THE TORIES’ SMEAR ANALYSIS OF LABOUR PARTY POLICYThe Scorecard for 2015/2016

5th January 2015

1  

   

Foreword The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said Labour has the most cautious approach of all the parties and has promised no net giveaways. Labour has made no unfunded spending or tax commitments. In contrast to that cautious approach, today’s dodgy Tory dossier is riddled with untruths and errors on every page. It is not an impartial exercise but a political smear based on false assumptions made by Tory advisers, including dozens of claims which are not even Labour’s policies. Their smears aim to hide the fact that the Tories have made over £7 billion a year of unfunded tax promises. George Osborne again failed to explain today how they would be paid for. The public still do not know if it will be another VAT rise, even deeper cuts to public services or both.

If the Tories wanted an honest debate they would stop blocking our proposal to allow the OBR to independently audit the manifestos of the main parties. And they would have allowed the Treasury to involve Labour in the production of proper costings. It is clear the Tories want to carry on spreading smears about Labour while avoiding independent scrutiny of their own plans. George Osborne claimed his plan is working. But there is nothing competent about Tory policies that leave working people worse off and lead to over £200 billion more borrowing than planned. Labour will cut the deficit every year and balance the books in a tough but fair way, instead of taking Britain back to public spending as a share of national income last seen in the 1930s. Ed Balls

2  

   

Introduction Today the Tories tried to use smears to argue that Labour had unfunded spending plans. But this document shows that this has back fired:

• Smears: Their dossier was full of basic inaccuracies and untruths about what Labour’s policies are.

• Tory numbers do not add up: George Osborne couldn’t say how his own plans for tax cuts or money for the NHS would be funded

The truth is that Labour is the only party to have committed to having no unfunded commitments in our manifesto. Contents:

• Tory smears • Tory numbers do not add up • Labour’s fully funded plans • Annex: Dossier error details

3  

   

Tory smears Today’s Tory dodgy dossier is full of errors. The methodology used is flawed and it is full of errors and smears that misrepresent Labour policy. Flawed methodology Examples of the flawed methodology that underpin this so called “A Cost Analysis of Labour Party Policy” include: 2015/16 The dossier says that it relates to the fiscal year 2015/16 and includes full year costings of measures. But the fiscal year will have started before the general election even takes places. Even more misleadingly, the Tories simply assume that fully funded spending plans are not funded by claiming that spending would start before revenue raising measures have been implemented. They have, for example, provided a cost for our GP access guarantee in 2015/16 despite no commitment from us on introducing it within that year, while they have taken no account of our funding of additional GPs from a Mansion Tax. Non-Treasury sources for the costings: In the past the Conservatives have made great claims that their attacks on Labour have been based on independent Treasury costings – this is not the case with the majority of this document. Less than half (45%) of the assumptions on new spending are based on HM Treasury Opposition costings. In many cases they have failed to explain why these alternative sources have been used. For example, on one occasion the Conservatives drawn on a government review from 2008 to bizarrely claim that Labour cannot make savings announced in December 2014. Treasury costings have been done on the basis of Tory advisers’ assumptions Almost all of the Treasury costings that have been released today that are used in the Tory dossier are based entirely or to a significant degree on assumptions made by Conservative Special Advisers. In many cases they bear no resemblance to Labour policy.

4  

   

Errors and smears As well as being based on a flawed methodology, a detailed line by line analysis of the Tory dossier (included in the annex to this document) shows a litany of errors and smears. The truth is that our manifesto will contain no unfunded tax or spending commitments, and this analysis shows that unlike the Tories we are delivering on that promise. Examples of errors and smears include: Pretending Labour has committed to reverse Tory cuts

 The dossier says we will reverse over £5 billion of cuts the Tories have made in 2015/16, even though they produce no evidence of Labour spokespeople promising to reverse those cuts. And they have ignored the fact that we have explicitly said that we will not reverse cuts in 2015/16:

“We won’t be able to reverse all the spending cuts and tax rises that the Tories have pushed through. We will have to govern with less money, which means the next Labour government will have to make cuts too.... The government’s day-to-day spending totals for 2015/16 will be our starting point. There will be no more borrowing for day-to-day spending. Any changes to the current spending plans for that year will be fully-funded and set out in advance in our manifesto.” Ed Balls, speech to Fabian Society Annual Conference, 24 January 2014

An example of the wild assertions in this area is that they say that a commitment to "take steps to promote cycling by making it safer and more accessible" amounts to a specific £63 million spending commitment to cancel the abolition of Cycling England Towns and Cities initiatives - this is just nonsense. Being plain wrong about what is our policy In several cases the Tory dossier states that something is a Labour policy when it is not. Examples include:

• The dossier claims we are committed to ban food waste from landfill. But it is based on an out of date 2013 quote. This is not Labour's policy - it was not agreed at Labour's National Policy Forum in July 2014, is not in the NPF document and will not be in our manifesto.

• The dossier says Labour has committed to a major expansion of University Technical Colleges with a further 100. But this is a recommendation from Andrew Adonis’ Growth Review and is not Labour Party policy and will not be in our manifesto.  

5  

   

Making misleading assumptions about Labour policies Although their dossier is not open about it, many of the assumptions underpinning these costings have been made by Tory special advisers. Indeed the Treasury costing documents repeatedly state that special advisers have instructed officials to provide a costing on the basis of assumptions they have provided that bear no resemblance to Labour policy. Examples include:

• Labour has set out a plan to guarantee a job for every young person out of work for a year. We have provided detail on how it would work and released House Of Commons Library figures on what it would cost. Tory special advisers ignored that costing and instead instructed officials to cost it on the basis of the Future Jobs Fund, a programme that operated under the previous Labour Government.

• In looking at costs for additional contributory jobseeker’s allowance civil servants have been told to assume ‘that claimants would be eligible for the higher rate of JSA ( C) for six months, although not all claims last that long’. This is a ridiculous assumption to make, and ignores the fact that Labour have committed to introducing a higher contributory rate of JSA on a cost-neutral basis.

Including costings for policies that they have announced themselves In a particularly extreme example of how flawed their analysis is, the Tory dossier also tries to attack Labour for costs associated with policies the Tories claim to have announced themselves. For example:

• They say it will cost £3.7 billion to give the Green Investment Bank borrowing powers - but it is their policy to give it borrowing powers. In his 2011 Budget speech, George Osborne said that "from 2015-16, and subject to our overall debt target being met, we will allow the Green Investment Bank to borrow and invest in a better future".

• They attack Labour for proposing that early release should be restricted for those who refuse to pay back profits from crime, on the very day their own Serious Crime bill, including just such restrictions on early release, has its second reading in the House of Commons.

Wrong about how much our revenue raisers would bring in They have made assumptions to minimise the revenue which they claim can be raised. For example:

• Claiming that measures which we have said we will deliver, and they have subsequently said that they are just consulting on whether to introduce, will not raise any revenue. This is despite the fact they have neither committed to introducing them nor raised any revenue from them, such as introducing a levy on tobacco companies.

6  

   

• Using the assumptions of Tory advisers that tax changes will only come into force later in the Parliament, such as the restriction to pension tax relief for top earners.

7  

   

Tory numbers do not add up • It is the Conservative Party, not Labour, which has questions to answer about its

spending plans. The Tories have set out multi-billion pound commitments with no indication of where the money to pay for them will come from.

Unfunded tax promises • In his speech to Conservative Party Conference last year David Cameron made two

unfunded tax promises for the next Parliament. • Increasing the Personal Allowance to £12,500 • Increasing the higher rate threshold to £50,000

• The Treasury has said that the combined cost of these policies, if introduced at the

end of the Parliament, is £7.2 billion.

“The tax cuts being proposed by David Cameron would cost around £7.2bn, the Treasury has said.” BBC News, 1 October 2014 David Cameron has held out the prospect that the tax cuts he announced at his party’s conference earlier this week could be implemented shortly after the next election. The prime minister, speaking during his trip to Cyprus and Afghanistan, indicated that the first moves could happen before the deficit is wiped out in 2017-18 and even as early as the first budget after the country goes to the polls in May. There had been an expectation that the £7bn tax cuts Cameron announced in Birmingham on Wednesday, including raising the 40p threshold to £50,000, might not occur until there is no longer a budget deficit, or even until the final year of the parliament. But speaking to reporters in Kabul Cameron said: “I think what we’ve shown in the last parliament is that it’s perfectly possible, if you manage the nation’s finances wisely, to deliver tax reductions at the same time as making savings and efficiencies. “So in the last parliament we had to make something like £100bn of [spending] cuts but at the same time as that we actually made tax cuts in terms of the personal allowance of £9bn so in a parliament.” Guardian, 3 October 2014

• According to the House of Commons Library, delivering these tax cuts earlier in the

Parliament would be even more expensive – they would cost £16 billion a year if introduced in 2016-17. The Tories have yet to say how they will pay for these tax policies – measures which will cost the Exchequer the equivalent of a substantial increase in VAT.

• At 12.33pm in today’s press conference George Osborne was asked how these tax

promises would be funded. He refused to give an answer.

8  

   

Unfunded NHS promises • In the 2014 Autumn Statement, George Osborne claimed to be spending an

additional £1.2 billion on the NHS. But this is not new money – it was allocated from the Government’s Reserve.

• The money from the Reserve will also only exist in 2015-16. In future years, the

pledge is unfunded and would require cuts to other departments.

HM Treasury, Autumn Statement 2014, December 2014, p.65

Other commitments • The Tories have also pledged support for other multi-billion pound policies without

saying where the money will come from. Last year David Cameron pledged support for HS3, which he estimated could cost up to £7 billion.

“Asked how much it would cost, Cameron said: ‘There will be a proper report in March which will put a cost on the scheme, but to give you an estimate, if HS3 were to cost mile-per-mile as HS2 we would be looking at an investment of between £6bn and £7bn. I believe it is affordable’.” The Guardian, 27 October 2014

• And David Cameron has also said he would like to increase the inheritance tax threshold – without saying how he will pay for it. Increasing it to £1 million – the Tories’ previous policy – would cost “billions”.

“The last government allowed you to pass it between husband and wife, so the effective threshold was £650,000, but I have got ambitions and would like to see that go further.” David Cameron, Financial Times, 15 October 2014 “Lifting the threshold for the 40 per cent levy all the way to £1m could cost billions of pounds a year at a time when the government is trying to cut a still substantial deficit.” Financial Times, 15 October 2014

9  

   

Labour’s fully funded plans

• As the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, Labour has been the most cautious of the three main parties and has not made unfunded commitments.

“Of the main parties, Labour has perhaps been the most cautious of the three in that, at least on the basis of its own costings, it appears to have managed not to announce an overall net giveaway. Just looking at tax and social security spending policies, Labour has announced a small net takeaway of 0.1% of national income.” Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Fiscal Aims and Austerity: The Parties’ Plans Compared’, December 2014, p.21

• Ed Miliband stated clearly last month that Labour will only make commitments in our

manifesto that are fully funded.

"We will only make commitments in our manifesto that are properly funded. "Not commitments that depend on extra borrowing. "That’s why we’ve explained how we will pay for every policy that we’ve put forward: costed, credible and funded." Ed Miliband speech, 11 December 2014

• Our first pledge of the election campaign, which will appear on our 2015 pledge

card, made this clear.

“We will build a strong economic foundation and balance the books. We will cut the deficit every year while securing the future of the NHS. None of our manifesto commitments require additional borrowing.” Labour press release, 11 December 2014

• Labour has called for the Office for Budget Responsibility to be allowed to

independently audit every spending and tax commitment in the manifestos of the main political parties.

“The British people rightly want to know that the sums add up. “So we will go one step further and ask the independent Office for Budget Responsibility – the watchdog set up by this government – to independently audit the costings of every individual spending and tax measure in Labour's manifesto at the next election.” Ed Balls, speech to Labour Party Conference, 23 September 2013

• This proposal is supported by the Tory Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, who

said it could “enhance the quality of public debate”.

“OBR involvement has merit if it can enhance the quality of public debate on tax and spend.” Andrew Tyrie MP, Daily Mail, 14 October 2013

• But George Osborne himself refuses to agree to independent audits.

10  

 

“Sources close to George Osborne said he will oppose a draft amendment to the law to allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to audit commitments in the manifestos of the main political parties.” Daily Mail, 14 October 2013

• When pressed on this issue at the Conservative Press Conference, by journalists

from The Times and Channel Five News, George Osborne repeatedly evaded the issue.

• George Osborne’s failure to answer this question reveals the truth: he does not want

to allow independent analysis, preferring instead to put Treasury officials in an impossible position of having to use blatantly false assumptions provided by Conservative advisers.

11  

 

Annex: Dossier error details Claimed New Spending Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Equal numbers of apprenticeships and university entries by 2025 Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming this national goal would cost money in 2015, even though the goal is for 2025. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £710 million. Reality Ed Miliband made clear in his speech to Labour Party Conference, September 2014, that this is a national goal for 2025, not a policy for immediate implementation. http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/2014-labour-conference-speech Apprenticeships must be at least 2 years and at level 3 or above, and technical apprenticeships to be a minimum of three years Summary Requiring that all apprenticeships should last a minimum of two years and should be level-three qualifications. The Tories claim this would cost £680m in 2015-16 but in reality it would not cost any additional money. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy would cost £680m in 2015-16. Reality This policy does not cost money because it makes no commitment on the total number of apprentices. It is about the quality of apprenticeships. Our policy is about requiring that short courses that do not meet a minimum standard are not misleadingly branded as apprenticeships. Government procurement and apprenticeships Summary Ensuring the provision of high quality apprenticeships is a prerequisite for any bid for significant government contracts. The Tories claim this would cost £67m in 2015-16 but in reality it would not cost any additional money on procurement over existing procurement budgets. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy would cost the Exchequer £67 million in 2015-16. The Treasury costing assumes that any higher costs to the employer, resulting from employing more apprentices, are passed through to the exchequer because these costs will raise the cost of providing the contract. Reality This policy would not lead to any additional spending on procurement over existing procurement budgets. Instead, this policy is about changing the requirements on the companies ahead of bidding for contracts and changing the way companies recruit rather than increasing costs. Borrowing powers for the Green Investment Bank Summary The Tories claim that giving the Green Investment Bank borrowing powers would cost £3.7

12  

 

billion in 2015-16. It ignores the fact the Tories themselves said they would give the GIB borrowing powers. Tory claim about our policy The Tories wrongly claim this policy would cost an additional £3.7 billion in 2015-16. They assume that the GIB is given borrowing powers and is able to take on borrowing costs that in 2015/16 are three times the level of capital which is currently assigned to it. Reality The Tory dossier states that “The Labour Party have not specified within what timescale the Green Investment Bank would use these new borrowing powers and deploy the additional investment.” The Tory dossier ignores the fact that in Budget 2011 the Government committed to give the GIB borrowing powers in 2015-16. The reason they are no longer committed to doing this is because they have failed to meet their target to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP by then. “I can also confirm today that from 2015-16, and subject to our overall debt target being met, we will allow the Green Investment Bank to borrow and invest in a better future.” George Osborne, Budget 2011 statement, 23 March 2011, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_speech.htm Major expansion of University Technical Colleges Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s policy to expand University Technical Colleges will cost £1.419bn by 2025/26. This costing is wrong as the Government has said itself that it would open more UTCs and we support this policy since it will take place within existing capital budgets. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of creating 100 new University Technical Colleges, which will cost £1.419bn by 2025/26. Reality This costing is wrong. The Government has itself said that it would open more UTCs. We support this policy since it will take place within existing capital budgets. What the Government have costed is an idea proposed in the Adonis Review, which does not constitute Labour Party policy.

The 7 new UTC projects approved today bring the total to 57 UTCs open or in development. George Osborne said: “University technical colleges are a key part of the government’s long term economic plan because they help ensure young people have the right skills so they can maximise their potential.” DfE/HM Treasury, 5 August 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-technical-schools-provide-job-boost-for-young-people

“Our plan says every child should have access to the skills and experiences they need to help them get on in life….New University Technical Colleges and studio schools giving young people a better chance than ever of developing a specialism that will help build a rewarding career.” Nicky Morgan speech to Conservative Party Conference, 2014, http://press.conservatives.com/post/98807929855/nicky-morgan-speech-to-conservative-party 2011-12: Additional funding for University Technical Colleges = £125.9 million DfE,  Consolidated Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13, p12,

13  

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275186/DFE_Group_Consolidated_12-13_ARA.pdf

Create a British Investment Bank and local and regional business banks Summary The policy would create a British Investment Bank, along with a network of local and regional business banks with a responsibility to boost lending in their area. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy would cost £200m in 2015-16. They claim it is unfunded because there is “uncertainty around the level and timing of any increased revenue from annual licence fees”, which is how Labour would capitalise the BIB. Reality Labour has said that we would use increased revenue from annual spectrum licence fees to support a proper British Investment Bank. When the fees are brought in we will use them in this way. We have not committed to any additional funding. Establish a UK Small Business Administration Summary This policy would establish a UK Small Business Administration. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy will cost £83m in 2015-16. Reality This is not an official Treasury costing and is incorrect. The SBA will not be a new quango and will be funded by a reallocation of existing resources. Inquiry into construction industry blacklisting. Summary This policy would launch an inquiry into blacklisting in the construction industry if the current Government refuses to do so. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy will cost £6m in 2015-16. Reality This is not an official Treasury costing. The inquiry would be funded from within existing resources. Reverse the doubling of the unfair dismissal qualification period Summary The Tories claim this policy would reverse the doubling of the unfair dismissal qualification period. However we have not committed to this. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim this policy will cost £2m in 2015-16. Reality This is not our policy – we have not committed to reversing the doubling of the unfair dismissal qualification period. Cabinet Office

14  

 

Restore Funding for TUC Education / UnionLearn Summary The Tories claim that we will increase funding for UnionLearn, but the source they use simply does not say this. Tory claim about our policy The Tories say that a commitment to support UnionLearn for the Duration of the Parliament means that we will increase its funding from £15.3 billion to £21.5 billion. Reality This is a misrepresentation of Labour’s policy. The source used by the Tories makes no specific reference to the funding of Union Learn. Labour has made no unfunded spending commitments and we will include no unfunded commitments in our manifesto. Reformed Senate of the Nations Summary The Tories say that Labour’s plan for a Senate of the Nations [sic] will not cost any money in 2015/16. We agree. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, this policy would cost nothing in 2015/16 but new election costs would be £85.7 billion. Reality We agree that this has no cost in the first year of the next Parliament. We have not set out details of how a reformed Senate of the Nations and Regions would work. We will not make any unfunded spending commitments in our manifesto. Department for Communities and Local Government Local Public Accounts Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that it would cost money for local authorities to hold themselves to account. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £49 million. Reality Local authorities run their own accountability mechanisms. This policy means greater powers for existing council committees and reformed committees, not new committees. Department for Energy and Climate Change One million interest free Green Deal loans Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that this policy would require additional money. Tory claim about our policy They claim this would cost £27 million. Reality We've been clear that our energy efficiency package would take place within existing budgets that have not yet been allocated and would not cost any additional money. As part of the Autumn Statement in December 2013, £450 million was made available to

15  

 

support domestic installation of energy efficiency measures, £300 million of which was budgeted for the next Parliament but not yet allocated. We would use these funds to pay for this policy. An End to Cold Homes: Labour’s energy efficiency green paper, 10 November 2014, p. 26-27, http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-review/policy-review/an-end-to-cold-homes-labour-s-energy-efficiency-green-paper Half a million free home energy reports a year Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that this policy would require additional money. Tory claim about our policy They claim this would cost £60 million. Reality This would take place within existing programme budgets. There is currently an obligation on energy companies in Great Britain to deliver energy efficiency improvements. This is known as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). Companies recoup the costs via consumers’ bills – it is not funded by Government. The annual budget is currently estimated to be between £905 and £940 million a year. Our Green Paper on energy efficiency proposes using a proportion of this levy to fund half a million free personalised home energy reports a year. As this is funded by the existing levy on energy companies, it does not require any spending from Government. “3.5 Based on the Government’s current estimate of the cost of an energy efficiency assessment we estimate that the cost of providing half a million free personalised home energy reports a year will be approximately £80 million. We propose that this is paid for out of the existing budget of £940 million funded through the Energy Company Obligation in Great Britain.” An End to Cold Homes - Labour's energy efficiency green paper, November 2014 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-review/policy-review/an-end-to-cold-homes-labour-s-energy-efficiency-green-paper Establish an Energy Security Board Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s policy of establishing an Energy Security Board will cost £2m. But the Board will bring together existing functions that are currently split between different bodies. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy to establish an Energy Security Board, which will cost £2m. Reality This costing is wrong. As we have made clear, we will reform existing energy market structures, replacing Ofgem with a new regulator and ending duplication between DECC, Ofgem and the National Grid. The Energy Security Board will supply a clearer institutional focus as part of this new framework, bringing together responsibilities that are currently split between different bodies. Our manifesto will include no unfunded commitments. Currently no single institution has responsibility for establishing what our future capacity needs are and

16  

 

developing a strategy for meeting them. This is divided up between DECC, Ofgem and the systems operator within the National Grid. Given the pressures on our existing generation capacity, there is an urgent need to create a ‘guiding mind’ that can coordinate the system operator and infrastructure planner with the strategic direction set by the Secretary of State on a long term basis. Powering Britain: One Nation Labour’s plan to reset the energy market, page 26, http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-review/energy-green-paper Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ban food waste from landfill Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that Labour has committed to banning food waste from landfill. This is not our policy. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour will be spending £477m a year on this. Reality This is not a manifesto commitment. This policy was discussed at an earlier stage of the parliament, but was not agreed at the National Policy Forum last July and does not appear in the NPF document. Labour Party National Policy Forum Report 2014, July 2014 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/NPF_Annual_Report_2014.pdf Department for Education Requiring school and FE teachers to become qualified Summary The Tories claim that requiring school and FE teachers to become qualified would cost £177m in 2015/16. Yet this costing is wrong, with the Government previously claiming that allowing unqualified teachers into schools is “unrelated to savings”. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of requiring school and FE teachers to become qualified, which will cost £177m in 2015/16. Reality This costing is wrong. We would manage this within existing budgets, just as the last Labour Government did. Our policy would ensure that over time FE lecturers would train in greater numbers, it is wrong to assume that it would be any specific number in 2015-16. On school teachers, the Government has itself claimed that removing the requirement on teachers to get qualified is unrelated to savings.    

A spokeswoman for the Department for Education said: "It is simply not true to claim that this is about depressing costs. This is about raising standards.” BBC News, 31 March 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21988209

“Since 1 September 2012, instructors can be employed permanently and there is no longer a requirement for school leaders to consider a qualified teacher first when they feel that an instructor would be better suited to the position. Since 27 July 2012, mainstream and alternate provision academies can employ teaching staff without the automatic requirement for them to have QTS. The funding agreements for all new academies states that they can employ teaching staff whom they deem suitably qualified whether or not they have QTS. Existing academies can

17  

 

request that their funding agreements be changed to include the same freedom if they wish. Free schools already had the flexibility to employ suitably qualified professionals who do not already possess QTS.” David Laws, Hansard, 4 July 2013, c746W http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-07-04c.162752.h&s=unqualified+teachers+proportion#g162752.q0

 Director of School Standards in every local area Summary The Tories claim that our policy to create directors of schools standards would cost £68m in 2015/16. Yet this costing is wrong. We have been clear that our policy would take place within existing resources, including replacing regional academy commissioners.  Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of establishing 150 directors of school standards offices, which will cost £68m in 2015/16. Reality We have been clear that our policy would be funded from within existing resources, including replacing the Government’s regional academy commissioners.  

“This review recommends the abolition of the Regional School Commissioner post and structure. A regional structure will not provide the local oversight and support needed to ensure standards remain high. It would be inefficient to have different oversight structures for different types of schools” David Blunkett report for Labour’s Policy Review, “Review of education structures, functions and the raising of standards for all”, p52, April 2014 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/130514_Report_FINAL.pdf

 This costing is also wrong as it assumes there will be 150 directors of school standards offices. Labour’s policy has always been that local authorities can join together to appoint a shared Director of School Standards across a local area or sub-region, to foster collaboration and raise standards.

“The presumption would be for Local Authorities to join together to appoint a shared DSS across a local area or sub-region as this collaboration will help to raise standards and efficiencies whilst maintaining the local link.” David Blunkett Review, 30 April 2014 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/Putting_Students_and_Parents_First.pdf

Rolling out London Challenge scheme across the country  Summary  The Tories claim that Labour has a policy to roll out the London Challenge scheme across the country, which would cost £321m in 2015/16. But this is costing is wrong, as our policy to learn lessons from the London Challenge scheme, involving introducing new Directors of Schools Standards, will be within existing budgets.  Tory claim about our policy  According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of roll out the London Challenge scheme across the country, which will cost £321m in 2015/16.  Reality  

18  

 

This is wrong. Labour have made no unfunded spending commitments. We have set out that we will learn the lessons from the London Challenge, which will involve introducing new Directors of Schools Standards, but that will be within existing budgets.

“That’s why Labour will introduce new and robust local oversight of all schools to raise standards. That’s what new Directors of School Standards will bring. Labour will spread the success of our ‘London Challenge’ programme which transformed London’s secondary schools from being the worst to the best performing in the space of a decade - Labour will deliver this focus on standards across the country.” Tristram Hunt, 30 April 2014, http://press.labour.org.uk/post/84309430849/labour-will-introduce-new-and-robust-local

Every secondary school and clusters of primary schools to have access to a qualified school nurse Summary The Tories’ costing of Labour’s policy for every secondary school and cluster of primary schools makes breathtaking assumptions about how many schools are served by one nurse. Labour have promised no unfunded spending commitments, and this will be funded within existing budgets.  Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy for every secondary school and cluster of primary schools to have access to a qualified school nurse, which will cost £40m in 2015/16. Reality This costing is wrong. It makes breathtaking assumptions about what a cluster of primary schools is. Our policy involves schools collaborating so that they all have access to a school nurse. We have been clear that this policy would take place within existing budgets Department for International Development Double £20 million spend to help countries increase their tax base Restore funding to the International Labour Organisation Extend the Work in Freedom programme to Qatar  Summary  The Tories are claiming Labour’s plan to double £20 million spend to help other countries increase their tax base, restore funding to the ILO, and to extend the work in freedom programme to Qatar are unfunded spending commitments – but Labour has been clear that these policies will be funded from within the existing DfID budget Tory claim about our policy  According to the Tories, Labour policies of doubling £20 million spend to help other countries increase their tax base, restoring funding to the ILO, and extending the work in freedom programme to Qatar will cost £26 million in 2015/16. Reality  These policies do not constitute new spending commitments. The sources the Tories have used as evidence for these spending commitments explicitly state that these policies will be funded from within existing budgets: “So I can confirm today that the next Labour government would restructure our existing support for developing countries by first of all doubling the £20 million DFID currently gives to help governments build up their own tax collecting capabilities.” Jim Murphy, Speech at ONE, 8 April 2014, http://press.labour.org.uk/post/82096135630/dfid-under-

19  

 

labour-development-and-power-jim “The UK already works with the ILO on a programme called Work in Freedom to support 100,000 women and girls from South Asia at risk of falling into forced labour. I’d like ministers to stretch the existing DFID budget to double that programme to cover just as many men who might end up on the construction sites of Qatar.” Jim Murphy, PoliticsHome, 31 March 2014 Department for Transport Public sector operator bidding for rail franchises Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming our policy to save money by reforming the process for rail franchises will cost money. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £7 million. Reality Our rail reforms are there to save money. The East Coast Mainline returned millions to the taxpayer. Our policy is to legislate to make it possible for such a public comparator to do so again. Legislating to that affect will not cost a penny and is being done with a view to saving money. East Coast rail line returned £225.3m to the taxpayer in premiums and profits in 2013-14: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/east-coast-rail-line-returns-more-profits-to-taxpayers-9721486.html Rail industry “guiding mind” Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming our policy to make railways more effective will cost money. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £6 million. Reality We would do this by working more effectively within existing bodies such as NR, DFT, ORR, RDG, and not set up a new quango. “Create a single guiding mind for the railways, bringing Network Rail together with a new representative passenger rail body to contract routes, co-ordinate services and skills in the industry, oversee stations, fares and ticketing, and ensure customer satisfaction across the network.” NPF Annual Report 2014, page 45 Department of Health GP access policies Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that our policy is unfunded. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £1.4 billion. Reality Government ministers have previously tried to claim that GP access is satisfactory. If they are

20  

 

now trying to claim that offering patients decent access will cost vast sums of money, this would be a damning admission that standards have plummeted since 2010. It is not true to say that Labour has not set aside resources to deliver this policy: · Our Time to Care Fund would raise £2.5 billion, including to fund 8,000 more GPs, which would not only restore the number of GPs per capita back to 2010 levels, but would expand capacity much further. · We will also invest a further £100m in GP practices specifically to help them deliver this new standard, saved by cutting competition red tape and bureaucracy from David Cameron’s new NHS market bureaucracy It is not true to say that the policy would cost £1.4bn a year: · The costing is based on a range of inaccurate assumptions, such as assuming that patients who do not express a preference will automatically want to see their GP quickly, or that all same-day consultations are face-to-face · It also assumes no additional efficiencies are possible from organisational factors such as improved booking systems – even though some practices already deliver these standards on existing resources · The costing is also inaccurate because it “does not include potential savings to other parts of the system which might arise as a result of hypothetical changes in patient behaviour impacting where and when people access health and social care services”. The reality is that this policy will save money. Currently, millions of people are going to A&E because they can’t get a GP appointment, but an A&E attendance costs more than twice as much as a GP appointment. Meanwhile, studies suggest that improving the number of patients seeing their preferred GP could reduce emergency admissions, saving the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds a year. One week cancer diagnosis Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that it our pledge to have a one-week guarantee for cancer tests with results is unfunded. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £280 million. Reality Our policy is for cancer tests and results within a week, not for cancer diagnosis within a week – this is obviously not the same thing. We’ve been clear that this will be funded from the Time to Care Fund. As we’ve set out the Time to Care Fund will be funded by a Mansion Tax, a tobacco levy and clamping down on tax avoidance. Free social care for critical cases Summary The Tories have tried to claim this will cost £200m-£250m, but have failed to take into account the fact that the savings on hospital care will outweigh the costs of homecare. Tory claim about our policy

21  

 

According to the Tories, this policy will cost £200m-£250m a year Reality This is wrong – this policy will save money. The whole point about end-of-life care in the home is that it is cheaper than in hospital. For example, the Personal Social Services Research Unit indicates a cost of £340 per day for inpatient specialist palliative care, while Marie Curie estimates that a comprehensive package of community support costs £145 per day (with homecare accounting for £27 of this). Source: https://www.mariecurie.org.uk/globalassets/media/documents/commissioning-our-services/publications/understanding-cost-end-life-care-different-settingspdf Yet the HMT costing document admits the costings “do not include any potential savings from decreased hospital costs”. It is therefore not a credible analysis of the actual costs of the policy. Even though this policy will save money, to cover the up-front costs Labour has set aside resources as part of our £2.5bn Time to Care Fund, both for extra homecare capacity, with 5,000 more FTE homecare workers. Write to every household about the national health and care service Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that this idea would cost money. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £10 million. Reality This is nonsense. In the 21st Century it does not cost additional money to email people or give them communications when they use a GP surgery or attend a hospital. Equal resources for mental and physical health, for adults and children  Summary  The Tories have wilfully misinterpreted Labour’s policy, which is about ensuring the health and care system gives mental health the focus it deserves, rather than a point about programme budgets.  Tory claim about our policy  The Tories are falsely claiming that Labour’s desire to see “patients with mental health problems have equal treatment and resources as patients with physical illnesses” means we are committed to increasing the mental health budget by £13bn a year by 2020, resulting in extra spending of £2.7bn in 2015/16.  Reality  This is not Labour’s policy.  Rather, our desire to see “patients with mental health problems have equal treatment and resources as patients with physical illnesses” is a desire for parity of esteem between mental health and physical health. Specifically, we want to ensure that mental health problems are taken just as seriously as physical health problems and that services are appropriate to meet mental health needs as they are to meet physical health needs. That kind of equality is not a point about arithmetic equivalence of programme budgets.   Time to Care Fund Summary The Tories claim that no money will be raised for the Time to Care Fund in 2015/16. Tory claim about our policy

22  

 

The Tories claim that no money will be raised for the Time to Care Fund in 2015/16. Reality See the revenue raising section for detail of this annex. The Time to Care Fund will be funded by a Mansion Tax, a tobacco levy and clamping down on tax avoidance. Ed Balls has set out that Labour’s first budget will introduce a Mansion Tax to make raising money for the NHS a priority. Department for Work and Pensions Youth Allowance Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s plan to ensure that 18-21 year olds who don’t have the skills they need for work would be in training rather than on benefits would cost an additional £1-£1.4bn in training costs (based on 2013-14 data). But young people in this age group are already eligible for training, and the Tory costing document is clear that this would save money in benefit costs. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s policy to replace JSA for 18-21 year olds with a Youth Allowance for young people who don’t have the skills they need to work, would result in an additional £1-£1.4bn in training costs, while saving £20m in benefit costs. They have not provided a source for their estimate of training costs. Reality This policy would not cost money. It is about removing benefits from young people and using the money that it saves to pay for training which will help them find work. The Treasury Costing document is clear that this will save money in benefits. All young people aged up to 24 are already entitled to a first full level three qualification, and therefore funding should already be available to meet any additional training costs involved in this policy. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Skills Funding Agency, Skills Funding Statement 2012-2015, December 2012, p.7. Personal statement after Work Capability Assessment Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s plan to provide a personal statement to those undergoing Work Capability Assessments would cost an additional £35-£65m in 2015/16. But this is based on providing a new assessment to each claimant, whereas Labour have clearly set out plans to vary the assessment contract to ensure that this is part of the current system. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s plan to provide a personal statement to those undergoing Work Capability Assessments would require an additional assessment interview within the process. They estimate the costs of this at between £35 and £65m in 2015/16. Reality This policy would be part of our wider reform of the WCA, including tougher financial penalties for contractors who make wrong assessments.  This approach would get more people into work and save money, unlike the Government’s approach which has cost money, with the Government spending over £8.5 billion more than planned on ESA over the course of this parliament.   Furthermore, in the Autumn Statement the Government had to commit an additional £30 million

23  

 

in 2015 and £105 million in 2016-17 to the cost of carrying out ESA assessments. We have been clear with the Government that we expect any changes to the assessment to be delivered within the existing contract with Maximus and not to involve additional spending, and wrote to Mark Harper, the Minister for Disabled People, to set this out on 22 October 2014. Maths, English and IT skills assessment and compulsory follow up training for jobseekers Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s plan to screen new JSA claimants for basic skills and refer them to training where necessary will cost £513m in its first year. But funding is already provided to train adults who lack basic skills, so this policy will not impose additional costs. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s policy to assess jobseekers for basic English, Maths and IT skills will cost £513m in its first year, based on assuming that every claimant will be screened (rather than new claimants only), and all will take up training that requires new funding. Reality The funding for this training already exists. The Government’s own Skills Funding Statement sets out that funding is already available for: 1) “adults in receipt of benefits where skills training will help them into work” 2) “English and maths skills: GCSE English and Maths qualifications; Functional English and maths qualifications; and QCF English and maths units” Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Skills Funding Agency, Skills Funding Statement 2012-2015, December 2012, p.7. Compulsory Jobs Guarantee for young people Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s plan to offer a paid six month job to all 18-24 year olds who have claimed JSA for a year will cost £540m – although bizarrely they state the cost of the policy in 2013-14. But this is based on the costs of a previous, different programme. House of Commons Library figures show that the cost will be £315m. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s compulsory Jobs Guarantee for young people will cost £540m in 2013-14. Reality House of Commons Library figures show that the cost of the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee will be £315 in 2015/16. The Tory figures are based on the cost of the Future Jobs Fund, a different programme with higher costs. Our policy is fully funded by restrictions on pensions tax relief and a bank bonus tax. Compulsory Jobs Guarantee for over 25s Summary The Tories use 2013 costings to suggest that the Jobs Guarantee for over 25 year olds would cost £1.5bn. But House of Commons Library costings show the cost of the Guarantee would be just £1bn. The Jobs Guarantee is fully funded by changes to Pensions Tax Relief and the set up costs are funded by the Bankers Bonus Tax. Tory claim about our policy

24  

 

According to the Tories, Labour’s compulsory Jobs Guarantee for over 25s will cost £1.5bn in 2013-14. Reality House of Commons Library figures show that the cost of the Compulsory Jobs Guarantee will be £1bn in 2015/16. The Tory figures are based on the cost of the Future Jobs Fund, a different programme with higher costs, were produced in 2013 and have not been updated since. Our policy is fully funded by restrictions on pensions tax relief and a bank bonus tax. Lower auto-enrolment threshold Summary The Tories claim that Labour would lower the threshold for auto-enrolement into a workplace pension, at a cost of £3m in 2015/16. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim we have committed to lowering the auto-enrolment threshold to £5,772 in 2015/16. Reality This is not a manifesto commitment. As we have set out very clearly, there will be no proposals for borrowing in our manifesto. We have been clear that we will review how to deliver a potential lowering of the auto enrolment thresholds, and fund any additional costs from within the social security budget. “Labour wants to bring those 1.5 million workers back into workplace saving. We will consult with employers, trade unions and pensions experts about the best way of doing it including whether any change should be phased in, and how best to minimise administrative complexity. Any additional costs in pension tax relief resulting from this move, which the House of Commons Library estimates to be in the region of £20m a year, will be covered by savings found elsewhere in the social security budget. For example, the reduced cost of appeals that we expect to result from the reforms to the Work Capability Assessment that Kate Green and I set out last month.” Speech by Rachel Reeves, 29 May 2014 Abolish the Bedroom Tax Summary The Tories ignore the fact that our policy is fully funded. Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim that abolishing the Bedroom Tax would cost £560m. Reality We will abolish the Bedroom Tax. The Treasury costing for this policy is £465m in 2015/16. We have set out a clear plan to fund this change by: • reversing George Osborne’s recent tax cut for hedge funds announced in Budget 2013; • reversing George Osborne’s shares for rights scheme which , has opened up a tax loophole,

and will lead to £1bn being lost to the Exchequer according to the Office for Budget Responsibility ; and

• tackling disguised employment in the construction industry.     Introduce a contributory system of JSA Summary The Tories claim that Labour’s plan to pay a higher rate of JSA, funded by restricting entitlement to those who have worked for longer would not be cost neutral. But they have examined only a limited range of options for how to deliver this change.

25  

 

Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s policy to pay a higher rate of JSA to those who have worked for longer could not be delivered in a way that was cost neutral. Reality We have been clear that there will be no proposals for borrowing in our manifesto, and that we will deliver this policy in a cost-neutral fashion: That’s why as one example, the next Labour government will change the way Job Seekers’ Allowance works. To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years. And we will pay for it not by spending more money in social security. But by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify.” Ed Miliband speech to IPPR, June 19th 2014 Bring back care first Summary The Tories have used a quote from a backbench peer which takes ‘Care First’ as an illustrative example of a youth training scheme to claim that we want to reinstate the policy. This is clearly ludicrous. Tory claim about our policy The Tories quote Lord Rosser, a backbench Labour Peer in Hansard on the 4July 2014 saying that ‘We need proper training programmes to help the young unemployed get into the sectors that are recruiting most from abroad – programmes such as Care First which the Government abolished’ as evidence that Labour would ‘Bring back Care First’ at a cost of £38m. Reality This is not our policy. HM Treasury Introduce a 10p starting rate of incomes tax Summary The Tories say that the Labour policy of introducing a lower 10p rate of income tax, funded by scrapping the Marriage Tax Allowance, could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year is already underway. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, this could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year is already underway. Reality This is true. Labour has not claimed that it would be introduced in 2015-16. It will be fully funded by reversing the Marriage Tax Allowance. Cut business rates by 1 per cent in 2015-16 and limit the rise to 14/15 levels in 2016-17 Summary The Tories say that Labour's policy of cutting business rates and then freezing them, funded by not going ahead with a further cut to Corporation Tax for large businesses, could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year would already be underway. Tory claim about our policy The Tories say that Labour's policy of cutting business rates and then freezing them could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year would already be underway.

26  

 

Reality Labour will fully fund the cut and then freeze in business rates by not going ahead with the further cut in Corporation Tax for large businesses which the Tories are planning. The Tories are accepting that cutting and then freezing business rates could be funded in this way. Increase credit union funding Summary This policy would extend the levies on the profits of pay day lenders to double the level of Government funding for low cost alternatives such as credit unions. Tory claim about our policy The Tories say this policy will cost £13m in 2015-16. Reality This policy is fully funded. Page 69 of the Tory dossier sets out details of how Labour will increase levies on the profits of payday lenders to pay for this. Labour has said we will extend the levies on the profits of payday lenders in order to “double the level of funding for low cost alternatives such as credit unions.” “We would extend the levies on the profits of pay day lenders to double the level of Government funding for low cost alternatives such as credit unions.” Ed Miliband, Sun on Sunday, 10 November 2013 “Details of the rates at which the levy would be imposed on the profits of companies such as Wonga have not yet been announced, but Labour said it aimed to raise enough cash to double the £13m currently provided by the government each year to fund the expansion of credit unions.” The Guardian, 17 October 2013 Establish a National Infrastructure Commission Summary This policy would establish an independent National Infrastructure Commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs, Tory claim about our policy The Tories claim the policy will cost £2m in 2015-16. Reality The Tories have no official Treasury costing for this policy – they have plucked the number out of thin air, assuming that it will have the same budget as the Office for Budget Responsibility. There are existing government bodies such as Infrastructure UK, many of whose activities could duplicate the work of the Commission. Home Office 1,000 new border staff Summary The Tories are claiming our policy of 1,000 new border staff would cost £45m Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s policy would cost £45m of new spending Reality Labour will reform arrangements with non-visa countries, charging a small amount as the United

27  

 

States ESTA programme does, so we can provide additional resources for up to 1,000 more border force and enforcement staff. National Refuge Fund Summary The Government say Labour has a policy of spending an additional £3m in 2015/16 on establishing a National Refuge Fund. Tory claim about our policy The Tories are claiming we would spend an additional £3m on funding refuges on top of the £10m they announced in November. Reality Labour called for additional funding for refuges in September 2014. Subsequently the Government announced additional funding in November 2014. It is ludicrous to claim that our call for additional funding is on top of something that had not yet been announced when we called for it. Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner Summary The Government claim our policy of establishing a Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner to tackle violence against women and girls would be new spending. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, this would cost £2million. Reality Labour has said we would want to consult on the structure of a new Commissioner and that it will be funded from within existing Home Office budgets. Tackling violence against women must be seen in the context of the large costs of not tackling domestic and sexual violence. In 2009, Sylvia Walby estimated the cost of domestic violence (to services, economic output and human and emotional cost) to be around £16 billion. As we have set out very clearly, there will be no proposals for borrowing in our manifesto. Ministry of Justice Reforms to 18-20 justice system Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming our policy is to extend the youth justice board. Tory claim about our policy Their claim is that this policy will cost £35 million. Reality This is not a manifesto commitment. As we have set out very clearly, there will be no proposals for borrowing in our manifesto. This policy was not agreed at the National Policy Forum last July and does not appear in the NPF document. Labour Party National Policy Forum Report 2014, July 2014 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/NPF_Annual_Report_2014.pdf

28  

 

Our commitment instead is to consider how we can extend cooperation within the youth justice system, as set out in the Party’s policy programme agreed at Labour Party Conference. “Labour would build a justice system that works to effectively punish and reform by taking a more tailored approach to dealing with offenders. In particular, we will seek to learn from and extend the successful model of cooperation within youth justice, with agencies working together in order to reduce youth offending.” Labour Party National Policy Forum Report 2014, July 2014, p.66 http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/NPF_Annual_Report_2014.pdf Women’s Justice Board Summary The Tories’ claim that Labour would introduce a Women’s Justice Board costing £255m is based on a misrepresentation of Labour policy. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories this would cost exactly the same as the Youth Justice Board Reality Labour has said we will look at existing bodies to see how we can better deal with the needs of women in the criminal justice system. We have not made any unfunded spending commitments. End early release on default sentences for those who refuse to pay back profits from crime Summary The Tories are wrongly claiming that this is still a Labour spending commitment when in fact we called for it, and it was then introduced by the Government. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour will be spending £28m a year on extending the youth justice board and youth offending teams. Reality Labour called for this policy to be introduced in May 2014. “Many criminals serve only three or four years of the single sentence allowed for refusing to give the money back. That’s not right. It’s time to change the law. So we will put an end to criminals being let out early after refusing to pay. They must pay up or serve their sentence.” Yvette Cooper speech, 20 May 2014 http://press.labour.org.uk/post/86319909114/yvette-cooper-speech-to-the-police-federation The Government took our advice and is introducing such measures in the Serious Crime Bill, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/seriouscrime/documents.html Employment Tribunal Fees Summary The Conservatives are claiming it is our policy to use new spending to reverse the introduction of employment tribunal fees, based on a misrepresentation of Labour’s policy. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories we would reverse the introduction of employment tribunal fees Reality: Labour is committed to reforming the Employment Tribunal System, and will consult on how that is best done. We have not committed to any particular reform model and we will not make any

29  

 

unfunded spending commitments.

30  

 

Revenue Raisers Cabinet Office Sale of Cabinet Office property portfolios Summary Cabinet Office property portfolios. Tory claim about our policy The Tory document sets out Labour proposals. Reality The document accepts Labour is consulting on these issues, quoting from a Labour Party press release which says “Labour will commission value for money reviews”. Department for Communities and Local Government Transformation Challenge Award Summary The Conservatives are arguing the reduction in the Transformation Challenge Award would not lead to income being generated in 2015-16 because opening up public services to competition can result in savings. Tory claim about our policy Labour’s policy of reducing the Transformation Challenge Award, which will cost not raise any revenue in 2015/16. Reality The Conservative document does not attempt to challenge that savings can be made on this programme, instead simply making general claims about public service provision. In doing so it draws on a Government report from 2008 which does not address the Labour statement quoted, which is from December 2014. Annual efficiency savings of £500 million from 2015/16 Summary Conservatives are arguing the local government savings will not be made, based on misleading claims about Labour policy. Tory claim about our policy Conservatives are arguing the £500m efficiency savings announced would not lead to any saving in 2015-16. Reality The Tory claim is incomprehensible. They claim it is Labour’s policy to make savings in 2016/17 and then say this is disproved by the following sentence: “Labour have said this won’t raise any money in 2015/16.” Department of Energy and Climate Change Cut energy efficiency funding Summary See section on home energy reports.

31  

 

Department of Health Scrapping competition laws Summary See section on GP Access. HM Treasury Restricting the Quoted Eurobond Exemption Summary The Tories say that closing the Quoted Eurobond Exemption will raise a negligible amount. This is wrong because they are assuming that Corporation Tax will still be avoided through other routes after the loophole is closed. We will ensure that other tax avoidance routes cannot be used. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour's policy of restricting the Eurobond Exemption will raise a negligible amount of money. Reality This costing is wrong. Tory advisers have assumed that companies currently avoiding Corporation Tax through the Eurobonds loophole will continue to do so through other routes. We will ensure that other tax avoidance routes cannot be used to avoid Corporation Tax which is due. 1 per cent child benefit increase in 2016-17 Summary The Tories say that against a coalition government baseline this raises no revenue in 2015-16 as it only applies in 2016-17 and against a Tory baseline it costs money. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of a 1 per cent child benefit increase but that it will raise no money. Reality This costing admits that it raises money against the Government's current plans. Bank Payroll Tax Summary The Tories claim a repeat of the bank bonus tax will not raise any money – but this is not based on a formal Treasury costing. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour’s policy to repeat the bank bonus tax will not raise any money. Reality The Tories costing is not based on an official Treasury costing, but simply a quote from Alistair Darling in 2010. The bank bonus tax in 2010 raised £3.4 billion. (HMRC, Table 1, p.6, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348227/PAYE_and_corporate_tax_receipts_from_the_banking_sector_2014.pdf) A March 2014 comparison of individual bank bonuses in 2014 compared to 2010 indicated that

32  

 

the bank bonus pool had by 38%. If the revenue from the bank bonus tax reduced by a similar amount it would raise £2.1 billion. A conservative estimate for how much the bank bonus tax would raise would therefore be £1.2-£1.7 billion. Umbrella companies measure Summary Labour will stop umbrella companies being used to avoid tax and NICs. The Tories claim they are already doing this, but they are only consulting and have not yet announced any measures or scored revenue from them. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of tackling tax avoidance by umbrella companies but that it will raise no revenue. Reality This costing is wrong. The Government are only consulting on measures. They have not announced any changes and have not raised any revenue. Labour will bring in measures to raise revenue.

New tax on family homes Summary The Tories claim that this is a tax on family homes, but no properties worth less than £2m will be affected. They claim it will raise no revenue in 2015-16 Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of introducing a Mansion Tax but that it will raise no revenue in 2015-16. Reality This costing is wrong. Tory advisers have assumed that it will not be implemented in the first year of a Labour Government but that the revenue raised will be spent in 2015/16. But we have said we will fast track the implementation of the Mansion Tax and are looking at the practicalities of ensuring that the most expensive properties starting to pay it in 2015-16. We have also been clear that we will not spend the money before it is raised. “I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year. We will have to see the practicalities.” Ed Balls, 27 December 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-labour-government-would-fasttrack-the-mansion-tax-9941165.html Abolish intermediary relief form stamp duty on shares Summary Tories are saying that this will not raise any money in 2015-16, and it would only be partially raised in 2016-17. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of clamping down on tax avoidance by hedge funds, but that it will not raise any revenue in 2015-16. Reality This costing is wrong. Labour will clamp down on this tax avoidance as soon as possible in the next Parliament and we will not spend the money before it is raised. Fee on tobacco companies Summary

33  

 

The Tories are saying that the Government is already taking action on this and that Labour has confirmed that no money will be raised in 2015-16. This is wrong because they are only consulting and they have not introduced a levy. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour's policy of introducing a levy on tobacco companies will not raise any revenue in 2015-16. Reality This costing is wrong. The Government are only consulting on introducing a levy, but have not introduced one and have not raised any revenue. Labour will introduce a levy as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Tackling false self-employment in construction industries Summary The Tories say that they have already taken action on this, but evidence from the construction industry is that false self-employment is still a problem. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of tackling false self-employment in the construction industry, but that this will not raise any revenue. Reality This costing is wrong and those working in the construction industry say that there is an ongoing problem with false self-employment. GAAR Penalties Summary The Tories say that Labour plans to bring in penalties for the General Anti-Abuse Rule will not raise any revenue because the Government is already taking action on this. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour's policy of introducing GAAR penalties will not raise any revenue because the Government is already taking action. Reality This costing is wrong. The Government is only consulting on whether to bring in penalties and is not raising any revenue. Labour will bring in a penalty regime. Dormant company anti-avoidance measures Summary The Tories say that HMRC already identifies companies which should have filed returns, and paid tax, but have not done so. But HMRC's procedures are not effective enough and Labour will require annual confirmation of dormancy. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour has a policy of tackling dormant companies but that it will not raise any revenue. Reality This is wrong because HMRC's current procedures on not effective enough to identify dormant companies which are being used to evade tax. Raise additional rate of income tax from 45p to 50p Summary

34  

 

The Tories say that restoring the 50p rate of income tax would not raise any revenue because it would be offset by reductions in VAT. But this is wrong because HMRC admit that cutting the 50p rate gave a tax cut of £3bn to the top one per cent. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, Labour's policy of restoring the 50p rate of income tax will not raise any revenue because it would be offset by reductions in VAT. Reality This costing is wrong. HMRC admit that cutting the 50p rate gave a tax cut of £3bn to the top one per cent. Restricting Pension Tax Relief for Higher Earners Summary Labour would restrict the rate of pension tax relief for people earning more than £150,000 each year to the same rate as that received by basic rate taxpayers (20 per cent). Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, this will raise more than £1.3bn every year, with the revenue coming in from 2018-19 because Tory advisers have assumed that it will not come into force until 2017-18. Reality This costing shows that restricting pension tax relief will more than pay for the ongoing costs of the Jobs Guarantee, while the start up costs of the Guarantee will be covered by the Bankers’ Bonus Tax. This costing raises more than we had expected and we will ensure that the revenue comes in as soon as possible. Raise corporation tax by one per cent Summary The Tories say that Labour's policy of cutting business rates and then freezing them, funded by not going ahead with a further cut to Corporation Tax for large businesses, could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year would already be underway. Tory claim about our policy The Tories say that Labour's policy of cutting business rates and then freezing them could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year would already be underway. Reality Labour will fully fund the cut and then freeze in business rates by not going ahead with the further cut in Corporation Tax for large businesses which the Tories are planning. The Tories are accepting that cutting and then freezing business rates could be funded in this way. Abolish the transferable tax allowances for married couples and civil partners Summary The Tories say that the Labour policy of introducing a lower 10p rate of income tax, funded by scrapping the Marriage Tax Allowance, could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year is already underway. Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, this could not be done in 2015-16 because the tax year is already underway. Reality This is true. Labour has not claimed that it would be introduced in 2015-16. It will be fully funded

35  

 

by reversing the Marriage Tax Allowance. Levy on payday lenders Summary This policy would place a levy on the profits of payday lenders. The Tories accept it would raise money. Tory claim about our policy The Tories accept this policy will raise £13m. Reality The Tories accept this policy will raise £13m. Home Office Mandate national procurement in police Summary Labour’s plans for streamlining criminal justice procurement Tory claim about our policy According to the Tories, there is no scope for Labour to make a savings in this area. Reality The Conservative claims are based on assertions and misrepresentations of Labour’s policy. Labour’s proposals are based on the Stevens Review of Policing, published in November 2013. These proposals also look to deliver maximum value for money for the taxpayer by streamlining criminal justice procurement, which could save an estimated £60 million by 2016/17 if implemented - funds that could be ploughed back into frontline policing. There is nothing in the Conservative claims which deals directly with these proposals Abolish Police and Crime Commissioners Summary Labour will abolish PCCs. Tory claim about our policy Labour cannot make savings. Reality The Conservative dossier does not challenge the assumption that there are savings to be made in this area. Labour has set out, in the Stevens Review of Policing, plans for savings in the criminal justice system. Full cost recovery of gun licenses Summary Labour will address the subsidy on gun licenses. Tory claim about our policy The Tories are already consulting on the subsidy. Reality The Conservatives have not put in to place a system to end the subsidy and the document admits that they are only consulting on the measures, thus accepting there are savings to be made.

36  

 

£10 fee on visa-waivers from all non-visa countries Summary See section on border force.

Printed and promoted by Iain McNicol, General Secretary, the Labour Party, on behalf of the Labour Party, both at One Brewer’s Green, London SW1H 0RH.