Budget Resolutions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The stark reality of yesterday’s Budget is clear: taxes rising, living standards falling, growth stalling, and yet again the Tories making promises that they cannot deliver. They have failed on the economy, they are out of ideas and they are out of time.

Let me turn first to the most, and potentially only, remarkable bit of the Budget statement yesterday. After an hour and 10 minutes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to float an idea of getting rid of national insurance altogether. I was not quite sure what I had heard, but then Ministers started touring the TV and radio stations to say that that indeed was their intention. In what seems to have been a casual afterthought, the Chancellor has made a £46 billion unfunded commitment, leaving a gaping hole in the public finances, even bigger than the unfunded tax cuts announced in the Tory kamikaze mini-Budget just 18 months ago.

Let me ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this: how does the Chancellor plan to pay for the £46 billion tax pledge made yesterday? To be more precise, what is the Chancellor’s assessment of the impact that £46 billion of tax cuts would have on borrowing, tax rises elsewhere or public spending, or has he simply managed to find the same magic money tree that his predecessor was so fond of? This is an omnishambles Budget from a desperate Tory party. Instead of recklessness, Labour will take a different approach: as Chancellor, I will never make a commitment without saying where the money will come from. That is the responsible approach.

Let us turn now to the other tax cuts that the Chancellor announced yesterday. Two years ago, when the current Prime Minister wanted to increase national insurance, we opposed it. Since then, I have consistently said that I want taxes on working people to be lower and so, just as we supported the last cut to national insurance, we support the measures announced in the Chamber yesterday to bring it down by a further 2p.

Let us be clear, however: the measures come in the context of a rising tax burden, the highest it has been in 70 years, and the tax burden is rising in each and every year of the forecast period. For every £10 that the Government are taking from families in higher tax under their plans, they are only giving £5 back. They are giving with one hand and taking twice as much with the other, and they expect people to be grateful.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s tax plans will leave households on average £870 worse off under the Conservatives?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend has done the maths and is absolutely right. Taking into account the changes to the tax threshold, the announcements yesterday and in November, and council tax, by the end of the forecast period the average family will be £870 worse off.

As the Resolution Foundation highlighted just this morning, the 8 million tax-paying pensioners will see their taxes increase by an average of £1,000. That is a collective £8 billion tax grab from our nation’s pensioners. As Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said yesterday:

“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”

That is the legacy of this Conservative Government.

The Tory Government’s pickpocketing has meant higher taxes on working people, leaving them with less money at a time when their daily lives are getting more expensive. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that a person on average earnings is £900 better off, but let us take a look at that claim. He has ignored not only his own stealth tax rises, with the tax thresholds and council tax, but the rising costs of energy bills, food, mortgages and rent. In fact, rather than being better off, as he claimed, household disposable income is set to fall by £200 per person over the course of this Parliament.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I completely agree that deliberately leaving tax thresholds untouched at a time when pay and prices are increasing is a stealth tax. It is a stealth tax when this Chancellor does it, but it was also a stealth tax when Gordon Brown did it.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is interesting to have an intervention from the SNP, which is increasing taxes on ordinary working people—I would probably just stay on the Bench.

This is the only Parliament on record in which living standards are set to be lower at its end than at its beginning. The Chancellor chose to ignore all those realities, but the truth is that ordinary families cannot ignore them. As people up and down the country know, the definition of being better off is having more money. Under the Tories, people have less. People feel worse off because they are worse off.

Let us look at economic growth. Growth is critical for our success as a nation, for our living standards and for provide sustainable funding for public services, but the Tories have failed there, too. The context of yesterday’s Budget is a Prime Minister who pledged growth but has delivered recession. This economy is now smaller than when the Prime Minister took up office. Instead of bouncing back, the UK’s GDP is bumping along the bottom this year.

In his statement, the Chancellor rightly elevated the true measure of success:

“not just higher GDP, but higher GDP per head.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 837.]

I agree with him that that is the most important yardstick, so how are the Tories doing against that measure? The reality is that GDP per capita is set to shrink, not grow, this year, having shrunk and not grown last year, too. GDP per capita is now expected to be lower at the end of this year than it was at the start of this Parliament. Yesterday, we learned that forecast GDP-per-capita growth has been revised down for four of the next five years—hardly the success that the Chancellor was looking for.

The Chancellor said that it was important not to follow a path that relied on net migration to provide growth and GDP, and I agree. Has the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seen the chart on page 29 of the Office for Budget Responsibility economic and fiscal outlook, which shows that net migration has been revised up by 350,000 over the next five years? That is the exact opposite of what the Chancellor spoke about.

Our country has gone through a difficult time over these past few years. The origins of many of the crises we have faced are global: pandemic, war, and the energy crisis. Other countries have also experienced those shocks, but each time crisis has hit, Britain has found itself acutely exposed because of the choices of successive Conservative Governments: austerity that choked off investment, then Brexit without a plan, and then the Tories crashed the economy with their kamikaze Budget.

This Tory record of economic failure has held our country back for far too long. If the UK economy had grown at the average of the OECD rate since 2010, when the Conservatives came to office, it would now be £140 billion bigger than it is today. That is equivalent to £5,000 per household every year, and would mean an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services. Growth matters, but the Tories are incapable of delivering it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) says from a sedentary position that we are doing better than the G7. There are only two G7 countries in recession today: us and Japan. That is the Conservatives’ record, and they should be ashamed of it.

This is the 12th Tory plan for growth in 14 years, and we are still in recession. Twelve plans from five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors, with none of them succeeding. We are trapped in a Tory doom loop of low growth and high taxes, and it is working people who are paying the price.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am struggling a bit with the right hon. Lady’s figures. My own calculations suggest that this year, pensioners will see an increase of £900 from an 8.2% increase in the state pension as a result of the triple lock. In all, I think, pensioners will be getting £3,700 more than they were in 2010. That is a huge increase in their income, alongside all the help with the cost of living and winter fuel, yet the right hon. Lady was saying earlier that pensioners are going to be worse off. I do not follow her maths; can she help?

[Rachel Reeves]

Those numbers about pensioners who pay tax are from the Resolution Foundation. They were published this morning, so the hon. Gentleman can also look at them, but it is a fact that because the tax thresholds have been frozen, pensioners who pay tax are paying more tax than they were before. That is the legacy of this Government. This is not just about lines on a graph. It is about our high streets, it is about whether businesses grow, and it is about whether we can create secure, well-paid jobs in all parts of the country, with more money in the pockets of working people, because if an economy does not work for working people, it does not work at all.

When the Tories are not pickpocketing the taxpayer, they are pickpocketing Labour policies. Having spent years defending the indefensible, the Tories have belatedly listened to Labour and recognised the importance of closing the non-dom tax loophole. I believe that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here too. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the steady state amount of revenue raised by the non-dom policy is £3 billion per year. I first called for that loophole to be closed when it entered the public consciousness two years ago that some people were not paying their fair share of taxes, meaning that we have missed out of £6 billion in tax revenue—money that could have been invested in our public services.

If any further proof were needed that Labour is winning the battle of ideas, it is our time-limited windfall tax on the oil and gas producers. Having originally opposed the creation of such a tax, the Tories were dragged kicking and screaming by Labour to create an energy profits levy. Even after yesterday’s announcement of a one-year extension, the Tories are still leaving gaping loopholes, meaning that many energy giants will still pay less in tax. Meanwhile, the SNP opposes our proper windfall tax while, just three weeks ago, it put up taxes on working people in Scotland—on teachers, nurses, and plumbers.

[Peter Grant]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will happily take another intervention, if the hon. Gentleman wants to defend higher taxes on working people. Bring it on!

[Peter Grant]

Does the shadow Chancellor not understand that the SNP’s position is that there should not be a single windfall tax that punishes only north-east Scotland? A windfall tax should be applied to every sector that has profiteered from war, covid and price increases. Does she not understand that the SNP’s income tax policy means that low-paid workers—the people the Labour party is supposed to protect—pay less income tax in Scotland than they would in England, and that nurses and care workers are paid more in Scotland than in England? That is true, is it not?

[Rachel Reeves]

All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is: put that on your leaflet! The fact is that nurses, teachers and plumbers are paying more tax in Scotland. At the same time, the energy giants that are making huge profits from the windfalls of war will pay less tax under the SNP. That is its record, and it should be ashamed of it.

Labour is committed to investing more in our schools and hospitals. That was a priority before the Budget, and it remains a priority, because public services are on their knees after 14 years of Conservative failure. Labour believes in aspiration for all our children, and we will not stand by while the roof falls in on state education under the Tories. History is repeating itself: children are again being taught in portacabins, as they were when I was at school under a Tory Government. When the Tories undervalue our young people, they are squandering their potential and undermining our whole country’s future. That is why the next Labour Government will close the tax loopholes enjoyed by private schools. The money raised from ending their exemption from business rates and VAT will instead go where it is needed—to help the 93% of children in our state schools.

I will always be clear that all the policies in our manifesto will be fully costed and fully funded. Now that the Tories have U-turned on their policy on non-doms, which we welcome, we will do the necessary work to show how our plans will be paid for. We will set that out in an orderly and responsible way. Our public services are in a mess under the Conservatives, but a Labour Government will begin to turn them around, give an immediate injection of cash to our schools and our hospitals, and tackle Tory waste, through a serious plan to grow our economy and provide the sustainable finance that our public services need.

It takes some nerve for the Chancellor to wag his finger at local councils this week, when the Tories and the Prime Minister have squandered billions of pounds of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Who has used excessive numbers of management consultants in central Government? The Tories. Who signed the cheques and lost an additional £10 billion through dodgy personal protective equipment contracts? The Tories. Who left the vaults open, so that organised criminal gangs could help themselves to £7 billion of public money through covid fraud? The Tories. Who made a costly mess of HS2? The Tories. Who handed £500 million to the Rwanda Government, and has nothing to show for it? The Tories.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

Maybe my hon. Friend has another example.

[Chi Onwurah]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, because every area of Conservative spending has a dimension of waste or profligacy. Does she agree that the £15,000 of taxpayers’ money spent on settling the attack made by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on a British scientist—an entirely unfounded and defamatory attack—would have been so much better spent supporting British scientists to drive British economic growth?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think taxpayers will find it pretty grating to see their tax bill go up, when that money was spent so callously and casually. Meanwhile, the Chancellor failed to do the right thing yesterday, when he did not set out in the Budget compensation for those affected by the infected blood scandal or for wrongly accused sub-postmasters. That is an abdication of responsibility, and a betrayal of all those who have fought for justice for so many years, and it will not be forgiven.

I am under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that we may inherit, or the scale of the task of rebuilding our economy and country. Labour’s economic plan will take Britain from instability and short-termism to a mission-based Government, prioritising economic growth and security for families and our country—a Government built on the pillars of stability, investment and reform. Stability is brought about by iron discipline, guided by strong fiscal rules and robust economic institutions. Investment is brought about by working with the private sector, so that we can lead the industries of the future through a modern industrial strategy. A new national wealth fund will invest, alongside business, in our automotive sector, renewables-ready ports and the future of our steel industry. Reform starts with our planning system; we will take on vested interests to get Britain building again, support working people in developing the skills that they need to thrive in the changing world of work, and make work pay with a genuine living wage and a new deal for working people. Our economy needs change. Britain needs change.

The verdict on the Budget is in. There is no long-term plan for growth, and leading business organisations agree. The Institute of Directors said that the Budget

“fell short of delivering a comprehensive plan for sustainable growth.”

The British Retail Consortium said:

“the Chancellor has done little to promote growth and investment”.

The Trades Union Congress has highlighted that real pay is still below where it was in 2008. Whichever way we look at it, the Tories have failed on the economy. The damage is done. Nothing this week will compensate for the fact that people are worse off under the Tories. Taking £10 and handing back £5 is a swindle, not a giveaway. Working people pay more, pensioners pay more and homeowners continue to pay more. Reckless and desperate promises are repeated.

The lesson from the Budget is simple: the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy. The questions that people ask ahead of the next election are simple: are my family and I better off after 14 years of Conservative Government? Do our schools, hospitals, police and transport work better than when the Conservatives came to office 14 years ago? Frankly, does anything in our country work better than when the Conservatives came to power? The answer is a resounding no. If the Tories had any confidence in their plans and their record, they would name the date of the general election. It is time for the British people to give their verdict on 14 years of Tory failure. Only Labour can provide the change that our country so desperately needs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

12.56 pm

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The reality of yesterday’s Budget is clear: long-term growth downgraded, household incomes falling, public services on their knees. Families are facing the biggest hit to living standards since records began. The only surprise was a huge handout to the richest 1% of pension savers. Yet again, working people and businesses—the key to our economic success—have been put at the bottom of the pile. 

The questions people will be asking themselves after 13 years of Conservative Government are these. Am I and my family better off? Are our school, hospitals and transport systems working any better than 13 years ago? Frankly, is anything in Britain working better today than it did when the Conservatives came into office? The answer to those questions is a resounding no. 

Labour believes that the tax burden must be shared fairly. That is why I have announced today that Labour will reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances. It is the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people. Instead, we would create a targeted scheme to encourage doctors to work overtime and not to retire early. That could be done at a fraction of the cost, as the British Medical Association has said.

The Government’s policy to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% is unravelling before our eyes. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says that even on the “optimistic” Office for Budget Responsibility costings, it will cost an eye-watering £100,000 per job retained. The Resolution Foundation said:

“The beneficiaries from these reforms stand to gain large amounts, and they are heavily concentrated among the very rich”.

It added that

“this giveaway could lead to inheritance tax ‘abuse’”.

Pensions expert John Ralfe has said that

“this is not about supporting a hard-pressed NHS, it is really a tax giveaway...for the very highest earners.”

Labour recognises the mess that the Government have got into with our NHS workforce planning, and we have called for changes to doctors’ pensions, but we will oppose this untargeted scheme for the wealthiest and we will put this measure to a vote in Parliament next week. I defy Conservative Members to vote in favour of a policy that they know will do absolutely nothing to lift the living standards of their constituents.

Last autumn we saw the Chancellor of the day announce reckless tax cuts to help the richest, too. Why does this keep happening? The reason why the Tories get the wrong answers is that they have the wrong priorities for our country and the wrong analysis of the economy. Wealth does not just trickle down from the top; it comes from the efforts of millions of working people and thousands of businesses. That is Labour’s approach to growth.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady denounces the abolition of the lifetime allowance, but it was actually something that never applied under Labour at all. If Labour is so concerned about its loss, why did it not introduce it in the first place?

[Rachel Reeves]

Gordon Brown introduced a lifetime allowance for pensions savings, as I am sure the right hon. Lady remembers. However, the point here is about priorities. For all our constituents, there is an average tax increase per household of £650, starting next month with the freezing of the tax thresholds and the increase in council tax. Yet yesterday, the only permanent tax cut provided in the Budget was for people who already have pensions savings of more than £1 million. I just do not believe that that is the priority for our constituents, and I think hon. Members right across the House, if they think about it, know that too.

Mr Deputy Speaker—is that what I call you?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Yes.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is wonderful to see you in your place. We were told that this was a “Budget for growth”, but the documents published with this Budget confirm that the UK economy will shrink this year. The Chancellor expects us to cheer at the news that the economy will shrink a little bit less than he previously thought. Is that really what “good” looks like for the British economy?

The Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed that we will have the weakest growth in the G7 this year and next year, and it saw growth downgraded for each of the last three years of the forecast period. All the while, the UK is the only G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the global pandemic.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

This Budget will not do a great deal for my Slough constituents who are really struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills, apart from a big tax cut for the very richest in our society. My constituents will have the highest tax burden and the biggest drop in disposable income since the second world war inflicted on them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Budget will not actually help to solve the cost of living crisis?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have spent time in my hon. Friend’s Slough constituency talking to working people and businesses. On the most recent couple of visits there, I do not remember anyone saying, “The big priority for families and businesses in Slough is a tax cut for the 1%.” Instead, they were saying, “Let’s have a targeted scheme for the NHS, as Labour has called for, instead of this blanket approach for the top 1%.”

The Government have, to be fair, given us some growth: growth in stealth taxes, growth in mortgage costs and growth in NHS waiting lists. There is no plan for the future, just a Tory legacy of pain. It will take a Labour Government to spark and sustain growth, lift people’s living standards in every part of the country, meet the challenges of the future and achieve the change that our country desperately needs.

When I meet people in industry, I hear frustration from employers who cannot get and retain the staff that they need. It is a feeling the Tories know all too well, with three Prime Ministers in one year, and the current Chancellor the fourth in that role since just last summer. Yet somehow, it is the same Tory Government. It is a bit like Trigger’s broom in “Only Fools and Horses”, with its 17 new heads and 14 new handles, only much less useful.

After his five months as Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) might feel that he should qualify for a Conservative party long-service award. In fact, of the past three Chancellors, he is the first to deliver a Budget, although the last Chancellor did last long enough to deliver a mini-Budget that crashed our economy—an extreme experiment in ultra-Tory ideology, using Britain’s economy and people’s livelihoods as their laboratory. It must never happen again.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Our country has some amazing assets and amazing opportunities to invest in the green industries of the future, but we see a lacklustre plan from the Tory Government to exploit them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government of gimmicks have all but given up on leading the way and creating jobs and opportunities as we decarbonise our economy and, in reality, want to import everything from abroad? Surely it is time that they nicked our plan.

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are huge opportunities for the jobs and industries of the future—for example, in carbon capture and storage and in green hydrogen.

I will not be churlish: I must admit that there were some good ideas in the Budget yesterday—the ones that my colleagues and I have announced in the last few months, which we are happy to support. There was a fairer deal for people on prepayment meters who are paying a premium—we called for this last August. There was also preventing a fuel duty increase, a plan to help the over-50s back into work and better childcare provision for working parents. They were all called for by Labour and are now backed by the Tories. The truth is, however, that after 13 years of Tory Government, people will rightly ask, “Is that it? Is that really all they think it takes to reverse 13 years of low growth, falling living standards and crumbling public services?”

Of course, we welcome the freeze in energy prices—after all, we proposed it—but politics is about priorities. Labour first called for a windfall tax to help people with their bills 14 months ago. We were clear that keeping energy prices down was our top priority, and that it was wrong for oil and gas giants to profit from the windfalls of war at everyone else’s expense. Yet again, however, the Chancellor chose yesterday to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits on the table, which could be supporting families and businesses during this cost of living crisis. It is a question of who pays, and the Government are turning to the public and saying, “You.”

There seems to be a disconnect between what I heard from the Chancellor yesterday and the experiences of my constituents and many people across the country. The Tories claim that their plan is working, but the Resolution Foundation says that the typical household will be £1,100 worse off as a result of the Government’s policies over the period of just this Parliament. Is that really what success looks like to them?

The reality is that people are still weighed down by a prolonged cost of living crisis that is taking its toll. Debt advice organisations have faced a tidal wave of demand from people, but incredibly, the jobs of thousands of debt advisers are at risk. Let me be clear: more people are struggling not because they have forgotten how to budget, but because Tory Budgets are simply not working for them.

One of the biggest costs people face is their monthly mortgage or rent. The Chancellor said yesterday that the impact of the mini-Budget had disappeared—seriously? He should tell that to the family facing a £2,000 hike in their mortgage payment, as confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday. That means less money to spend on the local high street, meals out with the family or an annual holiday. That is the lasting damage that the Conservatives have done to the living standards of working people. The last thing that the country needed in the middle of a cost of living crisis was a Tory mortgage penalty.

Despite all the damage that the Tories have done, I am optimistic about the future for our country. I have had the privilege of seeing great innovation across Britain, from the development of battery operated trains at Hitachi in County Durham to hydrogen-powered engines at JCB in Staffordshire and pioneering research at Rolls-Royce into carbon neutral aviation. I know the potential that we have as a country. That is what Labour’s green prosperity plan is all about. It is a plan to decarbonise our economy, drive down bills and let British businesses and workers compete in the global race for the jobs and industries of the future.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady rightly points to the great innovation, research and development that is happening in British companies. Does she not agree that the measures that the Chancellor announced to help to discount research and development will be a major boost to such industries?

[Rachel Reeves]

The problem is that last autumn, the Chancellor announced a scrapping of the R&D schemes, but then brought back something this week that we are supposed to cheer about. The plan that Labour has set out will rely on Government and business working and investing together.

As President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act galvanises green energy in the United States and Governments from Europe to Asia and Australia respond, it is not enough here in Britain to cling to old ideas and old methods while other countries steal ahead in the global race. Our growth plans will be alongside a modern industrial strategy, reform of business rates, changes to the apprenticeship levy and measures to fix the broken Brexit deal in order to increase the order books for British industry. There is so much more that the Government could be doing to boost growth, create good jobs and get Britain’s economy firing on all cylinders, but I heard so little of that in the Chancellor’s Budget yesterday.

The verdict is in. The Federation of Small Businesses says that the Budget leaves “many feeling short-changed” and that

“the Government’s lack of support for small firms in critical areas is glaring.”

It says that

“trickledown economics here simply does not work.”

The British Chambers of Commerce highlights that, yet again, the Government

“failed to reform business rates”,

and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says:

“There is little that enables the UK to compete with massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies describes capital expensing as “temporary tweaks”, concluding that:

“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

As for working people, the TUC points out that:

“Real wages will not return to 2008 levels until 2026”

and that

“workers across the economy will have looked at this Budget and thought ‘was that it?’”.

This is a Government who are struggling to paper over the cracks after their 13 years of neglect and shoddy workmanship. The roof is leaking, the windows are rotten and the foundations are suffering from subsidence. The Tories are totally incapable of building the country and economy that we need.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time, even though she would rather not. I wonder whether she has seen the comments from the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that, on investment in the labour market, the measures that small businesses were looking for are missing, and that the measures are well wide of the mark and irrelevant to the 5.5 million-strong small businesses in our communities.

[Rachel Reeves]

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and the words from the Federation of Small Businesses should have a chilling effect on those on the Government Front Bench.

Beyond the economy, growth rates and living standards, if we want any further evidence of the Government’s failure, just look at our public services. Public services play a crucial role in achieving a strong economy and a good society. They adapted during the pandemic and were critical to our response in the fight against covid, with people taking personal risks to keep others safe and supported. Thirteen years of Conservative Government has weakened our public services and devalued the people working in them. Labour would make choices in the national interest.

Yet again, the Budget failed to abolish non-dom tax status. As we know, non-doms have no bigger champion than in Downing Street, but Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. The non-dom rules are costing us £3 billion every year. Ending that tax exemption could fund the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in a generation.

It is not just our NHS that has suffered. We have lost all kinds of community assets over the last 13 years, from libraries to Sure Start centres and youth clubs. Let us take one example: since 2010, 382 swimming pools have closed in England under the Tories. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a £63 million package to keep the remaining ones open, but, at the same time, the Prime Minister has upgraded the local electricity network to heat his own swimming pool. I wonder whether he will be inviting the local kids who have lost their swimming pools to come and use his facilities.





This Government have no plan to clean up the mess they have made over 13 years. Each and every time they promise to solve a problem, they fail and the country pays the price. We need a Budget for growth, yet growth has been downgraded. We needed to raise living standards, yet household incomes are falling at their fastest rate since records began. We needed a proper windfall tax on the energy giants, but instead they continue to enjoy the windfalls of war. We needed a Budget for home ownership, yet mortgage costs have risen because of the Tories’ kamikaze mini-Budget last year. We needed a Budget with a plan to invest in our NHS workforce, but the Prime Minister and Chancellor chose to defend the non-doms instead.

The Tories have had their chance and they have blown it; they are out of ideas and they are out of time. We need a general election and a Labour Government to give our country its future back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I am very happy to engage in detail with the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he raises, but as to the general point of removing the pensions lifetime allowance, Labour has to decide exactly what its policy is. The right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) tells us this afternoon that she is against the policy, but we know that it will mean that thousands upon thousands of additional highly skilled people working in the national health service will as a consequence stay in the national health service where we need them. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is in his place on the Front Bench, made exactly the same point not that long ago—[Interruption] —saying that a failure to act could cost lives. I say to the right hon. Lady: what is it? Political opportunism, or standing shoulder to shoulder with our national health service and the millions of people up and down the country who depend on it?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) called for a targeted scheme for doctors. That would be at a fraction of the cost. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many doctors will benefit from this scheme?

[Mel Stride]

I have made it very clear that thousands upon thousands will be affected. The right hon. Lady is adopting a completely perverse policy in view of the position taken by the shadow Health Secretary until quite recently, when political opportunism around this Budget reared its head. I say that we should stand up for the national health service and the millions of people who depend on it, and we should do what is right for them. That is the right thing to do.

This is also a Budget for parents, with a multibillion-pound extension to childcare support. I note and appreciate the right hon. Lady’s welcome for those proposals. They formed a major centrepiece of the Budget, and I am pleased that she has personally welcomed them.

Statutory Sick Pay and Protection for Workers

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who made a powerful speech, particularly about refugees and asylum seekers. Their plight, and the specific issues they face, have not been discussed nearly enough in the past few days and weeks.

At times of national and, as in this case, global crisis, only Governments have the resources to protect our society and our health, to protect the most vulnerable, to protect businesses and production, and to protect workers. Markets cannot do that; only the Government can. That is why the Government must step up to ensure that we protect all our citizens, to direct our national economy, to help and support the people who most need it, and to ensure that resources get to where they are most needed.

I will talk primarily about issues with statutory sick pay, but let me first say something about the reports in the newspapers today that some Harley Street clinics are offering coronavirus tests for £395. That means someone can get the test if they have the money, but someone who works in a GP surgery cannot get it. That is utterly unacceptable. The role of the Government is to intervene to ensure that resources go where they are most needed—not to the rich and powerful, but to the people delivering our frontline services, who need protection. I urge Ministers to do that.

The measures taken by the Chancellor yesterday were necessary and worth while to protect our economic infrastructure and to support the most severely hit sectors of our economy. They were also necessary to support businesses, which are not responsible for the collapse in demand they are experiencing. The same is true of workers—they are not responsible for the predicament they find themselves in—yet support for them was missing from the Chancellor’s statement yesterday. The Minister has said today—the Prime Minister has said it too—that everybody will be supported to do the right thing. We all want that, but I am afraid at the moment that is not the case. People are not being supported to do the right thing. For many people, the right thing is not to go to work—not to spread this virus, but to stay at home.

If we really want people to do the right thing, we need to support them to make that decision, so let me turn to statutory sick pay. This point has been well rehearsed in debate both today and yesterday, but it obviously needs to be made time and again, because so far the necessary measures have not been taken. Statutory sick pay is not enough for people to be able to support themselves and their family. The level of statutory sick pay is insufficient.

The ineligibility is also a huge problem. If people are self-employed or earn below the lower earnings limit, they are not able to get statutory sick pay. Some of the people who most need it are denied the support that the Government say is necessary. Other people may not be sick, but also need support. If they are self-isolating, they might not have symptoms or be sick, but the right thing to do is to stay at home. If we want people to stay at home, they need support.

Similarly, we will have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education later and if, as now seems inevitable, many parents will have to take time off work to look after their children, they will need support to do the right thing, although they will not be sick. Of course, many people also face redundancy because their businesses cannot employ them anymore. Or if they are self-employed, the work is just not coming in. At the moment, those people are not able to claim statutory sick pay, and they will have to wait in the queue for universal credit or ESA if they have the contributions. That is not supporting people to do the right thing.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as workers have had their shifts cancelled, or have been told that their hours will be reduced—many of them are on zero-hour contracts—they, too, need the support that she is rightly saying should be given to workers?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman is right. For many people, if they have a temporary reduction in their work, they can draw on their savings, but many of the people I represent—and many of his constituents as well—do not have savings to draw on. The Resolution Foundation published evidence last week before the Budget—to try to influence the Budget—that showed that 60% of people on low and middle incomes have less than £100 of savings. They do not have the resources to draw on even temporarily for a short time to pay the rent or the mortgage, or to put food on the table.

We must offer more support. That is what other countries are doing. In Norway, full pay is given to those laid off for 20 days. The self-employed get 80% of their average income over the last three years. In Sweden, laid-off workers are guaranteed 90% of their income: the Government will pick up half of that and employers are expected to pick up the other half. In Denmark, the Danish state will pay 75% of the salaries of laid-off workers. That is the same in many other countries. If it is good enough in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and other countries in the European Union and elsewhere, it is frankly good enough for workers in this country too.

It is now urgent that the Government come to the House and tell us that support is not just available for business—although that is very welcome—but is available to workers as well. Unless that happens, people will not be able to self-isolate and stop the virus spreading. The health crisis will become an economic crisis and many people will pay the price for the virus. It does not need to be that way. Let us look at income replacement, and quickly, to ensure that help is available.

As important as helping people now is, if we put in place income replacement so that people are not laid off or made redundant, it will also support the economic recovery. The pandemic will pass—we must believe that and we know it is the case—but when it does, and people want to go out again and to start spending in shops, restaurants, bars, theatres and cafes and to travel on aeroplanes, we need to ensure that the economic fabric of our country is still intact. The best way to do that is to ensure that workers remain attached to the firms that have been employing then. Income replacement can help people now, but it can also ensure that our economy gets back on a sound footing when the crisis has passed. To build the economy we need to see after this, I urge the Government to introduce urgently a system of income replacement.

The issue of renters has also been mentioned by Front Benchers and others. There was support yesterday for people with mortgages, and that is very welcome, but many people, especially those in precarious work or on low pay, do not have mortgages—they rent privately or in the social sector. In my constituency, fewer than a third of homes are owner-occupied; the others are either in the private rented sector or the social rented sector, and we need to do much more to support those people as well, because if they are on statutory sick pay now, or have seen a fall in their incomes or are expecting to be made redundant, frankly they are not going to be able to pay their rent in the days and weeks ahead. It was welcome that the Prime Minister said there will be support for renters, but we need to see the detail of that, and we need to see that support coming directly to landlords and renters to ensure that nobody is penalised because they do not have the money to pay their rents right now. That requires support for local authorities, who are big letting agents, and big providers of social housing; the support needs to go to the housing associations too and also large landlords, and we should be working with local government to ensure that we are reaching and talking to the biggest letting agencies and estate agents to make sure that support is getting to the people on the ground.

Again, I cannot stress enough how important this is; this action is needed urgently. The representative of the hospitality sector said last night that we are staring at hundreds of thousands of redundancies in that sector alone, so income replacement and support for people in the rented sector is crucially important.

The support for mortgages is a three-month holiday, and I say again that I am not sure that that is the right approach in the private rented sector, because a three-month holiday on a person’s mortgage which can then be added to their mortgage debt is one thing, but if in three or four months’ time someone has four months’ worth of rent to pay, that is not going to be much good if they have found their incomes have not recovered by then. We therefore need to be sensitive about ensuring that the support is there for the period of time that it is needed for.

Finally, I want to say something about gas and electricity and broadband and television licences. These are all essential services for people, and they will be more essential in the weeks and days and months ahead as more people are having to stay at home. Broadband is now absolutely an essential service, because the only way that many people can get food delivered is by ordering online. Again I urge Ministers to say to the providers of those essential services that nobody should be cut off from those essential services as long as the pandemic lasts, because otherwise people will find themselves without the basic infrastructure to be able to stay in their homes.

This global pandemic has thrown into sharp relief some of the problems in our labour market and in our social security system, so when this is all over we cannot go back to business as usual. If people cannot survive on £94.25 statutory sick pay when there is a global pandemic, they cannot survive on £94.25 at any other time, so we need to look at the waiting time for universal credit and the level of statutory sick pay, and who is eligible for it, and also, frankly, how our labour market works. We have 1 million people on zero-hour contracts and we have almost 5 million people who are self-employed—some choose to be, but many have no choice—so we need to look at how our economy works and who it works for, because whether we are in the midst of a global pandemic or not, there are too many people in our country that our economy, our labour market and, frankly, our society do not work for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that case. I know from my postbag and email account that a number of businesses and individuals affected, who are concerned on health grounds or who have concerns about their employment or financial status, will contact their Member of Parliament. We are not always the first port of call—we are sometimes the last—but we are one where people expect to be able to get a response quickly, so I will look at what further guidance and advice we can give to Members of this House and through local authorities. That point about getting the message out to local authorities may well have been heard, because the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) , is sitting on the Treasury Bench behind me.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) raised the point about SSP and the rebate for employees, and whether that could be for more than two weeks. I understand the point she is making. The current Government advice is for people to self-isolate for seven days or for 14 days if in a household, so we feel that the two-week limit on rebates is a proportionate response. She also asked why SSP is not at the same rate as the living wage. The current system is designed to balance support for the individual with the costs to the employer. As the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work mentioned at the beginning of this debate, we have put £1 billion into the welfare system to provide additional financial security for people, and people on low income can get a top-up, where applicable, through UC.

Numerous hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), raised a point about the private rented sector. Today at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister did say that we will be bringing forward legislation to protect private renters from eviction, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is considering whether we need to go further on that point.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) both raised a point about the consultation on the lower earnings limit. Our immediate concern in dealing with the covid-19 outbreak is to ensure that a suitable financial safety net is in place, and the benefits system does provide that. We estimate that about 60% of people earning below the lower earnings limit are already in receipt of benefits. Our longer-term aim in that consultation was about preserving the link between the employer and the employee so that the individual receives appropriate support upon return to work. That is less relevant when most people are facing short periods away from work. I or the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work would be happy to meet those Members at a later point to discuss that further.

Numerous hon. Members asked why the focus so far has been on businesses and has not just been about individuals. It is so important that organisations are able to carry on trading, which is why the initial focus of Her Majesty’s Treasury has been on supporting business and keeping people in work where it is sensible and appropriate, based on Government guidance, to do so. Ultimately, that protects so many individuals in our society, but of course we are also looking at other measures for workers.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the right hon. Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts all made the point about raising the level of statutory sick pay. We continue to look at other support for workers to see what best mechanisms are available. Thankfully, a period of absence is likely to be short—we believe between seven and 14 days—but we know that some may need extra support, as Members across the Chamber have said. We know that low-paid workers are likely to be receiving additional support through universal credit, for example, and the advantage of universal credit is that it will go up if income falls to the equivalent SSP level.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for addressing the points that hon. Members have made. It is true that people will not have to take that long off to self-isolate for their recovery, but overall, there is likely to be a suppression of demand in the economy for a longer period. The idea that people may be off work for only one or two weeks is fine if that is for health reasons, but if it is because their business is closed or there is just not work available, it is likely to be a lot longer. That is the point that many Members have been trying to make.

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I reassure Members that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that everybody is supported to do the right thing. It is crucial that everyone follows the Government guidance on self-isolation—that has been clear throughout the debate—to protect themselves and others. The measures that we have announced and will put forward in the emergency Bill will support people to do so.

To come directly to the hon. Lady’s point, the Chancellor has announced that in the coming days the Government will go much further to support people’s financial security, working with trade unions—another point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra)—and businesses to urgently develop new forms of employment support to help to protect people’s jobs and incomes through this period. I know that the hon. Lady would like to tempt me to go further but, as I think she will understand, that is somewhat above my pay grade. It is very important, however, that debates such as this take place, because it will have been heard by Her Majesty’s Treasury and will be taken in the spirit of working collaboratively on a cross-party basis. I certainly take those ideas on board, and if Members have further ideas about how we can better support some of the most vulnerable people in our society, my door is always open, and I would welcome them coming forward with those.

The right hon. Member for East Ham, the Chair of the Select Committee, raised the point about the habitual residence test. The test has operational procedures already in place to expedite confirmation of eligibility, but I will take this point away and give it further thought—I had not given it consideration before he raised it and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it further.

We have a safety net that helps people facing hardship if they cannot work or are seeking work. Depending on their individual circumstances, employees can claim universal credit and/or new-style ESA or JSA. As the Prime Minister set out, the Government will keep everything under review. The package that was set out at the Budget and the new measures that were recently announced should give some reassurance that support will be provided to support jobs, income and businesses. As the Chancellor said, we will do “whatever it takes”.

We are in extraordinary times. The coronavirus pandemic is the most serious public health emergency that our nation has faced for a generation. Our policy is to protect lives and fight this virus with everything we have, and the Government have been clear in their approach: we will do whatever it takes to get the nation through these testing times. We will protect people, their jobs and businesses through this period to ensure that we keep as many people as safe as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of Statutory Sick Pay and protection available for all workers.

Personal Independence Payments

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

There are always lessons for anyone who writes regulations. By necessity, benefit regulations are complex, particularly because they need to be very sensitive. We are dealing with vulnerable people. In this case, we are dealing with disabled people who have extra living costs or difficulties with mobility. Inevitably, the framers of regulations try to make them as exact as possible. It is one of the roles of the courts to point out where that has gone wrong. In this case, the courts have said that they were not clear. What the Government are doing is clarifying them. That is to everyone’s benefit.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said that there should be parity of esteem between mental and physical health conditions. By overriding the courts on this matter, 160,000 people who would otherwise have been receiving support through PIP will not now receive it. Did the Prime Minister agree with the decision to overrule the courts and deprive these people of the support they desperately need?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that 160,000 people will not get PIP because of the decision. She knows the details well enough to know that this is not about whether or not people receive PIP. There are two different cases and two descriptors—[Interruption.] She keeps treating me as though I am the Prime Minister. I am grateful, but I am not. I am the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The hon. Lady is simply wrong when she says that this will deny people PIP. As she knows, PIP is given on the basis of the difficulty of living costs or mobility costs. It is not a binary case. Twelve different attributes are considered and each attribute has a large number of descriptors. The court case affects two descriptors. It is not as she paints it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that we are looking very closely at the whole Motability scheme, which, as she knows, is an independent charity. We have formed a working group to look at the various issues that gave rise to it, so we are looking at this very carefully.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my constituent Ms Brookes, who has limited mobility because of a stroke, received a Motability car last year, and that car was a lifeline. Last week, the car was removed from her, and she is now struggling to get her children to school and then to get to work. She is appealing the decision, and I hope she will win, but in the meantime she is finding it incredibly hard to manage her disability as well as her responsibilities as an employee and, more importantly, a mother. Will the Minister look at this case as a matter of urgency to ensure that my constituent gets the help and support she needs?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would be happy to look at the particular case the hon. Lady raises. We are looking at that issue in the Motability scheme, but also at other issues that mean that people are perhaps not able to take up work or travel opportunities. We recently met Motability on these issues and have formed a working group with it to work through them. We hope to be able to make some announcements very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I certainly will. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituency is sharing so fully in the wider benefits of the more flexible, dynamic and innovative labour market that we have created over the past few years. I am sure he has found that for many of his constituents—along with other people throughout the country—work is absolutely the best route out of poverty, and they are benefiting from what has been done in the past. I assure him that we will continue to take such action.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

22. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that a single parent with one child under the age of four, working full time on a minimum wage, will be up to £3,600 a year worse off by 2020. Does the Secretary of State think that the changes in welfare policy are fair, or will he be urging the Chancellor to reverse the cuts in universal credit in this week’s autumn statement?

[Damian Green]

I do think that the changes are fair. I also think that much of the problem with the various pieces of analysis that have been produced by a number of think-tanks is that they do not assess the effects of getting more people into work, or—I mentioned this earlier—ensuring that they make progress when they are in work. Both those actions help people’s family incomes, which is, I think, the way to give them more long-term security and to ensure that they do not just get out of poverty, but stay out of poverty.

Under-occupancy Charge

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

No, there will not. I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that the fair and rational allocation of housing is not only sensible but fair housing policy because, as I have said, it is clearly sensible that people in the social rented sector and those in the private sector should be treated as equally as possible in terms of benefits.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

In 2014, I had the privilege of meeting Paul and Sue Rutherford and their grandson, Warren. That meeting left a profound impact on me. They are heroes in our community, and they should be treated as such by the Government, rather than being penalised with policies such as the bedroom tax. When they were first charged the bedroom tax, they applied for a discretionary housing payment but were not granted it—they got it only on appeal—so the idea that discretionary housing payments are helping all the families is just wrong. After the Court verdict, Paul Rutherford said that he was happy but “exhausted”. He should never have had to go through what he went through. May I ask the Minister how many more families have been illegally charged the bedroom tax, and when will they stop being charged it?

[Damian Green]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady has campaigned very effectively with the Rutherford family for a long time. As she said, they received discretionary housing payments, and such payments are the main tool that we are using to make sure that people are given appropriate help. Obviously we are still looking at the number of people who may be affected as a result of this case, but I can only repeat that we will take steps to make sure that we comply with the Court judgment.

Points of Order

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the right hon. Lady and the House only that I have no knowledge, or way of possessing knowledge, about what is or is not being briefed to a particular newspaper at a given time. To meet her concern head on, the Chancellor will be in the House tomorrow. I understand that he is winding up the debate, but it is customary for a Minister who is winding up a debate to attend most of it, so there will be ample opportunity for colleagues to air their concerns. I hope she will understand if I say that I prefer not to entertain hypothetical situations. I always thought that Lord Whitelaw was very sound when he said that on the whole he preferred not to cross bridges until he came to them.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says that he wants to listen to disabled people. There is a case in the Supreme Court at the moment. Paul and Sue Rutherford, who are constituents of the Secretary of State, won an exemption from the bedroom tax in the High Court, and that case is now in the Supreme Court. If the Secretary of State wants to listen to disabled people, perhaps he could listen to his own constituents and stop fighting tooth and nail against that exemption.

[Mr Speaker]

I wish gently, although not too gently, to reprove the hon. Lady. The shadow Secretary of State made at least a half-hearted attempt to conceal his political observation within the guise of a point of order. There was really no such attempted disguise on the part of the hon. Lady. Her point may or may not have been valid, and it might well relate to a case that is sub judice, but whatever else may be said of it, it is not a matter for the Chair. We will leave it there for today. She has got her point on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

10. What recent representations he has received on the pension arrangements of women aged between 60 and 65.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

14. If his Department will make an assessment of the merits of options for transitional protection for women who will adversely be affected by the acceleration of increases in the state pension age.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Working-age benefits are available for those who have not yet reached state pension age. A concession of £1.1 billion was made, and 81% of those affected will see a delay of one year or less. For the rest, the delay will be no more than 18 months. There are no plans for further transitional arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The initial changes were made in 1995. Until 2010, when the coalition Government came to office, there had been at least 10 Labour Pensions Ministers, one of whom held the position twice, and they made absolutely no effort in terms of communication. I want to put it on the record that, as far as the Pensions Act 2011 is concerned, more than 5 million people were written to, including the women affected, using the addresses we had from HMRC. For those who want more information, it is available on the Government website.

[Rachel Reeves]

Many of the women whom we are talking about are caring for elderly parents or young grandchildren. Many have been working since they were 15 years old, and very few of them have significant pension savings. Will the Minister give those women some hope and look at transitional arrangements, such as allowing women who are affected to draw their pension credit early to help them through this difficult time?

[Mr Vara]

A concession was made in 2011. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would go away and consider matters. He did so, and when he came back he made a concession worth £1.1 billion and reduced the two-year extension to 18 months. In the case of 18 months, 81% of women affected will have to work no more than 12 months.

Amendment of the Law

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his valedictory address this afternoon, and I hope that this will be my last speech from the Opposition Benches.

The last five years have been a tragic and terrible waste for working people in this country, and a shocking record of Tory welfare waste at the Department for Work and Pensions. What a wasted opportunity this Budget was to put in place the better plan that we need. People in my constituency—and in every constituency around the country—have been let down yet again. People are putting in the hours at work but still falling behind with the rent and the bills; they are desperate to work and earn, but are not getting the support they need to find a job. People who cannot work because they are sick or disabled are forced to turn to food banks because the safety net is being pulled away from them.

The people of our country have been put through five years of hardship by this out-of-touch Government, and they are still waiting to feel the benefits of what has been the weakest recovery in more than 100 years. Five wasted years in which working people have put in the hours, day after day, year after year, only to find themselves £1,600 a year worse off than when the Government took office. Five wasted years in which families have been hit by tax and benefit changes that cost the average household more than £1,100 a year, only to find that the Government have borrowed £200 billion more than they said they would and have totally failed to deliver on their central promise to balance the books. Five wasted years in which people have been told “We are all in this together”, while the Government prioritised tax cuts for millionaires and came back time and again to take money from the poorest. Five wasted years in which a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has waxed lyrical about his grand scheme for welfare reform, but all he has delivered is delays, backlogs, write-offs and overspends—a record of Tory welfare waste that we cannot stand for another five years.

Let us remind ourselves of the backdrop to this Budget and of the complacent and self-congratulatory speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. The Chancellor promised in 2010,

“we will bring down the benefits bill.”

Since then we have had five years of cruel and unfair policies: taking money from the pockets of disabled people through the bedroom tax; taking money from working families with restrictions to tax credits; driving hundreds of thousands of people to food banks to feed their families; and increasing the number of children in absolute poverty by 500,000. And yet, at the beginning of this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that

“Real terms benefit spending…is forecast to be almost exactly the same in 2015–16 as it was in 2010–11”.

Why is that, we may ask, after the Government have inflicted so much hardship on so many people who have the least? It is because, the IFS explains, these harsh and unfair policies have been cancelled out by upward pressure on the benefits bill resulting from

“weak wage growth and rising private rents”.

Meanwhile, it says, most of the major structural changes, such as universal credit, have run into problems and are yet to be delivered. This is the reason why, in the past five years, the Government have spent £25 billion more on social security than they said they would in 2010. It is why, yet again, the small print of the Budget reveals another £600 million overspend this year against last year’s forecasts.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some incredibly strong points. On low wage growth, does she agree that we have seen particular challenges in very low paid sectors, such as care? Not only are carers struggling to get by on very low wages and struggling with the cost of living, we are seeing the minimum wage being undermined and some companies possibly not even paying it. Allegations have been made this week about MiHomeCare in Penarth in my constituency. The Government are failing to enforce the minimum wage.

[Rachel Reeves]

We know that still too many people are not even paid the minimum wage, and we know that the number of people paid less than the living wage has increased from 3.4 million to 4.9 million in the past few years. It is also true that we need to do more to ensure the minimum wage is always enforced, which is why we have said we would increase fines for non-payment to £50,000 and why we would give more powers to local authorities to ensure that the minimum wage is always paid.

[Mr Robinson]

Will my hon. Friend confirm what the Secretary of State failed to confirm? What she has clearly exposed this afternoon, supported by an earlier intervention, is that there have been 1.8 million zero-hours contracts in the past five years. As a consequence, tax and national insurance receipts are, cumulatively, £100 billion below the Government’s own projections. That is at the heart of the problem.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right. Income tax and national insurance receipts have fallen short of forecasts by a staggering £97 billion in the life of this Parliament. As he makes clear, too many people are working on zero-hours contracts or in very low-paid jobs where they just cannot make ends meet.

[Mr Sheerman]

As a fellow Yorkshire Member of Parliament, does my hon. Friend share my anger that despite all this bland talk about the success of the economy and the success of the welfare system when it is actually being destroyed, in my town—and probably in hers—30% of people working are on low wages? It is women and families with children who are being particularly hard hit.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the experience of people in his Huddersfield constituency. People in Huddersfield, Yorkshire and around the country will, I think, be slightly shocked by the degree of complacency from the Secretary of State today and from the Chancellor last week, when for them and their families things are very often getting harder, not easier.

The Government have failed to control social security spending, as they promised they would, because they have failed to tackle the true causes of rising welfare spending, such as low pay and the lack of affordable housing, and because they have failed to deliver the flagship reforms the Secretary of State made such great claims for five years ago. What a tragic waste of time, talent and taxpayers’ money: wasting the precious time of sick and disabled people forced to wait for months on end for the support they so desperately need; wasting the talents of people who are not getting the help they need to get into work, or who are stuck in low-paid insecure jobs that my hon. Friends have spoken of that do not make the most of their potential; and wasting money on IT systems that do not work, assessment and appeals procedures that have descended into chaos, and soaring spending on in-work benefits because of this Government’s failure to build an economy that actually rewards hard work.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady talks about what she calls soaring benefit costs. Does she accept that under her Government not only did in-work benefits rise by more than 50%, but housing benefit for those out of work rose by 70%? In other words, both in-work and out-of-work housing benefit claims rose dramatically under her Government.

[Rachel Reeves]

Under the last two Conservative Governments, unemployment reached 2.5 million. There was a global financial crisis during the period of the last Labour Government, and as a result, unemployment rose, but it has risen even further under this Government, from 1.5 million, when Labour left office, to 1.7 million in February 2012. The OBR’s Budget forecast last week showed a £600 million increase in the forecast for social security spending in just one year, and since 2010, the Government have spent £25 billion more on social security than they set out to spend.

Under the Government, the number of people paid less than the living wage has soared by 44%, while house building has fallen to its lowest levels since the 1920s. It is for those reasons that housing benefit spending—the second-largest area of DWP spending, after pensions—was more than £2 billion higher in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. It was due largely to the rocketing numbers of working people not paid enough to cover their rent. In this Parliament, the Secretary of State has spent £1.8 billion more than he planned on housing benefit for working people and, on current Government forecasts, the cost of working people’s rising reliance on housing benefit to pay their rent will reach £14 billion by the end of the decade, if left unchecked—£488 for every household in the country.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I think there is some common ground between us, particularly on zero-hours contracts for women who choose to work part time, but could the hon. Lady not congratulate the Government on regulating part-time zero-hours contracts, especially given that the Office for National Statistics has knocked the figures Labour used? This is often something that working mothers choose.

[Rachel Reeves]

According to the ONS, the number of zero-hours contracts has increased from 1.4 million to 1.8 million in the last year. This is a huge challenge for working mothers and others. We want to ban the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts so that if someone does regular hours, they will be offered a regular contract and so that their hours cannot be cancelled at the last minute without compensation. If we make those changes, I hope we can stem the increase in the number of zero-hours contracts, giving more people the security of paid work they know will happen week after week.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to give an example from the social care sector to add to that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I recently spoke to a constituent working in the care sector whose job decayed over the years after an agency took over the firm she worked for, to the point where, instead of working the 35 to 40 hours a week she wanted, she was lucky if she got 20 hours a week, and the agency constantly cancelled at short notice. She could not manage from week to week with that. Sadly that is the care industry these days.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about something she knows a lot about. The number of zero-hours contracts in the social care sector, and more widely across the economy, has grown. It is incredibly difficult to plan from week to week if someone does not know how much money they will take home or whether they can afford to pay the rent and bills and put food on the table. That is why more people in work are having to rely on food banks to make ends meet.

I move now to key reforms that have spun out of control under the Government. Universal credit was supposed to cut fraud and make work pay, but after five wasted years of this Government and more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money spent, it is being paid to just 41,000 of the 1 million people who were supposed to be receiving it last April. The National Audit Office has identified a fortress mentality and a “good news” reporting culture in the Department as key factors behind this fiasco. Last summer, the Secretary of State promised an accelerated roll-out plan, but we have yet to see much evidence of it—things could not be going much slower.

The Work programme—another failed programme—was the Government’s belated and inadequate replacement for the future jobs fund they scrapped, but it has failed to tackle long-term unemployment. Indeed, the number of long-term unemployed people has risen by a staggering 49% since 2010. It still sends more people back to sign on at the jobcentre after two years than it places in a job and has made no impact on the disadvantaged and high-risk unemployment faced by over-50s and disabled people. The introduction of personal independence payments has also been a complete and utter shambles, leaving sick and disabled people waiting months on end for support, while total spending has gone over budget by more than £2 billion. The roll-out of employment and support allowance was supposed to deliver big savings by helping more disabled people into work, but just 8% of people on ESA have been helped into work by the Work programme. Furthermore, analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that the Secretary of State has spent £8.6 billion more than he said he would on ESA. What a mess and what a waste—five years of Tory welfare waste we needed this Budget to put an end to.



The Budget was a wasted opportunity. We needed a better plan to make work pay and get social security spending under control, but instead the report of the independent OBR confirmed that all we could expect from the Government in the future was more of the same: more unplanned spending on social security and more failure to deliver promised savings on disability and sickness benefits, with the OBR noting on page 143 that

“projected spending on incapacity benefits, DLA and PIP is up by £0.2 billion a year on average between 2014-15 and 2019-20”;

more failure to deliver promised savings on fraud, with the OBR reporting on page 191 that it had

“revised down the savings associated with tax credits operational measures. These increase spending by £0.2 billion a year between 2015-16 and 2019-20”;

and more of the “good news” culture on welfare reform, with the OBR noting on page 192 that

“we have noted a history of optimism bias relating to reforms to incapacity benefits, disability benefits and universal credit.”

“Optimism bias” is a polite way of saying that we cannot trust a word the Government say.

In a moment of optimism bias, the Secretary of State promised that 1 million people would be on universal credit by April 2014, but one year on, fewer than 41,000 people are claiming it. In another moment of optimism bias, he promised that universal credit would be on time and on budget, but with delay after delay and millions of pounds written off, everyone knows that it is neither on time nor on budget. In yet another case of the Government’s optimism bias, they promised to back carers but then forced 60,000 households with carers to pay the bedroom tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned. Was it not optimism bias that led the Chancellor to promise to reduce the benefit bill, only for the Government to spend £25 billion more on social security than they set out to spend? And perhaps optimism bias is why the Chancellor broke his promise to clear the deficit by the end of this Parliament.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady’s muddled jobs guarantee an example of optimism bias?

[Rachel Reeves]

Labour’s jobs guarantee would help 150,000 people get into work in the first year of a Labour Government. I am optimistic that we can transform the lives of young people and the long-term unemployed, unlike this Government, who have left them on benefits. Funded by a repeat of the bank bonus tax they abolished and by restricting pensions tax relief to 20% for people earning more than £150,000 a year, our compulsory jobs guarantee will help young people who have been unemployed for a year and older people out of work for two years. Should that not be our priority, rather than tax cuts for bankers?

The Budget also reforms the rules governing pensions and annuities. The Opposition have long called on the Government to sort out the failing pensions and annuities markets, which result in too many hard-working savers finding their retirement pots eroded by excessive fees and poor-value products. So we welcome more freedom for savers to choose how to access their money and plan their retirement. Just as with last year’s announcement, we find the same failure to ensure that savers and pensioners have the support and protection they need to secure a decent and reliable income and to avoid the rip-offs that are already threatening to create another mis-selling crisis.

Just this weekend, we learned that with fewer than two weeks before the reforms announced in last year’s Budget come into effect, there is still no telephone number for the promised advice service, Pension Wise, leaving hundreds of thousands of savers exposed to scams that could have a devastating effect on their retirement plans. Instead, we have the ridiculous spectacle of the Pensions Minister trying to wash his hands of the responsibility by warning of the rip-offs that will result—without doing a single thing properly to protect people from those risks.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Any decisions about annuities are extremely complex decisions to take. Failing to get the advice lines up and running is not just a fault on the part of this Government, it is negligent. It is negligent to allow people this freedom without providing them with any back-up to help them make the right decision. What is more, there is no thought given to the remedies if the decision they take is wrong.

[Rachel Reeves]

When the Chancellor spoke in the 2014 Budget he said that people would be given “advice”, which was then watered down to “guidance”. Now, with two weeks to go, we know that nobody has received this guidance, yet people will be making irreversible decisions about their retirement income.

This Budget has been more of the same from the same old Tories: more overspends, delays and missed targets on social security; and more big promises for savers and pensioners that are not backed up with the support and the protections we need to make these reforms work.

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The hon. Lady is concerned, as we are, to make sure that consumers get good value. She has proposed a cap on charges for these new pension products. Presumably, she thinks the cap should come in straight away. What should it be?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have said that there should be a cap on fees and charges—not just for the annuities products, but for the new drawdown products. We think it should be at the same level as the Government have set out, but then reduced over time. In that way, we will ensure that savers get value for money. Unless we do that, more people will be ripped off. Unfortunately, despite all the Government’s rhetoric, they have not taken action to protect people’s retirement incomes.

What we have heard from the Secretary of State today is the same complacency and self-congratulation. Yes, of course we welcome any fall in unemployment, but it was this Government who allowed unemployment to soar to record levels in the first place, peaking three years ago in February 2012 at 1.7 million. Under this Government, the number of long-term unemployed, abandoned to a life on the dole, has risen by 49%. That is why Labour will have a compulsory jobs guarantee.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Lady made a number of comments about the prices and charges that should be levied on pensions. Will she confirm that the price cap that has been levied on auto- enrolment pensions is, in fact, half that of the amount levied on stakeholder pensions when her Government were in power?

[Rachel Reeves]

We introduced a cap on charges for stakeholder pensions and the automatic enrolment brought in policies for which Labour had already legislated. We are proud of automatic enrolment, but we disagree with the changes that this Government introduced, which mean fewer people are benefiting from automatic enrolment —1.5 million fewer, two thirds of them women. That is a real lost opportunity to ensure that those people who should be saving are actually saving.

What this Secretary of State and the Government he speaks for simply do not understand is that their failure to make work pay and to deliver a recovery that raises living standards for all is the root cause of their failure to control social security spending and balance the books as they promised. They have spent £25 billion more than they planned and their receipts from income tax and national insurance have, as has been pointed out, fallen short of forecasts by a staggering £97 billion over the life of this Parliament.

It is because of that failure that, in order to deliver his objective of a large surplus in the next Parliament, the Chancellor has now committed to even deeper spending cuts over the next three years than we have seen over the past five years. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that these plans will mean

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years”,

and

“a sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) have highlighted the threat this poses to police, defence and social care. Is it not the truth that the Chancellor’s extreme fiscal plan can be delivered only by putting our NHS at risk or imposing yet another Tory rise in VAT? Although it is hard to see how this Government can make the extra £12 billion-worth of cuts to social security spending when they have failed to deliver any savings in social security so far, these cuts could not be delivered without inflicting unimaginable hardship on low-paid workers, children in poverty, disabled people or carers.

So for this Government, this empty Budget will be a fitting epitaph. What of this Secretary of State who wanted to take his place in history as the compassionate Conservative who reformed welfare? His time is up and his record is clear: major reforms undelivered or descending into costly chaos; food banks in every town and child poverty back on the rise; more and more spending on in-work benefits as more and more working people find their wages do not cover the rent. No wonder the OBR says that the Government are guilty of “optimism bias”.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One important factor in looking at low pay, child poverty and similar issues is that many people’s employment rights are eroded. We need only to look at City Link in Coventry to see that more than 1,000 people could not even get any redundancy pay because of the erosion of employment laws under this Government. That only adds to the poverty.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, this Government have made it harder for people to access justice, too, through the cuts they have made there.

We have had five years of Tory welfare waste—and it is high time we put it behind us. The Secretary of State wanted universal credit to be his legacy, but it is being paid to less than 4% of those who were supposed to be receiving it a year ago. Instead, this Secretary of State will be remembered for the hundreds of thousands of disabled people hit by the bedroom tax; for the 1 million people forced to resort to a food bank to feed their families last year; for the 3 million low-paid working families who have been hit by this Government’s cuts to tax credits. We cannot afford another five years of this Tory Government.

This could have been a Budget to make work pay, with a plan to raise the national minimum wage to £8 an hour and measures to promote and incentivise the living wage. This could have been a Budget for mums and dads who want to work and earn more, with 25 hours a week of free child care for all working parents of three and four-year-olds and guaranteed wrap-around care for those with children at primary school. This could have been a Budget that gave relief to working families on low incomes, by scrapping the ill-conceived and unfair married couples tax allowance and using the money to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax instead. This could have been a Budget to create more of the productive, well-paid jobs we need by backing entrepreneurs, small businesses and the growth industries of the future, with a cut to business rates, a proper British investment bank, and new powers devolved to every city and county region across the country.

This could have been a Budget to secure our NHS for the future, with a tax on properties worth more than £2 million to pay for the thousands more doctors, nurses, midwives and home care workers that our health service desperately needs. This could have been a Budget that began to right the wrongs of the past five years, by tackling the tax loopholes and reversing the tax giveaways that have benefited a few and by cancelling the cruel and unfair bedroom tax that is hitting disabled people so hard. All that is not just the Budget that this could have been; it is the Labour Budget that we can have and the Labour Budget that we will have if we elect a Labour Government in just 45 days’ time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—