Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and David Gauke

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T10. There were many hundreds of responses to the Ministry’s proposals to close Cambridge magistrates court, but there has still not been a proper response to the consultation. Will the Secretary of State tell me when that will happen?

[Mr Gauke]

The most important response is that we have decided not to close that court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and David Gauke

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), wants to close the magistrates court in Cambridge. What assessment has she made of suggested ways to keep a magistrates court in Cambridge, and when will she make a decision?

[Mr Gauke]

The decision about the magistrates court in Cambridge will be for me to make. I want to look at all the evidence and the representations that have been made, and I will make a decision in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and David Gauke

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week the Justice Committee produced an excellent report highlighting some of the issues around virtual courts. We might have a virtual Foreign Secretary today, but the Committee raised some important issues, so why is the Secretary of State rushing to close courts such as that in Cambridge when we are yet to have a wider discussion about virtual courts?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said in reply to the very first question of this session, it is important that we make progress in using the court estate as sensibly as possible. It is underused, and when resources are scarce, it is important that we use them more efficiently. It is also right that we make advances in using digital technology so that access to justice becomes easier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and David Gauke

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We heard a very revealing comment earlier when it was said from the Labour Front Bench that work is not the route out of poverty. If work is not the route out of poverty, exactly what is?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr David Gauke)]

Since automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012, 9 million people have been enrolled in a workplace pension by over 900,000 employers. Today, I can announce the Government’s ambition to extend automatic enrolment to support more people to achieve greater financial security in later life. The Government’s 2017 review of automatic enrolment, published today, sets out the next steps we intend to take as we continue to develop a culture of routine pension saving. We will help young people to save by lowering the age for automatic enrolment from 22 to 18. We will also enable people to start saving from the first £1 of their earnings to provide a better retirement income for lower earners and for those in multiple jobs. I have today tabled a written statement setting out further detail, including trialling a number of targeted approaches to identify the most effective ways to increase pension saving among the self-employed.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The universities superannuation scheme is a strong pension scheme that recently closed its defined-benefits section, moving to a defined-contribution scheme and, in effect, transferring all risk to the employee. Many argue that over-cautious accounting rules drive these changes, creating a poorer scheme that leaves many people less well off in future and puts pressure on our universities. What is the Secretary of State doing to protect the future of our higher education sector?

[Mr Gauke]

Any changes that might be made to this scheme are a matter for the scheme’s joint negotiation committee, not for the Government. The independent Pensions Regulator remains in ongoing discussion with the USS’s stakeholders. Nothing has been brought to the DWP’s attention that we consider to be of concern. It would be improper for the Government to tell the joint negotiation committee how to run the scheme.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and David Gauke

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. She makes a very good point.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked what would happen if inflation is higher than the increase in the national minimum wage. The Government’s aim is to have a national minimum wage that helps as many low-paid workers as possible without damaging their employment prospects. We welcome the fact that the Low Pay Commission shares our aim of seeing progressive real increases in the national minimum wage. It is because we have a strong economy and high levels of employment that we are seeing increases in the national minimum wage and that we now have the flexibility to introduce a national living wage.

On those who do not benefit from the increase in the personal allowance, we believe that in our income tax system someone working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. These changes will ensure that those individuals will be taken out of income tax. We want to create incentives to encourage those who, for example, wish to increase their hours if their circumstances permit them to do so. They should be able to do that without finding themselves paying income tax.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Will the Minister tell me how much a part-time worker earning, say, £8,000 will benefit from the changes?

[Mr Gauke]

The point I am making is that as we increase the personal allowance, people who earn under that amount do not pay income tax. If we still had a personal allowance of £6,475, such a person would clearly be paying income tax. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have already made an awful lot of progress, I would entirely agree with him. That does not mean that we should stop.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised the issue of the national living wage, which we will introduce. It is based on the national minimum wage, which we believe should continue in its current form, applying recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to the Government. That has an important role to play.

The Government want to protect younger workers’ employment prospects as well as see as many people as possible benefiting from a higher wage. Given that younger workers tend to have less experience in the labour market than older workers, there is a risk that too high a wage rate might make them relatively less attractive to employers. That is why we will have both the national living wage and the national minimum wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

There is a question of cost. It is necessary to evaluate where the impact would lie and the benefit of going above £200,000. Yes, the allowance was once at a very high level, but that was because of particular temporary circumstances, given the uncertainty that existed towards the end of the previous Parliament.

Let us not forget that 99% of companies will receive 100% relief on their investment with an annual investment allowance of £200,000. It is a question of balancing the benefit to investment with the cost in tax that we will forgo if we go above £200,000. The judgment that we made was that, given that 99% of companies will get 100% relief, a level of £200,000 was a reasonable approach to take in the context of a set of policies that are undoubtedly pro-business and designed to attract investment in the UK.

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I was about to conclude, but I will quickly take the two inventions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On a point of clarity, given that we are discussing permanence, I think I heard the Minister say that this would be the level for the remainder of the Parliament. Is that what he is saying?

[Mr Gauke]

That is our intention, yes; £200,000 will be the level for this Parliament.