside will help to deliver support for people to get off benefits and into work; the second contractor got under way yesterday. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that is a serious programme to help people off benefit and into work in Merseyside.