Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Fifth sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 4, page 4, line 33, after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) children living in low income working households.”
To require the Secretary of State to include data on children living in low income working households in their report on the life chances of children.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, leave out “4” and insert “1, 2, 3 and 4”.
To require the Secretary of State to include data on the educational attainment of children at Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 rather than only at Key Stage 4.
Amendment 79, in clause 4, page 4, line 37, leave out “4” and insert “1, 2, 3 and 4”.
To require the Secretary of State to include data on the educational attainment of disadvantaged children at Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 rather than only at Key Stage 4.
Amendment 80, in clause 4, page 4, line 37, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) key health indicators for children in England;
(f) key health indicators for disadvantaged children in England.”.
To require the Secretary of State to include key health indicators in their report on the life chances of children.
Amendment 81, in clause 4, page 5, line 3, after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) low income”.
A consequential amendment to amendment 77.
Amendment 82, in clause 4, page 5, line 3, after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) key health indicators”.
A consequential amendment to amendment 80.
Kate Green
Good morning, Mr Owen. It is nice to see you in the Chair and to return to the Committee for, I am afraid, my last appearance in what has been a very enjoyable Committee.
Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to include, in the reports that the Bill envisages, data on children living in low-income working households as part of the reporting on their life chances. We all know the damage that poverty does to children’s life chances and to their outcomes in the short and longer term. Poverty is correlated with poor health, poor educational outcomes and poor employment outcomes in adulthood. It is extremely damaging not only to the individuals who experience it, but to the whole country. The amendment is an important one in recognition of the high incidence of poverty in working households. Currently, the Bill only requires reporting on households that are out of work. Therefore, it is important to have a report on the impact that poverty could have on the life chances of children growing up in those working families.
The Government are fond of saying that work is the best route out of poverty. I absolutely agree that it should be, but while families in work do face a lower risk of poverty than those out of work, and the more work people can do and the more hours they can supply the lower the risk, two thirds of children growing up in poverty are in working households. The Government refuse to engage with that fact and the Bill, in failing to address it, continues that situation. Indeed, I would say that the Government are making the situation worse.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the measures we passed in the House on Tuesday on tax credits will take £3.4 billion annually from low-income families by 2020. Between those measures, the measures in the Bill and other measures in the summer Budget, we will see work incentives damaged. We have to be concerned, as a result, about the impact on in-work poverty. The changes that the House passed on Tuesday will come into force in April next year and will lower the level at which working tax credits start to be withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850. They will also increase the taper rate at which tax credits are withdrawn from 41% to 48%, meaning that, for every £1 earned over the threshold, there will be a 48p reduction in the level of tax credit entitlement. As a consequence of those changes to working tax credit, the level at which child tax credit begins to be taken away is lowered from £16,105 to £12,125.
Although Labour welcomes the increase in the personal tax allowance and the introduction of the so-called national living wage, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has stated that any gains from those measures will not negate the impact of those tax credit cuts from April 2016. The IFS recently concluded that families will lose more than £1,000 a year on average from cuts to tax credits, while they will gain between £100 and £200 a year at most from the proposed national living wage. I recognise that some families will benefit from increased free childcare, but many still use informal care and many will still be left with a funding shortfall for childcare, even under the increased and more generous provisions in universal credit and in relation to older children.
The benefits freeze provisions in the Bill, and the provisions of the cap, will apply to both out-of-work and in-work benefits. We will expand on our concerns about those measures later, but we should be concerned about them given their impact on children growing up in working households. We are particularly worried about the freeze in housing benefit. Many working families rely on housing benefit, and the explosion in housing benefit in recent years is in no small measure due to the increased bill for those families. The way in which the Bill will create a disconnect between rents and housing benefit causes us real concern, especially in high-demand areas such as those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, where private rents have shown no sign of falling—rather the reverse, I expect. Our concern is shared widely outside the Committee, as we heard from our witnesses in the oral evidence sessions.
I am concerned, too, about the impact of the freeze and the benefits cap on children in working families. Child tax credit and especially child benefit are a platform that help to improve the gains from paid work. Both will be frozen for four years under the Bill. Working families with children will be hit hard, but the impact will be different for different kinds of households. In that respect, it is interesting to look at the recently published research of Donald Hirsch for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on minimum income standards. I recognise that that is not exactly the same as poverty, or child poverty, but the research gives some interesting and helpful information about how the measures in the Bill and in the summer Budget will impact on family households differently depending on size, structure and family make-up. The figures show that lone parents and large families will be the biggest losers.
A lone parent with one child, working full time on the minimum wage, was typically just short of the minimum income standard in 2010—that lone parent would have reached 97% of the objective minimum income standard through a combination of earnings, tax credits and benefits. By 2020 the shortfall will grow to between a quarter and a third—around 71%, according to the JRF research. That is for lone parents in full-time work, but many lone parents are forced to work part time because of difficulties in finding childcare, so they will benefit less from the planned rise in the national living wage as they will not be able to supply so many hours of work. The position of lone parents has also been worsened by the rising incidence of sanctions, and many families with young children have been hit as a result.
The picture for low-income working families is complex, hit by forces of opposing, but not necessarily oppositely and equally neutralising, effects. Such families require complex policy responses, but the Government’s measures in the Bill and the summer Budget are certainly not complex or subtle, and they do not even show awareness of how the problems compound one another. It is important that we focus on how the measures impact on low-income working families and the children in those families, since we share with the Government the ambition that work should be a route out of poverty for those families and that work should always pay. Today it does not.
Working families and children in those families are suffering hardship and will suffer more hardship. It is disgraceful that the Government have created such a situation. It is notable that some Government Members were deeply concerned about the matter on Tuesday, when we debated the tax credits measures. We cannot undo any of those measures today under the clause that we are debating, but we can shine a spotlight and require a proper report on the effect on working households. That is what amendment 77 seeks to achieve.
Amendment 78 would require the report to include data on the educational attainment of children not only at key stage 4, as currently proposed in the Bill, but at key stages 1, 2 and 3. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s rationale for looking only at key stage 4. That is when a child is aged 16, which is late in their development—am I right? No doubt someone will intervene to correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps not colleagues from the Scottish National party, because I appreciate that the situation is different in Scotland. The clause would not affect the constituents of the hon. Member for Livingston. In passing, I note that when we debated the Bill on Tuesday, I pointed out that it would present an interesting little case study on English votes for English laws. Here is an example before us.
It is late in a child’s development to look at indicators only at key stage 4. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the rationale for that approach. I had hoped there might be room for some cross-party consensus on the importance of child development at a much younger age.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I suppose a cynic might say—I do not know whether this is right—that if there were to be a major change to child poverty, for instance that it got much worse, and we were to measure it by looking at educational attainment at key stage 4, it would give the Government many years’ grace while children adversely impacted by poverty were going through the system. We would not know how bad it was until they were 16, even if we were to assume that educational attainment at key stage 4 were sufficient to measure child poverty.
Kate Green
That is a very depressing thought, but quite possibly a fair one. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. I do not think it is right in any circumstances to wait to measure the impact on children until they are 16. We know that the early years are a crucial developmental period. Action for Children, in written evidence, told us that
“the rapid brain development in the first two years of a child’s life provides the foundations for their future health and wellbeing”
and their development. Development in the early years is strongly associated with positive outcomes in later life.
Development in cognitive ability in the early years is highly predictive of subsequent achievement, with a strong relationship to educational success at school and income at age 30. By school age there are already wide variations in children’s abilities, which widen throughout childhood. The gap in attainment between the poorest children and children from better-off households, already large at age five, grows particularly quickly during the primary school years.
That points to the importance of measuring at key stages 1 and 2. Children from low-income backgrounds achieve poorer development by age five than their more affluent peers. The latest statistics from the Department for Education show that less than half— 45%—of pupils eligible for free school meals achieve a good level of development. Those children are falling behind before they start school, and the position worsens after they start school.
Closing the ability gap at age five enables children to do better later on in school. Those who arrive in the bottom range of ability tend to stay there. More than half—55%— of children in the bottom 20% of attainment at age seven, key stage 1, are still there at age 16, key stage 4. By measuring, reporting and taking action at key stage 1 would be able to tell a much better story when reporting at key stage 4, instead of waiting for the disasters to pile up.
Emily Thornberry
I am listening with care to my hon. Friend’s important speech about this vital subject. She has just touched upon the impact of cold homes on children’s respiratory health. Is it her experience that people come to her surgery who live not only in cold homes, but in damp ones? Damp homes have an effect on the incidence of children’s asthma and a number of skin conditions, particularly when children’s clothes are rotten because they are put in storage against a damp wall, carpets rot, there is insufficient air going through a property and there is overcrowding.
Kate Green
That is absolutely right. Many constituents come to my surgery particularly distressed by damp in their homes. For many parents, it is the visible manifestation of their fears for their children’s health when they live in inadequate housing. In my experience, landlords are often very reluctant—in fact, extremely hostile—to do anything about problems reported to them by low-income families.
Emily Thornberry
Is it my hon. Friend’s experience that landlords—including social landlords—will go in, wash the walls that are black and tell the family that they do not have their windows open sufficiently, and when the blackness comes back the family are told that it is somehow or other their fault? Does she have the same experience as me with house-proud women coming to her surgery, saying, “I wash the walls down once a month and the blackness still comes back. I keep the windows open as they tell me to, but we are so overcrowded that this is the reason for the dampness”?
Kate Green
I share exactly the experience in my Manchester constituency that my hon. Friend experiences in her inner London constituency. She, like me, may have parents coming to her saying that they have been told by their landlords that they should not hang up damp washing, but they do not have gardens, so where are they meant to put it to dry? They cannot afford to run tumble driers because the electricity bills would simply be beyond their reach. The cocktail of problems that mothers in poor housing have to cope with on behalf of their families is really quite distressing. I am sure that hon. Members all around the Committee will have had similar cases in their surgeries. There is a real concern about housing quality and its impact on child heath.
Inadequate incomes also compound food poverty, meaning that low-income groups consume less protein, iron, fresh fruits and vegetables, vitamin C, fish, oily fish and folate. Women who are seeking to conceive and pregnant women worry about what will happen to their unborn babies and children as they grow up. Inadequate diets are extremely concerning when we look at children’s health and wellbeing, and are a significant consequence of low household income.
Emily Thornberry
I speak from my own experience when I lived in the east end on the Lansbury estate. The local shops did not have fresh fruit and vegetables because, largely, the people living in the area were poor and could not afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, so the shops did not stock them. In the end, the local authority subsidised the shops to produce fresh fruit and vegetables, but they sat on the shelves and rotted.
Kate Green
What is very interesting, as well as distressing, about what my hon. Friend said is that, when we have data, we can begin to think about solutions. We can see that the problem is a lack of access to fruit and vegetables and, perhaps, a lack of confidence among parents about how to cook or use them. Perhaps there is a lack of income or good-quality transport to go to buy better-quality food.
Earlier this week we debated how important it is to have local strategies in relation to children’s poverty and life chances. What we have just heard from my hon. Friend shows how useful those local strategies can be in looking at the data, identifying the problems and creating solutions to address them. In relation to child health and its connection to poverty, having a national report and, indeed, the lower-level local strategies and reports, would be extremely helpful to improving children’s health outcomes.
Children born into poverty suffer an increased risk of mortality in the first year of their lives and in adulthood. They are more likely to be born early and small, with low birth weight, and they face more health problems in later life. Preventing low birth weight should be an absolute priority for public health officials, but efforts to achieve that will be hampered if parents have insufficient income.
If children’s life chances are to be fully considered, it should be recognised that life chances begin in the womb, even before birth.
Kate Green
And certainly not as late as 16, as my hon. Friend suggests.
There is a real correlation between poverty—particularly household debt—and the likelihood of mental disorders, including sleep deprivation, depression and anxiety, among new mothers. The effects of poverty are particularly evident among women. Indeed, I have often said that poverty is a gender issue—that women face much of the pain and hold much of the responsibility for coping with poverty in low-income households. Debt and lack of access to income are therefore particularly damaging for a mother’s health.
That means that women are often the shock absorbers of family poverty, reducing their own consumption to ensure that other family members, and particularly their children, are provided for. Even so, it is not in a child’s interests to have a mother whose health is compromised. Naturally, a mother’s instinct will be to put her child first, but the child obviously also has an interest in having a healthy mother. Household incomes are therefore important in the round.
Maternal depression as a result of poverty is itself a significant risk factor in poorer social and emotional development in children. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to start primary school with lower personal, social and emotional development, and they are at significantly increased risk of developing conduct disorders, all of which can lead to difficulties with educational attainment, relationships and mental health throughout their lives.
There has not been much research into the impacts of adding or removing money, but, overall, the correlation between economic pressures and health is a serious concern. Children in low-income families miss out on a whole range of the conditions needed for a good-quality childhood, good psychological and physical wellbeing, and good opportunities and life chances in later life.
Amendment 80 is important in focusing action on the consequences and causes of poverty in terms of health. Monitoring and reporting will also enable the Government to make the most of the substantial investment they make in the nation’s health. It will enable us to make a more effective assessment of the impact of health spending on child development and the impact of parental awareness and education—for example, in relation to diet, breastfeeding or smoking cessation—on children’s health. It will also give us an opportunity to look at and focus local health and wellbeing strategies in the interests of improving child health. That would not cost any money, but it would lead to much clearer accountability. I commend amendment 80 to the Committee.
The other amendments are consequential on the substantive amendments in the group, so I will not speak to them. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to address the Committee on these really important amendments. We all know that the poorest children suffer the worst outcomes, and reporting on their poverty and the individual outcomes they experience is therefore the right way to get a rounded picture of child poverty and life chances, as well as of the causes and consequences involved. It will also help us to take action to introduce the strategies to address the disadvantage that poor children face.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Good morning, Mr Owen. I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful contribution. She said this would be her last sitting, so I would like to thank her for her previous contributions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] During my short tenure in this role, working alongside her on welfare issues, she has been a valued colleague.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. She dismisses the statements of the majority of witnesses who gave evidence about the importance of the income measure. What message does she think the Government are sending to those witnesses who made a robust case for ensuring that income was retained within the measurements? The professor from Bristol University made powerful point about the UK’s international standing on this issue.
Will the Minister also address the specific point about only measuring at age 16? If a 16-year-old is the target for the initial measure, they will have spent the majority of their life under a Labour Government.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is timely, because I am about to come on to some of those points.
Income-based poverty measures focus only on the symptoms of child poverty while failing to tackle the root causes. Amendment 77 would take us back to when legislation pushed the Government to get families over an arbitrary income line.
Kate Green
Amendment 77 does not only specify the measuring of income. It mentions “working households”. That is what we are particularly concerned about.
Priti Patel
I recognise that, but I am going to carry on and address some of the points that have been made.
Removing income-related measures and targets and replacing them with new measures on worklessness and educational attainment will incentivise future Governments, as well as this one, to improve children’s life chances. To ensure that we drive the right progress, we should not get distracted by measures that do not tackle the root causes of poverty and should instead focus on measures that do.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
What would the Minister say to the witness who said that we risk becoming an “international laughing stock” if we remove the targets? He felt that we had led the world, but removing the targets means that we could lag behind.
Priti Patel
No other country in the world has attempted to use statutory targets to legislate away income-related child poverty. The point that I think came out towards the end of the evidence session was that the Department will continue to publish low-income statistics as part of the households below average income—HBAI—figures anyway, so there is no assumption that we are dismissing the matter or undermining the UK’s international credibility, which I think was the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark was trying to make.
Kate Green
The clauses and amendments that we are discussing are not just about publishing data; they are about reporting on the impact of what the data show on children’s life chances. I stress again that amendment 77 relates to
“children living in low income working households.”
The crucial word there is “working”.
Priti Patel
Work remains the best route out of poverty. We know that children in workless families are around three times as likely to be in relative low-income as children in families—
Emily Thornberry
The Minister is an intelligent woman and I am sure she knows what we are saying, but let me try just once more. The Government may assert that work is the best way out of poverty and may be the best way for a child to be healthy. They can assert what they want. We are asking for evidence. If a family are working, which could possibly mean two hours a week on a zero-hours contract with the children remaining in poverty, what we, the country and I am sure the Government want—if they want to do something about improving the life chances of the poorest and most marginal children—is to measure that. Let us look at some evidence so that we can have evidence-based policy as opposed to assertions made by the Government.
Priti Patel
Let me just put things into context. It is not a case of Government assertions. We are committed to reporting and have stated our commitment, in relation to earlier clauses, to report annually to the House of Commons. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to get on to some of my other points about education and life chances. There is clearly a duty and obligation to report and my Department and the Government as a whole will do so in relation to various aspects of the matter. Despite the Labour party’s bluster it does not recognise root causes in addressing poverty and it fails to recognise that work remains the best route out of it. Only the Government have a committed strategy to look at life chances to overcome many of the root causes of poverty, which previous Labour Governments completely ignored.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. I am going to make progress. Work remains the best route out of poverty and more people are in work under the present Government. Under the present Government and during the previous Parliament we supported people who were long-term unemployed and far removed from the labour market, and helped them to get into work. Those were predominantly households, families and individuals on low incomes.
There has been progress and we are committed to supporting parents to move into work, increasing their earnings and keeping more of what they earn. Universal credit is one example and our investment in childcare and the future national living wage will all play an important combined role. The new statutory worklessness measures will track the proportion of children in workless and long-term workless households in England. The new statutory measures on educational attainment at the end of key stage 4 will hold the Government to account for their successes in raising the attainment of all pupils in England, and specifically the attainment of those who are disadvantaged.
The importance of early years action has rightly been pointed out, and the Government of course agree about that, which is why every three and four-year old in England and the most disadvantaged 40% of two-year-olds are currently entitled to 570 hours of Government-funded early education a year. We are also committed to extending three and four-year-olds’ entitlement to 30 hours a week. The early years pupil premium has also provided another £50 million in extra funding to early years providers.
Kate Green
We welcome those measures. What is the Government’s problem, therefore, about reporting on their efficacy? It should be a good news story for them.
Priti Patel
The Department for Work and Pensions will, as I said, continue to publish low income statistics as part of the households below average income report, including statistics on children living in low-income households.
Amendments 78 and 79 would expand the statutory measures to include educational attainment for disadvantaged children at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. The amendments seem to underline the significance already placed by the Government on education as an indicator of future life chances, but we do not think it necessary to add those additional measures. Good education, as the Committee fully recognises—points have been made to that effect—is the bedrock on which to promote individuals’ future successes and life chances. At the heart of that we are determined to promote social justice, with the commitment that every child, regardless of background, will be extended opportunities allowing them to fulfil their potential. Raising the educational attainment of all children will increase their capacity to shape their own futures, reducing the risk of future unemployment.
Emily Thornberry
The point about measuring only key stage 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, is that the Government will be measuring achievement possibly made under a Labour Government. If there were to be a change of policy that had an adverse impact on children’s educational attainment, the Government would not be measuring it for many years, and any difficulties might therefore not be addressed until it is too late for an entire generation.
Priti Patel
I disagree with the hon. Lady. The Department for Education already publishes a great deal of data on how well pupils are doing by the end of primary school, in addition to how well disadvantaged pupils are doing at school. It is therefore wrong to make the assumption that there are no data and that the assessments come in at the end. Of course, key stage 4 is a vital point in a young person’s education. It represents the culmination of primary and secondary school and provides a consistent point at which to measure attainment across all young people. Successful attainment at key stage 4 underpins future life chances, and pupils who fail to achieve at the end of stage 4 are highly at risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training. Other educational data are published by the Department for Education, so we do not believe that the proposed measure would add sufficient value to warrant inclusion in the life chances measures.
Emily Thornberry
I am sure the Minister understands the essential contradiction in what she is saying. If the Department for Education is publishing data for key stage 4, why does her Department need to publish it? If her Department is publishing data for key stage 4, why not for all the others? Why do we not get everything published all together so that we get a proper picture of any failure that might be about to happen as a result of Government measures? What are the Government afraid of?
Priti Patel
With respect, the hon. Lady misses the point. The data are published already across Government, so that information is in the public domain.
Hannah Bardell
I am interested to know why the Minister talks about a commitment to reporting, but is not willing to support our amendment to have reporting to the devolved Administrations. Does she not realise that she is answerable to the people of Scotland on such matters?
Priti Patel
I have made the point about the reporting mechanisms already, including during this debate. If I may, I will move on to something the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston touched on with regard to the range of life chances measures including key health indicators for children. In England, we also have key health indicators for disadvantaged children.
Amendment 82 is consequent on amendment 80 and requires the Secretary of State to set out in his report what is meant by “key health indicators”. I agree fully with the importance that the amendments would place on children’s health, but the Committee is aware that the Government have already put in place a well-developed reporting framework—the public health outcomes framework—which supports health improvement and protection at all stages of life, especially in early years. The framework includes a large number of indicators on children and young people’s health and, along with the NHS outcomes framework, sets a clear direction for children’s health that allows anyone to hold the Government to account.
The Department of Health has already commissioned University College London’s Institute of Health Equity to produce health inequalities indicators on a regular basis to complement the framework. Those indicators reflect the recommendations of the Marmot review, and profiles will be published for 150 upper-tier local authorities. Our decision to limit our headline statutory measures to worklessness and educational attainment was deliberate and supported by evidence.
Kate Green
What evidence supports looking only at key stage 4, given the importance of early years?
Priti Patel
I come back to the point that information is already being published. The hon. Lady is welcome to engage with the Department for Education to look at the data and to see how they inform the development of the Bill and the decision that we are taking.
Emily Thornberry
Does not the Minister appreciate that the way in which she is approaching the problem highlights just how much the Department for Work and Pensions is giving up on the idea of showing child poverty? Essentially, she has told us that, if we want to have a look at the impact of child poverty, we are to go to the Department for Education. What is the point of the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the issue?
Priti Patel
I would look at this on the basis of a whole Government strategy. This is not about Department versus Department, or Departments working in silos. If the hon. Lady listened to, or even looked at, the detail of what the Government are proposing with their life chances strategy, she would recognise very clearly that this is cross-Government work—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions—to focus on the collective root causes of poverty, which cannot be looked at in isolation. It is the Government’s duty to publish data across those Departments and make it available to the public.
Our focus on worklessness and educational attainment is supported by our review, published in 2013. The review makes it clear that educational attainment is the biggest single factor in ensuring that poor children do not end up as poor adults. The evidence in that review shows that long-term worklessness, and the resulting low earnings, is a highly significant factor in trapping children in poverty now. Children in workless families are about three times as likely to be in relative low-income as children in families with at least one person in work. Our new approach regarding life chances, focusing on the root causes, will drive this and future Governments to improve children’s life chances. That is best achieved through a tight focus on work and education, as set out in the life chances measures in clause 4. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
Kate Green
That was a depressing response. The Minister attacked the measure of low income and showed a depressing lack of logic in relation to our arguments in favour of a more rounded reporting of educational attainment at the earlier stages of child development and health. She simply did not in the least—this has been a feature of this Government and their predecessor for every year that they were in power—address poverty in working families.
I accept that the risk of being in poverty is reduced the more parents are able to be in work but, when two thirds of children living below the poverty line do so in a family where somebody is in paid employment, we have to say that the issue of in-work poverty is a serious one. It shows a real paucity of ambition for those families in working poverty that the Minister is so uninterested, not just in reporting on them, but even in addressing the point in this debate. She appears to live in some sort of fantasy land where those families are doing better; in my opening remarks, I pointed to the fact that they are doing worse. I am afraid that, in the light of the Minister’s depressing response, I wish to divide the Committee on amendment 77.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Owen. With respect, I believe that may be a miscount. I think that you meant 10 not 11.
The Chair
I will repeat the figures. The Ayes were three, the Noes 10. The noes still have it.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 4, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament the first life chances strategy for England.
(5B) Before the end of the period to which the strategy relates, the Secretary of State must review the strategy and publish and lay before Parliament a revised strategy.”
This ensures that the Government must produce a life chances strategy for England.
The amendment is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, who is unable to be here because she is speaking in a debate on steel, which is a massive issue for her. She has kindly provided some speaking notes for me.
The Bill is a disgrace. It seeks to repeal some of the most noble and courageous legislation of recent years—namely, the Child Poverty Act 2010—and the ambition to end child poverty by 2020. It shows a paucity of ambition towards tackling poverty and inequality. It flies in the face of decades of thorough and internationally recognised research into the drivers of child poverty and life chances. It seeks to hide Government failure on child poverty behind narrow, cherry-picked and less relevant reporting obligations. And crucially, to which the amendment speaks, it makes no attempt to set out a route map on how the Government intend to lift the life chances of children in this country.
What is the point in reporting on progress, unless there is a strategy that sets out what the Government will do to make that progress? The amendment would ensure that the Government produce a life-chances strategy for England and publish it before Parliament.
The Committee has received a wealth of evidence from independent experts that explores all the complex drivers of child poverty, built up over decades of professional, rigorous, evidence-based research. While issues such as worklessness and educational attainment, which the Bill measures, are important, there are many complex and inter-linked drivers, the most crucial of which is financial income, which this Government refuse to measure.
We know what the drivers of child poverty are, and we know what steps should be taken to reduce it to give children the best start in life. Under the previous Labour Government, the strategies to tackle child poverty and improve children’s life chances and to ensure that every child mattered and that no one would be disadvantaged by the postcode of where they lived included the introduction of tax credits, which transformed the help available to working individuals and families, the introduction of the national minimum wage and Sure Start centres and the Every Child Matters strategy, which allowed for an holistic examination of what the state could do to combat child poverty.
That is what a strategy on child poverty and life chances would look like from a Government serious about tackling the scourge of poverty and inequality. Would a decent Government designing a strategy for tackling child poverty, or, in this case, improving life chances, include measures such as the pernicious bedroom tax, slashing tax credits for working people, when two thirds of children growing up in poverty live in families where at least one person works, reducing the benefits cap and freezing working-age benefits, the inevitable sanctioning of lone parents struggling to manage bringing up a three-year-old, or cutting Sure Start centres?
We know what works in reducing child poverty and we know what the indicators are to measure it. They include being twice as likely to live in bad housing, with significant effects on physical and mental health and educational achievement. Children in the poorest areas weigh an average of 200 grams less at birth than those born in the most affluent areas. They are more likely to die at birth or infancy, to suffer chronic illness during childhood or have a disability or long-term health condition. Children living in the most deprived areas of England have 19 fewer years of life expectancy than those in the least deprived areas.
Emily Thornberry
Is it my hon. Friend’s experience, as it is mine, that there are parts of the constituency where, on one side of the road, people will live five, six, seven or sometimes 10 years more than those on the other side of the road, because there is a poor estate on one side and richer people right next door who will live 10 years longer?
Neil Coyle
That is absolutely my experience in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. We have a massive contrast in income inequality. People who live in areas along the riverside have a higher life expectancy, and in other areas, particularly the Grange, Rotherhithe and South Bermondsey wards, about a third of children are living in poverty.
Emily Thornberry
If the child begins badly—if they are unhealthy and there are health inequalities when they are young—the chances of their dying earlier are obviously very much higher.
Neil Coyle
Absolutely. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, and it is certainly my experience of working on these issues as a councillor and now as the Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Children from poor backgrounds are left behind at all stages of education. Without financial income, parents cannot afford the other things that contribute to life chances: school trips, decent healthy food, or a break or holiday away from home with their family. How can the Government say they are serious about improving life chances when they will stop collecting much of this data and have no evidence-based strategy to demonstrate how they intend to reach their targets?
Although the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the BBC’s “Today” programme in 2014 that he would meet the current targets, we know that they will not be met. This does not make the goal of ending child poverty any less achievable than it was. We know from past and international experience that, with the right timeframe and the right political will, we can eradicate child poverty. If the Government were serious, they would not remove the child poverty commitment at all. If they were serious about actually improving children’s life chances, they would not just report on them, but would set out a strategy to show how they intend to improve them. That is the aim of the amendment.
Priti Patel
With the amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks to create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a life chances strategy for England and to review and revise it. Members of the Committee will recognise that the Government have made a clear commitment to publish an annual report containing data on our headline measures of children in workless households and children’s educational attainment. Those are the measures that will drive the action to make a real difference to children’s lives now and in the future.
In addition, the Government have committed to publishing a life chances strategy, which will reflect a wider set of measures on the root causes of child poverty, such as family breakdown, problems with debt, and drug and alcohol dependency. We have said that we will report on those measures annually. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Neil Coyle
We have discussed some of these issues this morning. To be accused of bluster is unfortunate and insensitive when the concern is that an intervention at 16 is far too late. It is unclear exactly what the Government intend to do if they discover—shock horror!—that there are children aged 16 who are educationally disadvantaged. I am fortunate, as the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, to have a constituency where schools are outperforming the national standards, but this is still a massive concern for us. Intervening at the age of 16 is far too late.
I think that those in the sector will conclude that the Government, in failing to accept the amendment, are acknowledging that they have something to hide on the issue, but I will not force the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Social Mobility Commission
Kate Green
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 16 to 27 and insert—
“5 Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission: additional functions
(1) After Section 8A of the Child Poverty Act 2010 insert—”
To leave the name of the “Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission” unchanged.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 5, page 6, leave out lines 15 and 16.
A consequential amendment to amendment 7 to leave the name of the “Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission” unchanged.
Kate Green
Amendments 7 and 8 seek to leave the current name of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission unchanged. We are shocked at the Government’s brass neck in the way that they seek to airbrush child poverty off the statute book and, indeed, to measure and report on it.
The Child Poverty Act 2010, which established the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, was passed with cross-party support. I was not in the House at the time. I was not in the House at the time; I was one of the external campaigners who warmly welcomed that the Conservative party, in particular, was taking such an interest and demonstrating such an understanding of the importance of income poverty.
Priti Patel
The amendments seek to preserve the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in its original form by retaining its name and preventing the technical change to the Child Poverty Act 2010. It would retitle the relevant schedule to reflect the commission’s name change.
Clause 5 will reform the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission to become the Social Mobility Commission. As part of the Government’s drive to improve prospects for everyone in the country, the reformed commission will ensure independent scrutiny of the process to improve and promote social mobility. The reforms to the commission will ensure a high level of independent scrutiny of progress towards a society where everyone is able to play their full part and realise their potential, regardless of their background.
The reformed commission will look beyond the Government’s action to the important role that wider civic society plays in improving social mobility. That is crucial if we as a Government are to meet our ambitions and targets of full employment, in creating 2 million more jobs, and improving the future prospects of disadvantaged children.
The commission has already demonstrated its ability to drive forward the social mobility agenda. Its fully argued annual reports and groundbreaking research on themes such as social mobility in London schools, and evaluating the non-educational barriers to the elite professions, have helped inform the debate on how to improve social mobility. Our reforms will free the commission from having to track the Government’s progress on the old, flawed child poverty targets.
Priti Patel
I will not give way.
Our reforms will enable the commission to invest all its resources in galvanising effort and improving social mobility. Ultimately, reforming the commission to focus on social mobility will help to ensure that all children can reach their full potential. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Kate Green
I have no objection or disagreement with the Minister on the importance of addressing social mobility and looking at the drivers of improved social mobility. She simply must accept that around the world the compelling evidence of the importance of income poverty to all other outcomes is unquestioned. This Government will set their face against both that international evidence and their own understanding in 2010.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Under the Bill, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission will be renamed the Social Mobility Commission, with a much narrower remit. It will report on progress made towards improving social mobility in the UK, as well as in England.
The Bill is designed to have a limited impact on the current duties of the devolved Administrations. Scotland will continue to be required to produce a child poverty strategy under a duty in a UK Act. Clearly, we will no longer be statutorily bound to report on the income targets, as they are being removed.
Removing income as a measure of poverty ignores the fact that low income impacts on children’s development and wellbeing, including their development in education and their cognitive ability, behaviour and anxiety levels. Child poverty rates that had previously fallen at the beginning of the century are now at risk of being reversed. The IFS projection is that absolute poverty will stand at 3.5 million children before housing costs and 4.7 million after by 2020.
Although worklessness and lack of access to employment are key drivers of poverty, there is no recognition of in-work poverty. Therefore, income has also to be included to ensure the other measures are meaningful and that there is a tangible benchmark. How can this or any Government tackle child poverty if they do not even recognise it exists? The child poverty measurement framework recognises the importance of measuring poverty in consultation with stakeholders such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children. It looked at the wide range of factors that can lead to poverty as well as providing an understanding of the impacts of poverty on children and their families.
In addition, the Scottish Government have an ambitious and robust child poverty strategy and host a ministerial advisory group on child poverty, which includes stakeholders from a variety of sectors. On 23 June 2015, Nicola Sturgeon appointed a new, independent adviser on poverty and inequality to help the Scottish Government’s—
The Chair
Order. I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Lady; she is going a bit wide of the amendment. Would she come back to the amendment moved by Kate Green?
Corri Wilson
The Scottish Government will investigate a Scottish approach, building on wide support for the poverty measurement framework. We will support Labour to stop the proposals and ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected.
Kate Green
I believe that we will have the opportunity to return to the matter on clause 6, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Priti Patel
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 5, page 5, line 23, leave out from “which” to end of line 24 and insert
“section 5 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2015 comes into force.”
This amendment brings the date from which the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission is to be called the Social Mobility Commission into line with the commencement of the other changes to the Commission made by clause 5.
The amendment brings the wording of the provision describing the date from which the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission will be called the Social Mobility Commission in line with the commencement date of clause 5—that is, two months after Royal Assent. This is a purely technical amendment, designed to ensure that the wording of the Bill is consistent.
Amendment 86 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kate Green
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 6, line 18, leave out subsection 1.
Leave child poverty targets and measures unchanged.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 97, in clause 6, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 2 (Duty of Secretary of State to ensure that targets in sections 3 to 6 are met) for “2020” substitute “2030”.”
This amends the Child Poverty Act 2010 to set new child poverty targets for 2030 rather than 2020. To be read in conjunction with amendment 9.
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 7, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of clause.
Leave child poverty targets and measures unchanged.
Kate Green
Amendment 9 would leave the child poverty targets and measures, currently provided in the Child Poverty Act 2010, unchanged.
With your permission, Mr Owen, I will also speak to amendment 97 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar who is engaged in a debate on the steel industry in the Chamber.
With the exception of Government Members, the importance of targets and measures of income poverty to internationally agreed definitions is unquestioned. Targets, measuring and reporting on them drive action, show progress and enable comparisons to be made: comparisons of trend data over time and other similar economies with similar demographic make-up. The importance of income poverty in that context, as we heard earlier, is linked to a range of poorer outcomes, in education, health and wider societal costs.
As I have said, there is widespread international acceptance that income is key. The Government in their own evidence review last year showed that the most important factor for children’s outcomes was lack of income. That is not just income among families where no one is in work but insufficient income from earnings, too.
Other indicators are important. It is important and right to track educational, health and child wellbeing outcomes, but those are not the same as tracking poverty, as we can see clearly from the written evidence submitted by the End Child Poverty campaign.
In 2013, the Government carried out a wide consultation on whether the income poverty measurement and target regime provided for by the 2010 Act was flawed and should be replaced. Of the many responses received by the Government to that consultation, the overwhelming majority—97%—of the responses said that the measures and the targets were fine and needed no alteration.
If ever evidence of a Government who really do not care about evidence and analysis is needed, it can be found in the proposals in clause 6. One cannot help but feel that it is not evidence but fear that motivates the Government: fear that failure to meet targets, or demonstrate progress towards them, would at the very least embarrass the Government and might even raise concern in the minds of Ministers that there could be a legal threat.
Emily Thornberry
To be fair—I do wish us to be fair to the Government—those who still believe that they are compassionate Conservatives might find it difficult if measures show that they are failing.
Kate Green
That is a very charitable interpretation from my hon. Friend, but she is a charitable lady, so we should not be surprised by her generosity of spirit in Committee today.
I have spent many years looking at this territory and I know that legal challenges have been mounted in the past. I believe firmly that a challenge would not be viable against a well-intentioned, well-meaning Government who had taken purposeful action to address child poverty even if, due to external circumstances, they were not ultimately able to meet the targets they had set, especially if they were ambitious targets in the time hoped.
What we actually have is a Government who are not bothering to try to meet the targets. In the last Parliament, child poverty fell in the first two years of the coalition Government up to 2011-12. That was the result of measures introduced by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Labour Government, that had not yet been affected by the measures that the coalition Government set about introducing. Since 2011-12, while the coalition Government and the present Government have been in charge of family income strategy, child poverty has flatlined. There has been no progress at all and no strategy to improve the position of those poor families.
Neil Coyle
My hon. Friend says that child poverty is flatlining, but for many families, is it not the case that absolute child poverty has risen? That is a particular concern in constituencies such as mine in inner London, and it is linked to in-work poverty.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come to that point, because it leads into something that I shall say about the measures and targets that we use.
The summer Budget and the measures in the Bill will push more families and more children into poverty. We have not yet got an analysis of the impact of the Bill or the Budget on child poverty and on the numbers of children growing up poor. It is disappointing that the Government have not laid that impact assessment before the House. We cannot know for sure what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the impact. We do not know whether they bothered to make such an assessment. From our knowledge, expertise and understanding of what drives poverty, we can expect that the impact will be pretty adverse. We can also look to the very helpful Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standards research, to which I referred earlier. It points to a particularly harsh effect on the family incomes of some particularly vulnerable groups, including single-parent families, couples with several children and families who face high housing costs.
Hannah Bardell
I am listening intently to the hon. Lady and I agree with much of what she is saying. Does she agree that the alternative targets proposed are not necessarily related to poverty? Family break-up and drug and alcohol dependency affect families from all income deciles, and problem debt is generally a consequence rather than a cause of poverty.
Kate Green
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the complexity of disentangling causes from consequences and about the fact that Ministers are giving the public distorting messages about what poverty actually is. Let me make this clear: only 4% of parents experience alcohol or drug addiction, and far from all those parents are parents of poor children. Of course, it is devastating for children who grow up in households where parents are addicted, but it is not the same as poverty and it certainly does not explain the 3.7 million children growing up in poverty in the UK today. As she rightly noted, family break-up affects families across the income spectrum. There will be hon. Members in this room who have experienced it in their own families. We should not conflate the two. While it is true that single parents and their children face a higher risk of poverty, there are measures that could be taken to ameliorate and address that consequence, instead of which the Government will make the position of those families worse.
Neil Coyle
Is there not a challenge in what the Government are attempting to suggest, in that on the one hand the Minister says their policies on tackling poverty are working but on the other suggests that the measurements, accepted by the Prime Minister when they were introduced, are flawed? Does that not expose the Government’s real agenda, which is to mask their lack of effort in tackling the low-wage economy and in-work poverty?
Kate Green
My hon. Friend absolutely makes the case.
As we have heard this morning, it is also ridiculous to think that measuring worklessness alone could be a substitute for measuring poverty, when two thirds of poor children are in households where somebody works. We have repeatedly heard from the Conservative party that the measures are somehow flawed or insufficient, so let us go through carefully what the Child Poverty Act actually requires in relation to measurement and targets.
We know that the Institute for Fiscal Studies expects a rise in relative poverty in this Parliament, but it also expects that it is entirely possible that absolute poverty could fall. So there is a two-way street, if you like, built into the cocktail of measures that we have. We have four measures of poverty in the Child Poverty Act: relative income poverty; absolute poverty; material deprivation; and persistent poverty. That addresses some of the concerns that Government Members might rightly have about tracking only one measure. It is right that when median income is falling, relative income poverty alone is not sufficient to give a good picture of what is happening to our poorest families, although it remains important in tracking the gap that exists.
However, it is also right to recognise that we do not look only at relative income poverty in the Child Poverty Act. We look at absolute poverty, persistent poverty and, crucially, material deprivation. Material deprivation gives a real-life test of poverty and the public can engage with it, get their heads round it and understand it. Also, as I said earlier today, it is a particularly good predictor of health outcomes for children.
Hannah Bardell
Again, what the hon. Lady says chimes strongly with me. Is she aware that, as indicated by the House of Commons Library, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission warned in 2014 that although levels of child poverty are low by historic standards,
“there is no realistic hope of the child poverty targets being met in 2020, given the likely tax and benefit system in place”?
That was in 2014, before any of these changes were made. Is this not a thinly veiled way of covering up the fact that those targets were never going to be reached?
Kate Green
We are certainly not going to reach them under the Government’s current policies; indeed, we will move further away from them. I share the hon. Lady’s scepticism about the Government’s motives, to put it gently. It is really regrettable that, rather than seeking to tackle the problem of poverty, they simply seek to remove it altogether from any understanding of the public policy world.
I hope that the Committee understands that the critique of the Child Poverty Act and its measures and targets as being somehow deficient is completely false. It is also important to understand that the measures the Government proclaim will address poverty are also false, or at least incomplete. As I said earlier this morning, the so-called national living wage will not fully compensate for cuts to benefits and tax credits. What is more, it is highly regrettable that the Government, who are fond of the argument that tax credits are simply a substitute for lower wages, fail to recognise the different functions of pay and tax credits. It is why we have a complex cocktail of policy responses to a set of different drivers of poverty.
Working tax credits compensate for low pay. That means that in households where a family member is low paid, they may derive some benefit from tax credits. Some low-paid people will not do so because they are not in low-paid households; they are the low-paid earner in a household with a high overall household income. So tax credits are a response to low pay, and they help households that suffer low income as a result of low pay to avoid the adverse effects of that low pay.
We should also recognise that the purpose of tax credits for children is not to compensate for low pay or to subsidise employers. It is about sharing among society as a whole the investment that we all have a duty, and indeed an interest, in making in the next generation, who will deliver the future productivity in our economy that will sustain us as we grow old.
We should also remember that while rising pay and an increase in the so-called national living wage are welcome, the national living wage would have to rise very substantially for parents who have no access to any other sources of income—to more than £13 an hour—before their children were lifted out of poverty. Tax credits meet that gap. If it is to be filled entirely by rising wages, that is likely to lead to substantial numbers of job losses, which Ministers would be rightly concerned about.
It is also said that the Child Poverty Act and the measures therein are deficient, because they only look at money. While I strongly contend that money is important, that is also an incorrect analysis of the provisions of the Child Poverty Act. On Second Reading, I particularly sought to draw the House’s attention to that point when I highlighted the fact that written into the Child Poverty Act is a requirement for strategies in relation to child health, children’s education, parental employment, debt—a subject of interest to Government Members—and parenting. Those are all associated with child poverty and provided for in the Child Poverty Act, but they sit alongside the provisions of the Act in relation to measuring relative income poverty and targets for it. They are not the same thing or a substitute.
I am concerned and disappointed by the provisions of clause 6. The clause is cynical and distressing and cheapens the United Kingdom in the eyes of the international community. Most importantly, it means that many of our poor children are at risk of becoming poorer, unobserved. I am frankly shocked at the brazenness of the clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar is unable to do so today, with the permission of the Committee I will speak briefly to amendment 97, which was tabled in her name. It addresses the concern that the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out a few moments ago relating to the Government not being on track to meet the 2020 target to eradicate child poverty. That is right, but as Alison Garnham pointed out to us in her oral evidence earlier this week, the Government would not have been completely unable to reach the target in due course. Let us remember that the target, as Ms Garnham pointed out to us, is not to reach zero poverty. A frictional level of poverty will always exist. Families move in and out of poverty, but it might not be sustained if, for example, they quickly return to work. We accept that a reasonable definition of the eradication of child poverty was to reach the best level in Europe—around 10%—which is a realistic target.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar suggests that the target could be reasonably met by 2030, based on the trajectory that we were on before the measures in the summer Budget and the Bill. The argument for keeping the target but extending it over a realistic period is interesting. We are naturally disappointed that, for another 10 years, too many children will grow up poor, but we would rather that we retained the measure and the target in the statute book at least to ensure that there was a mechanism to drive progress forward.
My hon. Friend’s amendment is good, and seeks to give the Government leeway to deal with the difficult challenges that have existed since the 2008 financial crash and with the fact that pay either fell or was frozen in order to sustain people in employment. We recognise that time must be bought to cope with the consequences of the world financial collapse, but it is not right to give up the ambition for this generation or for future generations of children. We want the target to remain on the statute book, and amendment 97 seeks a realistic end date for that target.
Amendment 10 is similar to amendment 9 and merely addresses the same point elsewhere in the Bill.
As many hon. Members will know, I worked for the Child Poverty Action Group before I was elected to the House in 2010, and of all the measures in the Bill this is probably the one that I feel most pained, outraged and angered by. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and a shame that will affect our children, and I hope the Government will think again before it is too late.
Corri Wilson
I am conscious of the time, so I just want to pick out a few reasons why the SNP oppose the changes. The loss of income targets means that a fundamental driver of poverty—how much money a person has in their pocket—is essentially being deprioritised. Focusing on worklessness ignores the 67% of UK children in poverty who live in a household in which one or more adults are working. That is in-work poverty.
Priti Patel
With the amendment, hon. Members seek to preserve the Child Poverty Act 2010 in its original form, including the much discussed income measure and targets, and to extend the target year of the measures from the financial year beginning 1 April 2020 to that beginning 1 April 2030. The Government do not support that position.
First, on amendments 9 and 10, the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act 2010 focus on the symptoms of child poverty while failing to tackle the root causes. We have had an extensive discussion this morning about many of the root causes. As I have described, the fundamental weaknesses with the existing statutory framework, set around the four income-related targets of child poverty, have become all too apparent.
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way.
Removing the flawed income-related measures and targets and replacing them with the new measures of worklessness and educational attainment will drive this Government and future Governments to improve disadvantaged children’s life chances, and it will strengthen our approach by tackling the root causes of child poverty. We do not believe that any number of duties, producing a UK strategy, or placing new demands on local authorities, would be a substitute for a clear commitment to report on the real root causes, which evidence tells us will make the biggest difference to improving the life chances of children and, importantly, transforming their lives. We will report on the life chances measures in this Bill and will be judged on our actions.
On amendment 97, I have described the fundamental weaknesses of the existing statutory measures and targets. It is a framework that incentivises Government action to move people from just below an arbitrary line to just over it, rather than tackling the fundamental issues that affect families, children and their life chances. Extending the target year to financial year 2030-31 will not overcome any of those fundamental weaknesses. Only by removing the flawed income-related targets and replacing them with new measures will we drive this and future Governments to improve and focus on children’s life chances. The Government are focused on doing that; we will focus our resources on achieving those outcomes. It is only right and fair to children and taxpayers that we do so. The Government will not throw good money after bad; it is not fair on our children or our taxpayers, and that is precisely what Opposition Members seek to do.
Priti Patel
No, I will not.
We have discussed the flaws and weaknesses of the measures to some extent. Members suggest that we should extend the deadline on the same flawed measures and force future Governments to spend money on tackling symptoms, not the root causes. I recognise that Members will probably press the amendments, but I urge them not to do so.
Kate Green
I certainly will not withdraw amendment 9. I feel all the more strongly that it must be pressed to a Division in light of the Minister’s response. She is a very intelligent woman, and I have a great deal of respect for her as a Minister. She is extremely able, but she must know that what she is saying is a disgrace that overlooks the myriad evidence before us and—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark wished to point out—the position of her own party and the Prime Minister in his lecture in 2006. Her party supported what she now calls a “flawed measure” when it supported the Child Poverty Act in 2010.
If the Minister is going to try to tell me that she now thinks that the Government have had some awakening that was not available to them in 2010, I invite her to present the evidence that was not available in 2010 and is available today. She has not done so. The fact is that these targets are internationally recognised and respected, have been over many decades and were endorsed in the Government’s own consultation in 2013. There is no reason why we should abandon them now.
May I raise two points with the right hon. Lady? First, she says there is a temptation to move people from just below an arbitrary line to just above it. That is not what happened under the Labour Government. We raised incomes in every single income decile. We were ambitious for all of our children, and we remain so today. The idea that having targets or duties does not work is also a completely flawed argument. Conservative Members often like to point out that child poverty rose under Labour. Yes, it did, in one or two years, but I would point out that it doubled under the Conservatives between 1979 and 1997, whereas Labour took a million children out of poverty between 1999 and 2010. However, I accept that it rose in one or two years. As soon as we could see that we were veering off progress towards the target, we took action to bring ourselves back on track. That is the importance of targets. Any Government can make mistakes and any Government can be faced with external circumstances that make progress difficult, but without ambition and without targets to measure that ambition, there is no incentive, requirement or likelihood of action being taken to correct progress as soon as it is right and possible to do so.
I feel this matter very personally, as hon. Members may identify from the way I am speaking in the Committee this afternoon. I will press amendment 9 to a vote. I urge hon. and right hon. Members, in the interests of future generations of children, not to scrap the Child Poverty Act.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is her last speech in this Committee. I thank her and I am sure we will all miss her.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Priti Patel
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 6, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) in the section heading omit “Regulations and”.”
This amendment removes the words “Regulations and “ from the heading of section 28 of the Child Poverty Act 2010, consequential on the changes of substance to this section made by clause 6(7), which removes references to regulations.
This amendment removes the words “Regulations and” from the title of section 28 of the Child Poverty Act 2010, consequential to the changes made in clause 6(7), which removes the regulation-making powers in the 2010 Act. There is only one order-making power. It is therefore logical to remove the obsolete component of the title, “Regulations and”. This is a technical amendment designed to ensure that the wording and section titles in the 2010 Act are consistent. The change is a matter not of policy but of clarity and consistency.
Amendment 87 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Sixth sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 7, page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove the changes to the benefit cap.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 8, line 38, leave out “£23,000 or £15,410” and insert “£26,000 or £18,200”.
This amendment would keep the benefit cap level in London at the same rate as today.
Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 8, line 39, leave out “£20,000 or £13,400” and insert “£26,000 or £18,200”.
This amendment would keep the benefit cap level outside London at the same rate as today.
Amendment 71, in clause 7, page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
To retain the current link between the benefit cap and estimated average earnings.
Amendment 38, in clause 7, page 9, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment is consequential to amendment 25.
Hannah Bardell
Our amendments are intended to protect people from the Conservative Government’s dangerous blanket cut to benefits. The clause lowers the benefit cap set by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and applies it to a large number of benefits. Our group of amendments would remove the new cap and ensure that the original cap remained for inside and outside London, recognising the significantly higher cost of living in London. Amendment 25 would remove the subsection that makes changes to the original 2012 Act, while amendments 26 and 27 would change the wording of the Bill so as to leave the benefit cap in the original Act unchanged. Amendment 38 is consequent on the other amendments.
The original benefit cap in the 2012 Act was introduced so that benefit claims could not exceed average earnings. The Government have not introduced such a rationale for the imposition of the new cap—the rates at which it is to be set are entirely arbitrary. Where did the figures come from? We have no information on that and we cannot understand the rationale. We must remember that the rates are not only numbers or bands, or digits on a piece of paper; those numbers represent a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people in the UK.
The Government are not only blindly pushing ideologically driven cuts but applying the cuts with entirely arbitrary figures that have no justification. The families to whom the cuts will apply must have answers on where the figures have come from. I and, I am sure, many others have already had a stream of constituents coming to our surgeries to complain about cuts and sanctions that seem nonsensical and that they cannot understand.
Labour’s amendment 71 would maintain the link between the benefit cap and estimated average earnings that the original Act intended. Although we oppose the cap generally, we also oppose removing the link with average earnings and introducing an arbitrary cap, so we support the principle of that amendment. I commend it.
The utterly thoughtless way in which the Government are making the benefit changes is staggering. The breadth of social groups that will be affected and the depth to which they will be affected should make Ministers hang their heads in shame. The burden of the cuts will be felt not only across Scottish and other devolved Administrations, although we are doing our best to protect people, but throughout all parts of the United Kingdom.
The National Housing Federation estimated that under the £23,000 cap in London, families face a shortfall between benefit and rent of £27.79 per week; the weekly shortfall under a £20,000 cap ranges from £37.40 in Yorkshire and Humberside to £67.35 in the south-east, based on the current rent agreement. There is also danger that families and individuals living in temporary accommodation who, by virtue of their situation, are already deemed to be vulnerable by a local authority will no longer be able to manage rent payments and will find themselves homeless once again. We are making some of the most vulnerable in society even more vulnerable.
Some disability-related benefits are to be protected, which is welcome, but countless charities and lobbying groups have pointed out that disabled people and their carers sometimes also rely on a variety of other benefits that are being capped by the Bill. It is not enough to protect a few disability-specific benefits from the cap; the Government need to look at the bigger picture. Again, there does not seem to be any joined-up or strategic thinking behind the cap.
The effects of the cap will also be felt by those who have life-threatening or terminal illnesses and who require care. They and their carers will be subject to the cap. How can we possibly justify capping and cutting support for some of the most vulnerable and ill people in our society?. It seems nonsensical and the Scottish National party is absolutely opposed to it. Not only are the cuts detrimental to the ability of those who are sick and disabled to live independently, but the poverty and debt might lead to even more vulnerability.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. It is also an enormous pleasure to serve on this Committee, to have heard contributions such as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who is departing from her current position on the Front Bench, and to hear the passion with which she gave voice to the beating heart of the Labour party and the outrage at how the Bill is being introduced and its extraordinary justification. If anyone ever questions where the Labour party’s heart is, they just need to hear her speech from before lunch.
I wish to speak to amendment 71. According to the Book of Ecclesiastes:
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
Those words have survived for thousands of years, but could almost have been written yesterday by an author scratching his head over some of the perverse measures in the Bill. I suspect that historians will one day look back on these debates and cite the benefit cap as a classic example of an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in modern politics: a solution without a problem. After all, we have had a household benefit cap for more than two years.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early. She may be about to say this, in which case I apologise for stealing her moment. As she says, nothing is new under the sun. We had a benefit cap in the 1960s when it was called the wage stop rule. Women in particular campaigned to end it, which was to the benefit of poor children.
Emily Thornberry
And of course, as we will see, those who will be hit most adversely by the benefit cap are, yet again, women.
Ministers seem to be no closer to pinning down a convincing rationale for the policy today than they were four years ago when the Welfare Reform Act 2012 was debated. To the extent that there has been an underlying theme throughout this period, however, it has been the ever-slippery concept of fairness. As the Secretary of State put it when introducing the Welfare Reform Bill on Second Reading in March 2011:
“The principle is that people who are unemployed and on benefits should not be receiving more than average earnings. It is a matter of fairness, so that those who are working hard and paying their taxes do not feel that someone else will benefit more by not playing a full part in society.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 921-922.]
It is almost quaint, with more than four years’ worth of hindsight, to imagine Government policy being drawn up with such sensitivity to people’s feelings, but the Secretary of State’s words are revealing to the extent that they disclose that the closest thing there was to a principled reason for introducing the cap was the perception of the problem, rather than evidence of one.
As I said, that has come to be a tendency over the past few years. In fact, further evidence appeared just a few days ago when the House was asked to consider the Trade Union Bill, which seems to have been designed to allay tabloid hysteria more than to deal with a real problem. When the issue in question is out-of-work benefits, tabloid hysteria is in abundant supply. Goaded by Ministers, the entire debate has become hijacked by splashy headlines that generated heat rather than light. It is time that the plane of discussion was brought back down to earth.
I said that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Tory welfare reform, but that is not strictly true, because lowering the cap requires an innovation that is a novel twist to the idea of fairness. The link between the household cap and estimated average earnings has been severed. That is quite a spanner in the works in terms of the Government’s efforts to prop up one of their primary justifications for the cap. The principle that working taxpayers, when they are fortunate enough not to have to claim benefits in order to survive, must be helped to feel positive about the way that the benefit system operates was always a dubious basis on which to make policy. The fact that that was supposed to have been achieved by setting the cap at the level of earnings makes clause 7(3) even more extraordinary.
Returning to the debates of the 2012 Act, the last Welfare Reform Bill, we might find the comments of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) particularly instructive. He was the poor, unfortunate Minister saddled with the unenviable task of defending the cap and attempting to provide a coherent rationale for it. Fortunately for him, he did have a link with average earnings to fall back on. As he explained:
“Our policy approach, and the Government’s clear intent, is to have a cap that bears reference to average earnings. That is necessary for the credibility of our benefit system. It is the right place to set the cap.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 952.]
He was either right then or he was wrong, but are we not being contradicted by the changes to the law that the Government are intending now? Evidently, the new generation of Ministers take a different view. While there may be many problems that can be laid at Ministers’ feet, a fall in average earnings over the past two years is not, probably, one of them. According to the much-quoted Office for National Statistics, since the level of the cap was first established at £26,000 a year, average earnings have risen, not by much—just 0.1%, in fact—but they have risen. If wages are going up, why is the cap coming down if it is supposed to be, in any way, linked to average earnings? It is a simple question and I am sure that there will be a simple answer.
It has therefore proved necessary for the Government to take a different tack in arguing the increasingly tenuous case for lowering the cap. The alternative explanation that Ministers have increasingly relied on is that the cap is a cost-saving measure on one hand, and that it provides an incentive for people to move into work on the other. We now do not have a link to average incomes; we have the cap as an incentive to get people into work and that it will be a cost-saving measure.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. May I ask her to comment on recent evidence that emerged over the summer, which showed that although some people did move into work—Tony Wilson, in his oral evidence, told us a little bit about that—those who did not probably could not? They were either the parents of very young children, were suffering from ill health or there was a disability in the household.
Emily Thornberry
Absolutely right. Indeed, some of the evidence that we heard was that those who did move into work were not in what would be called sustainable work. For example, a single mother of many children who perhaps had been moved into 16 hours a week of work to avoid the cap, would find it impossible to sustain that work during the school holidays when her four children were back at home and she did not have childcare.
People temporarily may have been able to move into work and back out again, but we can see the continued high level of spend on discretionary housing payments to support these people. That in itself is evidence that it is not sustainable to try to push people for whom it is not possible to find work into work. Indeed, the evidence shows—I am sorry to keep harping on about evidence, but I always thought that policy was based on it—that most people who were affected by the benefit cap are not even deemed fit for work.
I will just go back. Having abandoned the idea of linking the cap with earnings, the Ministers are now relying on it being a cost-saving measure and an incentive for people to move into work. Of course, neither of those arguments stack up. I will come back to that. There continues to be a bad smell of unfairness, which will not go away. Just two days ago, the Minister was trotting out the same old argument. She said:
“The cap is a simple matter of fairness”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2015; c. 144.]
However, she left us guessing, as we still are, exactly what was meant and how this could be fair as the cap seems to have been set at an arbitrary level.
Amendment 71 would remove subsection (3) and maintain the link between the level of the cap and estimated average earnings. If we are to accept the argument of the previous Minister that this connection is necessary for the credibility of the cap—a tall order, frankly—I can see no good reason for removing this requirement from the legislation. If the very concept of the benefit cap is to inspire even a shred of public confidence, it is incumbent on Ministers to explain why they propose to hand themselves extraordinarily broad powers to lower the cap at any time for any reason.
Ministers are essentially asking us to trust them to make decisions on the basis of fairness. Frankly, given their track record and given what the Minister said before the luncheon Adjournment—that she did not want to continue throwing good money after bad—it would be fair, for some people at least, to be somewhat sceptical of their understanding of fairness. To trust them to make these decisions on the basis of fairness is a slippery concept if there ever was one. The definition of the word seems in any event to be the subject of regular revisions apparently based on nothing more than political whimsy and the need of George Osborne to continue to save money.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share the concern that some of the Government agenda is being driven by think-tanks that have done none of their own research on these issues and were unable to provide evidence to back up the assertions that they made in the witness sessions?
May I also say how much I enjoyed my lunch?
Emily Thornberry
Yes, there was an opportunity when we heard evidence. We asked the Government for evidence. We asked them again and again. I have tabled several parliamentary questions and have not had particularly good answers. We have asked questions in the House about their justification and evidence, and we got nowhere. If there is an opportunity, it would be great finally to hear from the think-tanks, which I know the Government are close to—at least some of them—and for them to come forward and give us the evidence on which the policy is based.
I was struck that, while hyperbole was in good measure, we had no evidence. We had people coming in again and again telling us the occasional story. It is as though the policy is based on the one family that was found living in Westminster with the flatscreen television and a Mercedes outside, or whatever the extraordinary example was. That is so removed from the reality of the day-to-day lives of people who are affected today by previous benefit caps and will be affected even more by further benefit caps.
The best way to make policy is on the basis of evidence. For that reason, the Labour party has made it clear what our position now is. We oppose the Tories’ reduction in the benefit cap, so we will therefore be joining the Scottish Nationalists on amendments 25 and 26. We will review Labour policy with regard to the principle of the benefit cap and we will look at evidence. It is right to say that Labour Members who represent London constituencies feel that week after week in our surgeries we see an awful lot of evidence of the adverse effect of the benefit cap and how it does not provide an incentive to get people into work, how it does not save money, and how, more than anything else, it is not fair.
We want in the next few months to put forward a good body of evidence to show, one way or the other, whether a benefit cap is right on any basis. For that reason, although we oppose the lowering of the benefit cap now, we have committed ourselves to looking carefully into the evidence, and we encourage people, including the Government, to come forward and share the evidence with us. If the Government want to give us the evidence on which they are basing this appalling policy—this cruel and nasty policy—I would be very glad to hear it and very glad to read it.
More than political whimsy is needed. If we must have a cap, we should at least make it clear that there should be an objective benchmark by which the level should be determined. I will therefore press amendment 71 to a vote.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Good afternoon to everyone. These grouped amendments, in simple terms, are intended to counteract the changes that we are introducing to the benefit cap, as we have already heard. Amendment 25 would prevent the proposed reduction in its rate. Amendments 26 and 27 would prevent our plans to introduce a tiered structure to the cap, which will have different rates for claimants living in Greater London and for claimants living elsewhere. The two amendments would also keep the cap at its current rate with the same split between the level for lone parents and couples and the level for single people without children.
Amendment 71 would prevent us from establishing a new mechanism for reviewing the future level for the cap by maintaining the current link with average earnings. Amendment 38 is a more technical amendment that appears to attempt to direct future parliamentary procedures for introducing regulations for the cap. I will come to that amendment later. The cap was introduced in 2013 at the level of £26,000 a year with a lower rate of £18,200 a year for single people without children. Currently, the cap remains at that level.
The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has mentioned why the Government introduced the cap, but I will remind the Committee that it was introduced because it was felt—and is felt—that it was not fair for out-of-work households to receive considerably more in benefits than many working households earn. That view is shared by many people across the country, with around 70% of the public supporting a cap. The cap is also a key part of the overall plan to reform not only the structure of welfare benefits but attitudes towards welfare benefits, and it was introduced to increase incentives to work and to promote fairness to those on benefits and those in work. At the time, as we recall, we were trying to address the bigger economic issues of the deficit.
Kate Green
I understand the point about work incentives. We heard from Tony Wilson that a small number of people have moved into work, but is it fair to talk about changing the attitudes of people who are too sick to work? They are caught by the benefit cap, too.
Priti Patel
This is part of the wider welfare reforms. The Government are supporting people who are sick and ill. Depending on their health conditions, they are receiving support in welfare.
Emily Thornberry
Taking that a little further, would the Minister be prepared to accept that people on employment and support allowance, who are therefore deemed not fit to work, ought to be exempted from the benefit cap if it is her policy to support those who cannot work?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will be perfectly aware that people who are very ill, particularly those in the support group, are supported by the Government through many, many welfare measures. That covers a range of conditions.
Kate Green
I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister will understand that this is terribly important to people with long-term health problems. Some 80,000 people have been placed in the work-related activity group with a long-term prognosis that they are unlikely to see a change in their condition in at least the next two years. That was the finding of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report last year. Further, 8,000 people in that group over time and, from the figures announced by the Secretary of State the other day, some 4,500 people in that group now have degenerative conditions, which means that they will never be more well than they currently are.
Priti Patel
Those in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance are, of course, exempt from the cap. The Secretary of State has recently spoken about ESA and the additional support that can be given to individuals with particular health conditions. The Government are working on that right now, completely outside of this Bill.
Neil Coyle
On the point about disabled people being protected, there is an exemption for the support group—fair enough—but 440,000 disabled people are directly affected by the bedroom tax. The personal independence payment and disability living allowance changes will mean that, according to Government estimates, some 600,000 disabled people will lose out directly. Access to Work is supporting fewer disabled people, and there are fewer working-age disabled people in work as a proportion of the overall number than in 2010. The benefits freeze has directly affected even those in the support group of employment and support allowance, so it is incorrect to keep claiming that disabled people have been protected.
Priti Patel
Actually, we have been very clear about safeguards for vulnerable people. [Interruption.] We have. Perhaps this is just a fault line between our two political parties, as the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has already said, and the Opposition intend to vote against this come what may, but we made it very clear that protecting the vulnerable is one of the key principles of our welfare reforms. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Opposition Members want to comment from a sedentary position, but there seems to be a huge area of difference between our two parties. One of the key principles of our welfare reforms is that we will put in place safeguards to protect the most vulnerable. There will be a range of measures, including discretionary housing payments, but it is wrong just to assume that we are deliberately not looking after vulnerable people when we clearly are.
Emily Thornberry
To get to the nub of the matter, perhaps the Prime Minister put it as well as it could be put at Prime Minister’s questions:
“I say that a family that chooses not to work should not be better off than one that chooses to work.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 1039.]
Is that the essence of the Minister’s position?
Priti Patel
This Government and the previous coalition Government have been clear that many of our welfare reforms include the principle of fairness, to which incentivising work is absolutely crucial. However, this comes back to a number of principles relating to welfare reforms and not just the benefit cap. It is right that the Government do the right thing and seek to support people who are long-term unemployed to help them get closer to the labour market, while, at the same time, supporting those who are unable to work for a variety of conditions, and that is exactly the safety net that the welfare state provides.
Emily Thornberry
The central difficulty facing the Minister is that the vast majority of people who are affected by the benefit cap are not those in families who choose not to work. Those on jobseeker’s allowance who do not take up a reasonable offer get sanctioned already under current legislation. For that reason, I hope that, when we get to the next group and I press amendment 68—I will now call that the “David Cameron” amendment, because it encapsulates David Cameron’s position—all hon. Members will vote for it.
The Chair
Order. That intervention was too long, and if you are referring to the Prime Minister, please do so either by his title or his constituency.
Priti Patel
If I may go back to my comments on the amendment, since the benefit cap was introduced in 2013, more than 16,000 previously capped households have entered work, and capped households are more than 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households.
Hannah Bardell
I hear what the Minister is saying about families moving into work, which is good, but does she not accept that the vast majority are on low-paid zero-hours contracts? As we have already debated, she is not willing to put a definition on decent work or even look into having one.
Priti Patel
Absolutely not. I do not accept that at all. As we saw yesterday with the employment figures, over the last year, employment has increased by 400,000 and 90% of those jobs are full-time jobs.
The Bill reduces the cap, as we are discussing. Again, it comes back to the principles. Reducing the levels of the cap will reinforce a message that work pays. It brings a degree of fairness but supports the principles of work, and it works alongside what the Government are doing to support individuals to get into work as well.
The new tiered levels also recognise that housing constitutes one of the biggest costs for households. In London, housing benefit awards are, on average, £3,000 a year more than elsewhere in the country. Even in the south-east, as the average housing costs are around only half that of London, we believe that it is right for the cap to take into account those differences. We believe that the new tiered level for the cap will go further to achieve our aims of increasing the incentives to work.
The Bill also removes the current link between the level of the cap and average earnings. Back in 2011, the benefit cap was a new concept. At that time, with no benchmark, average earnings provided a basis by which to set the cap in order to achieve its aim, but times have moved on. We have evaluated the impacts of the cap, and the cap has been proven to work, as I mentioned, in terms of supporting people back into work.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister give some evidence to back up her assertion that it has worked? What were the measures of success? How many people have moved into work? What would success look like for the Government if this measure was to go forward as it is in the Bill?
Priti Patel
I understand that the evaluation has been published, and since its introduction, more than 35,000 households who had previously been capped have moved off the cap. As I have said, the evaluation shows that the cap is working, with households 41% more likely to enter work than similar households who were just below the benefit cap. This is of course about the behavioural effects, but we have to, and should, put it into the context of incentivising work and supporting people to help them get into work, which is clearly part of what the Government are doing through their welfare reform agenda.
Kate Green
This is genuinely a request for clarification. The Minister said a moment ago that 35,000 people—I think she said this—had moved off the cap. Is she saying that those 35,000 people moved into work? Or is she saying that they stopped claiming benefits, or that they moved house? What actually happened to them?
Priti Patel
It is a combination of factors. The most common reason for people moving off the cap is a movement into work. There will be a variety in terms of the nature of work roles, depending on individual circumstances, but it is also a reflection of the fact that they have been supported into work.
Neil Coyle
In my borough of Southwark, initially 500 or so households were meant to be affected, with a large number of them in Peckham. The local authority intervened to support some of those families to make decisions. Some people did go to work. I would like to see that figure of 35,000 broken down a bit further, because other people were supported on to benefits to provide the exemption from the cap. There is a mixed picture and I am sure the Minister did not want to lead more people on. However, I also wanted to intervene on the local authority side—
The Chair
Order. We might have a long afternoon in front of us and it will be even longer if interventions are long. I say to you, take the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches before the Minister has responded. I would ask for interventions—
The Chair
No. You have had the opportunity. The Minister is now responding to the debate, and she has been very generous with interventions.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Mr Owen. I heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I know he was touching on local authorities. I will seek clarity on what he was asking and perhaps I will come back to him, if I may, with some details or some further information.
Through clause 8, we are introducing new provisions that require the Secretary of State to take into account the national economic situation and any other matters that they may consider relevant when they review the future level of the cap. The new provisions will allow the cap to be maintained at levels that better support the aims of our welfare reforms, balancing the key aims of strengthening work incentives and promoting fairness between those in work and those in receipt of out-of-work benefits.
That requires a broad assessment of the most significant long-term developments and trends that might affect our economy, which are also important to households up and down the country. Earnings and housing costs are very much a part of that assessment, as are other factors such as inflation, benefit rates, the strength of the labour market and any other matter that may be crucial and relevant at that time. That is why it is important to maintain the new provisions and allow the Secretary of State the ability to consider the context of the cap in a broad and balanced way, without being pinned by any single factor.
Amendment 38 is more of a technical amendment than one that seeks to make any changes to the structure and nature of the cap. It would omit clause 7(5) of the Bill, which omits subsection 97(3) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. That was the part of the 2012 Act that prescribed the parliamentary procedures under which regulations, made under the benefit cap primary powers, should be subject.
The subsection in question prescribes that the first set of regulations made under section 96 of the 2012 Act should fall under the affirmative parliamentary procedure and so should be subject to debate by each House of Parliament before passing into law. That was the correct thing to do because, as was explained in the debates during the passage of the 2012 Act, the Government’s intention was to provide for a great degree of the structural detail of the cap in secondary legislation. This subsection of the 2012 Act ensured that Parliament would have a full opportunity to debate those detailed plans.
Those debates subsequently took place when the Government introduced the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, which were debated separately, under the affirmative procedures, in both Houses of Parliament on 6 November 2012. As the undertaking to debate those first regulations has been fulfilled, we considered it opportune to take this chance to remove from the legislation what has now become an obsolete piece of law.
I can assure the Committee that that does not mean that we will take the view that the Secretary of State should not be accountable to Parliament for any future changes to the cap, in particular to its level. Following a review of the cap, if the Secretary of State considers that the level of the cap should be amended, clause 8 provides that they can do so by regulations. It also prescribes that regulations that decrease any of the levels of the cap cannot be made unless they have been debated and approved by each House. Parliament will therefore have a full opportunity to question and debate the rationale for any future reduction in the cap. Increases to the level of the cap will also have to be introduced by regulations, but we believe it is sufficient that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure, and so a debate in the House is not required before an increase can be implemented.
In conclusion, I reiterate that our introduction of the benefit cap has been, first, to support and encourage people to look for work, which is something we will continue to build on. Secondly, introducing a reduced tiered level for the cap will create a greater incentive to work, while ensuring that the impacts of the cap are spread more evenly throughout the country. Thirdly, removing the requirement to base the level of the cap solely on the level of average earnings and replacing it with a broader measure that requires the Secretary of State to take into account the national economic situation will help to ensure that the cap remains at the most appropriate level.
These are important reforms that Members and the public will support. I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Hannah Bardell
It is fairly simple. The Bill and the changes to the benefit cap are about taking people to the brink and pushing them over the edge into even greater poverty and, worst of all, pushing people who are severely disabled, sick and vulnerable, not to mention hundreds of thousands of children, into even greater poverty.
Our amendments would mitigate the effects of the Government’s reckless blanket cap to benefits and of the changes in the Government’s austerity measures, which are being imposed on Scottish people who did not even vote for this Government. In Scotland, we are already spending £300 million to mitigate the black hole that Westminster created with the bedroom tax. I wonder how the Minister can justify saying that she is protecting some of the most vulnerable and disabled people when even the severe disablement allowance is itself included in the cap. I can only assume that she will be supporting our amendment 34.
Ultimately, lone parents, women and the most vulnerable will be pushed into even greater poverty, which could lead many into further debt, or vulnerable people into developing mental health issues and problems, spiralling into greater problems and leaving them out of work for longer. Surely those are the very people whom we should be supporting and giving the greatest help to, rather than pushing them further over the edge and putting greater pressure on the third sector and charities. I urge all Members to support our amendments.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, so I am being generous. Back Benchers have the opportunity to speak before I call the Minister, so in future he should indicate at that point. He may make a small contribution now, before we have the vote.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Mr Owen. I apologise for getting things in the wrong order. I also apologise to the Minister if my intervention was too long. I am grateful for opportunities to intervene.
The point that I was making was to do with the 35,000 figure mentioned by the Minister. When the benefit cap was approaching, many local authorities across the country rolled out additional support to individuals whom they suspected would be directly affected by the cap. In the borough of Southwark, that included support to identify whether some individuals might qualify for other benefits that would exempt them from the cap. It is therefore not accurate to suggest that 35,000 people moved into work if, for example, someone in a household was moved into the employment support allowance support group or identified as meeting the disability living allowance requirements. The Minister suggested that 35,000 moved into work, but the Government might actually have created a perverse incentive and welfare dependency, which they talked a lot about trying to avoid.
My second point was about local authority resources. It is not free for local government to provide that level of additional support to individuals directly affected. Is the Minister suggesting that there will be more support for local authorities as the measures in the Bill approach implementation to ensure that they can meet the demand of individuals affected to support them to move home, so they may reduce some of their costs, to move into work or to move on to different benefits? Will there be another jump in the level of payments made to organisations such as Citizens Advice by Government in order to meet the jump in demand? For example, in Southwark 40% more people were seeking advice, reassurance and information from Citizens Advice on how to avoid some of the measures proposed by the Government.
Those are some of the concerns that I am trying to get across. I apologise again if I expressed them at the wrong point.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 7, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section shall not be made in relation to persons—
(a) responsible for the care of a child aged below 2;
(b) responsible for the care of and in receipt of Carers Allowance in respect of, but not living with, a person in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payment or Attendance Allowance;
(c) in temporary accommodation following an incident or incidents of domestic violence.”
To provide that the benefit cap does not apply to benefit claimants who will find it most difficult to enter work.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 7, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(5C) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the benefit cap for persons living in temporary accommodation into which they have been placed by a local authority which has found them to be in priority need (as defined in Part 7 of the House Act 1996 and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation)(England) Order 2002).”
To provide that the benefit cap will not apply to homeless families living in temporary accommodation after being assessed as having a priority need.
Amendment 68, in clause 7, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(5C) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the benefit cap for claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance, including income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (as defined in section 1 (4) of the Jobseekers Act 1995) where the claimant has not received a reasonable offer of a job.”
To provide that the benefit cap will not apply to job seekers who have not received a reasonable offer of employment.
Amendment 69, in clause 7, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(5C) Regulations under this section must provide an exemption from the benefit cap for persons in receipt of —
(a) carer’s allowance (see section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992),
(b) employment and support allowance, including income-related employment and support allowance (as defined in section 1(7) of the Welfare Reform Act 2007) (see section 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007),
(c) incapacity benefit (see section 30A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992),
(d) income support (see section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992),
(e) severe disablement allowance (see section 68 of the Social Security, Contributions and Benefits Act 1992).”
To provide that the benefit cap may not be applied to anyone claiming Carer’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Income Support or Severe Disablement Allowance.
Amendment 70, in clause 7, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(5C) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the benefit cap for persons in receipt of Universal Credit who are not subject to all work-search requirements as set out in Section 22 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.”
To provide that the benefit cap may not be applied to anyone claiming Universal Credit who is not subject to work-search requirements.
Amendment 107, in clause 7, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
“(5C) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the benefit cap for persons in employment, as defined by the Office for National Statistics.”
To provide that the benefit cap will not apply to anyone who meets the definition of employment used by the Office for National Statistics, which states that “anyone doing one hour or more a week of paid work is counted in the employment figures”.
Amendment 72, in clause 7, page 9, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b), (e), (h), (i) and (l)
This amendment is consequential to amendment 69.
Emily Thornberry
Now that we have established that fairness is a red herring in the Government’s argument, I should like to save the Minister some time by following the line of argument to which I expect the Government to turn next: the equally spurious claim of delivering fiscal savings. Like other arguments that we have heard over the years, that one simply does not stand up to scrutiny. It was perfectly apparent even before the cap was introduced to anyone who cared to pay attention that the most pronounced effect was to increase the number of people falling into arrears, finding themselves unable to pay their rent and, consequently, to increase the number of people being made homeless and turning up to their local authority for help.
The previous Government made it clear that households made homeless as a result of the cap would not be held responsible for their situation. Making that commitment was the right thing to do. I look forward to hearing Ministers reiterate that assurance today.
Regardless of whether the benefit cap has played a role, local authorities remain legally obliged to rehouse families who are demonstrably homeless, through no fault of their own, who are vulnerable in some way, and who are in priority need of housing. However, given that genuinely affordable housing is in such desperately short supply both in London and throughout the country, local authorities are too often faced with no choice but to place families in temporary accommodation while they wait for a suitable permanent home to become available.
In essence, amendment 104 addresses the situation for a family who are homeless and in need, when the local authority is doing what it has to do under the law to rehouse them, when there is not sufficient social housing for them to be rehoused so they must be rehoused in the private sector, and when the private sector rents are so high as to be on the other side of the cap. If we are really talking about fairness—perhaps we are not any more—and savings, what savings are we making? Is it not right to exempt such a family?
We are not talking about whether or not someone has deliberately refused to take a job. We are talking about a homeless family whom the local authority is obliged to rehouse. In boroughs such as mine—Islington—and increasingly in neighbouring boroughs, there is no private accommodation left where those homeless families can be housed on the other side of the benefit cap. If the benefit cap is brought down further, it will make the situation worse.
A woman who came to my surgery a couple of days ago to tell me about her temporary accommodation. She was put into temporary accommodation when pregnant. It was about to be bulldozed, but it was temporary. It has not been bulldozed. The child is now 16 months old and she is in a bedsit. That is the nature of the housing crisis in inner London. The amendment is, within that context, unexplained.
Families are put into temporary accommodation largely in the private sector. It is well established that temporary accommodation is generally leased by local authorities from the private sector at a premium, which means that a considerable financial burden is placed on councils. Private landlords know that the benefit cap is coming down and that more families will need to be rehoused—the families are desperate and the council is desperate to fulfil its duty. Guess what? The rents go up. That means yet more burden on local authorities.
Neil Coyle
One reason, as my hon. Friend has said, for people potentially being unable to work or to work for significant hours is caring responsibilities. She specifically mentioned carer’s allowance. Is she aware that to qualify for carer’s allowance, people need to be providing a minimum of 35 hours of support a week to a disabled person or other loved one? That is a definition that the Department for Work and Pensions’ own advice suggests is a “substantial” level of support to another individual.
Emily Thornberry
So someone is supposed to give a substantial level of support to another person and yet also be working sufficiently to be exempted from the benefit cap. These are the sort of people who we rely on to keep our society going—frankly, most of them are likely to be women. Those people are carers for those who would otherwise be relying on the state to do it at a much greater cost. Instead recognising the role of such people, they are being penalised under draconian legislation.
Neil Coyle
If carers were to stop providing 35 hours of support or more a week, local authorities would potentially be asked to step in to provide some of that support to an individual. We already know what the Government’s agenda is for local authorities—what is has been for the past five years—but the average cost for care home placement is upwards of £600 a week. There could be a new cost to the Government of getting this policy wrong, particularly for carers.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend puts it very well. If only we had a Government that listened. In fact, the most recent statistical release from the Department included, for the first time, a breakdown of capped households by benefit claimed. By far the largest proportion—49%—were claiming income support. In the vast majority of cases those are single mothers who are unable to work because childcare is neither available nor affordable. It is clear from the evidence that we heard last week that a lack of suitable childcare remains a substantial barrier to lone parents seeking work.
In Islington in my borough the cost of a part-time nursery place is £235 a week—one of the highest in the country and more than 30% higher than the London average. It is not just cost that is the problem here. The jobs that are likely to be available to many of the mothers in my constituency who want to find work are disproportionately likely to be short-notice working, often at unsociable hours—in other words, the times when it is most difficult to find childcare.
The Government’s promise of raising the number of free hours of childcare to 30 hours a week is welcome, but we have been down this road before. During oral evidence we heard concerns to the effect that the shortfall between the reimbursement rate and the actual costs would make it uneconomical for many childcare providers to continue their operations. Neera Sharma stated:
“The Pre-school Learning Alliance has said that, on average, the cost of childcare is £4.53 an hour; the Government contributes, on average, £3.88. When the childcare offer is doubled, nurseries could operate at a loss of £661 per child per year, so there are going to be quite significant issues for providers.”—[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 10 September 2015; c. 22, Q32.]
Emily Thornberry
I am so sorry. How can it be consistent with what the Prime Minister said yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions? He said:
“I say that a family that chooses not to work should not be better off than one that chooses to work”?—[Official Report, 16 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 1039.]
If that is the guiding principle behind the Bill, why is it that 85% of people affected by the cap are not in a position to work, and are recognised as such by the Minister’s very own Department? How is that right? I would really like an answer to that.
We should see this policy for what it is. It is just another form of financial penalty for people who the Government believe, in the absence of any evidence to support such a belief, are out of work through choice and not through simple misfortune. The figures suggest that in total, more than 90% of those currently affected by the benefit cap are out of work through no fault of their own. The Minister said during our debates on Tuesday:
“It is right that everyone who can work should work”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform and Work Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2015; c. 144.]
Who would disagree with that? No one could disagree with that. That is the guiding principle behind the amendments, and for that reason I will press them.
I turn to amendment 107. I return to the point I touched on earlier about the evidence, or lack of it, to support the Government’s claim that the cap has been a successful tool in moving people into work. Let us probe Ministers’ oft-repeated claim that 41% of people have managed to remove themselves from the cap by finding employment. What the figures actually show is that 41% started making a claim for working tax credit, which is not quite the same thing, given that someone needs to be working for at least 16 hours a week to qualify. The Institute for Fiscal Studies explains:
“Some people may move into work but not work enough hours to be entitled to WTC”.
It goes on to say that others
“might start a WTC claim when they were in work all along, perhaps because claiming this entitlement is a relatively easy way of exempting oneself from the benefit cap.”
It is only “easy” for those who are already working.
What I find striking about the Government’s entire approach of arguing for the cap as a work incentive is their almost total complacency about the quality of work that people are moving into. Of those 41% of people now claiming working tax credit, it would be instructive to know how many of them are in temporary work or seasonal jobs, and how many have moved into work for short periods for that reason, only to fall back under the scope of the cap when work is no longer available.
It would help if we had figures on the number of people who have moved into work but who still have to claim benefits in order to pay for basic necessities, so that we know what the so-called “success” of the benefit cap is. A fact that is all too often left out of any discussion is that the majority of people claiming benefits are in work.
I certainly agree with the Government that it is not at all desirable for the state to be subsidising employers who fail to pay their staff a decent wage. The fault, however, is surely with employers and not the workers themselves. Ministers seem to have become accustomed to thinking that work is an end in itself, regardless of pay, conditions, security or anything else that matters to real people, whether they are in work or looking for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State wrote an extraordinary article in The Sunday Times, in which they stated:
“Helping those confined to the margins of our society by giving them the security and dignity of a job is a one nation government at work”.
Whether work offers security and dignity, however, very much depends on the job in question.
That brings me to amendment 107, which would provide for an exemption from the benefit cap for anyone who meets the definition of employment used by the Office for National Statistics. We have already heard, in relation to the reporting requirements for full employment in clause 1, that there are different ways of defining employment and that many of those bear little resemblance to the traditional concept of a nine-to-five job on a permanent contract, which would pay a family wage. Details of the exact measure of employment that is to be used for the purposes of the reporting requirement have yet to be fleshed out, but Ministers have given no indication that they will depart from the ONS definition, which suits their purposes in inflating the overall numbers.
If, however, someone can be employed under the Bill by working 20 minutes every fortnight and the idea of the benefit cap is to put people into work, why can people not do that? There is a contradiction: on the one hand we talk about 16 hours, but on the other hand we talk about any amount of work being sufficient.
It is strange, therefore, that the benefit cap, which is now more than ever being spun as a means to move people off benefits and into work, should set the bar so high in terms of what “work” means that anyone working for fewer hours than 16 hours a week will fail to meet the standard. Ministers seem perfectly happy with the ONS definition when it suits their purposes, but not when it does not. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If we are to believe Ministers when they say that the benefit cap is intended to move people into work, and that work is an end in itself, it ought not to be so loosely defined. It is wholly inconsistent for Ministers to oppose amendment 107. They simply cannot have it both ways, so I will press amendment 107 to a vote.
I will now move on to amendment 104. We have discussed a number of possible exemptions from the cap, which Ministers have opposed despite the fact that they seem entirely reasonable to me and to so many of the organisations that have sent briefings to the Committee. Amendment 104 takes a different approach, narrowing the number of exemptions to the groups that might be classed as the most acutely vulnerable and perhaps the least able to change their circumstances. The amendment would disapply the cap to single parents responsible for children under the age of two, people with full-time caring responsibilities and victims of domestic violence living in temporary accommodation.
Even in the event that Ministers reject the broader categories of exemption that I have suggested in the earlier amendments, surely amendment 104 will be difficult to vote against. Should people with young children who are living in temporary accommodation after fleeing domestic violence be affected by the cap? In a way, I suppose, the amendment is a form of challenge to the humanity of the Government Members. If welfare reform is meant to protect the most vulnerable, surely the Conservative party should be able to vote for the amendment.
My final point is about amendment 68, the David Cameron amendment—
Emily Thornberry
I am sorry. The Prime Minister amendment encapsulates the argument made by the Prime Minister. If the Bill is really about ensuring that families who have chosen not to work are affected by the benefit cap, surely we could encapsulate that quite simply and exempt jobseekers claiming jobseeker’s allowance who have not had a reasonable offer of employment. In other words, if someone on jobseeker’s allowance is offered a job—if they are fit to work, as defined by the DWP—and they do not accept it, there will be penalties in any event. We are talking only about that group of families, and the Prime Minister seemed only to be talking about that group of families at Prime Minister’s questions, so why do we not confine the Bill simply to that group? Why can we not encapsulate the purpose of the Bill in relation to the benefit cap as suggested in amendment 68—the David Cameron amendment?
Hannah Bardell
I will be brief, as the hon. Lady has put her argument succinctly and extensively. [Interruption.] I do not have a huge amount to add, so I will keep my powder dry, so to speak. The Scottish National party supports the amendments, which would ensure that some of the most extremely vulnerable groups were not affected by the cap.
Frankly, the cap is a disgrace. The amendments acknowledge that those who claim benefits do so for a variety of reasons, from disability to mental health problems, abuse and homelessness, as well as unemployment. The blanket cap shows that the Government have no recognition of the complex psychological factors that can be wrapped up in what is not always a simple benefits claim. The Government are not thinking about the people, events and experiences that lie behind the figures on paper. The amendments would rightly pick up on those who may be hit the hardest, similar to my party’s own amendments, which we will discuss in the next group.
Neil Coyle
Briefly Mr Owen. Thank you for your generosity earlier and for preventing me from being put in the same position again.
The derogatory comments about the succinctness of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury demonstrate the big difference between the Government and the Opposition. These are incredibly important issues that affect thousands of people, and they go directly to the root of the matter. The Government claim to represent working people, but many thousands of the people affected are in work. The Government are taking away fundamental parts of the support system that helps those on low incomes who are trying to work, move on and do the right thing, to use the Government’s terminology. The Government are also undermining people’s opportunity to live in central London constituencies such as mine.
I want to pre-empt something that I suspect the Minister might say about discretionary housing payments. Rather than just focusing on the few local authorities that pass back, or have passed back, some of their unspent discretionary housing payments, perhaps we could discuss the total spend of councils on discretionary housing payments, including those, such as mine, that spend more than they are provided by central Government.
Priti Patel
The amendments would introduce a new series of exemptions from the benefit cap. Largely, they would provide exemptions for the households that find it most difficult to enter work, for people who may be unable to get a job or for those who are not required to be available for work and to take up employment. I will shortly address why I do not agree with introducing the proposed additional exemptions, but I remind Members that the cap sets out the strong principle that there is a maximum level of out-of-work benefits that the Government will pay to each household. The Government have always accepted that there should be some exemptions from the benefit cap.
I will briefly recap the current exemptions. To incentivise work, the cap does not apply to households in receipt of working tax credits. To recognise the extra costs that disability can bring, households that include a member who is in receipt of attendance allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payment or the support component of employment and support allowance are exempt. War widows and widowers are also exempt, as I am sure all Members recognise.
Neil Coyle
Has any assessment been made of the impact of the benefit cap and other changes on new applications for the supports just listed by the Minister that provide an exemption from the cap?
Priti Patel
I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The exemptions best support the cap’s aims of increasing incentives to work and promoting fairness while ensuring that the vulnerable remain supported. The welfare reforms that we have discussed thus far in Committee are about transforming life chances and promoting fairness and opportunity.
Amendment 104 would introduce three new exemptions from the benefit cap. The explanatory statement that accompanied the amendment explains that its purpose is:
“To provide that the benefit cap does not apply to benefit claimants who will find it most difficult to enter work.”
The first exemption that the amendment would introduce is for persons
“responsible for the care of a child aged below 2”.
A blanket description that couples with children are those who find it most difficult to enter work is inappropriate. The vast majority of capped households who have found work include parents who have managed to balance their caring responsibilities with work, as millions of working households already do. By going out to work, parents are helping to improve their children’s life chances and are showing them the importance of a strong work ethic, reinforcing the principle that work is the best way out of poverty.
Turning to lone parents with young children, at whom I think this amendment is most likely addressed, we believe that work is the best route out of poverty for households. Children can have their life chances and opportunities damaged by living in households in which no one has worked for years and in which no one considers work as an option. Lone parents need only enter work at 16 hours a week to become eligible for working tax credits and so become exempt from the cap.
We already provide support to parents for the cost of childcare, which we are extending to help working parents further. The 30 hours of free childcare is just one measure, but there are many others, not least tax-free childcare, which will provide a great deal of support, in particular for families on universal credit, who will be able to claim back 70% of childcare costs. On funding for childcare rates, a Government funding review is currently under way, led by the Department for Education, so more is taking place in this area. Parents who receive help with childcare costs through working tax credits are exempt from the cap and childcare costs paid through UC are excluded from the cap. Since the cap was introduced in April 2013, nearly 8,500 lone parents have moved into work and started claiming working tax credits. In 2014, around 1.25 million lone parents were in employment in the UK.
The second exemption that the amendment would introduce is for people in receipt of carer’s allowance in respect of someone who is in receipt of disability living allowance, personal independence payment or attendance allowance with whom they are not living. We all acknowledge the important role that carers provide, but we do not accept that carers are unable to work. Although seeking work is not a condition for receiving carer’s allowance, many carers are nevertheless able to and combine work with caring responsibilities. Figures from February this year show that around 760,000 working-age claimants were receiving carer’s allowance. Of those, around 75,000 reported that they were doing work at some point while making their claim. It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce an exemption specifically on the grounds that somebody is in receipt of carer’s allowance. However, the vast majority—94%—of households in receipt of carer’s allowance who have a benefit income above the cap level are exempt from the cap, mainly because the person they care for is in the same household and is in receipt of an exempting disability-related benefit.
Emily Thornberry
If so few households are affected and if the justification is fairness—although I am not sure about that—why not allow the exemption? If it would save money, because it relates to so little money, why not exempt such people?
Priti Patel
I will carry on. I may pick up some of the points made later.
The final part of the amendment would exempt those living in temporary accommodation following an incident of domestic abuse. The effects of domestic abuse are awful and traumatic; no one could ever argue to the contrary. That is why we have introduced a series of measures to support those who have been subject to domestic abuse, including easements for prescribed periods of time from any requirements to look for or take work. We have special provisions within the cap to help those who have had to flee their homes and seek sanctuary in refuges.
Before the cap was implemented, we amended the regulations so that any housing support paid for people living in what was then termed exempt accommodation should be excluded from the cap. When concerns were raised that the definition of exempt accommodation was too narrow, we amended regulations to ensure that housing support paid to those living in a refuge, for example, as a consequence of domestic abuse would also be covered by the exclusion.
Amendment 67 would require an exemption for those living in temporary accommodation. We do not agree that the best way to help people in temporary accommodation is merely to exempt them from the benefit cap. We believe that the best way is to support people to overcome the barriers and issues that they might face, including the barriers to work. We cannot see why we would want to exclude all households in temporary accommodation from the positive effects of support to get back to work.
Emily Thornberry
Surely the best and in fact the only way of helping people out of temporary accommodation is to build more housing.
Priti Patel
I support the hon. Lady’s comment. That is exactly what the Government’s policy is, and we are doing so.
Although we recognise that rents in temporary accommodation can be high, local authorities have a duty under homelessness legislation to provide suitable, affordable accommodation where the applicant is deemed to be in priority need. Before the cap was implemented, we amended regulations so that any housing support paid for people living in what was termed exempt accommodation should be excluded from the cap. When concerns were raised that the definition was too narrow, we further amended regulations to ensure that housing support paid to those living in refuges would be covered by the exclusion.
Amendment 69 would exempt those in receipt of carer’s allowance. I have already set out the reasons why we do not think the exemption would be appropriate. The amendment also exempts those on employment and support allowance. As I have said, we have already exempted those on ESA who are in receipt of the support component, recognising that they have particular health conditions and are far removed from the labour market and less likely to be able to increase their income.
As discussed—I think that all Members have commented—the benefit cap is a work incentive. Those in the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance have been assessed and are being supported into work, which we believe is right. More recently, we have announced a funding package of up to £100 million a year in the Budget to provide the right incentives and support to enable those with limited capability but some potential to prepare for work. That relates to those within the work-related activity component of ESA.
We are currently in the latter stages of re-assessing recipients of severe disablement allowance and incapacity benefit who are below pension age to see whether they are entitled to employment support allowance and qualify for the work-related activity group or the support group. Those reforms will ensure that such individuals are supported in their engagement with the labour market, or given whatever support they need. More than 1.4 million of those on incapacity benefits have started the reassessment process since it began, and almost 750,000 of them are being supported to prepare or look for work as a result of the ESA process.
Amendment 72 is consequential on amendment 69, to which I have just spoken. The amendment would omit carer’s allowance, employment and support allowance, incapacity benefit, income support and severe disablement allowance from the list of welfare benefits. I have set out why we do not think that that is appropriate; I return to the principles of the benefit cap.
Amendment 70 relates to exempting those in receipt of universal credit without any work requirements. Before addressing this amendment, I remind Committee members that there is an exemption from the cap for those who are entitled to the universal credit limited capability for work or work-related activity element whose health conditions mean that they are further from the labour market and less able to increase their income through work.
Emily Thornberry
I do not think there is anything else I need to say. I am very disappointed by some of the responses. I will not press amendment 107, but I shall press amendment 104 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Hannah Bardell
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 7, page 9, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove bereavement allowance from the benefit cap.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 29, in clause 7, page 9, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove carer’s allowance from the benefit cap.
Amendment 30, in clause 7, page 9, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove child benefit from the benefit cap.
Amendment 31, in clause 7, page 9, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove child tax credit from the benefit cap.
Amendment 32, in clause 7, page 9, line 21, leave out paragraph (f).
This amendment would remove guardian’s allowance from the benefit cap.
Amendment 76, in clause 7, page 9, line 23, leave out paragraph (g).
This amendment would remove housing benefit from the benefit cap.
Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (k).
This amendment would remove maternity allowance from the benefit cap.
Amendment 34, in clause 7, page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (l).
This amendment would remove severe disablement allowance from the benefit cap.
Amendment 35, in clause 7, page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (n).
This amendment would remove widow’s pension from the benefit cap.
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 9, line 40, leave out paragraph (o).
This amendment would remove widowed mother’s allowance from the benefit cap.
Amendment 37, in clause 7, page 9, line 42, leave out paragraph (p).
This amendment would remove widowed parent’s allowance from the benefit cap.
Hannah Bardell
With our amendments in this group, we hope to remove some of the most vulnerable groups that will be included in this benefit cap: people on bereavement allowance; people on carer’s allowance; people on child benefit and child tax credit; people on guardian’s allowance; people on maternity allowance; and people on severe disablement allowance. All those people should be excluded from the cap.
Amendment 28 would remove the bereavement allowance from the cap. Bereavement allowance can be a lifeline for those who suffer after the death of a spouse. As well as helping people to cope with the huge amount of emotional distress that that can cause both before and after death, bereavement allowance helps people to get back on their feet and cope with the potential loss of income caused by their spouse’s death. For the same reason, we have tabled amendments 35, 36 and 37, which would remove benefits from the cap that those who have been widowed are entitled to.
Amendment 29 would remove carer’s allowance from the cap, because it is important that carers are not penalised by the benefit cap. Those who dedicate huge proportions of their day to caring for a loved one, regardless of whether they live with them or not, should not be punished by the Government for their selflessness and dedication.
As Carers UK has pointed out, the Government’s welfare policy is trying to incentivise people into work, but many carers are not in a position to work or take on more work without reducing the care that they provide to loved ones. Increasing financial pressure on carers could have an adverse effect on the people they care for, not to mention the potential psychological burdens, and it would put greater pressure on our local authorities and third sector, which are already under significant pressure due to the cut in the block grant to Scotland. Amendments 30 and 31 would remove child tax benefit and child tax credit from the benefit cap, and amendment 32 would remove the guardian’s allowance from the cap.
Just because the Government have decided to abolish the definition of child poverty does not mean that they have abolished the reality of 3.7 million children in the UK living in relative poverty. That number is projected to rise to 4.7 million by 2012 under current Government policies. Capping those benefits will only push into hardship more children who have no ability to do anything about their circumstances. That would have both short-term and long-term effects for their health, emotional wellbeing and educational achievement. In the case of the guardian’s allowance, a child and a guardian who have already had to cope with the death of a loved one must be protected from the burden of financial hardship falling on them, on top of their loss.
Amendment 33 would remove maternity allowance from the cap to ensure that a woman will not be penalised merely because she has decided to have a child. Amendment 44 would remove the severe disablement allowance from the cap. Although we understand this benefit is undergoing a transition, for those who are still receiving it, it provides extra support for those with particularly severe disabilities. Once again, the effect the cap will have on disabled people claiming benefit will be hugely damaging: not simply because of the inclusion of this benefit in the cap, but the inclusion of many benefits that some disabled people rely on to live life independently.
Emily Thornberry
I would like to talk to amendment 76, but in doing so perhaps offer a critique of the SNP’s amendments. The important thing is that there is a difference between the amendments that have been tabled so far, which would exclude groups, so that if someone is in receipt of a particular benefit, the group would be excluded, but if a particular benefit is to be excluded from the benefit cap, the cap could still hit that group in any event. Let me explain a little better. Take, for example, the bereavement allowance to be excluded from the benefit cap. It would not mean excluding that group because if someone who was bereaved had other benefits that took them on to the other side of the benefit cap, they would still be affected by the cap, despite the bereavement allowance. For my party, it is important to look at the groups as opposed to the benefits. I will throw that into relief in relation to housing benefit.
The housing benefit amendment has been tabled as a probing amendment, but in truth the reason that the cap is even considered is because of the high cost of housing. So if any benefit was to be excluded from the benefit cap, it would be housing. It is housing that causes the so-called trouble. Some people have large families. The Government want to push the benefit gap down even further, but the issue is not even about large families. It can be families that need only two or three bedrooms in some areas, and there will not be a single area in the country that will not be affected by the benefit cap, because of the amount of money that housing costs. So if any benefit were to be excluded, it should be housing benefit, because that is the essence of the costs. If we look at fairness, it really is not the fault of someone who has a larger family who needs to live in a two, three or four-bedroom flat, or someone who lives in a more expensive area. Housing costs could be taken out of the equation when it comes to benefit caps.
The Government are always saying it is not fair for someone on benefits to be receiving more than the average earnings, but of course it is not they who get the money; it is their landlords. It is because the landlords want to be able to accept more money from the state that the rents continue to go up. That is what the amendment highlights. In the end, we are talking about there not being enough affordable housing in this country, either in London or across the country. The benefit caps that have been introduced so far have adversely affected London and large families within London, but the new benefit cap suggested in the Bill of £23,000 or £21,000 will affect families throughout the entire country.
I refer the Committee to the evidence that was given to us by Shelter, I believe. Shelter said that under the new cap a family with four children would be unable to find a home with the number of bedrooms that they need anywhere in England. That is important—nowhere in England without hitting the benefit cap.
The size of the shortfall is also remarkable. The cheapest place to rent the four-bedroom home that the family would need is Bradford, where a home at the lower end of the market costs £123 a week. Even there, a family would face a shortfall of £81 a week. The problem is not only a London one. The way in which the Government are going about introducing the benefit cap and pushing it down and down will affect families throughout the country, including in the constituencies of Conservative Members.
The issue is important. Some people might have been tempted to think that there are Londoners who believe that they should continue to live in London, even though house prices are going up, and that frankly we should leave it to the Russian oligarchs to live in central London and the rest of us ought to move somewhere else. The truth, however, is that there will be nowhere else in the country where a family can live without being affected by the benefit cap—unless we take housing costs out of the cap.
If we take housing costs out and look at the needs of families, we might find that there would not be the same regional variation as we have at the moment. The reason for the variation is the varying housing costs, so the amendment probes that issue. Perhaps the Government will consider the kernel of truth, that the poorest people in this country are being penalised by the Bill and the benefit cap for something that is not their fault; frankly, it is the fault of generations of politicians, Labour and Conservative, who have not built enough affordable housing. It is not the fault of those in my constituency with a family of two living in private rented accommodation that prices are so high. It is not the fault of the family of four in Bradford that house prices will be on the other side of the cap. It is our fault for not ensuring sufficient affordable housing.
I know that the Minister will get up and tell us that the Government are building lots of affordable housing—well get on and build it! Once they have built it, they will not need to have the benefit cap, because people will be able to live on reasonable amounts of money, which will save the country a great deal of money. The time was when Governments used to spend, for every £10 spent on building homes, £1 on benefits that would assist people to live. Now the whole thing is tipped on to its head, so that for every £1 we spend on building homes, we spend £10 on housing benefit.
The answer could be, “Let’s just cut housing benefit! Let’s not let people have enough money to pay rent.” We could do it that way, but that would be draconian, inhumane, cruel and wrong. The other way to do it would be to spend the money on building affordable homes—truly large amounts of affordable homes. We need radical solutions for such a profound problem. The solution is not to turn on the poorest and most marginalised people in this country; the solution is to build more affordable homes and to go for it. If the Government were to do that, they would have the complete support of the Opposition. That is true affordable homes, not the nonsense affordable homes dreamt up for the Greater London Authority by the Mayor of London, with 80% market rent somehow or other an affordable home. We want real affordable homes that cost a reasonable amount of money and that people can genuinely afford to live in.
That in essence is the solution to the problem and what is highlighted in the amendment. I ask the Minister to address herself to the issue raised by the amendment.
Priti Patel
I will not run through the various exemptions called for in the amendments. I will come on to housing shortly, because I will basically rerun some of the points that have been made previously.
The amendments would omit various welfare benefits from those that are currently within the benefit cap. We believe that the current exemptions are the best ones to support our aims of increasing incentives to work and fairness, and to support the most vulnerable.
In our last sitting, we spoke about support for carers and about carers balancing the needs of their care and work responsibilities. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has called for a wide range of amendments to omit child benefit, child tax credit and guardian’s allowance from the benefit cap.
Emily Thornberry
I have a question for the Minister and I would be grateful if she were able to answer it, perhaps with the assistance of her officials. I believe she said that many carers combine work with caring responsibilities, but people can claim carer’s allowance only if their caring responsibilities take up more than 35 hours a week. To work enough hours to exempt themselves from the cap, they would need effectively to work 51 hours a week. If that is right, does she accept that that would be an inappropriate amount of time for people to be working in order to be exempted from the cap?
Priti Patel
I put that in the context of the some of the other benefits within the household, which would therefore exempt the carer from the benefit cap.
The hon. Lady calls for a range of exemptions. She will not be surprised—I made the point on the previous group of amendments—that we believe that, to incentivise work, the cap does not apply to those households in receipt of working tax credits. We outlined a range of exemptions in the last sitting when we discussed the previous group of amendments.
The hon. Lady touched on the only area on which there is a degree of consensus on the Bill and in the debate: the role of housing. She spoke to amendment 76, which would remove housing benefit from the benefit cap. I understand it to mean not that households in receipt of housing benefit would be exempt from the cap, but that their housing benefit payment would be disregarded from the calculation of the total household benefits to which they are subject. The removal of housing benefit from the benefits that are subject to the cap would simply undermine the principle of the cap.
Priti Patel
As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know, housing benefit is usually the single largest benefit, therefore the cap would no longer have the intended effect of limiting high levels of total benefits.
In addition, the amendment does not refer to housing costs in relation to universal credit. It would therefore mean different treatment for households in receipt of housing benefit and those on universal credit, which is surely not the intention. The inclusion of housing benefit in the cap is specific to the principles of the cap. Obviously the Government support it through discretionary housing payments, for example. As we discussed earlier, there is now more funding for those payments. As I said, we have announced additional funding that will continue, with £800 million being made available for discretionary housing payments over the next five years. Given that, it would not be right to exclude housing benefit from the cap.
The hon. Lady was right—I am going to make the point that more is being done on building homes. That is not for the Bill, because it is not for the Department for Work and Pensions, but building homes is about the Government working with local authorities to focus on doing more in that space. There is no doubt that we all want more affordable housing. The Government have so far committed £38 billion of both public and private investment to help to ensure that 275,000 new affordable homes are built between now and 2020.
The hon. Lady pointed out that we need to get on with it. That is exactly what we are committed to do. I ask local authorities to work with us to achieve that common aim. That is fundamental to supporting people not just in respect of housing need, but in respect of giving them a quality of life. That is right and proper. It is also fundamental to dealing with the issues of rent, housing costs in general and homes standards, which have also been aired in the debate.
Because we have touched on many of the exemptions in debates on previous clauses, I will not rehearse them. Given that we have a vast number of exemptions from the benefit cap, it would not be appropriate or right to extend them to the exemptions proposed in this group of amendments, so I urge hon. Members not to press them.
Hannah Bardell
I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury. As she well knows, these amendments are only a compromise on our earlier amendments, on which I am glad that the Labour party was able to join the SNP. The amendments would ring-fence individual benefits, so that those in receipt would be specifically protected to mitigate their circumstances.
I hear what the hon. Lady says about housing, which is a devolved matter. The Scottish Government have met their targets for building affordable housing. This is about progressive politics. We have picked up the mantle and have filled the gap left for us by previous Scottish Administrations and the Westminster Government, and we have driven forward an ambitious house-building programme within our limited financial framework. With all that in mind, I want to press amendments 28 to 37 to a vote.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for that forewarning. We will deal with amendment 28 first and then with the rest of the group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Priti Patel
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 7, page 9, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (11) (benefits that regulations may not prescribe as welfare benefits) is omitted.”
This amendment to omit section 96(11) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is consequential on the amendment of the definition of “welfare benefit” in section 96(10) by clause 7(4).
Priti Patel
Government amendment 88 simply tidies up the existing legislation. Section 96(11) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 refers to regulations under subsection (10). As regulations will no longer be made under subsection (10), the reference is obsolete and needs to be removed. Amendment 88 inserts a new subsection (4A) into clause 7 to achieve that.
Amendment 89 is consequential on that, removing a reference to section 96(11) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 from schedule 12 to the Pensions Act 2014 by inserting a new subsection (5A) into clause 7. To be clear, there is no change to the benefits that are subject to the cap. Indeed, the provisions in the Bill move the list of capped benefits into primary legislation, providing greater certainty as to the extent of the cap. The benefit cap applies to working-age benefits. Retirement benefits are not subject to the cap.
Amendment 90 is a technical amendment to clause 7(6), which allows us to put in place, if needed, transitional provisions that will support a phased introduction of the changes we are making to the benefit cap. The amendment extends those transitional provisions to subsection (4) and the new subsections (4A) and (5A). It is necessary to ensure that the cap is rolled out effectively in a way that works for everybody.
We continue to develop our implementation plans for the new benefit cap, and we will work with key partners in doing so. We want to repeat the success we had when we originally rolled out the cap, so we will be working closely with Jobcentre Plus and local authorities to ensure a joined-up delivery approach, which previously provided claimants with notice and support, enabling them to respond to the cap and move into employment. The amendment will give us the flexibility to develop and deliver an implementation plan that achieves the aims of the cap, meets the needs of delivery partners and provides the appropriate supports for claimants.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
Amendments made: 89, in clause 7, page 9, line 45, at end insert—
‘(5A) Paragraph 52 of Schedule 12 to the Pensions Act 2014 is omitted.”.
This amendment provides for the repeal of provision amending section 96(11) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and is consequential on amendment 88.
Amendment 90, in clause 7, page 10, line 2, leave out “and (3)” and insert “to (4A) and (5A)”.—(Priti Patel.)
This amendment enables transitional provision under clause 7(6) to disregard the effect on section 96 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 of the amendments made by clause 7(4) and clause 7(4A) and (5A), added by amendments 88 and 89.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 8, page 10, line 22, leave out “in each Parliament” and insert “a year”.
To require the Secretary of State to review the level of the benefit cap every year to determine whether it is appropriate to change the level of the cap.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Report on impact of benefit cap reductions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament before the end of the financial year ending with 31 March 2017 a report on the impact of the benefit cap reductions introduced by this Bill.
(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact on each of the measures of child poverty defined in the Child Poverty Act 2010.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review impact of lower benefit cap after 12 months.
Emily Thornberry
Amendment 12 would leave out the provision that the benefit cap should be reviewed in each Parliament and instead state that it should be reviewed each year. The reason for that is obvious. We hear from the Government all the time about how well they are doing, how many people are getting into work and how well the economy is doing. If all of that is true, the level of inflation may well go up. For that reason, it seems entirely reasonable, responsible and fair to review the benefit cap every year. There has been a tradition of benefits being reviewed every year. The amendment would be consistent with what has been settled practice in terms of fairness in the past. If the benefit cap really is about fairness, surely there should be no problem with ensuring that the benefit cap is reviewed each year instead of in each Parliament.
That brings me to new clause 1, which states that the Secretary of State must report to Parliament by 31 March 2017 on the impact of the benefit cap reductions introduced in the Bill and that the report must include an assessment of the impact on each measure of child poverty, as defined by the Child Poverty Act 2010. That takes us back to the mantra that Ministers will hear throughout the parliamentary debate on this Bill, which is evidence, evidence, evidence. Not prejudice, not Daily Mail headlines but evidence.
If the alleged high-minded principles behind the Bill are a true ambition, the Government will not be frightened of an assessment to ensure that they are not being cruel, or randomly dishing out unfairness, but are truly pursuing the policies they claim to be trying to promote. If they are truly confident that their ambitions will be fulfilled as a result of the Bill, they will not run away from new clause 1 but embrace it. As they come up to the next general election, they will want to say, “Thanks to the Labour party, we have been able to measure the real success of our Bill. We have not been unfair on anyone. Everyone is back in work. Look at the way in which the streets of London flow with milk and honey.” Indeed, we will support them, and applaud them, if what they say they want to do really happens, but we will not know what has happened, other than from the weeping people coming into our surgeries, if we do not measure it properly.
The Government have resources to measure this properly, so why run away? Why not go ahead and measure the so-called success that will result from the Bill? If the Government are not prepared to measure it, those watching the debate will know that the reason they do not want to measure it is because they know what is really going to happen: the poor are going to get poorer. The Government are picking on the poorest in order to pay off the deficit, which is unfair.
Priti Patel
This group contains two proposals. As we have heard, amendment 12 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the level of the benefit cap annually, and new clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the changes.
On amendment 12, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to review the level of the cap at least once in every Parliament, but it also provides him with powers to review the benefit cap at any other time he considers appropriate. That provides the most effective means of ensuring that the cap stays at the appropriate level while providing the stability that households on benefits require. The cap’s current provisions require the level to be reviewed annually, but that is specifically to review the relationship with average earnings, on which the level of the current cap is based. To date, there has been no need to change the level of the cap following those annual reviews.
Earlier, we touched on some of the evidence showing that households affected by the cap are 41% more likely to go into work. Our provisions already include powers allowing the Secretary of State, if appropriate, to review the cap at any time in the Parliament, which means that the Government will not be constrained from reviewing the cap, particularly in light of any significant economic events. The clause, as drafted, will therefore provide a sufficient safeguard, and the level of the cap remains at the appropriate level.
On new clause 1, during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the Government committed to a full evaluation of the benefit cap to explore its effectiveness. The then Minister with responsibility for employment announced that DWP would publish a review of the cap after its first year of operation. The review was published in December 2014 and explored the progress from policy development to implementation and delivery. The report evaluated the effectiveness of three specific aims that underpinned the introduction of the benefit cap. These were to focus on work incentives, introduce greater fairness and, of course, to make the system more affordable by encouraging positive support for individuals who needed it, particularly in getting back to work.
The cap has been in place for about two years, and evidence shows that it has been successful. We intend to build on that success. Since its introduction, more than 16,000 capped households have moved into work. As I mentioned, capped households are more likely to go into work than those that are uncapped. This has been achieved without a legislative requirement for reports and evaluations. We do not feel that it is necessary to commit in legislation to delivering any future evaluations. We have not decided on approaches yet but, as before, an evaluation of the new cap would be most appropriate after implementation, when we can see the cap’s full effect and the behavioural changes it causes, and they can be reviewed accordingly.
The Government’s record on providing a review of the cap should be recognised. Also, a number of independently commissioned pieces of research and analysis, peer reviewed by a range of organisations, has been published. That, with the introduction of the life chances measures, means that, contrary to what is suggested in the amendment, we do not need legislation to report on the impact of the benefit cap. I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
We will deal with new clause 1 later.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 8, page 10, line 30, at end insert—
“(aa) the impact of the benefit cap on disabled persons and carers.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider the impact of the benefit cap on disabled people, and carers, when reviewing the level of the benefit cap.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) The relationship between the level of the cap and average earnings, and
(c) Regional variations in the cost of housing.”
To remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to set the level of the benefit cap by reference to “any other matters [he] considers relevant” and to instead require that the cap should be set by reference to average earnings and regional variations to adjust for differences in the cost of housing.
Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) an annual report made by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the level of the benefit cap.”
To require the Secretary of State to take into account an annual report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the level of the benefit cap when undertaking his review of the benefit cap.
Amendment 14, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) The report made by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the level of benefit cap, under subsection 3c, must include an assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on the Discretionary Housing Payments Funds administered by local authorities.”
To require the Social Security Advisory Committee’s annual report on the level of the benefit cap to include an assessment of the impact of the benefit cap on Discretionary Housing Payments.
Amendment 105, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) any reports on the impact of the benefit cap on the wellbeing of children made by the:
(i) Children’s Commissioners for England;
(ii) Children’s Commissioner for Wales;
(iii) Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People; and
(iv) Commissioner for Children and Young People, Northern Ireland, following the introduction of the benefit cap in Northern Ireland.”
To require the Secretary of State, when reviewing the level of the benefit cap, to take into account any reports made by the Children’s Commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales on the impact of the benefit cap on the wellbeing of children. Should the benefit cap be introduced in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State shall also be required to take account of any similar reports made by the Children’s Commissioner for Northern Ireland. This amendment does not require the Children’s Commissioners to make such report but does require the Secretary of State to consider any such reports if they are made.
Neil Coyle
I rise to speak to amendment 94, which is in my name; the consequential amendment 13, which focuses on the Social Security Advisory Committee and its reports; amendment 14, on the effect on discretionary housing payments; and amendment 105 on reports by the Children’s Commissioners. We support the amendments.
Amendment 94 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on disabled people and their carers when considering the cap threshold. This comes back to the earlier discussion about the fault-line between the parties on this issue. Our party believes that disabled people and carers should be protected, and that, as a minimum, the Government should be monitoring the impact of their policies on these significantly disadvantaged groups. Our policy comes from an evidence base, and it reflects the fact that, over the past few years, whether deliberately or by accident, the Government have penalised disabled people and carers.
I should like to give a personal example relating to the amendment before going into detail. My mum has schizophrenia. She is fortunate now, in that she is over state retirement age and so exempt, and has adequate treatment that sustains her mental health. Had this Government’s policy been in place before she was adequately treated, before adequate schizophrenia treatment was available, she might have been forced into homelessness or into being sectioned, at considerable additional cost to the state. She would have been trying to manage the side effects of poor medication, which at times caused vomiting so severe it contributed to loss of teeth. As that was happening, if this policy had been in place, she would also have been losing income and being made even more vulnerable. That is why the Government’s proposals are so dangerous and difficult for so many disabled people and their carers and families.
In the last five years, the Government have been either unaware of or uncaring about the cumulative effects of their policies on disabled people and carers. A massive grassroots movement of disabled people in particular and carers as well has put forward the WOW petition asking the Government to assess the impact of their policies on disabled people and carers. The petition secured 104,818 supporters and resulted in a debate in the House. During the debate, a previous Minister undertook to carry out several actions, including asking officials in the Department for Work and Pensions to work closely with Dr Simon Duffy of the Centre for Welfare Reform to make the independent cumulative impact assessment carried out by him as accurate as possible.
Unfortunately, since that debate, the Government have not worked with Dr Duffy to ensure that. The amendment would help address some of the frustration that disabled people and carers feel about the impact of Government policy and about not being taken more seriously. The Government’s Social Security Advisory Committee concluded that the Government could and should provide an analysis of the cumulative impact of their welfare reforms on disabled people, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research recommended that Her Majesty’s Treasury
“incorporates breakdowns of the cumulative impact of tax and social security measures according to protected characteristics into its distributional analysis as a matter of course.”
The amendment would support the Government in meeting that requirement. I should add that the WOW petition is up and running again in light of the Government’s inaction, despite previous commitments, to ensure that policies are better assessed for their impact on disabled people and carers.
During the last Parliament, we saw the rise of the Hardest Hit campaign, a combination of disability, carer and advice and welfare organisations working to ensure that the Government focus better on the impact of their policies. The campaign remains active and concerned about the impact of continued Government policy and reductions in support to disabled people and carers. The Government have continued to claim that disabled people are protected. That is untrue, and increasingly untrue. Of particular concern is the fact that, from October this year, the number of people on disability living allowance being pushed through personal independence payments assessments will increase. As the Government’s objective is to remove support from about 600,000 disabled people, it will mean that those disabled people will no longer be exempt from the benefit cap, adding additional weight to the importance of the amendment.
Witnesses to the Committee, including Parkinson’s UK, have suggested monitoring the impact of further changes and have said it would be welcome. I am grateful to the Disability Benefits Consortium for supporting my contribution to this debate. The DBC consists of about 60 different disability advice and welfare organisations active on and expert in these issues. It has no ulterior motive other than ensuring that the welfare system works adequately to support disabled people and carers.
The Disability Benefits Consortium has said in briefings to the Committee:
“A third of disabled people live below the poverty line, around 3.7 million people. Furthermore, DWP figures published in June show the number of disabled people living in poverty has increased by 2% over the last year equating to a further 300,000 disabled people living in poverty.”
The benefit cap, combined with freezes and cuts to ESA for those in the work-related activity group, will reduce disabled people’s incomes significantly. It needs measuring. There are additional costs to Government of getting the policy wrong, and that also needs measuring. The impact on disabled people and carers is not only a human one. The Government must be responsible and consider that. Has a policy had the desired effect? For example, has it had consequences for local authority spending, NHS spending or mental health spending?
In addition, while those in receipt of the support component of employment and support allowance are exempt from the cap, those in the WRAG are not, which we discussed earlier today. That means that about half a million disabled people are affected, and I hope that Members are clear about who is affected and who we are talking about in these groups.
The statistics on these people are from February this year and they are the Department’s own. I will not list them all, Chair; I know that we are tight for time. But 3,420 of these people have infectious and parasitic diseases. That is who we are talking about. In addition, 770 people have diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and certain diseases involving the immune mechanism; 244,000 have mental and behavioural disorders, which include learning disabilities; 26,000 have diseases of the nervous system; 2,990 have diseases of the eye and adnexa, which I am sure everyone knows about; 8,110 have diseases of the respiratory system; 2,930 have diseases of the skin and subcutaneous system; and 22,000 have injury, poisoning and certain other consequences or external causes. They are the disabled people who this Government policy would affect directly; they are not protected under the Government’s current policy. All that the amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the impact on those people is at least measured and monitored.
The current impact assessment suggests that a new lower-tiered cap has been designed to strengthen work incentives for those on benefits. The Government have yet to provide evidence to back up the claim that cutting the benefits that disabled people receive will incentivise them to work.
The Minister suggested in Tuesday’s discussions that there would be additional measures. We would welcome knowing what additional measures are being considered to reassure disabled people, their organisations and their carers that the Government are focusing on their concerns.
The majority of disabled people want to work, but they face substantial barriers, including attitudinal barriers from employers and wider society. We discussed the figures the other day; 48% of working-age disabled people are in work, but only about 10% of those with learning disabilities and 5% of those with significant mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, are in work.
I will just give a quick example. The impact assessment provides no detail about the impact of lowering the cap on disabled people who are not in receipt of DLA or PIP. That point was made by the National AIDS Trust and HIV Scotland in their briefing for this specific amendment. Amendment 94 would address this issue, and I hope that it will be welcomed by all members of the Committee.
I come to my final comments, Chair. Scope has provided analysis of the estimated higher costs of living with a disability. Baroness Campbell of Surbiton has made the point that the additional costs that she incurs are for things such as coffee, to make sure that her carers and support workers can have a cup of coffee, as well as things such as loo roll and carpet, and costs to cover wear and tear as people sit down on her sofa. Those are additional costs that disabled people have, which go well beyond the perception of disability costs as the cost of a wheelchair or medication.
I hope that hon. Members will have the Scope research in their minds when they consider the high costs of disabled people, as well as the higher incidence of poverty that already exists among disabled people, and the incidence of low income among disabled people. Low income is a direct result of not being able to work full-time hours.
In ensuring that these measures do not disadvantage disabled people further, it would be worth the Government at least describing how they believe that they are meeting their responsibilities under the Equality Act not to disadvantage these disabled people further. A failure to monitor or impact-assess this policy would be an acknowledgement that the Government know that disabled people and their carers will be made explicitly worse off by their measures.
Emily Thornberry
If one looks at clause 8 in the round, it is about the review of the benefit cap. It says:
“The Secretary of State must at least once in each Parliament review the sums specified”
and:
“The Secretary of State may, at any other time the Secretary of State considers appropriate, review the sums specified…to determine whether it is appropriate to increase or decrease any one or more of those sums.”
In deciding when to review, at some random time that he thinks appropriate, the Secretary of State can consider “other matters” he sees as “relevant”. That seems to give him absolute carte blanche to do what he likes with the benefit cap, whenever he likes and for whatever reason he likes. Does the Minister wish to give us some idea of what other matters the Secretary of State might consider relevant, what he might think appropriate or when he might decide to review the benefit cap?
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The amendments in this group are intended to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to adjust what is, and what is not, in the review, to ensure that the Government review the impact on disabled people and carers as well as using reports from important organisations tasked with children’s rights on the impact of the cap.
Amendment 94 would require the Secretary of State to consider the impact of the cap on disabled people and carers, because the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill contains no detail about the possible impact on disabled people who are not in receipt of disability living allowance or personal independence payment. We support the amendment, because it would ensure that the Government carry out further assessment of the impact on disabled people, carers and their families.
The disability benefits consortium has called for the Government to review the impact prior to the lowering of the cap. Those on disability benefits face daily struggles with their health, mobility and wellbeing, and the last thing they need is the prospect of financial hardship, too. I do not believe that anyone chooses to be on benefits, but for those with disabilities, they can be a lifeline, and the means to a better quality of life and independence. Many carers also face daily struggles to make ends meet, as a result of the additional costs of caring combined with the loss of income from giving up work or reducing working hours. What assessment have the Government made of the number of families who will no longer be able to care as a result of the lowering of the cap?
Amendment 73 would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to set the cap by reference to any other matters that he considers relevant. Clause 8 does not provide enough assurance that the Government will review the benefits cap with all due process and consideration. The national economic situation and “any other matters” are not exactly the building blocks of a robust and watertight reporting obligation on a matter that establishes the income of hundreds of thousands of people. These factors are too broad to be meaningful, and they run the risk of decision making that is based on political expediency rather than need for some of the most vulnerable households in our community.
We support amendment 13, because the Social Security Advisory Committee would be looking closely at the impact of the changes in the welfare system. Amendment 14 would require the Social Security Advisory Committee to report annually on the level of benefits, and to include an assessment of the impact of the cap on discretionary housing payment, which bridges the gaps that low-income families face because of welfare changes. We support the amendment, because it would ensure close monitoring of the impact of the cap on housing for families across the UK.
The DWP estimates that as many as 90,000 additional households across the UK are subject to the new cap, and vulnerable households, despite already being deemed to be in need of state support, could have their housing benefit substantially reduced even though they do not live in areas considered atypically expensive. Such a policy needlessly risks causing homelessness. Those affected by the cap will increasingly be ordinary-sized families in average-priced areas, who are simply struggling to make ends meet. The new cap will move those families closer to losing their homes.
We welcome amendment 105, which relates to the need for any reports on the impact of the benefit cap on children to be considered in the review of the benefit cap. With 210,000 children in Scotland living in relative poverty after housing costs, we must ensure that any review carried out by the Tory Government looks closely at the impact felt in Scotland by many families and their children. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that Scotland’s child poverty rate will increase by up to 100,000 by 2020 as a direct result of the UK Government’s tax and benefit policies. There is real concern that the further reduction of the benefit cap will compromise the wellbeing of more children as housing security is threatened, school life is disrupted and community links are broken. To date, twice as many children have been hurt by the current cap than adults. We do not support the benefit cap as it will cause increased hardship for people and we believe that the legislation does not come close to providing protection for our children from poverty.
Priti Patel
The clause introduces new provisions for how the Secretary of State should review the level of the cap in future and what factors he needs to take into account when undertaking such a review. The Bill prescribes that, when reviewing the level of the benefit cap, the Secretary of State must take into account the national economic situation. It also allows him to take into account any other matter he might consider relevant. The amendments would introduce a number of additional specific factors that the Secretary of State would have to take into account when undertaking that review.
On amendment 94, in the course of the debate we touched on specific aspects of support for disabled people and carers. We are mindful of the impacts of policies on those vulnerable groups, and I outlined some of the support in particular that the welfare system continues to provide to protect the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. I remind the Committee that there are exemptions from the cap for households where there is a claimant in receipt of DLA, PIP, attendance allowance or the support component of ESA. I will follow up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and drop him a line.
Amendment 73 would require the Secretary of State, when reviewing the level of the benefit cap, to take into account the national economic situation and add average earnings, regional variations and the cost of housing. It would also omit the provision that allows him to take into account any other matters that he considers relevant. I think it is fair to say that the proposed powers drawn up are broad, but we do not think it is possible to stipulate in advance the specific economic factors and developments most suitable to set the appropriate level for the cap at the time the review is undertaken.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister admits that the powers are broad and, therefore, presumably she will concede that it is difficult for us to hold the Government to account for what they are doing. In those circumstances, it is difficult for us to be clear. For anyone who may wish to scrutinise this legislation in future, when we as Members of Parliament were scrutinising this legislation, we were unaware and not told in which circumstances the Secretary of State would change the benefit cap. I want to spell that out, because people will read the transcript and we want to be completely clear in case this matter is to go before the courts.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady specifically mentions the benefit cap in relation to going to the courts. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the benefit cap is lawful. With regard to work required on reporting the benefit cap, the cap has been reviewed annually since its introduction as per current legislation, and those reviews found that no change was required. Obviously, a review of the national economic situation must be thorough, and regular annual reviews could result in the cap being unduly affected by a range of short-term economic fluctuations. At worst, that could lead to significant variations and cap yo-yoing, which would provide no stability for those in receipt of benefits and those who rely on that income in particular. There will be occasions when economic developments mean that a review of the cap must be undertaken more than once in a Parliament. We have seen considerable changes in recent years through changes to the economy as a whole.
Comments were made about the Social Security Advisory Committee, the long-standing and respected body that has provided an independent voice for many years and many detailed and informed reports on matters across the broad spectrum of welfare and social security. The Government value many of its opinions and the work that it undertakes. The committee already has well-established engagement with a full range of stakeholders with interests in this area on welfare reforms and it ensures that any advice that it provides encompasses a broad range of views. Obviously, we place a great deal of value on the work of the committee, but we do not necessarily think that it is right that in undertaking a review of the level of the cap, the Secretary of State has a statutory requirement to take account of the report of the committee, or that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to be bound to consult an individual body when reviewing the cap.
Neil Coyle
In light of the Minister’s commitment to provide more information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 73, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) The relationship between the level of the cap and average earnings, and
(c) Regional variations in the cost of housing.”—(Emily Thornberry.)
To remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to set the level of the benefit cap by reference to “any other matters [he] considers relevant” and to instead require that the cap should be set by reference to average earnings and regional variations to adjust for differences in the cost of housing.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Priti Patel
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 8, page 11, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) Section 176 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (consultation with representative organisations) does not apply in relation to regulations under subsection (4).”
This amendment provides that regulations that change the level of the benefit cap do not require consultation with local authority associations under section 176(1) of the Social Security.
The amendment aims to replicate a similar provision that has been inserted into clause 7, carrying forward the existing arrangements under which my Department is not required to consult with local authority associations on the commencement of housing benefit regulations, specifically in this case when the revised benefit cap is introduced. Historically, commencement orders have not been consulted on and have not been caught by consultation obligations regarding housing benefit regulations. However, commencement orders in the Bill have been superseded by commencement regulations.
As mentioned, to maintain the status quo, a provision in clause 7 has been inserted into the Bill to remove any new requirement for the Department for Work and Pensions to consult with local authority associations on the commencement regulations for introducing the benefit cap. The amendment inserts a similar provision into clause 8, so that there is no obligation to consult on commencement regulations should the benefit cap be changed in future.
The Committee should be aware that any change to lower the benefit cap will be subject to debate.
Hannah Bardell
I would like clarification, if possible. Will the amendment restrict any previous consulting powers that the Government have with Scotland?
Priti Patel
I will provide the hon. Lady with full clarification on that point.
Any change to lower the benefit cap will still be subject to debate under the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
The Department will continue to liaise with local authority associations to ensure the successful implementation of the new cap and that claimants are fully supported ahead of the introduction from around autumn next year.
Amendment 91 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 9, page 11, line 32, leave out from “relevant sums” to end of subsection and insert
“are to be reviewed by the Secretary of State having given regard to—
(a) the rate of inflation, and
(b) the national economic situation.”
To subject the four year freeze in the social security payments set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to an annual review of the levels by the Secretary of State. This review will consider both the rate of inflation and the national economic situation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 11, line 35, leave out from “child benefit” to end of subsection and insert
“are to be reviewed by the Secretary of State having given regard to—
(a) the rate of inflation, and
(b) the national economic situation.”
To subject the four year freeze in child benefit to an annual review of the levels by the Secretary of State. This review will consider both the rate of inflation and the national economic situation.
Amendment 17, in clause 10, page 12, line 21, leave out from “relevant amounts” to end of subsection and insert
“are to be reviewed by the Secretary of State having given regard to—
(a) the rate of inflation, and
(b) the national economic situation.”
To subject the four year freeze in the tax credits set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to an annual review of the levels by the Secretary of State. This review will consider both the rate of inflation and the national economic situation.
New clause 2—Local Housing Allowance—
‘(1) For each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2017, 5 April 2018, 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, the amount paid to claimants of the Local Housing Allowance is be reviewed by the Secretary of State.
(2) In reviewing these sums the Secretary of State shall have regard to—
(a) the rate of inflation,
(b) the national economic situation, and
(c) the levels of market rent.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the level of the Local Housing Allowance annually, in light of the rate of inflation, levels of market rent and the national economic situation.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 11, line 32, leave out from “relevant sums” to end of subsection and insert
“is to increase in line with the consumer price index.”
This amendment would see relevant benefits increasing in line with the consumer price index.
Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 11, line 35, leave out from “child benefit” to end of subsection and insert
“are to increase in line with the consumer price index.”
This amendment would see child benefit increasing in line with the consumer price index.
Amendment 41, in clause 9, page 11, line 37, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
This amendment is consequential to the amendments 39 and 40.
Amendment 42, in clause 10, page 12, line 21, leave out from “relevant amounts” to end of subsection and insert
“is to increase in line with the consumer price index.”
This amendment would see tax credits increasing in line with the consumer price index.
Amendment 95, in clause 9, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), for each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2017, 5 April 2018, 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, the amount of each of the relevant sum claimable by persons with a disability, as defined by the Equality Act 2000, is to increase in line with inflation.”
This amendment exempts disabled people from the four year benefits freeze.
Amendment 96, in clause 10, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
‘(1a) Notwithstanding subsection (1), for each of the tax years ending with 5 April 2017, 5 April 2018, 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, the amount of each of the relevant amounts claimable by persons with a disability, as defined by the Equality Act 2000, is to increase in line with inflation.”
This amendment exempts disabled people from the four year tax credits freeze.
Clause stand part.
Clause 10 stand part.
Emily Thornberry
The principle that we have such difficulties with in relation to clauses 9 and 10 can be encapsulated quite simply. For years, benefits have gone in attendance with need. The idea is that the welfare state should be a safety net, that it should be there for those who need it and that we should look first at need. I am not saying that we should have limitless amounts of benefits, but is important that those who are the most vulnerable are assisted.
Much has been said about the popularity of the measures, but if we look at public opinion, in a recent poll 88% of people upheld this British value: it is important to have a benefits system to provide a safety net to anyone who needs it. The clauses not only freeze social security benefits for a year; they do it for four years and they do it from now. We do not know what the state of our economy will be like in four years’ time. We do not know to what extent there may be inflation and who will be affected in what way. I will be brief because I am going to rely on the good sense of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which stated:
“While this will make a significant contribution to progress with eliminating the deficit (assuming inflation returns to the target level), it is likely to have a serious detrimental impact upon working-age households reliant upon state support to top-up their income”.
It is serious, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recommends:
“Retention of the annual review of benefit levels to allow the Chancellor to link strong economic performance with the maintenance of living standards at the bottom end of the income spectrum”.
If the Government really mean that no one should be left behind and that we are all in it together, we should all be in it together. If the economy picks up, why would those on benefits be four years behind? It is a simple point. They talk about fairness. Here is an opportunity to do something about it. The Chancellor should continue to have a flexible approach to uprating benefits to offset increased costs, particularly for essential goods and services. There is great concern about that.
The argument is that the welfare spend has got out of control and that we need to get back to a more sustainable type of welfare spending. Again, I rely on the Child Poverty Action Group’s excellent briefing, which points out what we all know: that in 1980 working-age welfare spending accounted for 8% of national spending, whereas now it is 13%. However, analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility questions whether spending on social security is in fact increasing at an unsustainable rate. As the evidence shows, spending on welfare as a percentage of GDP remained reasonably steady until 2008. The OBR finds that the largest contribution to the increase since them was the uprating of state pensions, rather than working-age welfare spending.
In case anybody did not know this, the poor are getting poorer. With this freezing of benefits for four years, they will continue to get poorer. We need to go into this with our eyes open. Government Members should not support the clause without allowing an annual review, so that we can see what is fair. Are we prepared to leave the poorest and most marginalised behind, while the rest of the economy does or does not do well? We are against these two clauses.
Neil Coyle
Amendment 95 and 96 are in my name. In the interests of time, I will be as brief as possible. I hope there will be an opportunity to come back to these issues on Report if my questions are not answered. Fundamentally, this comes back to the same issue. Disabled people are directly affected by this measure—in particular, by ESA. This is about the full component, not just the £30 support group component. The full ESA payment needs to be taken into consideration, and we have concerns about those who are directly affected. The real question is about the Conservative manifesto commitment. Page 28 of the manifesto states:
“We will freeze working age benefits for two years from April 2016, with exemptions for disability and pensioner benefits”.
The amendments would help to ensure that that manifesto commitment is delivered. I hope to come back to this issue on Report if it is not dealt with sooner.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
Things have accelerated, Mr Owen.
It is a pleasure to respond to this concatenated set of amendments. As these are probably the last words that will be said in this Committee before we break for the party conferences, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and the right hon. Member for East Ham, who is my cloakroom neighbour. They are both impassioned campaigners whose dedication and intentions can never be doubted. They will be very much missed from this Committee. Of course, we warmly welcome the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to her new position.
This has been a full debate on a range of important issues. In responding to the amendments, I will reiterate the rationale behind our proposed changes and set out why we are not persuaded that the amendments should be accepted. However, before I do so, I want to recap the purpose of the Bill and in particular clauses 9 and 10.
The Bill seeks to move this country from a low-wage, high-tax and high-welfare society, to a higher-wage, lower-tax and less welfare-reliant one. That means ensuring that work always pays and focusing support on those on the very lowest incomes. Crucially, it means ensuring that the system is fair to those who pay for it, as well as those who benefit from it. Combined with the national living wage and the changes to the income tax personal allowance, the summer Budget ensured that a typical family working full time on the national living wage will be better off by the end of the Parliament, with eight out of 10 working households better off by 2017-18.
The Bill builds on this Government’s achievements in delivering for working people, whether that is the 1,000 jobs created every day—2 million since 2010—the 2.9% growth in wages this year, a 9% increase in total hours worked since 2010, or the fact that, according to the OBR, living standards are projected to be higher in 2015 than in any previous year. These clauses, which freeze the main rates of working-age benefits, child benefit and the majority of tax credits, are a central element of the Bill and are key to this Government’s ambition of putting welfare on a fairer and more sustainable footing. The exemptions for benefits, which help with the additional costs of disability, ensure that we continue to protect the most vulnerable.
Neil Coyle
I have one quick point about those who contribute. Some of the benefits that we are discussing, employment support allowance in particular, are paid to those who contributed to the system when they have been able to work. It is deeply unfair and unjust to suggest that this is somehow about protecting those who work and do the right thing when the very people that we seek to support have contributed and have then developed health conditions.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that people in receipt of a number of benefits will have contributed to the system. It remains the case that we fund benefits out of current contributions. It remains the case that we have a budget deficit of 5% of national income. It remains the case that we need to get that down to start paying down the national debt. In order to do that, we need to find £12 billion of welfare savings.
The freeze has been extended to four years due to the current low-inflationary environment to ensure that it makes a significant contribution to the £12 billion reduction that I just mentioned. When originally announced as a two-year freeze, it was forecast to save £3 billion and to lead to a real-terms reduction in benefit rates of 4%. Due to the current environment, it would now save less than £1 billion. The Government have therefore extended the freeze to ensure that it generates at least the same level of savings, and more, than announced last autumn.
Emily Thornberry
Just to be clear, the Minister is not attempting to put forward a moral case. It is simply about saving money. It is about saving money from the poorest.
Damian Hinds
I am not quite sure how the hon. Lady managed to infer what she just said from what I just said. I was explaining—
Damian Hinds
I will be delighted to. I was explaining why what was originally a two-year freeze has been extended to a four-year freeze because of the current low-inflationary environment and the need to make the savings that form a substantial part of the £12 billion that we have been discussing.
While the Government have a clear mandate for the reforms, it is imperative that we protect the most vulnerable. We are protecting pensioners, with pension credit, the pension additions in other benefits, and the basic state pensions—they are all excluded from the freeze. We are also exempting benefits relating to the additional costs of disability, such as attendance allowance, disability living allowance, and personal independence payments. We have exempted the support group component of ESA, the limited capability for work and work-related activity component of universal credit, as well as additions and premiums in JSA, ESA and tax credits related to disability. Statutory payments, including statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay are also all exempt. Those exemptions ensure that the most vulnerable in society are protected from the benefit freeze.
Let me speak directly for a moment to amendments 95 and 96, which seek to exempt disabled people from the freeze by ensuring that any of the relevant sums of working-age benefits and tax credits are increased in line with inflation, if they are claimed by a person who is disabled. In bringing forward our policy to freeze benefits and tax credits, we have been extremely mindful of the protections that we believe it is right to put in place to support the most vulnerable.
We are exempting all the benefits relating to additional costs of disability, as I just listed. Similarly, we are protecting the disability premiums and additions in working-age benefits, tax credits and pension-age benefits. The support group component in employment and support allowance and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit are also protected. Those elements are paid to those with the most severe work-limiting health conditions in recognition of the fact that they are less likely to be able to increase their income by moving into work and may have additional needs as a result. Those are vital protections alongside the very acute need to make savings.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is accepting that the majority of the payment received by disabled people in the employment and support allowance group who are judged unfit to work—full stop—will not be protected. He is making the Prime Minister’s commitment to protect disabled people false. Of the payment of roughly £100 that those people would be expected to receive, £30 or so will be protected, whereas £70 will not. Will the Minister confirm that that is accurate?
Damian Hinds
What we have said is that those in the support group will be exempt, but not those in the work-related activity group. The main rates of working-age benefits are there to provide basic support for claimants who are not in work. Those rates are common across all claimants who receive out-of-work benefits. Introducing new higher rates of payments specifically for disabled people has the potential to discourage claimants from taking steps to get back to work where they can and would introduce significant complication into the system, leading to possible confusion for claimants.
Hannah Bardell
The Minister says he is going to be protecting disabled people. Will he explain why people on the severe disablement allowance will be included in the benefit cap? Surely that will make those most vulnerable people even poorer.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady will forgive me, I know, if we do not talk again at length about the benefit cap. We had a big debate about that in the earlier group of amendments that referred to the benefit cap. I repeat all the exemptions that are being made in the freeze—well, I am not going to repeat them all, but she heard them. There are all the exemptions that the Government are making for those specific benefits and elements of benefits that refer to the additional costs of disability.
The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people are able to participate absolutely fully in society and have set out their ambition to halve the disability employment gap, which I think is something that Members on both sides of the Committee and the House would agree on.
Damian Hinds
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not, just in the interests of time?
Most people with disabilities and health conditions want to work and we will support them to prepare them for work and to move closer to the labour market, and when they are ready, to move back into work. We believe that the freeze is a necessary and fair way of putting welfare spending on a more sustainable footing, but that it is vital to offer protection to the most vulnerable. The best way of doing that is by supporting people who can to move closer to the labour market and by continuing to protect those benefits relating to the additional costs of disability.
Neil Coyle
Let me try a different tack. Does the Minister expect this range of cuts to be as successful as the last set of cuts, which were projected to save billions on ESA and DLA but actually resulted in higher spending of £10 billion?
Damian Hinds
We are debating a group of amendments about a four-year freeze to certain benefits. Do I expect that to be successful in delivering the £3.5 billion that it is projected to? Yes, I do, and it is clearly a mathematical point about the rate of inflation and so on. We have the independent forecasts of how the economy is going to grow and of inflation, and I believe that our measure will deliver.
The Scottish National party amendments replace the freeze and the duty to review with the removal of the freeze altogether. That would remove the certainty we have about legislating directly for a freeze, and move us from the position where we have a clear plan reflecting the electoral mandate of the Government to one where the taxpayer could not be sure, year on year, as to the level of benefits.
Certainty for individuals, to help them plan ahead, is a key feature of the Government’s economic policies. It is also why we have introduced a national living wage, and pre-announced the anticipation that it will rise to £9 an hour by 2020 and the ambition to increase the tax-free personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of the decade. Legislating now to freeze for four years, along with those other measures, provides clarity to benefits recipients, giving them fair notice and the opportunity to make positive changes. Anyone supporting the amendments before us would have to spell out how they would instead give the public that certainty about the level of spend and identify where else they would make cuts.
I turn briefly to new clause 2 on the local housing allowance. The measure announced in the summer Budget to freeze local housing allowance rates for four years will contribute savings of £1 billion towards the Government’s commitment to reduce the welfare bill by the £12 billion I mentioned. It is not included in the Bill, as the Secretary of State already has the powers in primary legislation to change the way in which LHA rates are set. Those powers were included in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
It may help, however, if I clarify how the freezing of LHA rates will work during the four-year period. The rates will still be reviewed each year and rent officers will calculate, as they have been doing previously, a rate calculated by reference to the 30th percentile value from a list of rents for properties of a given size in that area. Each list of rents must include achieved rental values from the distribution and range within each area. In line with the Government’s measure to freeze rates, they will then set the new LHA rates based on the lower of either the April 2015 rate or the 30th percentile of listed rents. The Government recognise that some areas will see particularly high increases in rents, so we have made specific provision for those areas.
Over the Parliament, 30% of the savings generated from this measure will be used to create more targeted affordability funding, building on the £140 million already distributed since 2014. Alongside that, local authorities are able to provide support to the most vulnerable claimants affected by housing benefit reform through an enhanced package of £800 million of discretionary housing payment funding, which is significantly more than was provided over the previous Parliament.
I reassure hon. Members that, alongside the LHA rates, we will continue to publish, as we have previously, the 30th percentile of market rents in each area. We believe that the freeze to the main rates of the majority of working-age benefits, child benefit and tax credits are a necessary and fair way of putting welfare spending on a more sustainable footing. I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the amendment.
Hannah Bardell
We will not press our amendments, on the basis that we will be voting against the clause. I would like to make some points on those amendments. The Minister made a point about reducing the deficit. We reject that wholeheartedly. There is a huge amount of academic research that says the austerity agenda is going to fail, and that investing in people and investing in benefits will stimulate the economy. For all those reasons, we categorically reject what he is saying. Our amendments speak to the fact that the benefits system has to keep up with the economic conditions of the country, otherwise we are letting the poorest people down.
The UK Government are proposing to extend the freeze on working-age benefits from two years to four years, which will end in 2020. That would end the link with prices and earnings, effectively cutting the benefits that support those people who are most in need, and ensure that the lowest-income households continue to get poorer over the years between now and 2020. For example, child benefit is projected to lose 28% of its value, according to the Child Poverty Action Group. That will have a devastating impact on child poverty rates in Scotland.
Emily Thornberry
We will not press the amendment to a vote this afternoon, but this matter will be revisited on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That clauses 9 and 10 stand part of the Bill, and that the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Finance Bill (First sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. While I am in the Chair, Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets. I imagine that Mr Howarth will extend the same courtesy, but that is for him to say, not for me. No refreshments other than water may be consumed in Committee meetings, so if Members are in need of coffee or anything like that, they will have to go outside. Please could all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and the like are switched off or on silent? It is infuriating both to the Chair and to other Members to have people constantly ringing. It would be appreciated if Members could use electronic devices for parliamentary purposes, not for doing sudoku or whatever.
The pile of boxes behind me is provided for Members to keep their papers in. During the process of the Bill, there will be an accumulation of papers—that I can promise you—and if you wish to leave them in the room, they will be locked in the cupboard behind me. So it is possible to leave papers here, obviously other than those that arrive in your personal boxes and post during the week, and collect them before the start of each sitting. During the lunch break, the room will be locked. Mr Howarth will take the Chair at 2 o’clock, but, in the interim, if you wish to leave papers or indeed anything else within reason on the desk—I would not advise you to leave very valuable things—they can be left safely in the room. The room will be locked between 1 pm and 2 pm, so do not feel that you have got to take everything with you.
As a rule, Mr Howarth and I do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice in Public Bill Committees is three working days, so amendments need to be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the Public Bill Committee, so we will have a very brief teaching—this is also for the benefit of long-standing Members and, indeed, the Chairman. I think I am right in saying that I am now the longest-serving member of the Panel of Chairs and even I find these processes confusing sometimes. The first rule is: if you are in any doubt, ask. Please do not feel that we sitting in this Chair are so fierce that you cannot stand up and say, “Please, I don’t understand that.” We may or may not be able to explain, but if we cannot, Mr Hamlyn, our superb Clerk, will be able to.
The process is this: we first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and the debate on that is limited to half an hour. For those of you who are not aware, that is the motion that was agreed at a pre-hearing with a small group of the Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Howarth. The agreement was reached on both sides Committee by consent. That does not mean that you cannot talk about it, but you cannot do so for more than half an hour.
We then proceed to a motion to report any written evidence. That is because, in the course of the sittings of the Bill, written evidence will be received and we need the Committee’s consent to ensure that that is made available formally and becomes part of the record for the Committee. We then begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available and I hope all Members now have a copy, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped together for debate. Amendments are normally grouped on the same issue or similar or related issues. Ladies and gentlemen, I would be grateful if you would pay particular attention to this, because this is the article of the most confusion and it is important that everyone understands the process.
You will find a group of amendments. Clause 1, which will be the first piece of the Bill debated, is debated as a clause. The motion will be that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and that will be a broad-ranging debate, because there are no amendments tabled to clause 1.
Clause 2, in similar fashion, will be a general stand part debate, but in addition we are debating new clauses 1 and 3. The first point of confusion is that whether or not a Member, on either the Government or Opposition side, wishes to put those provisions to a Division, it will not happen then because Divisions take place in order throughout the course of the Bill. While new clauses 1 and 3 will be debated with clause 2, if they are voted on at all it will not be until much later in the proceedings, when we get to them on the amendment paper. That applies to any other amendments.
If a Member—often an Opposition Member—seeks to table and then move an amendment, it may become the lead amendment in a group. It will be grouped with amendments of a similar nature or subject matter. Only the lead amendment will be moved at that time. People have a tendency to stand up and say, “I wish to move this,” but they cannot. You must wait until we have reached it on the amendment paper, which may be the middle of next week or next month, depending upon how long the sittings take.
If you are in any doubt, please ask. Because there are a significant number of new Members on the Committee, Mr Howarth and I will endeavour to be as generous within the terms of proper procedure as we can, but once the tipping point is reached and the business moves on, it is not permissible to go back, so you need to keep your wits about you. It is normally assumed that Government amendments will become part of the Bill and that the Government will therefore always wish to move them. That is accepted by the Chair and understood by both Front Benches.
That’s it. Let me repeat: if you have any problems, misunderstandings or difficulties, please ask. If there is something you really do not understand but do not feel inclined to stand up and ask about, nobble the Chair after the sitting, and we will be pleased to do our best to explain it to you. The object of the exercise is not to confuse but to assist. Like the Inland Revenue, we are here to help you.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 17 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 September;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 October;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 October;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 to 15; Clauses 18 to 23; Schedule 4; Clauses 24 and 25; Schedule 5; Clause 26; Schedule 6; Clauses 27 to 31; Clause 33; Schedule 7; Clause 32; Clauses 34 to 42; Clause 44; Clauses 46 and 47; Schedule 8; Clauses 48 to 50; new Clauses other than those relating to the subject matter of Clauses 16 and 17 and Schedules 2 and 3 or the subject matter of Clause 43 or the subject matter of Clause 45; new Schedules other than those relating to the subject matter of Clauses 16 and 17 and Schedules 2 and 3 or the subject matter of Clause 43 or the subject matter of Clause 45; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October.
It is a very great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. This is not the first time I have had the pleasure of serving under you in a Finance Bill Committee, and I know the Committee is in safe hands with both you and Mr Howarth.
I welcome all members of the Committee, and I am delighted we have such a large turnout for the beginning of our proceedings. I particularly welcome the Opposition Front-Bench team: the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Worsley and Eccles South. I look forward to hearing their questions and inquiries. I do not know whether the Scottish National Party has the same Front-Bench arrangement, but I welcome all members of Opposition parties and, indeed, my own colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who will be sharing some of the burden over the weeks ahead.
I am pleased that agreement was reached at the Programming Sub-Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the usual channels. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for their work in reaching that agreement. I very much looking forward to serving under your chairmanship in the weeks ahead, Sir Roger.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Financial Secretary for his opening words and his welcome, which I echo. I thank you, Sir Roger, and your co-Chair Mr Howarth, who I understand will be in the Chair this afternoon. It is a pleasure to serve under two distinguished Chairmen. Although I had the pleasure of serving on a previous Finance Bill Committee as a Back Bencher, this is the first time I have served on one as a Front Bencher. I was recently appointed shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and the other outgoing shadow Treasury Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). I also pay tribute to the previous shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who is a veteran of Finance Bills and has led much of our work this year. I also pay enormous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South before she leaves the Treasury team, and in advance of her excellent contributions today, for her stellar work.
I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Central Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe. I have had experience of their office, so I know that the usual channels work behind the scenes to ensure everything goes well during Bill proceedings.
I welcome those who are relatively new to the House. If this is their first Finance Bill Committee, I am sure it will be an experience they will remember. It will be a good foundation for much more that they do in the House.
I know from past experience that we have many hours in Committee ahead. I am sure I speak for all here when I say that we relish the opportunity to get further into this legislation and to change it for the better. I also know that the Financial Secretary will relish the opportunity to serve on his 11th Finance Bill Committee—or is it the 12th?
Seema Malhotra
He is certainly a veteran. If there is a record for the Minister who has steered the most Finance Bills through Parliament, if he has not won it already, I am sure he is well on his way.
When I mentioned to a colleague that the Bill has only 50 clauses, they expressed concern that the Government are already running out of business, as they were in the months running up to the election. I recall that when I served on the Finance Bill Committee in 2012, that Bill had three volumes and 227 clauses. Indeed, last year’s Finance Bill had 295 clauses. This year, the Finance Bill has 50 clauses, and we are scheduled to have only eight sittings.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
This is the third one in a year.
Seema Malhotra
I know it is. Perhaps the Financial Secretary does not have the same concerns.
Although some aspects of the Bill are to be welcomed, many others are worrying. The change to the climate change levy, for example, has been almost universally challenged. The increase in insurance premium tax, which will raise substantial amounts for the Government, will cause significant hikes in insurance premiums for millions of people across the UK, with possible adverse consequences for consumer behaviour that must be understood. Those issues were tackled, to some extent, in Committee of the whole House last week.
We need a Finance Bill that supports working people and does not penalise them, as the tax credit statutory instrument, which we discussed two days ago, does. We need a Finance Bill that supports business and provides long-term certainty, and which leads to investment now that will reap dividends in the future. A retrospective change to carbon taxes, for example, will not achieve that aim. That is the approach we will take in Committee.
Obviously it would not be proper to start proceedings without thanking the usual unsung heroes: not only the Treasury officials, whom I thank for their diligence, but the Clerks, Hansard and others who help keep our proceedings going smoothly.
I am sure I speak for all Members when I say that it is an honour and a privilege to serve on the Finance Bill Committee, and I am sure we will approach all the sessions in that spirit. Indeed, I hope we will scrutinise the Bill properly and methodically and do what we are all here to do, which is to serve the people of Britain.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of your co-Chair, Mr Howarth, when he joins us later. I associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, and welcome the Clerks, the Hansard reporters and others who will assist us in the days ahead, although it will just be one day ahead for me.
I welcome the members of the Committee and in particular those who came into the House in May. On the Labour side, that is my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South, for Halifax, for Dewsbury, for Torfaen and for Cambridge, and we will be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. We should also mention the stalwart work of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe.
As has been said, this is the first ever Bill Committee for those new Members, and I remember when I served on my first Finance Bill Committee back in summer 2006. I checked back, and the Financial Secretary was on that same Committee. We know now that he has served on 11 Finance Bill Committees, so he certainly wins the prize. I am afraid I do not. I assure the Committee and him that we will scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, as is our duty. Members should be grateful that the Bill is much shorter than the Finance Bill in 2006, which had 21 sittings.
As an opening comment, the Bill sadly does little to help families and individuals on low and middle incomes, and I think that is a pity. Millions of those families have heard that they will be hit by the tax credit cuts that were voted through by Government Members earlier this week. Those savage cuts will come to be seen as the hallmark of the summer Budget of 2015, which was also a tax-raising Budget, but I will come back to that point.
In Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we heard about a working family who would be hit badly by the cuts, and there will be so many more, because 3 million families will lose more than £1,000 a year. In my constituency, more than 8,000 families with children receive tax credits, of whom 5,300 are working families. The Bill does not contain that measure on tax credits, but it comes from the same Budget, so I will keep those families in mind as we work through all the issues in the Bill.
Roger Mullin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, along with my colleagues. I start by thanking everyone who has already been thanked, thus making sure that I miss no one out. I am slightly surprised that I am making this speech, because I did not know that this was how proceedings would begin, but on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say that we look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail. We are particularly unhappy about a number of matters, and we share the views already expressed by the Labour spokespersons.
We also want, through new clauses, to raise some matters that are of particular concern to Scotland and the people of Scotland, who are severely disadvantaged on a number of fronts by measures within the Bill. I hope we will contribute constructively and speedily. I had a wonderful experience when I attended the Sub-Committee of this Bill Committee on Monday; the thing I thought was particularly impressive was that it lasted one minute. I am sure this Committee will take a little longer, but we will do our best to contribute constructively and efficiently.
The Chair
Before I put the question, those who are long in the tooth in the House and those who are not have learned a lesson: most of the remarks just made were technically out of order—[Laughter.] However, within the half-hour available for this particular piece of the process, a Chairman is normally reasonably flexible.
I should have mentioned a couple of other things. I was asked by the Opposition Front Bench team what the form of address is. I am Sir Roger—for reasons I do not entirely understand—and George Howarth is Mr Howarth at the moment, although I am sure that will change in due course. In the English Parliament, in Committee as on the Floor of House, we refer to Members by constituency or by “my hon. Friend” or “the hon. Lady” or “the hon. Gentleman”, not by “you” or whatever. “You” is the Chair, and the Chair is non-partisan and does not take part in the proceedings. So if you say, “You have said that,” I shall leap to my feet and say, “No, I haven’t,” even though we all know what was meant. We will try not to be too heavy on that at the start, however.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 1
Income tax lock
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause makes changes to ensure that there will be no increase in the main rates of income tax for the duration of the Parliament. That will provide certainty for taxpayers and enable working people to keep more of the income they earn.
The Government committed to legislate to rule out increases in income tax rates, national insurance contributions and VAT for the duration of the Parliament. Clause 1 delivers that commitment for income tax and clause 2 deals with VAT. The national insurance contributions element of the tax lock is being legislated for in a separate Bill, because it is outside the scope of this Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. On the passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, which, like the clause, had declaratory effect, the then shadow Chancellor, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that it was “vacuous and irrelevant”. Is the Minister as surprised as I am about the Chancellor’s U-turn on declaratory legislation?
Mr Gauke
I would draw a distinction between a Government who had no reputation for fiscal responsibility seeking to obtain such a reputation by passing such legislation and a Government who have a record of controlling income tax by increasing the personal allowance and not increasing rates, notwithstanding the challenges we face in the public finances. The clause underlines the Government’s commitment not to increase taxes, and income tax in particular, on the British people, because that is the wrong response. That is consistent with what we have done in office. The problem the last Labour Government had was that, in response to the fiscal crisis, rather than coming forward with clear proposals to reduce the deficit or even to accept a need to get to grips with that deficit, they simply sought to pass legislation. That was the wrong response then, whereas this is the right response now.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The logic of the Minister’s argument does not really stack up. If the country has confidence about the Government’s fiscal responsibility, there is no need to pass legislation. I am totally confused by his argument.
Mr Gauke
We fought the last general election saying that we would introduce this legislation. We won that general election, which suggests that the British people had confidence in the overall package of our fiscal policies. If Labour Members are worried about fiscal confidence, perhaps they should look somewhat closer to home.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing any Government should be able to do is give some sort of confidence to households that their tax rates will not go up, providing them with the opportunity to plan for the future with more security than they would have if this measure were not in place?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. A striking point made by a number of my hon. Friends on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week was that the introduction of the tax lock in the context of employers’ national insurance contributions gives employers much greater confidence. Providing economic stability and security is an important part of the Government’s long-term economic plan. A credible party needs to present to the British people how it will provide economic security and stability. That is what this Government are doing. I look forward to the day when there is cross-party consensus that economic security and stability are important to this country.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Sir Roger, not having served under your chairmanship before, I look forward to doing so. I accept the Minister’s point that he is trying to produce certainty through the clause, but it is surely the case that he is merely displacing the uncertainty. If projected tax receipts fail and the Bill is on the statute book, the Government will have to either cut public expenditure, which will impact on the economy and affect the confidence of suppliers, or raise borrowing, which again will have an impact on confidence in the economy because interest rates will have to go up. In no way can we ever introduce certainty; all we can do is put the uncertainty somewhere else, so the Minister’s argument fails.
Mr Gauke
I was making the point that it is important we provide certainty on taxes. At the last general election, the Labour party—I am not sure this was the case for the SNP—certainly said that it would not increase income tax, VAT and national insurance contribution rates. In that sense, there was a cross-party consensus—at least there was at the last general election; I appreciate things may have moved on since then—on not increasing those rates. We are underlining our pledge by legislating for it, which further strengthens our commitment. In the context of a Government who have a record of ensuring that income taxes do not increase, even when we face the most difficult circumstances, that pledge and this legislation have credibility.
The changes made by clause 1 will set out that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not rise above their current levels of 20%, 40% and 45% respectively for the duration of this Parliament. The tax lock will apply to the main rates of income tax for earnings and savings. That accounts for more than 90% of income tax revenue collected, and that is what we want to lock, enabling working people to keep more of what they earn.
The tax lock does not prejudice the Government’s commitments on tax devolution. From April 2016, Scotland will have the power to vary the rate of income tax for earnings, and we are devolving further unprecedented flexibilities over income tax to Scotland through the Scotland Bill, which will give the Scottish Parliament the power to set the rates and thresholds applying to earnings income. The Government are committed to delivering that in full, giving Scotland full flexibility over income tax rates and thresholds on earnings income. The tax lock will therefore not restrict Scotland from setting higher rates of income tax, nor Wales when it has the Welsh rate of income tax.
Clause 1 delivers the Government’s commitment to rule out increases in the main rates of income tax for the duration of this Parliament, ensuring that working people can keep more of the money they earn.
Barbara Keeley
Clauses 1 and 2 enact the promise that the Government made during the general election not to increase the rate of income tax or VAT in the next Parliament. Clause 1 states that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not increase above 20%, 40% and 45% for the duration of this Parliament.
We support the Government’s pledges on tax locks for this Parliament. In fact, it would be surprising if we did not, because we made them first. The Labour party made the same pledge on 25 March, and our 2015 manifesto contained a commitment not to increase the basic or higher rates of income tax, or to raise VAT or national insurance. We are glad the Conservative party adopted our pledge during the election.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, and as was discussed in the Budget debates, legislating for that pledge represents a U-turn. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in 2009 the current Chancellor said he was very critical of Chancellors passing laws to ensure they fulfil their promises. The current Chancellor stated then:
“No other Chancellor in the long history of the office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget…As one commentator observed this week, there are only two conclusions. Either the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is, so to speak, asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word, but hopes that they might believe in the statute book if not in him. Neither is much of a recommendation for the Chancellor of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 708.]
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On Tuesday the hon. Lady advised us on the Floor of the House that she would not seek to defend or reference remarks made on previous occasions by the new leader of her party. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Barbara Keeley
I think comments that somebody made when they were a Back-Bench MP are different. Once somebody has taken on a role, either in opposition or in government, what they say carries a certain weight. There is a freedom to the Back Benches that I and others here have experienced. Many Members of the Conservative party say things that their Front-Bench team would not agree with. That is my distinction, and I am sticking to it.
It appears that the Chancellor had a change of heart, and now feels the need to pass a law to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget. During the debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week we discussed the view that measures such as this are in fact gimmicks. We questioned why Ministers feel the need for this additional legislation when the promises that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made during the election should be good enough. To people outside Westminster, it could appear that Treasury Ministers have lost confidence in their ability to stick to their resolutions, or perhaps they fear that everyone else has lost confidence in their ability to keep their word. The Minister may want to tell us which he thinks it is.
Although Labour supports the pledge to make no increase to VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions during this Parliament, I still question whether introducing legislation to ensure those locks is the best course of action. Rather than gimmicks, we need long-term tax reform and sensible policies to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good deal.
We have some concerns about the durability of the income tax lock in clause 1. As it stands, it appears that rates could be raised by repealing the Bill in a future Budget. Can the Minister assure the Committee that it is not simply a gimmick? Will he outline how he intends to show that the lock will remain in place? In our deliberations, we should consider the impact of that tax change and the other changes to the tax system announced in the Budget. As many tax experts have pointed out, only then will we be able to see the real impact of Government measures on particular groups of people.
In Committee of the whole House, I raised the issue of the insurance premium tax. Although the clause protects workers against an income tax rate rise, I note that they will not be protected from the other tax increases in the Bill.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Roger; I hope to profit from your experience. I want to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertion that the tax lock is a gimmick. Is it not in the same spirit as the legislation that ensures that 0.7% of GDP is spent on international aid each year? That measure is ensuring, as we speak, that refugees from Syria are being rescued from terrible circumstances. Is this not in a similar spirit?
Barbara Keeley
I do not think it is. In fact, if it is seen in the same way, someone needs to have a word with the Prime Minister. He constantly refers to the 0.7% commitment as a matter of huge pride and has quoted it a great deal in our debates about the refugee crisis over the past week or two. The difference with financial matters—this is probably why the current Chancellor was so critical of things in 2009—is that there are many opportunities to legislate. This is the third Finance Bill this year, so things could change. The 0.7% international aid commitment was a very long-term commitment. It came up a great deal in international discussions and still does, so there is a difference.
I was talking about the insurance premium tax and the fact that people are not protected from those sorts of tax increase. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:
“The tax and welfare changes between them mean that poorer households have lost quite significantly and as a result of yesterday’s Budget, much more significantly than anything that has happened to richer households.”
He also said:
“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.”
Let us bear in mind that many of the households that benefit from this tax lock have been adversely impacted by other tax changes. In fact, the summer Budget did not cut the overall tax bill; it raised it.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Lady makes a lot about feeling it unnecessary that the Government have to promise to legislate not to change tax rates and about the importance of not affecting working households, particularly those at the bottom end. Is it not the case that when her party was in government, there was an understanding that people at the bottom end would be protected, yet at that time the 10p tax rate was removed, causing huge problems for working households? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Barbara Keeley
There is a great deal of looking back, but let us look at what is happening this year and what will happen in the years following this Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts net taxes to rise by more than £47 billion over the next four years, with much of the money coming from increases in dividend tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle excise duty and cuts in pension tax relief. Of course, welfare cuts will also raise almost £35 billion. It is one thing saying that families will benefit from the tax lock, but all of those measures will hit many families and individuals in the UK hard.
The combination of changes needs to be seen in the context of the cut to tax credits that Government Members voted through this week, which are likely to leave millions of families worse off. I was asked the other day, “What else would you do?” It is our contention that the welfare reform we need is to things such as overpayments and the error and fraud in the welfare system, because things are not properly checked at the point of application. Error and fraud cost £3 billion a year. The cut to tax credits will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, which undermines the Government’s argument that this is a Budget for working people.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much in the last Parliament of a distinction between those who are in work and those who are not. By this attack on those who are in work, does he not find himself on the wrong side of his own dividing line?
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely so. A great deal is said at the moment about working people, working families and who supports them. Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, has said:
“Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of universal credit, intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work.”
That is an important point. On tax credit cuts, he adds:
“This reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in the family to enter work.”
Chris Philp
Could the hon. Lady confirm whether it is the Labour party’s intention to reverse the tax credit proposals put forward earlier this week?
Barbara Keeley
We had the same question the other day. It is not helpful for us to keep repeating things.
As we saw during the election campaign, we have a different mix of changes that we want to introduce and different ways of moving the economy forward, and that will always be the case. I am sure we would not have made the cuts to tax credits. We introduced tax credits to help working people. We believe in them, because they help to bring children out of poverty. We would never have made such savage cuts. We believe that it is necessary to tackle the root causes of welfare spending—low pay and high housing costs—to bring down Government spending sustainably. Those things are not being tackled; rather, the infrastructure that supports families in work is being taken away. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the introduction of tax credits played an extremely powerful part in the improvement in child poverty figures, and that is what is at risk.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, as always. Under the moderate and reforming Labour leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), Labour Front-Bench Members for the whole of the previous Parliament were never able to say what they would actually do. They were very good at saying what they would not do and at opposing everything that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury sought to do to reduce spending and bring it back under control. We await—with bated breath, it has to be said—what the reforming instincts of the new Labour leader will bring forward, but can the shadow Minister say what she would do? She has spoken about her long-term plans for house building, and so on, but, in the shorter to medium term, what would the Labour party do today, or what would it have done recently, to balance the nation’s finances better?
Barbara Keeley
That is a very easy question to answer. We heard earlier about the former shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, who put in a great deal of work this year on zero-based budgeting spending reviews. He came up with a list of savings that amounted to £12 billion. We talked about that a great deal during the election—
Barbara Keeley
I think it would be better, Sir Roger, if we could move away from things to do with the Labour party and concentrate on the Bill. It is not helping progress.
The Chair
Order. It is for the Chairman to decide what is in order and what is not. Inevitably in any debate of this kind there is going to be a certain amount of party political skirmish, and both Chairmen understand that. However, now that I am on my feet, what is relevant is that this debate is about income tax. We could have a debate about every aspect of tax—we could not, actually, because it would be out of order. Perhaps we can now revert to income tax.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I quite take the point you just made, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly rich for Government Members to talk about the past when they were elected last time on a pledge to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the Parliament, which they have completely failed to achieve? Setting tax rates in stone will only further perpetuate their past failure.
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely. In talking more broadly, I have been trying to paint a picture of the impact of the set of policies in the Budget, not all of which are in the Bill.
We feel that the tax lock is a short-term measure. As I said earlier, we need to think about long-term reform to ensure an equitable and efficient tax system that provides good value for the taxpayer. There is also a need for long-term tax system planning. We welcome the consultations announced by the Government, but action is also needed on, for example, the alignment of national insurance contributions and income tax. That has been discussed many times, over and over again, but never acted upon, and I will be talking about that later in the debate.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
May I associate myself with hon. Members from both sides of the Committee in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger? I look forward to profiting from your experience. Does the hon. Lady—
The Chair
Ah. I understood that the hon. Lady was giving way. As no one else wishes to speak, I call the Minister.
Mr Gauke
I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s speech. Let me be clear that if one looks at the measures set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech this summer, one will see that we are ensuring that working families will benefit from a strong and growing economy. By 2017-18, eight out of 10 working households will be better off as a result of the changes we are making to the personal allowance, the introduction of the national living wage and the welfare changes set out in the Budget.
The concern has been raised that the clause is somehow just presentational, but I return to the point I was making earlier about underlining our commitment. It is consistent with the approach we have taken to the tax system, and I think families up and down the country will welcome that. In particular, in the current context, with the official Opposition apparently moving in the direction of wanting to increase taxes, the fact that Parliament is making it clear what the current majority feels can only be helpful.
Barbara Keeley
As I have said already in this debate and the other day in the Committee of the whole House, this is a tax-raising Budget and the Government are raising taxes. I touched on some of those taxes and we have talked about the insurance premium tax. This is a tax-raising Budget and a tax-raising set of measures.
Mr Gauke
The Government are committed to creating a low-tax economy and the clause marks clear progress towards that. We must remember that the Government inherited the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We heard criticism from the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said it should—[Interruption.] If the Scottish National party’s position is that the deficit should be larger, I strongly disagree. The deficit fell significantly over the course of the previous Parliament, but there is still further work to do. In that context, we must make some difficult decisions.
Public spending is taking the greater share of the strain when it comes to fiscal consolidation, and we believe that is the right approach. I do not know whether the Opposition parties share that belief, but I very much doubt it. The clause demonstrates our commitment on income tax, just as in the next clause demonstrates it on VAT—to ensure that over the course of this Parliament we do not increase those tax rates. I think the British public will welcome those measures—after all, they were set out before the last general election. I hope that the clause has the Committee’s support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
VAT lock
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—
‘(1) The Treasury shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report on the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
(2) The report must include (but need not be limited to) an analysis of the impact on the financial position of Police Scotland and by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service arising from their VAT treatment and an estimate of the change to their financial position were they eligible for a refund of VAT under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994.’
New clause 3—VAT on sanitary protection products—
‘(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of exempting women’s sanitary protection products from value added tax.
(2) The report must include (but need not be limited to)—
(a) an estimate of the impact on VAT revenue of exempting women’s sanitary protection products; and
(b) an assessment of the impact on the purchase of women’s sanitary protection products of exempting them from VAT, with particular reference to purchasing by women aged under 25.’
Mr Gauke
I will say a word or two about the clause and then, if I may, I will respond to the new clauses that I assume will be set out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The clause states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the Parliament. It also locks certain provisions in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to prevent them from being used to change the scope of VAT by moving any goods or services out of the zero rate or reduced rate for the duration of the Parliament.
The Government believe in lower taxes and are committed to eliminating the deficit in a way that is fair to taxpayers. As part of our plan to move the UK to a lower tax economy, we made a manifesto commitment to rule out any increase in the main rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT for the duration of this Parliament, as I have mentioned. Clause 2, following on from clause 1 on income tax, implements that commitment for VAT. This initiative will provide certainty to taxpayers and ensure that working people will not have to pay any additional VAT on their purchases for the duration of this Parliament.
Let me set out the changes made by the clause in a little more detail. Currently, the standard rate of VAT is 20% and the reduced rate is 5%. Clause 2 states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise, locking the rates for the duration of this Parliament. As the zero rate clearly cannot be more than 0%, it is not covered by the legislation. Supplies that are subject to the reduced rate, such as domestic fuel and power, are listed in schedule 7A, and those that are zero-rated, such as books, children’s clothes and most food, are listed in schedule 8. The supplies listed can be varied by means of a Treasury order. However, the legislation will prevent the use of Treasury orders to expand the scope of VAT by removing supplies from the zero and reduced rates.
While the 20% standard rate of VAT is among the lowest in the EU, the UK also has the lowest reduced rate of VAT permitted by EU law and is one of only eight EU member states to have successfully negotiated to apply a zero rate of VAT. The Government will not increase the reduced or standard rates of VAT and will retain the zero rate of VAT, in keeping with our commitment to creating a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare country.
In summary, clause 2 provides the strongest possible backing for the Government’s commitment not to increase VAT for the duration of this Parliament. It delivers on our manifesto promise and is consistent with our policy to deliver a lower tax economy for hard-working taxpayers.
Barbara Keeley
Many of the points I raised about clause 1 on the principles of tax locks also apply to clause 2, which states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the VAT lock period. It also ensures that no goods and services can be removed from the zero and reduced rates of VAT for the duration of the VAT lock period.
The Labour party made a commitment not to raise VAT back in March and in our 2015 manifesto. Indeed, the Government’s tax lock was announced in response to our challenge about not repeating their broken promises on VAT. We are pleased the Government have agreed that VAT rates should not go up, because that will benefit people on lower and middle incomes. This legislation is perhaps a little more needed, given the Conservatives’ record on VAT. The Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only to raise it to 20% immediately after entering Downing Street. However, as with the income tax lock, we are concerned that there is nothing to prevent the Government from changing the VAT lock in future legislation.
How will the VAT lock stand up in the face of European Union intervention? The UK is subject to EU VAT law and European Court of Justice decisions on VAT will have an impact on VAT here. On 4 June this year, the European Court of Justice judged that the UK had failed to comply with the VAT directive by applying a reduced rate of VAT to the supply and installation of energy saving materials for housing, which the Court ruled will have to be charged at the standard UK VAT rate of 20%. Another recent example of EU involvement is the 2015 Court decision in the “Go Fair” case, in which the Court found that VAT should be chargeable on the supply of care workers provided by a temporary agency. Currently, UK agencies supplying nursing staff can benefit from a VAT exemption. Will the Minister indicate whether that will change as a result of the European ruling?
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady may know that courts are overruled by higher courts day in, day out in the court system. Should the initial legislation not be passed because it may be overruled at some point in the future?
Barbara Keeley
I am not in any sense challenging it; I am asking the Minister to tell us what he thinks the impact on the legislation will be of that Court’s decisions. Those cases seem to suggest that the lock on UK VAT is not as robust as the Chancellor claims, so it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what impact future EU Court rulings could have.
On the scope of the VAT lock, clause 2 prevents any increase in the standard and reduced rates, and prevents anything from being moved out of the scope of the reduced or zero rates, but there is no mention of exemptions. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the current exemptions from VAT will remain over the course of this Parliament.
SNP Members tabled a new clause that seeks a report on the impact of exempting women’s sanitary products from VAT. Labour supports the new clause. We welcome the opportunity to call again for those essential healthcare products to be made tax-free. Women do not choose to use sanitary products; they are essential. Although the reduction in the rate of VAT on sanitary products in the UK from 2000 was welcome, more needs to be done. This is not just a female issue, but a family and household issue. Women supporting families across the country should be able to purchase those necessary items VAT-free. We recognise the complexity of the EU rules on VAT and the challenges faced by national Governments that want to make such unilateral changes. I ask the Minister to take action at an EU level to support the exemption of women’s sanitary products from VAT in the UK.
The Chair
I assume that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath wishes to speak to his new clauses, but I may be incorrect. Before he does so, I ask hon. Members look at the amendment paper. I will reiterate what I said earlier for understanding. At the end of this morning’s amendment paper are new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Only new clauses 1 and 3 have been selected for debate with clause 2, because they relate to VAT. New clause 2 does not relate to VAT, so although it appears on the amendment paper ahead of new clause 3, we are not debating it now. The new clauses will not be moved now. They can be spoken to by any hon. Member who wishes to address the subjects. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman in whose name the new clause was tabled will wish to speak to it. Others may also wish to speak to it; that is entirely in order. The new clauses will not be moved now. They will be moved, as with all other new clauses, right at the end of the Bill, which may be, I suspect, several weeks hence. There is an arcane form of words in which new clauses, as distinct from amendments, are moved. That is a pleasure in store for us, but we will deal with that when we come to it.
Roger Mullin
Thank you, Sir Roger. You have no idea how grateful I am to have you in the Chair guiding me through this process. I rise to speak to—not move— new clause 1, and later my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, will speak to new clause 3.
New clause 1 addresses a long-running issue that has affected the provision of police and fire and rescue services in Scotland. The Scottish Police Authority is the only police authority in the United Kingdom that does not have relief from VAT, which costs it about £23 million per year. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is similarly disadvantaged and is liable for an annual cost of about £9 million to £10 million. The reason sometimes given is that—hon. Members may not be aware of this—a few years ago the Scottish Government, after taking advice, decided to go down the road of having a single national police force. It was undertaken for a number of reasons, and I would like to point out two that might be relevant and of interest to Government Members in particular.
First, we previously had eight forces. As hon. Members may recall, some years ago there was a terrorist incident at Glasgow airport. We are just as concerned about the impact of terrorism on our society in Scotland as other Members will be, quite rightly, in their constituencies. One thing the new police force has been able to do is join up measures so that we can address the terrorist threat more effectively than before. Similarly, it used to be that when the Scottish forces had issues, say of serious crime and relating to—[Interruption.]
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman might wish to have cognisance of the note that his colleague passed to him.
Roger Mullin
That is one of the most helpful interventions of my entire parliamentary career. I hope I do not require any similar interventions in the future—[Laughter.] I am so glad that I can bring some levity—it was not deliberate. Where was I?
Roger Mullin
Dare I agree? Back to a slightly less humorous point. When we had eight police forces in Scotland, some of them were very small, and at times that created difficulty in co-ordination on cross-border issues with forces south of the border. One benefit is that we now get much greater co-ordination of police forces across the United Kingdom. Terrorism and cross-border co-ordination are two serious areas where the police service is delivering benefits not for merely the people in Scotland, but for the people of the whole United Kingdom.
It seems strange, therefore, that the Government of the United Kingdom has continued to deny every overture made by the Scottish Government for VAT relief. My colleagues in Edinburgh inform me that no fewer than five letters from Scottish Ministers have been sent to the UK Government: two from the Justice Secretary, two from the Deputy First Minister and one from the Minister for Community Safety. There has also been: a letter from the cross-party Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee to HM Treasury; eight letters from Scottish Government officials; and six meetings or conference calls in which the Scottish Government have sought to have our police and fire and rescue services treated in the same manner as all other forces in the United Kingdom.
We are not asking for something completely unusual or out of order. Since the amalgamations took place, the new transport agency, Highways England, has been granted VAT exemptions, so there is precedent. It is matter of common justice that this should be looked at. In new clause 1, we ask the Government to produce a report and lay it before the House to examine in greater detail some of the problems that arise because the police and fire and rescue services cannot reclaim VAT.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for new clause 3, and I saw the Economic Secretary to the Treasury nodding as well. I therefore hope to get some support on this issue.
My concern with the VAT lock as presented is that it is very restrictive. Our new clause would leave a window open to resolve the injustice of VAT being levied on sanitary products. This injustice has long needed to be corrected and, as a female MP, I feel obligated to use this opportunity to raise the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) informed me that she campaigned on this issue in the 1980s, so it is a long-running one. The fact that it has not yet been resolved is quite disappointing and perhaps reflects a lack of willpower from the men who hold the purse strings in many of these cases. This is perhaps the chance for the Minister to make a difference. In the past, we have seen Jaffa Cakes and Tunnock’s teacakes go to the courts to fight for their zero ratings, and I seek the support of all Committee members to allow leeway for further consideration of this issue.
There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies in the application of the rating. As no one can fully control the manner in which sanitary products are required, it is a bit odd and incongruous that we do not treat them as we do other exempted items, such as medical incontinence pads and babies’ nappies, which I understand are both zero-rated. There is a recognition that those products do not fall under the full rate. Sanitary products are taxed at the 5% rate, but they are not, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, optional or luxury items. I certainly know of no woman who would exclaim, “Wow! I had my period—what a luxury!” We need a recognition that these are essential items that are very much required in households across the country. Indeed, if we were to go without these products, we would see public indignation, as there was when Kiran Gandi ran the London marathon in April without any protection, as a means of protest about the issue.
Another concern for me is that sanitary protection for women who have just given birth is not exempted from VAT. It is charged at 5%, despite being an absolute essential for women who have just had a child and being used for up to six weeks afterwards. These are medical products, in my view, and should also be exempted. We cannot do without them, and it would be both unsanitary and dangerous for our own health and that of our families if we were to go without them. We need a recognition that women across the country use these products. There is no recognition that they are essential items, and a zero rating would go some way to addressing that.
It has been mentioned that this is a European Union issue. My understanding is that Ireland has an exemption for these products, which is something we should look at. It would be useful if the Government were to take a stance on this, push it and send a message out to the rest of the European Union and women right across it, who would see a benefit if this went to the EU for further discussion.
What we are proposing today leaves a window open. I appreciate that we cannot ask for a particular change to be made, but it would leave the window open for negotiation, for further study and for a report, in order, I hope, for the issue to finally be resolved after many decades of campaigning.
The Chair
Order. I paused to allow precisely what has just happened to happen. I am sorry to continue to lecture, but members of the Panel of Chairs are blessed with both second sight and extra-sensory perception—it comes as part of the kit. That said, if anybody wishes to speak, it makes life earlier if they rise in their place, as is custom and practice on the Floor of the House. The danger is that we move on and an hon. Member then does not get called. While any Member can ordinarily intervene on the Minister’s winding-up speech, once the Minister has sat down at the end of that speech on a particular debate, the Chairman will not call any other Member. In other words, if you want to speak, get in early.
Holly Lynch
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful guidance, which is particularly useful to me and, no doubt, other new Members.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 3, and I encourage other Members to join me in doing so. I am mindful that there are European implications regarding VAT that we must consider, but I am certain that the European restriction on abolishing VAT on sanitary products is more oversight than intent. I have every faith that there will be support for addressing this injustice at a European level, and I urge the Government to investigate those possibilities. The new clause would give the Government 12 months, which would be ample time to conduct investigations.
There is huge public support for abolishing VAT on sanitary products. A recent change.org petition asking the Chancellor to look into the issue has reached nearly 250,000 supporters. The Prime Minister was asked what he would do about the issue by a student at the University of East Anglia in the run-up to the general election and he agreed to look into it again. We know that the new clause has cross-party support and would be well received by the electorate.
I am pleased that the new clause makes particular reference to women under 25. On average, girls need to start purchasing sanitary products at the age of 12. It should have as small a financial impact as possible. Girls at that age are inevitably in full-time education, so we need to ensure that what can be a big personal transition has a limited financial burden.
I found examples of bizarre VAT-exempt products, including alcoholic jellies, edible sugar flowers and exotic meats, such as crocodile and kangaroo. Perhaps most ironically of all, no VAT is paid on millionaire shortbread. [Laughter.] We can all have a giggle about some of those bizarre contradictions, but what an insult to women and girls they are. It is a travesty that tampons and sanitary towels have ever been deemed luxury purchases. They are necessities for millions of women. I hope the Government will do the right thing in considering the new clause.
George Kerevan
I am mindful of the fact that we have got another 48 clauses, so I will try to be brief—which is difficult for me. There are particular issues about the VAT lock that have to be put to the Minister.
VAT income to the Treasury is notoriously variable because VAT is a tax on consumption. It varies with the business cycle because it is a consumption tax. Unfortunately, in clauses 1 and 2 the Government are introducing the new doctrine that major taxes, including VAT, will be set once every five years at the start of each Parliament. I presume that in the Government’s mind the tax lock will exist in perpetuity and will be set at a different level every time we elect a Government. They are decoupling the raising of revenue—the revenue function of the Government and the Treasury—from the business cycle. As the business cycle goes up and down, income to the Treasury will go up and down independently of when we set tax rates—particularly VAT.
Mark Garnier
I am acutely aware of the fact that we have got a lot to get on with, but I find the hon. Gentleman’s argument utterly preposterous. He is arguing that, should the business cycle slow down, he would increase VAT—were he in a position to do so—which would have the effect of stifling consumption and thereby amplifying the problem, rather than negating it. This measure is quite clearly a cap, not a floor, so we can reduce VAT should we want to stimulate the business cycle.
George Kerevan
My good friend from the Treasury Committee anticipates what I was not going to say. All I am arguing is that we require flexibility in setting taxes to respond to events in the real economy. The doctrine that the Government are introducing of a tax lock in perpetuity removes such flexibly. That in itself creates uncertainty in the minds of business and the financial community, which the Government will have to address.
I accept the principle that we should try to set taxes in a way that is not destabilising. That should lead us to consult with the business community and community interest groups before we change taxes. That is perfectly possible and it is done in other countries. In Germany, for instance, there is mandatory consultation between the federal and regional Parliaments before income tax levels are changed. There are other ways to do that. The Chancellor accepted that principle in relation to North sea oil taxes when he gave an undertaking that any major changes would come only after consultation with the industry. Unfortunately, he did not extend that doctrine to the renewables industry, which would have been sensible.
To put a tax lock on VAT in perpetuity decouples revenue setting from the business cycle and, in the end, that is not tenable, because the taxes would be varied in an emergency. It is not tenable to decouple them, so the Government will live to rue the day that they put the lock in. That explains the reason for the lock. It is not for economic reasons; they are playing a political game. It is a gimmick.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I need to make it plain that the recommendations of the Procedure Committee have not yet been adopted and, until they are, there has to be an Adjournment of the sitting rather than a suspension. It is what is known in the trade as madness, but that is nevertheless what is needed. I do not have the power to suspend the sitting at 1 o’clock as would normally be the case to allow hon. Members on both sides of the Committee time to review papers and emails and to have some lunch. Therefore, I gently caution the Committee: if the Minister wishes to go past 1 o’clock, he is entirely entitled to do so—he may have some cross friends on both sides of the Committee—and the Whip has to have the opportunity to move the Adjournment before we can end the sitting.
Mr Gauke
Let me say that I share your ambition for the timing of the Adjournment, Sir Roger.
I have addressed some of the points about the tax lock already. As for the application of EU law and ECJ judgments, which by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South rightly raised, let me be clear: EU VAT law and Court decisions will have to apply to the UK, too. Legislation will have to be changed to reflect any changes or Court decisions, otherwise the UK would be breaking the law. I do not wish to evade that point in any way. None the less, that does not undermine the basis of the VAT tax lock, because the great bulk of VAT issues on rates and the boundaries between the zero rate, reduced rates and standard rate are unlikely to change. However, I acknowledge that point. VAT exemptions are set out in EU law and cannot be changed by the UK unilaterally. We are therefore not binding our hands on the exemptions because they are not determined by the UK alone. I hope that provides a little clarity.
Barbara Keeley
Before the Minister moves on, I want to clarify once more why Opposition Members believe that the tax lock is a gimmick. If things go really wrong, it will have to change and, having bound their hands, if the Government have to increase VAT or income tax, that will really destroy public confidence out there. That is the problem.
Mr Gauke
Let me respond to that quickly. I come back to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. We did not hear those arguments from the hon. Lady or her colleagues when we were legislating for the 0.7% expenditure on overseas aid; these points were made in the context of the tax lock. One cannot help feeling that when the Opposition’s heart is really in the legislation, they think it is the right thing to do, and when their heart is not in it, they call it a gimmick. Very similar arguments apply to both items of legislation.
New clause 1 would require the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, including analysis of the change in their financial position since 2012 as a consequence of their ineligibility for section 33 VAT refunds. As we heard, in 2012 Scotland’s eight locally governed police and fire authorities consolidated to become two national bodies. As a result, they were no longer reliant on local taxation for funding, which is one of the two criteria for eligibility for the section 33 VAT refund scheme. Following the restructuring, the new national bodies were therefore no longer were eligible for VAT refunds.
The new clause asks the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of those bodies, including an estimate of the change to their financial position since their restructuring if they had remained eligible for VAT refunds. However, it is important to remember that the Scottish Government were forewarned of that consequence well in advance of the decision they took. The Treasury was keen to ensure that the Scottish Government considered that consequence as part and parcel of their decision to restructure the services. Because the expected cost savings to the Scottish Government outweighed the loss of any VAT refunds, I perfectly understand why they went ahead with their restructuring programme.
As I have explained, as the Scottish Government restructured those services, they are no longer eligible for VAT refunds. That is plain and clear, and the eligibility is set out in legislation. There is no need to explain it further or for a report to be submitted to the House. If the Scottish Government are now reconsidering their position and wish to discuss how the services can become eligible once again for VAT refunds, the Treasury will happily engage with them to advise. In conclusion, there does not seem to be any justification for using Treasury resource to set out in a report something that is clearly set out in legislation. As things stand, the Scottish police and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are not eligible for VAT refunds. I therefore ask that new clause 1 not be moved.
New clause 3 would require the Treasury to write a report on a VAT exemption of women’s sanitary protection products, including a financial assessment and an assessment of the impact on the purchasing of these products, especially by those aged under 25. I am well aware of the ongoing campaign to zero-rate or exempt from VAT sanitary protection products, which has cross-party support. I very much sympathise with the aims of the new clause, but this is not simply a case of the Government taking action.
The new clause asks the Treasury to submit a report to the House on the impacts of exempting sanitary protection products from VAT. The plain facts of the matter are that the goods and supplies to which the UK Government can apply a VAT exemption are set out in EU law. Any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states, which is no easy task.
To put this into context, the UK applies a reduced rate of 5% to sanitary protection products—the lowest permissible rate of VAT under EU law. However, different countries have different priorities, setting their tax rates to meet the economic conditions prevalent in their own jurisdictions. Across the EU, the average rate of VAT applied to sanitary protection products is more than 17%. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made reference to the Republic of Ireland. My understanding is that it is not correct that these products are zero-rated or exempt there. The UK applies the lowest rate across the whole EU.
In discussions in the EU, some member states may consider other reviews to be of more concern to them at this time. It is not that there is any lack of sympathy for the cause. When the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown, reduced the rate, he did not zero-rate these products because of the constraints of EU law. Any change would require the overall consent of the EU institutions.
Mr Gauke
Before I do so, I wish to correct something. I understand that the Republic of Ireland has a zero rate for sanitary products. I correct what I said: the hon. Member for Glasgow Central was correct, so I apologise. That zero rate was agreed before Ireland joined the European Union in the early 1970s. A zero rate on these products was not in place when the UK joined the EU, or the Common Market as it then was. I am sure we would all consider that regrettable, but that was the situation. Trying to extend zero rates across the board would be difficult.
Barbara Keeley
There is a recognition of the difficulty—that certainly came out in the speeches we heard on this element of the Bill. What other Members and I would like to hear from the Minister is whether he supports doing something about it. Does he want to have a push on it? Party leaders seem to say that they do, but it would helpful if we could hear him say that he wants to do something about this issue.
Mr Gauke
There are a number of ways in which the European Union and the rules that apply within it could be improved. A strong case is made from all parts of the House that greater flexibility in this context would be helpful, but the point I would make is that we see little indication that other member states, which by and large have higher rates—the average rate is 17%—share that objective. If there is a general move, we would support that.
Other than when an accession country joins the EU and negotiates a zero rate, there is no particular indication that the Commission or member states as a whole are prepared to introduce new zero rates. Indeed, quite a lot of the advice coming from organisations such as the OECD and the general position that the Commission takes tend to be against that, so I do not want to underestimate the difficulties.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am glad he was able to make that correction, because I checked whether Ireland had a zero rate this morning on the Irish Tax and Customs website. I appreciate what he is saying about things being difficult, but this is about promoting what is correct and right. I seek an assurance that he will lead on this issue. Changes could and should be made in this instance to correct a long-standing injustice, and I would like to hear a wee bit more about the Government’s ability to do that.
Mr Gauke
I come back to the point that we are not stating that we do not see the case the hon. Lady is making, but that we should not underestimate the resistance to the introduction of zero rates. The UK already has zero rates to a greater extent than most if not all other member states. As I said, zero rates have been possible only on accession, which is why the Republic of Ireland has a zero rate. There is a reason why the Labour Government introduced a 5% rate, not a zero rate. We are supportive and we would like the rate to be as low as possible, but without wider EU reform and greater flexibility in this area—other member states have other priorities—it will be a challenge. I do not dismiss the issue: were we able to progress further, I would be sympathetic, but we should bear in mind the task ahead of us.
With those remarks, I hope that new clause 3 will not be moved when it comes to it, however much I sympathise with the intentions behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)
Finance Bill (Second sitting)
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we commence debate, people may have noticed that there is an unusual buzzing sound, which appears to be caused by some technical fault. For convenience of making sure that what people say is recorded accurately, I would be grateful if colleagues spoke even more clearly than they normally do.
Clause 3
Personal allowance and national minimum wage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 4 stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Welcome to the Chair this afternoon, Mr Howarth. As I said to Sir Roger this morning, we look forward to serving under you both in the weeks ahead.
Clauses 3 and 4 will ensure that in future an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax. Clause 5 sets the income tax personal allowance for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The changes deliver the Government’s commitment to support and to reward those in work. The Government are committed to supporting hard-working individuals, which is why we have a strong record in cutting taxes and reducing the tax bill for the lowest paid. To date, 27.5 million individuals have seen their typical income tax bill reduced by £825 as a result of personal allowance increases over the previous Parliament.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am sure that, like me, the Minister has read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report on the Budget proposals. It finds that, over the course of this Parliament, a single parent working full time on the national minimum wage will end up being worse off as a result of this Budget. Is what is being introduced really a national living wage?
Mr Gauke
If one takes into account the overall Budget measures, including the changes to welfare and the personal allowance, the introduction of the national living wage and the extension of free child care to 30 hours, eight out of 10 households will be better off by 2017 as a consequence. That is a record to be proud of.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend has referred to specific personal changes that help, but is it not also the case that the Government have done a great deal to support very small businesses, of which many are microbusinesses or sole traders? The reduction in corporation tax and the non-domestic rate relief for those very small businesses will also help households, particularly those who are self-employed and who run small businesses.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to ensure that we have rising living standards is to have strong economy, which ensures that we encourage businesses, attract investment to the UK and reward entrepreneurship. That is the Government’s approach, but whether it is that of the official Opposition remains to be seen.
As we are talking about income tax, it is worth pointing out that 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010 as a consequence of increases in the personal allowance. The Government are committed to continuing to make work pay and have pledged to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Government also believe that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are introducing a change so that the personal allowance will automatically increase to ensure that it does not fall below the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.
This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance has not been indexed on the basis of price inflation, instead ensuring that individuals who earn up to 30 hours on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax in the future. Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to ensure that it is always set at a level at least equivalent to 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The change will take effect once the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Individuals working 30 hours a week or fewer on the national minimum wage will therefore be taken out of income tax altogether.
Clause 4 sets out that, until the personal allowance reaches £12,500, the Chancellor will have a legal duty to consider the impact of any proposed increase to the personal allowance on an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The clause also sets out the requirement for the Chancellor to make a statement on the impact that this will have on those individuals when an increase to the personal allowance is made at a future fiscal event.
The changes to income tax thresholds in the Bill will mean that an individual can work at least 30 hours a week without paying income tax both in 2015-16 and next year. In 2010, an individual could work only 21 hours on the national minimum wage without paying income tax. In time, an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will be brought back into income tax.
On clause 5, it is worth pointing out how much the personal allowance has increased in recent years. In 2010-11, it was just £6,475; now, it is £10,600. Following on from that record, in this Parliament, we have committed to delivering a high wage, low tax, low welfare society. That includes reducing taxes for the lower paid, and that is why we have committed to increasing the personal allowance from its current level of £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. Clause 5 increases the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18.
In total, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17. That will increase to more than 660,000 by 2017-18. The changes represent a tax cut for 29 million taxpayers who will see their typical income tax bill reduced by £905 by 2016-17. Taxpayers who are over 65 will also benefit. From 2016-17 onwards, the tax system will be simplified so that all taxpayers will be entitled to the same personal allowance; the remaining age-related allowance of £10,660 will be merged with the higher personal allowance of £11,000.
The clauses allow us to support those in work by enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. We are helping the lowest paid by taking them out of income tax altogether and we are moving towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is a very long time since I did a Finance Bill––it was in my very first year as an MP. We have had a lot of guidance this morning, because apart from me going back to 2006, many Members have not done one before.
Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to a link to an annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the national minimum wage adult rate, when the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Clause 5 outlines future increases in the personal allowance that will work towards the Government’s stated aim of a personal allowance threshold of £12,500. The personal allowance is currently £10,600 and is set to rise to £11,000 in 2016-17, followed by a further increase to £11,200 in 2017-18.
Labour supports measures to improve the living standards of families across the UK. Every worker should be entitled to a fair wage and we welcome the increase in the personal allowance. We understand the reasoning behind changing the indexation for the income tax personal allowance. Linking the allowance to the annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the adult rate of the national minimum wage when the personal allowance reaches £12,500 should help to increase a worker’s take-home pay when they work full time on the national minimum wage.
Currently, a person working on the minimum wage for 48 weeks a year earns £9,360 and so is already below the personal allowance threshold. Indexing the personal allowance to the national minimum wage rather than inflation will help to protect the earnings of minimum wage workers as the minimum wage rises above inflation. If the indexation of the personal allowance were to remain aligned to the consumer prices index measure of inflation, many workers on the national minimum wage could find themselves dragged into the personal allowance as their wages increase, as has certainly been the case in the past.
It is welcome that the Government are moving towards a wage and tax system that acknowledges people’s right to make a decent living, but it must be noted that the change in indexation may also have unintended consequences, particularly in the long term. In future, if the national minimum wage fails to rise in line with inflation, families could be hit by stagnant wages and a personal allowance that fails to reflect a squeeze on living standards. I hope that is borne in mind and that any future Government faced with this problem will act to protect family incomes.
Although the measure means that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not have to pay any income tax, many people are excluded from the additional benefits that brings because they do not earn enough to qualify. In particular, it will make little difference to someone who works part time on the national minimum wage. There are 8.27 million part-time employees in the UK. People work part time for a wide variety of reasons. For example, they may have caring responsibilities or be unable to find any other suitable work. We know that the majority of low-paid part-time workers are women, and we must bear in mind that an increase in the personal allowance is unlikely to have any effect on that group. If the Government are serious about helping those on low pay to achieve a decent standard of living, we must also look towards other areas of income taxation.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that reform of national insurance contributions could help those on low incomes. Many people earning below the income tax personal allowance threshold still pay national insurance contributions. I question the Government’s priorities in increasing the income tax personal allowance, because I feel that there could be more targeted assistance for those on the lowest incomes through changes to national insurance contributions.
That is a symptom of a wider problem within our tax system. The lack of alignment between income tax and national insurance causes additional complications for employers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the public. We welcome the Chancellor’s asking the Office of Tax Simplification to look at the possibility of merging income tax and national insurance. As national insurance and income tax have become less distinct in their purpose and what they are used to fund, it is important that we review how we can address the lack of alignment between the two.
Although the personal allowance for income tax has consistently been raised to take more people out of tax, the tax people pay through national insurance has lagged behind. We must consider whether any future increases in the personal allowance could be targeted at national insurance, reducing distortions in our tax system and simultaneously helping those on low pay.
Although the use of the adult national minimum wage as a benchmark for the personal allowance is welcome, we must note that it will not be equivalent to the real living wage or even the apparent living wage announced by the Chancellor in the summer Budget. As the Bill stands, the national minimum wage appears to be the rate for those aged 21 and over. The personal allowance is therefore no guarantee of a living wage for people who work more than 30 hours a week. Will the Minister say whether the Government will seek to increase the personal allowance in future to the level of the new national living wage for the over-25s, once it is introduced?
There is great confusion about the Chancellor’s use of the term “living wage” in the Budget. Even if the new so-called living wage of £9 per hour were used in this calculation, it is unlikely to provide a real living wage for full-time workers. The current UK living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, is £7.85 an hour throughout the UK, with the exception of London, where it is £9.15 an hour. The current real living wage, however, takes into account the tax credits that many families will lose under the Budget. When the Chancellor’s living wage reaches £9 an hour in 2020, it is likely that that will not reflect a real living wage as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation.
Mr Gauke
From what the hon. Lady said, I take it that she welcomes the significant further increases in the personal allowance. We have come a long way from the days when it was just £6,475, and I am glad we have made that progress. I am pleased that she appears to accept the principle of linking the personal allowance to the national minimum wage. I hope she recognises that the reforms we are making are helping the country to move towards the low-tax economy we need.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, for which I am grateful. She stated her support for the introduction of the national living wage, but then raised concerns about the jobs that will be lost and the care sector. We have to remember that this country is successfully creating a lot of jobs. Large numbers of jobs have been created in the past year or so, so we believe that the time is right for us to introduce the national living wage. We are locking in a more generous floor for the lowest paid across the economy, which obviously applies to the social care sector. Clearly, the costs of social care will be taken into account as part of the local government settlement in the spending review later this year. I cannot add much more to that at the moment, but I hear the hon. Lady’s point.
Barbara Keeley
It is instructive to listen to care providers and the people around them—the national provider associations. Privately paying residents of care homes now subsidise the residents who are paid for through local authorities to a substantial extent. I was given a case of somebody who, at the end of their life, was moved to a much smaller, cheaper room. That can happen in people’s last months, as they are approaching death. Care home providers do not want to do that, but they are in an awful situation in which there is a great disparity between the cost of supporting people as they need more and more care and the money available. We have to recognise that that is happening. I want to emphasise how important this is. The Minister and his colleagues should listen to the people who are worried about this. Although more jobs are being created and people can transfer between jobs, we cannot live without care homes.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
As someone from a healthcare background—I was a nurse—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South about how vital staff are, but surely if there are cost issues, we must find ways to meet the cost pressures elsewhere. Paying the living wage is absolutely fundamental. Yes, it puts pressure on budgets, but not paying the living wage is not the way to address those issues.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. She makes a very good point.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked what would happen if inflation is higher than the increase in the national minimum wage. The Government’s aim is to have a national minimum wage that helps as many low-paid workers as possible without damaging their employment prospects. We welcome the fact that the Low Pay Commission shares our aim of seeing progressive real increases in the national minimum wage. It is because we have a strong economy and high levels of employment that we are seeing increases in the national minimum wage and that we now have the flexibility to introduce a national living wage.
On those who do not benefit from the increase in the personal allowance, we believe that in our income tax system someone working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. These changes will ensure that those individuals will be taken out of income tax. We want to create incentives to encourage those who, for example, wish to increase their hours if their circumstances permit them to do so. They should be able to do that without finding themselves paying income tax.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Will the Minister tell me how much a part-time worker earning, say, £8,000 will benefit from the changes?
Mr Gauke
The point I am making is that as we increase the personal allowance, people who earn under that amount do not pay income tax. If we still had a personal allowance of £6,475, such a person would clearly be paying income tax. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have already made an awful lot of progress, I would entirely agree with him. That does not mean that we should stop.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised the issue of the national living wage, which we will introduce. It is based on the national minimum wage, which we believe should continue in its current form, applying recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to the Government. That has an important role to play.
The Government want to protect younger workers’ employment prospects as well as see as many people as possible benefiting from a higher wage. Given that younger workers tend to have less experience in the labour market than older workers, there is a risk that too high a wage rate might make them relatively less attractive to employers. That is why we will have both the national living wage and the national minimum wage.
Barbara Keeley
I talked at some length about national insurance and the fact that those with very low earnings may not reach the personal allowance but still pay national insurance contributions. Will the Minister comment on possible steps to remedy that drift? What are the Government’s plans?
Mr Gauke
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. In the coalition agreement in 2010, the coalition Government made it clear that our objective was to increase the personal allowance. Again, in my party’s manifesto for the 2015 general election, we made it clear that we wanted to increase the personal allowance, and of course we will. Our priority is to honour our manifesto commitments and that is what we will do.
It is worth pointing out that the income tax rate is higher than the rate of national insurance contributions. The increases in the personal allowance have been effective in sending a clear signal that we are making work pay and I think they have contributed to the strong recovery we see in jobs. That is to be welcomed, because it incentivises people to work.
Barbara Keeley
I understand that we want to ensure that people on the lowest incomes who may not work a lot of hours, and certainly those on the national minimum wage or zero-hours contracts, do not reach the personal allowance. However, the point remains that they are paying national insurance contributions and that is an alternative route to help people on very low pay.
Mr Gauke
That is an alternative route; it is hard to argue against that point. What I would say is that we had a manifesto commitment to increase the personal allowance to £12,500. Given that that was our manifesto commitment, it is right that we fulfil it—I am sure the hon. Lady does not disagree with that—and that is precisely what this measure will do. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Basic rate limit from 2016
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause sets the income tax basic rate limit for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The changes deliver the Government’s commitment to support and reward those in work. In the last debate I set out the Government’s record on cutting taxes. On top of that, we also want to support middle-income households and to reward individuals who want to work hard and progress. That is why we have committed to increasing the higher rate threshold—the point at which the higher rate of income tax is applied—to £50,000 by the end of the Parliament. The clause takes the first step in delivering that commitment.
Clause 6 increases the basic rate limit from £31,785 in 2015-16 to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. That is the income on which 20% tax is due. The income tax higher rate threshold, which is the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit, will therefore increase from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in 2016-17 and to £43,600 in 2017-18. Above that level, 40% tax is due. This is the first above-real-terms increase in the higher rate threshold since 2010, taking 130,000 people out of the higher rate of tax by 2016-17. By 2017-18, that will rise to more than 160,000 individuals. Since 2010, a typical higher rate taxpayer will have gained £818 by 2016-17 and £918 by 2017-18.
As in previous years, the national insurance upper earnings and upper profits limits will remain aligned with the higher rate threshold in 2016-17 and 2017-18. I noted on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week that a number of Labour MPs suggested that the link should be broken and that national insurance contributions should be charged at 12% above the higher rate threshold. Clause 6 allows the Government to support those in work, enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. That helps us to move towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.
Barbara Keeley
I note the Minister’s point about the comments of Back-Bench MPs, but as I said earlier, all parties in the House have Members who do not share the views of those on the Front Bench. That is the way it is, and I could certainly quote all kinds of thing that have been said by Conservative Members on matters dear to my heart.
Clause 6 sets the income tax basic rate limit for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 tax years. It will rise to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. We are in favour of tax cuts for those on middle incomes and we support the increases in both the personal allowance and the basic rate limit for 2016-17. However, as inflation, pay and living costs increase, we need to ensure that the basic rate limit for income tax reflects that change. That will prevent families and individuals from being dragged into a higher tax bracket and paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, despite them seeing no real-terms increase in their living standards or disposable income. Many people feel that is the situation they are in today.
We must also bear in mind how many people will benefit from the increase in the basic rate. In the most recent annual survey of hours and earnings, which used 2013 data, the median gross annual earnings for an individual was just over £22,000. The majority of basic rate taxpayers earn much less than the basic rate limit and are unlikely to benefit from the increase. It will only benefit people with earnings towards the top of the basic rate of tax and will disproportionally benefit people who earn much more than the average income of an individual in the United Kingdom.
As always, we must look at the package of measures outlined in the summer Budget to understand the true impact of the change for working people. Although the Government are altering the tax system to help to ensure that people are rewarded for work, this still does not help to tackle low-paid insecure work. On 2 September, the Office for National Statistics released its figures for zero-hours contracts, which we have already touched on today. Those figures showed that zero-hours work is on the rise, with the total number of contracts rising to 1.5 million and the number of people reporting zero-hours contracts as their main source of employment rising by almost 20% since last year.
At the same time, there are now more than 1.2 million people working part time because they could not find full-time work. That is 200,000 more people than when the Conservative party took office in 2010. John Philpott, director of the Jobs Economist, has raised concerns that the new national minimum wage will mean that employers could stop offering full-time permanent contracts to avoid paying the steep rise in the national living wage for the over-25s, which comes into force next April. He has stated:
“In an otherwise very lightly regulated UK labour market the forthcoming large hike in the minimum wage when the national living wage (NVL) is introduced next year might act as a further incentive to employers to increase their use of zero-hours contracts—which are already very prevalent in sectors where the NVL will bite hardest—in order to minimise the impact on total labour costs.”
We welcome the introduction of the higher limit for basic rate taxpayers. Although basic rate taxpayers will be protected from a rise in living costs, the Government’s freeze in working-age benefits will mean that benefit recipients will not receive the same assurances. In fact, taking into account inflation forecasts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the freeze in working-age benefits is equivalent to a 4.8% cut to working-age benefits over the four years. That will result in 13 million families losing £260 a year on average in benefits.
Although a basic rate rise will be welcomed by those who will benefit from the increase, we must bear in mind that many workers will not benefit from the rate rise. It will not help to solve the problem of insecure work nor will it make up for the other changes to welfare payments and tax credits that go to people who earn significantly less than the threshold.
Mr Gauke
I retract that. The hon. Lady is not dismissing the opinions of Back Benchers; she just does not like them being quoted. I can understand why she holds that position, given the circumstances in which she finds herself.
The hon. Lady makes the point that the changes will not help individuals who do not pay income tax, or those who do not pay higher rate income tax. Under the circumstances, however, we believe that it is right to increase the higher rate threshold. This is the first above-inflation increase for some years. We have set out our intention to have a higher rate threshold of £50,000 by the end of the Parliament, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support that.
It is right that we support work. I sat in similar debates during the previous Parliament and listened while Front-Bench Labour spokespeople made the point that some nurses, policeman and others would benefit from bigger increases in the higher rate threshold, but that we were not increasing it fast enough. I hope that she will welcome the fact that we are making that progress and that the Labour party will continue to support such measures, which are all part of our move towards a low tax, low welfare and high wage economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Rate of corporation tax for financial years 2017-2020
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 7 will cut the rate of corporation tax to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. Let me begin by giving some background to the measure. The Government have made it clear that we want a business tax regime that is competitive and fair, and since 2010 we have made clear strides towards that goal. The main rate of corporation tax was 28% in 2010. We had the 20th-lowest main rate among the EU27 countries, as other countries cut rates further and faster than the UK. To combat that, we have cut the rate by almost a third, to 20%, to make the UK more competitive and to support growth and investment. That is one of the biggest boosts that British business has ever seen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] In addition, the small profits rate was also cut to 20% in the previous Parliament, and the two rates were merged to simplify the tax regime. Overall, the cuts delivered in the previous Parliament will save businesses £10 billion a year from 2016-17.
[Mark Garnier in the Chair]
The cuts that we have already delivered are significant, Mr Garnier—
Mr Gauke
Such greatness to fall on one so young.
In the face of global competition, the UK cannot afford to stand still, which is why we will go further in this Parliament, cutting the rate to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. Those cuts will benefit more than 1 million businesses, saving them a further £6.6 billion by 2021, and will give the UK the lowest corporation tax rate in the G20, supporting investment, productivity and growth.
There is strong evidence of the economic benefits of lower corporation tax rates. Low rates increase the return that companies receive on investment, so encouraging the business investment that is vital to productivity growth. The University of Oxford estimates that the reduction in the corporate tax burden that we have delivered will increase business investment by £11 billion. The Treasury and HMRC have modelled the economic impact of the corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010, along with those announced at the summer Budget. The modelling suggests that the cuts could increase long-run GDP by more than 1%, or almost £20 billion in today’s prices.
[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]
As well as supporting businesses already operating in the UK, lower rates of corporation tax make the UK more attractive to international businesses. UK foreign direct investment stock has increased by almost 50% since 2010, reaching £1 trillion by the end of 2014. Last year, UK Trade & Investment reported almost 2,000 inward investment projects—the highest number ever—which have created almost 85,000 new jobs. The corporation tax cuts and other reforms, such as the introduction of the patent box, have completely changed perceptions of the UK tax regime. Five years ago, businesses were leaving the UK because of our tax regime; that regime has now become an asset that attracts firms to the UK, which is now regularly cited in surveys as having one of the most competitive regimes in the world.
In conclusion, cutting corporation tax has been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and it is working. The UK grew faster than any other G7 economy in 2014, and 2 million more people are in employment since 2010. Business investment is growing rapidly. Tax competition is dynamic. In the past few decades, we have seen countries throughout the world cut their corporation tax rates. We cannot afford to stand still while others rush ahead. The UK needs to be as competitive as possible.
There were those at the general election who advocated an increase in corporation tax to 21%. I am pleased that, months later, on Second Reading, those very same people were supportive of the measures in the clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who spoke for her party in that debate and supported the reduction in corporation tax to 19% and then 18%. A new 18% rate will send out the message around the world loud and clear that Britain is open for business. I hope that the Labour party will continue to support the policy, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad to see you back in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I put my head down for a moment and then you were not there.
As we have heard, clause 7 sets the main corporation tax rate at 19% for the financial years beginning on 1 April in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and at 18% for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020. Labour is in favour of support for businesses, which is what we need to discuss as we consider the clause. We want to help British businesses to invest in the UK and to enable long-term investment. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we have questions about the future direction of policy on support for businesses. It perhaps is not appropriate to discuss it at this point, but that is why later in our consideration of the Bill we would like to introduce a new clause asking for a public consultation on the reforms to the system of tax relief for businesses.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I suggest to the hon. Lady that businesses have been generous in passing on the fruits of their expansion and profitability, as evidenced by this week’s figures showing that wage growth is at a record recent level.
Barbara Keeley
I do not see how that follows the flow of what I am talking about, but if I find a place to give a reply, I will do so.
In 2014-15, corporation tax made up 7% of the total tax take in the UK. We need to be clear that cutting corporation tax amounts to a transfer to the largest businesses that disproportionately benefits them. We are concerned that a more effective policy measure, such as the one suggested at the election, could have been used to help all businesses, rather than just the largest companies. We question the reasoning behind the Government’s policy decision. It appears that corporation tax has been used because it is relatively easy to alter. I am sure the Government recognise that a substantial amount of money is going to businesses. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to pay for the rate cut, which in 2020-21 will cost £2.5 billion? We have not seen a breakdown of exactly how that will be paid.
We have heard the point about firms being attracted to this country due to our tax regime. KPMG’s December 2014 survey of tax competitiveness revealed that only 8% of respondents saw favourable tax policies as the factor with the most impact on our recovery. Only 18% saw tax as having a high influence on where companies base themselves. That contradicts the point that the Minister just made. We believe that the focus of support for small and medium-sized businesses should be a priority and that policies to encourage businesses would have been better targeted elsewhere than this tax rate change.
Many small and medium businesses will have been disappointed that the Chancellor failed to mention business rates in his Budget speech. During the general election campaign, we outlined proposals to cut and then freeze business rates, so that smaller firms could have the support needed to invest, innovate and raise productivity. That would have helped more than 1.5 million small business properties. Small and medium-sized businesses are concerned about the pressures on business rates. Every time I visit such businesses in my constituency, that is almost the first thing they raise. Labour, along with small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country, will be waiting to see whether the Government will take action to reduce the business rates burden. There are reports that the valuation office now has to deal with 500 appeals a day. Will the Government give small and medium-sized businesses a gesture of support by providing them with an interim report on their business rates review?
Rates reform continually tops many small retailers’ and business groups’ lists of areas that need real reform, but the tax, over which there is a backlog of more than 250,000 complaints, failed to get a mention in the Chancellor’s speech. That caused a lot of disappointment. The British Retail Consortium has warned that the level of business rates could cause 80,000 shops to close by 2017, and business groups including the Confederation of British Industry say that the antiquated system of business rates is a major barrier to investment.
Let me return briefly to the point about the 80,000 shops. Very many MPs, including me, have in our constituencies the situation of empty shops on high streets and we all want to do something about that, but here is the big problem. John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, urged the Government to take action. He said:
“Bringing forward reforms to business rates is an immediate priority.”
We urge the Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the ongoing review of business rates does not result in small businesses paying disproportionately more. We call for greater attention to be given to business rates as a means to support small businesses.
It is quite common in these debates to hear questions backwards and forwards about the different priorities. During the general election campaign, Labour set out further ways to support small businesses, including elements that are often talked about here in debates. One was the tackling of late payments with a new requirement on larger businesses to set out the extent of late payment that they have been responsible for and the action that they have taken to compensate suppliers. We would have given business organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the right to take cases on behalf of their members, because they believe that that is very important.
We wanted to strive to reduce unnecessary regulation in the small business arena by establishing a small business administration, which the FSB has called for, to co-ordinate work across the Government to benefit smaller businesses and cut unnecessary regulation as it affects them. Our small business administration would have been given a remit to ensure that regulations or requirements on small business were proportionate and appropriate and avoided unnecessary burdens or compliance costs. They want to see regulation designed from the perspective of the smaller firm and they feel that it is not.
There is a need to deliver a longer-term road map for capital allowances and incentives for research and innovation such as the research and development tax credit, and not just for the headline rate of corporation tax. There is also a need to improve support for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises that want to grow rapidly.
We understand that the Government have started to take steps to address the issue of late payments and that a consultation on the proposed role of small business commissioner was undertaken. As we are talking about the different scale of businesses, may I ask whether Ministers can provide us with an update on the new role, because that consultation ended on 21 August?
What other action are the Government taking to offer the support needed for small and medium-sized businesses? Feedback from a cross-section of businesses, ranging from start-ups to FTSE 100 companies, that was gathered by PricewaterhouseCoopers stated a number of key messages about their view on how the UK tax system should be shaped in the future. They included the following. The UK needs to be clearer on tax; that is the issue of the road map to instil confidence. A longer-term approach to tax needs to be taken. We will talk about that later in terms of how some taxes and allowances have changed. Businesses feel that the tax system should be more focused. It is too complex, with many different reliefs and exemptions; reliefs should be better targeted at specific purposes. Also—I have already made this point—national insurance contributions should be aligned with income tax. That was the view of those businesses.
Labour wants certainty for businesses looking to invest.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions certainty. Does she accept that other measures in the Budget, such as the national insurance contribution ceiling, will not only create certainty, but help the small businesses that she is mentioning?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed; that is why we made that pledge first. There is nothing else to say about that. We understood how important that was, and made the pledge first—on income tax, national insurance and VAT. The only difference between us on that is that we would not have spent the time of a Public Bill Committee or Committee of the whole House on gimmicks—on putting forward legislation to bring in what we pledged. We support action to help small and medium-sized businesses, and a system in which business reliefs are clear and focused. We want to ease the burden on smaller business of navigating the myriad reliefs that, we have to admit, exist today.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
We will not challenge the main substance of clause 7, but it has unintended consequences that reflect on later clauses that we will try to amend; I want to bring those up, and will ask the Minister to reflect on them and perhaps discuss them with the Chancellor.
The clause pre-announces the cut to the main rate five years in advance. Ordinarily, I would think that was quite a good thing to do, because it maximises revenue streams and still gets us the maximum impact of the incentive. That worked very well in Sweden, so we should congratulate the Minister on that principle. The first problem that emerges is that significant evidence shows that large amounts of corporate surpluses are staying in the bank or are being used for share buy-backs. There has been no great evidence over the past few years to show that cuts to corporation tax are leading directly to reinvestment in manufacturing plant and productive infrastructure. In fact, corporate balances have been going up significantly in the UK and, for the same reason, the United States.
My practical worry is that if we continue, over these five years, to cut corporation tax, that may incentivise profit-making in business, but the profits will not be reinvested into raising productivity in the British economy. That link has to be looked at. The issue could be dealt with by adding extra incentives for investment, so that the corporate surpluses are recycled. One of my criticisms of the Bill overall is that those incentives do not exist. I ask the Minister to look at that.
Chris Philp
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we put in place the incentives that he describes, we would add complication to an already very complicated tax code? On his point about reinvestment, if corporate profits are dividended back to shareholders, it is likely that those shareholders will reinvest them elsewhere. If the profits are deposited in banks, my basic Maynard Keynes reading suggests that the banks will lend the money to other people. The money will find its way back into the economy, but via different routes.
George Kerevan
Both are fair points, but the recycling is largely going into property. Every crane that we count around this building is the result of that. We have offset productive investment into an overheated property market, which is hardly what we want to do to raise productivity.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point about how we craft incentives so that they do not become over-complicated and lead to further tax loopholes, that is an historical problem. This is a question of the here and now. I am sure that the Chancellor and the Government can come up with some good ideas on that.
I raised the issue with the Treasury Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee yesterday, because I am concerned that the Government are adding to the burden by attempting to run a permanent budget surplus—to generate surpluses that do not go into the productive economy. The representatives of the Monetary Policy Committee committed themselves to an answer that they may rue and that the Government should go away and think about. The committee was pressed on the point that if the Government run a permanent budget surplus, it must have an impact on the rest of the national income accounts. If we run a budget surplus, we are saving; we are taxing people to save. Where do the savings go? The best that the committee could do was say that there would be a further rundown of corporate balance sheets—in other words, money would flow out of the corporate sector—and that money might start flowing abroad, so we would end up investing abroad.
Chris Philp
We have a £1.5 trillion national debt, and I would respectfully suggest that surpluses would begin, in a very small way, to pay it down.
George Kerevan
I merely reflect the answer given to me by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The hon. Gentleman may take it up with them.
Clause 7 will have a second unintended consequence, which is more specific. The Finance Bill does not just cut taxes to business; it raises them in a new way in the banking sector through the introduction of the bank levy—the surcharge on bank profits, which will replace the old levy. The problem with the change to the surcharge is that it extends the new tax to challenger banks and mutual building societies. The Chancellor responded to me personally and said that challenger banks and mutuals will not be disadvantaged because any shift in the extra tax burden from the surcharge on their profits will be offset by the reduction in corporation tax. Unfortunately, there is a five-year gap, and therein lies the problem. Yes, the reduction in corporation tax will eventually feed through to the challenger banks and mutuals, but in the interim they will have to pay a surcharge. There is a problem for competition, because we will be placing an extra burden on the mutuals and challenger banks in the interim by raising the surcharge on their profits. The full effect of the cut in corporation tax will come only five years down the road.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman has done a very good job of conflating two issues into one clause, but he needs to keep relating his speech to the levy on corporation tax. He has done that so far, but he seems to be straying from that a bit.
George Kerevan
I stand chastened, Mr Howarth. My point is that the one does not offset the other because of the time gap, which is where I wanted to finish. That is what I would like the Minister to reflect on.
Mr Gauke
I begin by welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for the reduction in corporation tax—although, if I may say so, she could have sounded a little more enthusiastic about the measure. I would be grateful to know whether the shadow Chancellor agrees with the reduction in the corporation tax rate first to 19% and then to 18%. He is on record suggesting that the rate should be considerably higher, but I appreciate that he made those comments when he was a Back Bencher, so perhaps we should not dwell on them for too long.
A few issues were raised, some of which relate to this clause. I will try to address as many as possible. First, on the issue of the UK’s reputation and the base erosion and profit shifting process, which was instigated by the UK Government and others, the UK believes in a tax system that is competitive and fair, and which properly reflects where economic activity takes place. We want a simple, competitive and fair tax system, which is why we instigated the BEPS initiative to ensure that companies are not able to make use of an outdated international tax system that does not properly reflect where economic activity takes place. Within that system it is perfectly reasonable to have low and competitive rates, and that is exactly what we have delivered.
As I set out earlier, we are seeing signs of increased business investment. The analysis undertaken by the Treasury and HMRC shows that much of the tax loss as a consequence of the reductions is recovered by increases in economic activity. A dynamic behavioural analysis shows that this is helping. Real business investment is growing as a proportion of GDP; business investment grew by 8% in 2014, and the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that it will grow strongly over the next few years. It is also worth pointing out that the likes of the OECD make the case that corporation tax is perhaps one of the most economically damaging taxes and one of the most inefficient of our taxes. That is why it has been a priority for the Government to reduce it. We believe that if the UK is to prosper and to win the global race, it is important that we have that competitive tax system.
Our case as a country would be aided if there was consensus that we should have low rates of corporation tax, and that is why I genuinely welcome the fact that the Opposition parties apparently will not divide the Committee on that issue. I hope that that consensus can be maintained, because those who go around advocating very high rates for corporation tax do not aid those of us who are trying to advocate that businesses should invest in the UK when they have a number of international choices.
Barbara Keeley
I do not think it would be my place to confirm the shadow Chancellor’s support for the measure. If this is going to come up again in the debate, I should explain that we have a robust system of policy development and that decisions in the short to medium term are taken by the shadow Cabinet, which I think has met only once since we had the change of leadership at the weekend; then we have a substantial policy forum set up, which works nationally with our annual conference to take forward new developments and changes in policy direction and decisions. It is not sensible in this very short time into a new administration to ask a junior shadow Treasury Minister to make that point.
To bring the Minister back to my questions, I spent quite a lot of time talking about corporation tax versus business rates. We made our pledge on business rates and we are very concerned about small and medium-sized businesses, and about the high street. Can he answer my questions?
Mr Gauke
I will, although I do not want to hurry away from corporation tax, given that it is the essence of clause 7. I note that the hon. Lady said that although she is able to make a statement about party policy as the Labour party Front Bencher in this Committee, neither the leader of her party nor the shadow Chancellor are in a position to do so. If that is the way the Labour party operates, that is one for that party, curious though it might be to the rest of us.
The Chair
Exactly, and I think we should not get too drawn into policy-making processes of any political party.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my view that those who usually call for higher rates of corporation tax have never themselves ever been involved in the running of a business.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Another point about corporation tax that can be lost in the debate is that, ultimately, the burden of all taxes falls on people. There is a lively debate on corporation tax about how much should it fall upon shareholders, in which case we are often talking about pension funds that pay pensions to ordinary people. Sometimes it could fall upon employees as a consequence of the fact that there is a reduction in investment as a consequence of corporation tax, which in turn means that productivity does not improve, and as productivity tends to drive salaries and wages, employees often suffer; or it could indeed be consumers who suffer from higher prices as a consequence of corporation tax.
Let us be clear that all taxes that we debate in this Committee are ultimately paid by people. They might not be writing the cheque or transferring the funds from their account, but ultimately all taxes are paid by people, and if one has an economically inefficient tax, the price that people pay for the benefit to the public finances becomes all the greater.
Barbara Keeley
I find the comment from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the prior experience of Members of this House rather patronising. I started my career in IBM, which is one of the biggest companies in the world. In fact, I worked at the large systems end of IBM with some of the largest organisations in the country, so I will not be patronised about my business experience. I have also been self-employed, which an awful lot of Members have not been.
I return to the point that this was a straightforward switch. I do not have many large corporations in my constituency in Salford, but I do have a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. Our straight switch from corporation tax was to support those small and medium-sized businesses. That was the essence of my contribution.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, he was saying that those who advocate corporation tax rises might not understand business. As she is not advocating corporation tax rises, I do not think she should take those remarks personally.
The coalition Government introduced a number of measures on business rates at autumn statements and in Budgets—for example, introducing a discount and extending the small business rate relief. We have announced a review of business rates, which will report by the end of the year. We set out details in the Budget of how we are paying for the rate cut, as part of a set of tax-reforming measures.
The Government have taken strong steps to deal with avoidance both domestically and internationally. I will not detain the Committee on that, but I am happy to do so if necessary.
On tax simplification and helping small and medium-sized enterprises, it is worth pointing out that the Office of Tax Simplification was set up in 2010 and has made more than 400 recommendations, of which half have already been implemented. The OTS will be established on a statutory basis with an expanded role and capacity.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the late payments consultation. As we heard, that consultation was completed last month and the House will be updated on its results once responses have been reviewed. I am grateful for the Committee’s support for the measures, and I hope clause 7 will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Annual investment allowance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 8 increases the permanent level of qualifying expenditure eligible for the annual investment allowance to £200,000 from 1 January 2016. It provides a stable and long-term incentive for small and medium-sized businesses to invest in plant and machinery by allowing them to reduce their taxable profits by 100% of the value of their investment, up to the £200,000 threshold.
Encouraging long-term investment has been highlighted as a fundamental objective for achieving greater productivity, as outlined in the Chancellor’s productivity plan. The clause signals the Government’s intention to do just that, in order to support long-term business investment. Business groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce have all welcomed a higher permanent level of the allowance.
The coalition Government temporarily increased the annual investment allowance to £250,000 and £500,000 in 2012 and 2014 respectively. Those temporary increases have provided valuable support to businesses as investment has recovered since the recession. The allowance was due to revert to a permanent level of £25,000 at the end of the calendar year, but the clause prevents that from happening. Instead, the annual investment allowance will be set at £200,000, its highest ever permanent level. That will provide certainty for businesses in the long term.
Barbara Keeley
I think businesses might say, “About time,” given the history of the allowance. As the Minister said, the clause increases the maximum amount of the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £200,000 for expenditure incurred on or after January 2016. In fact, that is a cut to the existing temporary level of £500,000.
The allowance ensures the immediate deduction of expenditure on most plant and machinery from taxable profits. The history of the allowance’s levels is entertaining. It was set at £50,000 between 2008 and 2010 and then it increased to £100,000. It was cut to £25,000 in 2012 but then increased to £250,000—supposedly temporarily—in 2013. In the 2014 Budget, as we just heard, it was raised again to £500,000 and, as was announced in the Budget, it is now being cut to £200,000 in 2016. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“These changes and instability create costs and uncertainty and distort behaviour.”
In 2010, the Chancellor cut the main capital allowance rate and reduced the annual investment allowance to just a quarter of its previous level, from £100,000 down to £25,000. The Government then increased it, but on a temporary basis. Such unpredictability and complexity makes it difficult for businesses to plan the long-term investments that the allowances are intended to support—that is their whole purpose.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
That said, taking into account fluctuations over the years and the fact that it was a two-year stimulus, does the hon. Lady agree that the key part to the provision is that it is permanent, thus allowing businesses to plan in the way she advocates should be the way forward?
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman says that, but, looking at what people say about this, it seems that they do not have confidence that the allowance is permanent because of the way it has chopped and changed. That the Government acted in 2010 to reduce it to a quarter of its earlier value—it was £100,000—is part of the problem. One can see from what I just read out that it jumped around.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, both the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have called for the annual investment allowance to be retained at £500,000. Crucially, the IFS also states that
“restricting the AIA to investment in plant and machinery only creates distortions through differential treatment of assets.”
The IFS has estimated that setting the annual investment allowance at £200,000 from January next year will cost £0.8 billion.
Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor reached the figure of £200,000? As I say, the allowance has jumped about: it was cut to just £25,000 and is now going to be £200,000. There were calls from some small and medium-sized businesses to set a level over £500,000. The IFS says that over the past few years there has been
“an absurd degree of inconsistency”
in the setting of the allowance. As highlighted earlier, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Paying for Tomorrow” campaign put forward a strong argument for a need for a long-term view on tax, with a simple, focused approach to tax reliefs. The history of the allowance is anything but that.
The inconsistency has a damaging effect on businesses’ confidence to plan for the future. The move to make the annual investment allowance a permanent rate is welcome, and we support the move to encourage investment and productivity, but we question whether the measure goes far enough. As I said, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have called for the allowance to be set above the current level of £500,000. As with business rates, they feel that the Chancellor has not listened to them. There are calls for him to look again at how he helps businesses to continue to spend and grow.
Other reliefs should also be considered. Consultations are out on business rates—although the Minister did not seem keen to tell me more about that one—enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. We encourage the Government to focus more than they have on the needs of small businesses. I have many questions about how the annual investment allowance has been handled by the Government to date, but of course we welcome some degree of permanence, as guaranteed in the summer Budget—if it is to be permanent. However, the overall system of tax reliefs for businesses must be considered if we are to have a competitive and fair system for businesses to invest and grow. I hope that the Minister will adopt Labour’s new clause and launch a public consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses. I hope also that Members will support the new clause when we vote on it later.
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)
Much of what I say will be in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. The Scottish National party also considers the allowance a vital investment tool, particularly for small businesses. The fact that it can be claimed during a year of investment rather than over a number of years is particularly beneficial for encouraging investment and therefore productivity, which we are also keen to see.
To reiterate what the hon. Lady said, yes, the allowance was increased to £500,000, and we are pleased that it will not fall off a cliff edge to £25,000 in January 2016; rather, it will just be decreased to £200,000. It is, however, a pity that it is a decrease of £300,000. My question for the Minister is, if it is good at £500,000, why not keep it there to encourage productivity? In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that we do not export enough, train enough, save enough or invest enough. The key question stands: why not make the allowance permanent at £500,000?
Mr Gauke
I thank hon. Members for their questions. First, let me make it clear that £200,000 is the highest permanent level there has been for the allowance. If I recall correctly, it was £100,000 during the Labour party’s last year in office. We made some temporary increases in the AIA to support the recovery, and those increases were warmly welcomed by businesses, which believed that they allowed them to bring forward and realise their investment plans. We recognise the importance of providing certainty to businesses in the current economic climate, and we are committing to keeping the level of £200,000 for the entire Parliament. We believe that that will help to provide an environment of long-term support for businesses to invest.
The level of the allowance must be viewed in the context of cuts to corporation tax. We must remember that although the previous Government had an annual investment allowance of £100,000, the rate of corporation tax was 28%. The allowance of £200,000 when we have a corporation tax rate of 20%, falling to 18%, is significantly more generous.
On business reaction, let me read two quotations following the Budget announcement on 8 July. John Allan, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:
“The Annual Investment Allowance has been an important incentive for people investing in the future growth and productivity of our small businesses. We have long called for the Allowance to be set permanently and at a reasonable level. Small firms will therefore welcome the move by the Chancellor to do just that by setting the Allowance permanently at £200,000.”
John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said on the same day:
“The Chancellor has confirmed that Britain is open for business. Firms across the UK will cheer not just the new permanent Annual Investment Allowance, further Corporation Tax reductions, and lower National Insurance for small businesses, but also commitments to childcare and higher education that help them employ Britain’s best.”
We must bear that in mind.
Barbara Keeley
The quotes give part of the message, and it is not surprising that those whom the Minister has quoted from business support permanence. As two Opposition Members have said, however, businesses have called for the allowance to be retained at £500,000. It is not surprising that they wanted permanence, but they also wanted a higher level.
Mr Gauke
The reaction to the announcement was that businesses were pleased. That is what we got from the Federation of Small Businesses and the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. Would they have liked it to be higher? Of course they would, but the claim that the measure has disappointed business is certainly not supported by those two quotations.
Michelle Thomson
In that case, I would be interested to understand why it is not set at £500,000. Surely, if it was, businesses would be doubly delighted. What is the economic thinking behind not making it permanent at that level?
Mr Gauke
There is a question of cost. It is necessary to evaluate where the impact would lie and the benefit of going above £200,000. Yes, the allowance was once at a very high level, but that was because of particular temporary circumstances, given the uncertainty that existed towards the end of the previous Parliament.
Let us not forget that 99% of companies will receive 100% relief on their investment with an annual investment allowance of £200,000. It is a question of balancing the benefit to investment with the cost in tax that we will forgo if we go above £200,000. The judgment that we made was that, given that 99% of companies will get 100% relief, a level of £200,000 was a reasonable approach to take in the context of a set of policies that are undoubtedly pro-business and designed to attract investment in the UK.
Daniel Zeichner
On a point of clarity, given that we are discussing permanence, I think I heard the Minister say that this would be the level for the remainder of the Parliament. Is that what he is saying?
Roger Mullin
I would be interested to hear the Financial Secretary’s reflections on the Chancellor’s speech, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West has cited. Does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental problem of investment in the UK economy and that we need to do more to try to stimulate investment? One way of doing that would have been to retain the investment allowance at a higher level.
Mr Gauke
Our view is that the most effective way is the balance of policies we have set out in the Budget, preceding Budgets and autumn statements. It has reduced corporation tax from 28% in 2010 to 18% by 2020, the end of this Parliament. That is important too, so we have a proud record.
I am glad that there is agreement that we need to attract business investment in the UK. I have already quoted the numbers and increases we have seen in recent years. It is important that we provide that pro-business environment, and that is precisely what the Government continue to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Increased nil-rate band where home inherited by descendants
Mr Gauke
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 9, line 11, leave out from “if” to “to” in line 14 and insert “—
(a) the property becomes comprised in a settlement on D’s death, or
(b) immediately before D’s death, the property was settled property in which D was beneficially entitled to an interest in possession.
‘(3A) Where the property becomes comprised in a settlement on D’s death, B inherits the property if—
(a) B becomes beneficially entitled on D’s death”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 6.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 13, line 26, at end add—
“(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, undertake a review of the impact of the introduction of the new nil-rate band for inheritance tax and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) The review must pay particular attention to the impact of the introduction of the new nil-rate band on:
(a) different regions of the UK; and
(b) house prices.”
Mr Gauke
Clause 9 will reduce the burden of inheritance tax for most families by making it easier to pass on the family home to their children and grandchildren. That means there will be an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £1 million for married couples and civil partners by the end of this Parliament.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Can the Minister tell me what percentage of properties in the UK will benefit from these inheritance tax changes? What percentage of those properties are outside London and the south-east?
Mr Gauke
This is an area where I hope we can reach a consensus, although I may well be confounded. There is a place within our tax system for an inheritance tax regime that applies to the wealthiest estates. We believe that a proportion of estates should continue to pay inheritance tax. One challenge we face is that over the next few years, unless we take some form of action, it is likely that the proportion of estates that will pay inheritance tax will increase significantly. If we simply allow the system to roll on as it is, inheritance tax will become much more widely applicable. That may well be the position that some Members hold, but we are talking about an application far wider than was the case under the previous Labour Government.
Let us not forget that it was the previous Labour Government who made a substantial change to inheritance tax when they brought in the transferable nil-rate band. I am sure that Members will remember the autumn of 2007 as clearly as I do, and the announcement by the then Chancellor, Alistair Darling, of the introduction of that nil-rate band. At that point, the proportion of estates affected by inheritance taxes was somewhat lower than is forecast to be the case by the end of this Parliament. I hope that context is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
The changes we are introducing were a commitment in our manifesto, and it is a commitment that I am pleased to deliver. Inheritance tax was introduced in 1986. It may be helpful if I explain briefly how it works. The rate of inheritance tax is 40% on anything above the inheritance tax nil-rate band of £325,000. There is also a full exemption for anything left or gifted to a spouse or civil partner. As a result, the estate of the first spouse or civil partner will often not use the full allowance of £325,000, so any unused amount can be transferred to a surviving spouse or civil partner. That means the surviving individual can have an allowance of up to £650,000 before inheritance tax needs to be paid.
However, we now have the problem that more hard-working families are facing an inheritance tax bill than at any time since the introduction of the system nearly 30 years ago. Last year, 35,000 estates had an inheritance tax liability and that has been forecast to rise by nearly double to 63,000 in 2020-21. And thousands more worry about leaving their families with a large inheritance tax bill when they die. A YouGov poll in March 2015 showed that 59% think that the tax is unfair—more than any other tax—and it is easy to understand why. If people have saved, paid their taxes and worked hard to own their home, it can only be right that it will go to their family and not to the tax man. That is why we promise to make it easier for hard-working families to pass on their home to their children and grandchildren, and that is what the clauses deliver.
From 6 April 2017, a new additional transferrable nil-rate band will be phased in for all individuals who leave their home on death to direct descendants. That includes children, stepchildren, adopted children, foster children and grandchildren. The new allowance will be up to £100,000 in 2017-18, up to £125,00 in 2018-19, up to £150,000 in 2019-20 and up to £175,000 in 2020-21. That will be separate from the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, which will remain at £325,000 until April 2021.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Prior to coming to the House, I practised law in this area of law. It seems to me that clause 9 essentially seeks to increase the nil-rate band up to £1 million to include family homes. That is the stated aim. I know that the Minister is a fan of simplicity in the tax system, so I am puzzled as to why it takes an additional 400 lines in the Bill to do that, which in turn creates even greater complication in what is an already complicated area of law.
Mr Gauke
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if he will bear with me, I will set out the rationale for the measure. We think there is a particular issue about family homes and the fact that more and more homes are caught by inheritance tax. That is why we have introduced these measures. When it comes to complexity, if one looks at the inheritance tax regimes of Germany, Italy or France, they all consist of a number of different bands or rates, depending upon the relationship between individuals. Germany also allows for an exemption in certain circumstances when the family home is left to children or stepchildren. Several countries, such as Australia, Sweden and Canada, do not have inheritance tax, but still charge capital gains tax on death, and those regimes have their own complexities. Complexity is inevitable because of the complexity of relationships and so on.
What we are considering today is in addition to the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, which will remain at £325,000 until April 2021. That means that individuals will have an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £500,000 by the end of this Parliament. In addition, a surviving spouse or civil partner will be able to claim up to £1 million.
From 6 April 2017, a surviving spouse or civil partner who dies will be able to benefit from the transferrable element of the new allowance even if their spouse or civil partner died several years ago. To ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax, the largest estates will not be able to benefit from this new allowance. They will have it gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million. We do not want to discourage downsizing, and I can confirm that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill of 2016 to ensure that those who downsized or ceased to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 are not penalised.
The Government have tabled six amendments to clause 9. Amendments 1 to 3 clarify that homes placed in some types of trust for the benefit of a surviving spouse during their lifetime, and where the home passes to a direct descendant on the spouse’s death, will benefit from the new main residence nil-rate band. Amendments 4 and 5 will ensure that the main residence nil-rate band will apply when an individual leaves their home to the current or surviving spouse or civil partner of anyone already defined as a direct descendant. Finally, amendment 6 is a minor change to the definition of a foster parent to include other similar terms, such as kinship carers in Scotland.
The Opposition’s amendment 7 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer, three months after the passing of the Bill, to publish a report reviewing the impact of clause 9 on different regions of the UK and house prices. I recognise the importance of evaluating the impact of policy changes, but a formal report is not necessary in this case. HMRC already publishes annual statistics on the number of tax-paying estates and the amount of tax due in each region. I have also explained the steps taken to reduce any potential impact on house prices. The OBR has confirmed that it expects this measure to have only a small impact on the housing market. The Government will keep the impact of the policy under review in the normal way and at the appropriate time, but a report more than a year before it takes effect is not a sensible way forward.
The changes made by clause 9 will mean that around 93% of estates will be able to pass on all their assets without paying any inheritance tax. The number of estates facing an inheritance tax charge in 2020-21 will be almost halved in comparison with previous forecasts, and thousands more will pay less tax. This measure will also provide peace of mind to thousands of families who worry about the prospect of paying inheritance tax. Inheritance tax will, however, continue to make an important contribution to the public finances. The number of tax-paying estates will continue to be higher at the end of the decade than at any time between the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986 and 2014-15. Indeed, more estates will continue to make a contribution than at any time between 1979-80, when capital transfer tax was in operation, and the end of the last Parliament.
There are those who disagree with making it easier for hard-working individuals to pass on their family home to their children and grandchildren. They say that rewarding hard work and aspiration is not a priority, but they are out of touch with the British people. The Government listen to the British people and deliver on their promises.
Barbara Keeley
I am afraid I am not at all convinced, but perhaps that is no surprise. Clauses 9 and 10 bring into force the nil-rate band for inheritance tax, allowing parents to pass on a house to direct descendants, as defined by the Government’s amendments, worth up to £1 million free of inheritance tax. This legislation is extremely technical, running to more than 400 lines and representing six of the clauses we are considering today.
We have been clear that we believe that the focus of tax cuts should be on helping working people on middle and low incomes and on tackling tax avoidance. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy, so we should be clear about the part of society we are talking about. The priority for the Government, we believe, should be helping the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own. That is why Labour voted against the Government’s inheritance tax proposals in the July Budget debate.
The Treasury estimates that the changes to inheritance tax will cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21—nearly £1 billion. We must think of priorities and the context of what we are talking about. This is a week when tax credits have been cut, so that two parents working full time on the minimum wage and raising two children will lose £2,200 from tax credits and be £660 worse off, even with the increase in the minimum wage that we talked about earlier.
I would like the Minister to clarify why exempting wealthy property owners from inheritance tax has been one of his Government’s policy priorities. That is the question that we keep coming back to. When this was proposed in the general election campaign, the IFS commented that
“The vast majority of estates (over 90%) are not liable to IHT at the moment and therefore would not benefit…With around 50,000 estates forecast to pay IHT over the next few years this gives an average (mean) gain per IHT paying estate of around £20,000. The maximum reduction in IHT on a couple’s estate is £140,000 which will go to married couples with estates worth between £1 million and £2 million. Since the children of those with very large estates are disproportionately towards the top of the income distribution the gains from this (and in fact any) IHT cut will also go disproportionately to those towards the top of the income distribution.”
The IFS has said:
“Inheritance tax is not very effective at achieving wealth redistribution. Were the threshold raised to £1 million it would also be much less effective in terms of raising money.”
We have to think about that.
Barbara Keeley
I was not in anything like my current role at the time; I am afraid that I cannot explain the thinking of the former Chancellor.
To bring us back to policy priorities, there is much to be said about the technical detail of this legislation. Inheritance tax is already a complex tax to navigate, and the Bill creates a new level of complexity. The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has set out 10 tenets for a better tax system, one of which states that
“the tax rules should…be simple, understandable and clear in their objectives.”
This tax has never been that. The institute says of the clause:
“The measure is excessively complex; it would be simpler to just increase the nil rate band to £500,000.”
Why has the Minister chosen to implement the policy in its current form? There seems to be a simpler way of administering the tax.
Chris Williams of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:
“The proposals add further complexity to an already complex system. The government has recognised that the problem of downsizing”—
to which the Minister referred—
“must be addressed but proposes only to allow for downsizing that takes place on or after 8 July 2015. Other problem areas include the need to define a main residence consistently throughout the tax system, and to recognise the diverse patterns of the modern family when attempting to restrict the benefit to children and descendants.”
I will come on to that, because there is an important point about what a modern family consists of.
The Mirrlees review, led by the IFS and funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council, noted that inheritance tax was a
“somewhat half-hearted tax, with many loopholes and opportunities for avoidance through careful organization of affairs.”
That is well known. It went on to say:
“This leads to charges of unfairness and makes a principled defence of the current inheritance tax difficult.”
I grant it that the Minister tried. With such a generous increase in the nil-rate band and such low estimated returns to the Exchequer, the question now is whether we should start revising this to a quarter-hearted, rather than half-hearted, tax. Is this policy a priority at a time when families and first-time buyers are struggling to get a home of their own? The average house price outside London is just over £183,000. The current nil-rate band is £325,000. That would be enough to cover the average value and include a buffer. Why has the Chancellor decided to introduce that additional residence nil rate band?
Simon Hoare
Why does the hon. Lady’s narrative automatically presume that because an estate is asset-rich, descendants are cash-rich? She referred to people trying to get on the property ladder—to pay the deposit, stamp duty, and so on. Take the widow who has stayed for years in the family home, which she bought reasonably cheaply in a part of London where property values have risen. It is the disposal of that asset on her death, and her descendants’ inheritance of it, as free of tax as possible, that allows those descendants, who may be in low or middle-paid jobs, to get on the property ladder. Why do the hon. Lady and the Labour party automatically exclude them from their thinking?
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to a very good reason why. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s points. I ask the Minister why—I hope he does not lose this question—given the average house price outside London, the Chancellor has decided to introduce this additional band. There are wider questions, which I said I would come to, about the scope of who will benefit from the nil rate band.
The new tax exemption applies to lineal descendants. We welcome the clarification of who will benefit outlined in the Government amendment, and the apparent extension of the nil rate band to a lineal descendant’s spouse or civil partner in the event of the lineal descendant’s death. However, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has pointed out that it could be seen as discriminatory to allow the relief only to lineal descendants; many godparents, aunts and uncles are as close to, and their lives are as intertwined with those of, godchildren, nieces and nephews as are those children’s parents. That is the kind of family structure that we have these days.
Daniel Zeichner
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had representations from constituents who feel that the lineal descendancy clause is absolutely discriminatory, particularly against childless couples. There seems to be no logic to it, and I would welcome hearing the Minister’s case for it.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend puts that in an excellent way. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on why the policy will apply only to lineal descendants? It has the potential to raise house prices by making property an even more attractive investment for the wealthiest, which would make it even more difficult for ordinary working people to get on to the property ladder.
Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said that it is
“rather odd to give this special treatment to housing given that owner-occupied housing is already extremely tax privileged”.
He said:
“This will only increase the bias we have towards putting your money in a house, to inflating potentially the value of housing, without dealing with the lack of housing, which is driving up the value of private residences.”
Many of the policy’s features are similar to those analysed in a Treasury document that was leaked to, and published by, The Guardian. According to the estimates in the document, based on Budget 2014 forecasts, the policy would reduce the proportion of estates liable for inheritance tax from 8% in 2015-16 to just over 6% by the end of the Parliament, rather than increasing it to slightly more than 10%, as the current policy would have done. The document contains the argument that
“there are not strong economic arguments for introducing an inheritance tax exemption specifically related to main residences”.
A number of problems with the policy are set out in the document, such as the fact that it would encourage investment in owner-occupied housing rather than other more productive investments and that it would discourage downsizing late in life when that might otherwise be appropriate. Although the Government have made some provisions to prevent the downsizing problem, industry experts have said that the changes could lead to more people choosing to upsize later in life, which would have consequences for the availability of housing stock for other buyers.
I want to talk about the balance of the Government’s tax cuts, including changes to inheritance tax. Those changes will cost £24.6 billion over the Parliament, and they will be financed by five main sources, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Tax increases will raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament; we have talked about things such as insurance premium tax. Welfare cuts, including cuts to tax credit and many freezes, will raise nearly £35 billion. Other spending decisions will cut £8.1 billion. Cuts to departmental spending and to the BBC have been proposed. Various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that will raise a further £14.2 billion.
The Budget decisions, interestingly, imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase indicated by the OBR pre-measures forecast. Inheritance tax raised an estimated £3.8 billion in 2014-15, but house price inflation had been expected to drive the tax take up to £6.4 billion by 2019-20. Instead of the Exchequer receiving more revenue from inheritance tax, however, the policy is expected to cost it £940 million a year by 2020-21, when the additional family home allowance—like the existing allowance, it will be transferable between spouses—reaches £175,000 per person.
When they talk about borrowing, Conservative Members should bear in mind that if the Government had kept the existing allowance, they would have more than halved expected additional borrowing over the lifetime of the Parliament. In contrast, their position appears to mean more borrowing, when one of the Government’s specified aims is to do the opposite. It seems strange that in the debates we have had so far the Conservative party seems to be convinced that it is okay to increase taxes such as insurance premium tax and to make increases that hit very large numbers of people the main way to raise finances, while implementing changes to inheritance tax that will cost the Exchequer considerable sums of money.
Surely, keeping inheritance tax as it was would be better than increasing the insurance premium tax and making hefty welfare cuts. Those are the decisions that are weighed against each other. The Government are cutting a tax for the wealthier families in the country, while cutting tax credits for millions of those who are in need. That is what we are going to see over the coming years. We could say that this is a rather warped interpretation of Robin Hood: taking money from the poorest to pay for a tax cut for the richest.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset, this tax cut comes at the same time as the Government have decided to abandon a manifesto pledge to implement a £72,000 cap on care costs. In a written statement to the House of Lords on 25 July 2015, the cap on costs was described as an expensive new commitment. The cap—a pledge made by the Conservative party—was designed to prevent older people and younger people with disabilities from having to sell their homes when they went into care.
Here is the answer for the hon. Gentleman: why is it okay for people with care needs to have to sell their homes and have nothing to pass on, while the very wealthiest—the top 10%—are allowed to keep house values of £1 million? The Government have decided to abandon a cap, for which they had made legislation, on the grounds that it is too expensive, while they are opting to go with the introduction of the nil rate band for inheritance tax on properties, which will cost £1 billion by 2020. That £1 billion a year could have been an incredible investment in social care; instead, we are going the opposite way. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. People who have to pay their own care costs will be under a huge burden and will have to give up their homes.
Simon Hoare
I would simply say to the hon. Lady that it is just about how an individual uses the asset. If someone needs to use their asset to pay for their care, that is what they must do. Greedy children will be hanging at the gate preventing them from putting up the “For sale” sign or whatever, but we just have to get used to using our residential assets better, as needs require.
Barbara Keeley
We were committed to a better way of funding social care, and in future we will be committed to even better ways.
I want to finish by questioning the Government’s priorities. It is a question not only of priorities, but of the unintended impacts of the policy. We talked about downsizing and the effect on the housing market. The clause may have a significant impact, which is why we tabled amendment 7, which would require a report on the effect of the inheritance tax changes on different UK regions and on housing prices. The Minister seemed to signal that he will not look at or accept our amendment, but it is very reasonable, asking only for a report. If he will not accept our proposal now, we will bring it back on Report.
Roger Mullin
I do not think I need to go over the nine pages of the clause in detail, for which the Committee will be grateful. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South did a good job of going through the minutiae and detail, for which she has our thanks. I will not repeat her.
I have one or two simple observations. I have paid particular attention to the Minister’s words in a number of his remarks. It is an extraordinary priority that the Government are putting in place these measures when they are also making some of the most vicious cuts in welfare that people have experienced in our lifetime. It was very telling when the Minister indicated that one criterion for the decision on inheritance tax—I think that I quote him fairly—was that it will give “peace of mind” to those who are no doubt relatively wealthy, with considerable assets. I did not hear the Government say that the peace of mind of the poor was a criterion when they brought in their tax credit cuts and other welfare reforms.
It is also interesting to reflect that the Minister talked earlier about the need to do things because of the trying circumstances that the economy is in. If we have to take account of those circumstances, why is this measure a priority? It contributes nothing. My party is wholly opposed to the Government’s proposal.
Mr Gauke
I am disappointed that the Opposition parties will not support this measure, but let me try to respond to some of the points raised. Rising house prices mean that inheritance tax is hitting more families than previously. More estates are paying it than at any time since the system was introduced, and the numbers were forecast to double. This measure will simply return the number of estates paying IHT to the levels of 2014-15, which, at the end of the decade, will still be more than in any year between 1997 and 2010—that is any year of the last Labour Governments, including 2007, when the then Labour Chancellor stood up and announced a significant reform to take more estates out of inheritance tax. Receipts in cash terms will continue to be higher under this Government than at any time since the introduction of IHT.
It is worth pointing out that the taper for estates worth more than £2 million ensures that the largest estates do not benefit. This measure is being paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy elsewhere in the tax system—for example, changes to the rules relating to non-doms—and by reducing the generosity of pension tax relief for those with incomes over £150,000 in particular.
The question of lineal descendants was raised. The Government have sought to focus on the passing of homes to the next generation in the immediate family, which ensures that parents know that they can pass on the family home they worked hard for without the worry of inheritance tax. The extension of that to homes left to others would carry an additional cost to the Exchequer, which would need to be financed by raising other taxes or reducing public expenditure. We sought to strike the appropriate balance, with a policy that allows the family home to pass on to the next generation, but which is also affordable. In terms of the impact on downsizing and the housing market, the OBR agreed that there will be only a small effect.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South touched on the cap delay. The Government remain fully committed to introducing a cap on social care costs and helping people to cope with the potentially high costs of social care, but a time of consolidation is not the right moment to implement such expensive new commitments. The decision to delay implementation has not been taken lightly: it follows concerns about timing expressed by stakeholders across the sector, including the Local Government Association and the National Audit Office.
We listened to those concerns and, by delaying implementation of the funding reforms until 2020-21, we will allow local authorities time to focus on delivering the important reforms to care and support introduced on 1 April, laying the groundwork to implement the funding reforms as successfully as possible in 2020. We will also use that time to work with the financial sector to explore what more can be done to support people to plan and prepare for later life and the risk of needing social care. I regret that the measure does not have cross-party support, but I hope that the Committee as a whole will support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 9, line 18, leave out
“under the disposition the property becomes”
and insert
“the property becomes, on D’s death,”
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(3B) Where, immediately before D’s death, the property was settled property in which D was beneficially entitled to in an interest in possession, B inherits the property if B becomes beneficially entitled to it on D’s death.”
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 9, line 27, leave out “a person’s death,” and insert
“the death of a person (“D”),”
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 9, line 29, leave out
“a lineal descendant of the person”
and insert “—
(a) a lineal descendant of D,
(b) a person who, at the time of D’s death, is the spouse or civil partner of a lineal descendant of D, or
(c) a person who—
(i) at the time of the death of a lineal descendant of D who died no later than D, was the spouse or civil partner of the lineal descendant, and
(ii) has not, in the period beginning with the lineal descendant’s death and ending with D’s death, become anyone’s spouse or civil partner.”
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 10, line 44, after first “parent” insert “(however styled)”—(Mr Gauke.)
Barbara Keeley
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. I need to check something with you. Sir Roger said this morning that if we are not sure of our process, we should ask. I understand that if we vote on the amendment and the clauses now we will not return to them on Report, but we want to return to them on Report.
The Chair
You can come back to issues on Report, but it depends on the number of amendments and new clauses at the time, and the judgment that is made. I cannot give the hon. Lady any absolute assurance.
Barbara Keeley
I understand that. We are choosing to return to this issue on Report, so we will not press our amendment.
The Chair
In my opinion, all the issues in the clause have been fully debated, so I do not propose to have a clause stand part debate.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Rate bands for tax years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 10 supports the changes introduced by clause 9. It ensures there will be an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £1 million for married couples and civil partners by the end of this Parliament. The nil-rate band of £325,000 for individuals and up to £650,000 for married couples and civil partners ensures that the majority of estates do not have any inheritance tax to pay at all. The nil-rate band was frozen throughout the last Parliament. For this Parliament, the Government have said that they would introduce an effective £1 million inheritance tax threshold, as we have just debated. Keeping the existing nil-rate band at £325,000 is consistent with that objective. The existing inheritance tax nil-rate band will remain at £325,000 until April 2021. It will then increase in line with the consumer prices index.
The changes made by clause 10, along with the changes made by clause 9, will ensure that around 93% of estates will be able to pass on all their assets without paying any inheritance tax. The clause will help provide peace of mind to thousands of families who worry about the prospect of paying inheritance tax in the future. I hope the clause will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Circulation of rate of inheritance tax on settled property
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clause 12 stand part.
Clause 13 stand part.
Clause 14 stand part.
Mr Gauke
Clause 11 and schedule 1 make reforms to the inheritance tax treatment of relevant property trusts. With your permission, Mr Howarth, my remarks will also cover clauses 12 to 14, which rectify anomalies in some areas of the trust legislation to provide more certainty and clarity. The changes being made will tackle individuals avoiding inheritance tax through the use of multiple trusts. They will also simplify the calculation of inheritance tax on trusts by removing the need to include certain categories of assets. The Government are making the changes to ensure that there is fairness in the tax system and to reduce the administrative burden on trustees and practitioners.
Let me give some background to the changes. The current rules allow individuals to achieve a tax advantage by creating several trusts on different days. Those trusts are often set up with the intention that significant funds will be added to each at a later time, and all on the same day. Those trusts are not related for inheritance tax purposes if they are set up on different days, and where the funds are subsequently added to each trust on the same day, the additions are not related either. The result is that each trust is able to use a full nil-rate band, which creates an advantage with ongoing inheritance tax charges. For example, an individual might create three trusts on separate days, with £100 as the fund for each of the trusts. They could then leave legacies in their wills, so that a third of their estate passed into each of the three trusts. Each trust would be able to use a full nil-rate band, which means that up to £975,000 could be held between the three trusts, minimising any future inheritance tax charges that arise. While some may consider that a legitimate use of existing rules, many respondents to the Government’s consultation agreed that it is right that aggressive tax planning through the use of multiple trusts should be tackled.
We also believe that it is right to simplify the tax system where we can and reduce the burden on those tasked with administering it. The calculation of inheritance tax charges on trusts is dependent on a number of different factors and historical information, which results in complex calculations, but quite often the amount of tax due does not justify the time spent by trustees and practitioners. The changes made by the clause will remove the need for some of the historical information and reduce the complexity.
Certain anti-avoidance measures in the legislation are there to protect inheritance tax revenues, but we recognise that sometimes the provisions do not operate as they were intended. Clauses 12 to 14 correct those anomalies.
The changes made by clause 11 and schedule 1 ensure that where property is added to two or more relevant property trusts on the same day, the value of the property trust added to each trust and the initial value of relevant property settled in the trust will be aggregated and brought into account when calculating the rate of tax for the purpose of inheritance tax charges. Aggregating the value of property in trusts that are not related increases the capital value used to calculate the rate of tax. That removes the advantage that arises through the use of multiple nil-rate bands. Individuals will still be able to create as many trusts as they like, but the changes mean that there is effectively only one nil-rate band available every seven years, and we believe that this is fair.
The clause and the schedule also remove the requirement to include the historical value of excluded property in the calculation. That simplifies the trust charge calculations. The changes will apply to all charges arising on or after the date of Royal Assent. However, to prevent forestalling, they will also apply to relevant property trusts created before 10 December 2014, the date that draft legislation was published, where there are additions to more than one relevant property trust on the same day.
Clause 12 amends the inheritance tax legislation relating to claims for conditional exemption from inheritance tax for heritage properties. Currently, a claim must be made before the approaching 10-year anniversary charge. The clause amends that requirement, so that trustees can make a claim for exemption within two years of the 10-year anniversary charge arising. The change puts trustees dealing with a claim for exemption on the same footing as trustees and individuals subject to other inheritance charges. Again, that will be effective from the date of Royal Assent.
Clause 13 corrects an unintended effect of the changes made to inheritance tax legislation in 2006. For the benefit of hon. Members, the term “non-qualifying interest in possession” is used to describe a trust created after the 2006 inheritance tax changes, where a beneficiary has a present right to enjoy the income of the trust. An unintended effect of the 2006 inheritance tax changes allowed those types of trust to escape all inheritance tax charges because the assets held in trust were neither part of the beneficiary’s estate, nor were they comprised in a relevant property trust.
The clause, which will apply on the day after the date of Royal Assent, means that assets held in a non-qualifying interest in possession trust are treated as being comprised in a relevant property trust. As a result, those assets will be subject to inheritance tax charges. To prevent the change in the legislation from triggering an immediate creation of a relevant property trust, the commencement of the relevant property trust is aligned with the ending of the current interest in possession.
Clause 14 resolves an anomaly in the inheritance tax legislation. It ensures that in specific circumstances, the effect of a disposal of property, known as an appointment, can be read back into the will, and the spouse or civil partner exemption from inheritance tax can be given. That change will apply where a death occurs on or after 10 December 2014 and an appointment is made within three months of the date of death, from property settled by will and in favour of the deceased’s surviving spouse or civil partner.
In conclusion, these provisions ensure that it will no longer be possible for individuals to create multiple trusts and use multiple nil-rate bands in order to avoid inheritance tax. They ensure fairness in the tax system and protect inheritance tax revenues from those who seek to exploit the rules in order to gain an advantage. Furthermore, the amendments simplify the trust calculations, and provide greater certainty for trustees and practitioners as a result of the removal of certain anomalies in the legislation.
Barbara Keeley
As I said earlier, we will return to inheritance tax on Report if we can. Clauses 11 to 14 address tax avoidance measures that have previously been allowed in the inheritance tax system and a number of anomalies that have created unintended consequences and loopholes in the inheritance tax regime.
The clauses illustrate the complexity of inheritance tax legislation. That complexity is compounded by the need to continually update and rectify the regime with additional legislation, making the legislation even more difficult to understand and apply. Although we welcome the moves in the Bill that seek to close loopholes, this raises a bigger question about the efficacy of inheritance tax legislation. In the light of that, will the Minister say whether the Government have any further plans to adopt a programme of reform to simplify this tax and make it easier to navigate?
We welcome the fact that clauses 11 to 14 address areas of the legislation that give an unfair advantage to some beneficiaries over others, because that will help to ensure that inheritance tax is applied in a fair manner. Previously, it has been relatively easy for people to avoid paying the correct amount of inheritance tax by placing property into a number of trusts or by increasing the value of property in a trust immediately after an initial amount of property was settled. The clauses and schedule aggregate the value of property in trusts that are not related, for the purpose of determining the rate at which inheritance tax is charged, when the value of property in those trusts is increased on the same day. The schedule also simplifies some of the rules for calculating the rate of tax for the purposes of the 10-year anniversary and exit charges.
The provisions are welcome as measures to prevent avoidance techniques through the use of multiple trusts settled on the same day. We also welcome the adoption of a system that aggregates property over multiple trusts, rather than splitting the nil rate band to take into account multiple trusts. That would have been an extremely complex system to administer, and aggregating property held in multiple trusts is a much simpler way to resolve the problem. The simplification of rules on exit charges and the 10-year anniversary charge is welcome, but I would like to know whether the Minister is considering any further changes.
We have had a good debate on inheritance tax today, but wider issues with it remain. In particular, it is still extremely complex. Although the Government have introduced many of the measures outlined in previous consultations to make inheritance tax policy more cohesive —for example, multiple trusts, the 10-year anniversary charge declarations, interest in possession and the implementation of an IT strategy to transfer inheritance tax administration online—the tax still lacks simplicity. Each of those issues has added another set of complexities to inheritance tax.
In 2010, the Office of Tax Simplification’s report identified 89 inheritance tax reliefs. It noted the need for a top-down review of inheritance tax in 2011, stating:
“We consider that a more appropriate approach to the inheritance tax reliefs is to consider the scope and operation of inheritance tax with reference to the original and desired policy rationale, and thus to consider individual reliefs in context. In addition, any review of inheritance tax needs to include a review of the taxation of trusts, which are often used to pass family assets between generations.”
Does the Minister have any further plans to enact new measures to simplify the rules and administration of inheritance tax?
At the heart of the clauses, an issue of tax avoidance is addressed. We should encourage planning for the future. Planning what happens to their finances after their death is something that most people should consider. For some people, that has been entwined with navigating the inheritance tax rules to minimise their contribution. People should pay no more and no less than their fair share. Will the Minister provide any details on the measures the Government are taking to ensure that everyone who is eligible pays their share of inheritance tax?
The Minister has taken us through the clauses and how they operate. The correction of the anomaly in clause 12 means that trustees will now have clear guidance about the timeline to submit an application for exemptions. That should make it easier for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to administer the exemption.
Clause 13 corrects an anomaly whereby types of interest in possession escaped all inheritance tax charges because the property was neither part of the beneficiary’s estate nor included within a relevant property trust. That was an unintended effect of the 2006 legislation. Labour welcomes corrections of that type. We welcome the change, which will ensure that an interest in possession in settled property is treated the same, regardless of the date at which the settlement was created.
Clause 14 provides that where property is left in trust in which no interest in possession subsists and an appointment of that property is made within three months of the date of death, the appointment can be read back into the will. I do not think any of us is an expert in this, but I understand that that corrects an anomaly known as the Frankland trap. Labour welcomes the removal of the anomaly, as the tax will now be applied fairly. It will protect families who could unfairly suffer if they were unaware of the trap.
In view of what we said earlier about our overall views on inheritance tax and clauses 9 and 10, we think that it is right that the tax is applied in the fairest way possible and that anomalies are removed.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. Many people would agree that we should take action where there is aggressive tax planning. The changes will ensure that there is no longer an advantage in creating multiple trusts. It is right that we take action. At the same time, existing trusts will benefit from the simplification aspects, such as the removal of the need to include non-relevant property in the calculation.
The main point made by the hon. Lady relates to a programme of reform to simplify IHT legislation. We will of course continue to simplify the tax system wherever possible. I should use the traditional response of a Treasury Minister in these circumstances, which is to say that all taxes are kept under review, and we will continue to look at inheritance tax. More generally, it is worth pointing out that we have established the Office of Tax Simplification. We are putting it on a statutory footing and strengthening its role and capacity. It has already achieved a great deal in the period it has existed, and I hope that will continue to be the case over the next few years. I am grateful for the support for the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Inheritance tax: interest
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 15 makes minor changes to the rules for interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments that will ensure that the interest is calculated correctly when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available.
The Government announced in the 2013 autumn statement that HMRC will provide a new online service for people to submit inheritance tax returns and settle the affairs of those who have died. The introduction of the new service requires various legislative changes to facilitate the new online processes, including aligning the treatment of interest for inheritance tax with that for other taxes. Rules that apply standard rates of interest across all taxes should also apply to inheritance tax. The new online service now provides the opportunity to make the necessary IT changes to apply the rules. To ensure that the standardised interest rules apply correctly, some minor changes are required to make consequential amendments to related provisions and to correct an error in the rules.
It might be helpful if I explain briefly to the Committee why the changes are being made. There are specific rules for charging interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments and the estate includes shares in certain companies or financial institutions that deal in shares and securities on the stock exchange, which are known as market makers. The current inheritance tax rules were amended in regulations in 2012 to reflect a change in the definition of a market maker, using a power in the Finance Act 1986. The equivalent standardised interest rules also need to be amended in a similar way, but the power in the 1986 Act may be used only to amend the current inheritance tax interest rules, not the standardised ones. Clause 15 amends the relevant provisions in the 1986 Act to extend the power to the standardised rules to enable the definition of a market maker to be updated. That will enable the standardised interest rules to apply correctly to payments of tax instalments on shares in such companies and financial institutions.
The interest rules also need to be amended so that the period from which interest is charged is six months from the end of the month in which the death occurs. The changes made by the clause will come into effect on a date specified in regulations, which will be at the same time as the new online service for taxpaying estates becomes available, currently expected to be in April 2016. The changes are expected to affect only a very small number of estates that include shares in companies that are market makers and where the tax due is paid by instalments. The impacts on the Exchequer and on individuals and businesses are therefore expected to be negligible.
The changes are small but necessary. Clause 15 will enable the new interest rules for instalment payments to be applied correctly and consistently when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available for taxpaying estates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Barbara Keeley
Labour welcomes any move to make the payment of tax simpler and more efficient. Many people already benefit from paying certain taxes online—I must say I am not one of them; I find it quite difficult, despite my IT background—and clause 15 will allow inheritance tax to follow that road map. In particular, relevant provisions relating to the late payment of interest will be updated and applied consistently when the new online service becomes available.
The only question remaining is when the new online service becomes available. The Government have reported that the service will become available. I wonder whether the Minister’s officials can get a note to him fast enough for him to answer. Can the Minister provide an update on the service’s progress or, indeed, tell us when he expects the service to be functioning? He has not answered many of my questions today—he has brushed his way past an awful lot of the questions he has been asked—so perhaps he can answer this last one if he has the answer in his notes.
Mr Gauke
As it so happens, let me say the following. The IHT online service will be implemented in phases, with increased functionality at each stage. Selected customers who have no inheritance tax to pay and are applying for probate in England and Wales will be invited to test the new online service during this month and next. It will become available to the public in November, and later phases will extend it to taxpaying customers, as well as agents and people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Details of the timing of future releases will be given in due course.
I hope that, finally, at the end of a long day, I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South with respect to one of her questions. I know that this is the end of her contribution to the Finance Bill Committee this year, so I thank her for her questions and constructive engagement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also commend her for managing to brush past the various quotations from her leader and shadow Chancellor that were thrown at her, which she was happily able to ignore.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)