Kelvin Hopkins
Main Page: Kelvin Hopkins (Independent - Luton North)Department Debates - View all Kelvin Hopkins's debates with the HM Treasury
(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I return to my earlier point: if inflation was 10% and pensioners got a £10 increase in their pension, would Government Members celebrate and say that that was huge largesse for pensioners? It is not; it just keeps pace with the cost of living. The increase in VAT, and the increases in gas and electricity prices, which the Government have done nothing to tackle, and the rise in petrol prices, mean that the cost of living for pensioners and other families has increased enormously because of the Government’s choices.
There is a further hit to pensioners’ incomes, buried in the detail of the Budget documents. This year, an estimated 300,000 pensioners stand to lose their savings credit, while others stand to lose as much as £276 a year as a result of reduced rates of savings credit. Under the Chancellor’s latest plans, the savings credit will be abolished completely, costing more than 100,000 new pensioners as much as £897 a year: another stealth tax that the Chancellor tried to slip past pensioners; another slice taken from the constrained budgets of ordinary families.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I support my hon. Friend’s comments. Rather than speculate about what the next Labour Government will do after the next election—I like to think that Government Members have already conceded defeat—what about the Government’s backing off now and reversing the dreadful decision?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on hosting the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament today. It came to make the very point that my hon. Friend just made, and that pensioners made to us in the Committee Room earlier. Some Government Members would do well to listen to some of the pensioners in their constituencies.
It adds insult to injury for the Prime Minister and other Government Members to tell pensioners that they should be grateful for a rise in the basic state pension that merely matches the rate of inflation. It is not a rise—it simply keeps things level. If Government Members do not know the difference, they should get out into the real world, where the costs of food and fuel are going up and it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady asks about the party manifesto. I had hoped to discuss the broader issues and great challenges facing us. Manifestos are, by their nature, broad brush, and this is such a tiny change to the tax system in the grand scheme of what the Treasury has to deal with. It is entirely right that the Government are, bravely, addressing it now. In all honesty, would either party go down to such detail in any future manifesto? It is entirely right that the Government are saying, “This is an anomaly. It is incorrect and unfair, and what is more, it is one of the many anomalies that are unaffordable in the long term.”
Kelvin Hopkins
I hear time and again the Government saying that things are unaffordable and raising spectres of vast pensions bills in the future. This is a simple matter of transferring money from one group of people to another—namely, from the rich to the less rich. Were the abolition of the 83p rate by Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe and of the 60p rate by Nigel Lawson and getting rid of the 15% surcharge on unearned income all anomalies?
Ben Gummer
I profoundly respect the hon. Gentleman. He is a torchbearer for a former age in the Labour party, and he should raise that point with his own Front-Bench team. We are clearly not going to agree on it. However, at some point, someone needs to face up to the fact that we will almost double spending on old-age pensions between now and 2040. I shall put that in context: the number of people retiring this year who will be alive in 2041 will be more significant than now. I cannot give the precise figure, but hundreds of thousands of people retiring in the next few years will be alive in 20 or 30 years. We are not only dealing with an intergenerational problem, with a problem between this generation and a generation in two or three generations’ time or with a problem between people in their 20s and those in their 60s or 70s; we are dealing with a problem of those retiring now and to whom we must promise pensions and a decent standard of living in 30 years’ time. The ability to afford that is at the crux of the Government’s reforms, and this proposal is just the start of it.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister may be too young to remember, but the Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher abolished the Rooker-Wise amendment. The basic state pension would have been much higher now had that amendment been kept in place. What about raising the basic state pension in steps to where the pension would have been had the Rooker-Wise amendment never been abolished?
Mr Gauke
The Rooker-Wise amendment related to tax thresholds. As for indexation, we are using the higher of earnings or inflation or 2.5%. The plans we inherited were just earnings. That is an important point.
Despite difficult economic conditions, the Government continue to protect benefits for pensioners, including winter fuel payments, free bus passes and free prescriptions, to name but a few. Many pensioners are also benefiting from the Government’s decision to make funding available to local authorities to freeze council tax, and we also have the Warm Homes discount. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has submitted evidence to the Treasury Committee showing that pensioners are the group least affected by the tax and benefit changes implemented by the Government. It has given evidence that pensioners have benefited the most from the distributional impact of tax and benefit changes for some years. I assure the House that the Government are supporting, and will continue to support, pensioners.
Mr Chope
I see the hon. Lady on the Opposition Front Bench agrees with me about that.
Perhaps it is appropriate to start by reminding the Committee of what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 26 May 2009. He said that he had accepted, as Conservative party policy, that
“The House of Commons should have more control over its own timetable, so there’s time for proper scrutiny and debate.”
He said that
“there should be much less whipping during the committee stages of a Bill,”
because
“that’s when you really need proper, impartial, effective scrutiny—not partisan point-scoring and posturing.”
It is against that background that I enter into this debate with confidence.
The Government’s proposals will, by their own admission, result in more complexity and less simplicity, which is completely at odds with their avowed intent on tax policy. The administrative costs alone will exceed £100 million, and 650 extra staff will have to be taken on to administer what is effectively the removal of child benefit from 1.2 million families.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I recall when child benefit was first introduced in the 1970s, and I have to point out to those on the Government Front Bench that, throughout the Thatcher and Major Governments, no attempt was made to get rid of that universal benefit. We should stick with universality in this case.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Even during the International Monetary Fund crisis in the mid-1970s, things never got so tough that the Government of the day felt the need to interfere with child benefit. It was a reflection of the fact that families with children had higher costs than those without.
The proposals will create all sorts of perverse incentives, and the people who want to try to avoid the measures will have a field day. This has been well covered by the Treasury Select Committee’s recent report, as well as by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other expert bodies. The fundamental issue is the proposals’ lack of fairness, as between one family and another.