Draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential amendments) Order 2015

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 General Committees

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair, Mr Bailey. The order makes a number of consequential amendments to specific references to tax rates in existing legislation, which the Minister talked us through, so that Scottish rates can be used when it is appropriate to do so.

Labour believes that Scotland should have more autonomy over its taxation decisions. In the general election, we promised to make the Scottish Parliament

“the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world.”

Although the order will simply adapt legislation to take account of any changes to income tax, the Scottish Parliament may undertake no tax changes in the future without this complication. A number of concerns remain about how the changes will be implemented.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the Smith commission made it clear that in many ways, the most difficult work lies ahead, and that the details of how taxes and benefits are devolved will be crucial. We must also consider the practical implications of tax devolution for businesses such as insurers and pension funds. Concerns have been raised about how to identify who is liable to pay the Scottish rate of income tax. What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that Scottish taxpayers will be identified without significant additional costs?

Concerns have been raised by the pensions industry about how to implement pension relief at source in light of the change, which follows the implementation of a range of other pension measures introduced in 2014. The purpose of those measures was to provide customers with greater pension freedom, but there is clearly already a significant amount of strain on the pensions industry, causing difficulties for many pensioners. Last year, Scottish Widows admitted that it had reached breaking point because of the reforms, which have had a significant negative impact on its ability to provide its customers with a quality service.

Pension providers have stated that they will struggle to implement the new round of reforms. Many pension scheme providers have pointed out that the new arrangements will have significant administrative implications. The National Association of Pension Funds has said that the higher operational costs are likely to be passed on to scheme members. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with the NAPF that those changes will lead to higher costs. If he does, can he give the Committee a figure of what the costs might amount to for scheme providers and individual members who will end up having the costs passed on to them? That raises the question of who will bear the impact of higher operational costs. Will those additional costs be borne solely by scheme members in Scotland or by members across the UK?

As the Minister mentioned, because of the pressures and strains on the industry, HMRC has given it more time to implement the changes. Between April 2016 and April 2018, relief will be given at main UK rates, with an adjustment being applied later. Given the delay, does the Minister think the planning for the arrangements has been adequate? Have the cost and administrative implications for pension scheme providers and their members in Scotland been sufficiently taken into account? What steps is he taking to ensure that the reforms do not impact negatively on the service that customers receive from their pension providers?

The future implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax remains unclear. The explanatory memorandum states that after April 2018 Scottish taxpayers will

“as far as possible…receive the correct amount of relief into their pension pot.”

Will the Minister clarify to the Committee what is meant by “as far as possible”? It implies that the implementation of the changes may not be completed even within the grace period given to pension providers. It raises concern that, even by 2018, there will still be cases in which individuals are not receiving the correct amount into their pension scheme. Will the Minister explain to the Committee what will happen in those cases?

It is clear that there are lessons to be learned from the implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax. The Scotland Bill outlines devolution plans that include the devolution of far more substantial income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament. Will the lessons learned from the introduction of this tax change inform the Government’s approach to the management of the reforms that are yet to come? HMRC has published draft guidance on how it will interpret the definition of “Scottish taxpayer”, but concerns have been raised about the helpfulness of that guidance for more complex cases. At the moment it is unclear whether that guidance will be amended to take account of the feedback. Will the Minister provide further information on that?

Overall, there is still very little guidance for taxpayers about this important matter. Employers and taxpayers need to be in possession of clear guidance, and they need to be given enough time to plan for changes that they may need to implement. Will the Minister tell us what plans have been made to ensure that information is provided to taxpayers and employers in a timely manner?

We must bear in mind the wider changes that may result from this tax change. The Association of British Insurers has warned in its response to the Smith commission:

“Over an extended period any adjustment to the value of tax relief would affect the…value of an individual’s pension fund and their income in retirement. As a result, employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income (lower or higher) than colleagues in other parts of the UK, even if they are making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”

Clearly, that seems totally wrong.

What assessment have the Government made of the impact on financial services currently based on the UK income tax regime if the Scottish income tax regime were to differ? The UK Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of pension tax relief in the UK. The review will consider potential reforms to how pensions are taxed, which could have a significant impact on pension policyholders. Does the Minister anticipate that the UK Government’s review and any changes arising from it will have an impact on the operation of pension tax relief in Scotland?

Although Labour does not intend to oppose the order and we support the move to devolve further tax powers to the Scottish Parliament as outlined in the Scotland Bill, we have concerns about the practical applications of the changes. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and any assurances he can give about the issues I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Let us not detain the Committee too long on that ancient history. However, it is great pleasure to respond once again to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

The Scottish rate of income will apply to Scottish residents. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman sets out, where somebody is not a Scottish resident, the UK rate of income tax will apply. I hope that provides clarity.

I should point out that there is no definitive list of Scottish residents, but HMRC has been and will continue checking its address data against third-party information, for example the Scottish electoral register, to check accuracy. HMRC expects to contact Scottish taxpayers later in 2015, well in advance of the introduction of the Scottish rate in April 2016.

Work on making changes ready for the Scottish rate of income tax is well advanced. It is on schedule and will support further devolution. While it is clearly vital that the public have all the information necessary to understand the Scottish rate of income tax before it comes into force, all the customer research that HMRC has commissioned shows that the timing of information is equally important. If guidance or information highlighting the changes is provided too early, it will not be at the forefront of busy people’s minds.

UK employers and pension providers are amending payroll software to take into account the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax from next April. Technical guidance on Scottish taxpayer status was published for consultation in June and will be published in its final form, along with a raft of more general support and guidance, later this year. HMRC will write to those whose records show that they are a Scottish taxpayer later this year and tell employers and pension providers which of their employees or pensioners are Scottish taxpayers. I reassure the Committee that progress towards the introduction of the SRIT appears to be well in hand.

[Barbara Keeley]

We have talked in other debates about such things as insurance premium tax. There are considerable pressures and strains on the pension industry, and one of the serious concerns we came across was the higher cost to pension scheme providers. As I said earlier, Scottish Widows said that its systems were at breaking point. This change comes on top of others, and we are even changing insurance premium tax. I do not know whether he was going to respond to that point, but will he do so? Given that even insurance premium tax is being put up, there is concern that pension scheme providers will be suffering from extra administrative cost. What might that cost be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

If the SNP is suggesting that it has a plan to reduce taxes and reduce spending accordingly, I look forward to hearing it. In the absence of that, let me make the point that what is set out in the Scotland Bill—I appreciate that we are not debating the Scotland Bill today—will give the Scottish Government a huge amount of flexibility. I am sure the people of Scotland are looking forward to hearing, at some point, what the Scottish Government intend to do with it. I note that we hear no further information at the moment on that point.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister has not really answered all my questions, so I would like to make some key points again. Given that much more is to be done in future years—there is to be more devolution—the issues I have raised and the questions I have asked are important. If the Minister does not have the details of the higher costs that will hit pension scheme providers, he needs to write to me about them.

I really do take on board the point about the potential impact on individuals. The ABI believes that, because of all the difficulties and the time it is taking,

“employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income”

from others

“making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”

I feel strongly that that is not acceptable. There is much more work to be done. We cannot have individuals losing out on their pension funds because the pension schemes are on their knees trying to cope with the changes that are being thrown at them. It is clearly not acceptable that individuals will be affected in that way. If the Minister is not able to assess that and tell us what he thinks the impact will be, perhaps he could write to me. He will have the note with all my questions.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, we do not have the specific numbers for the costs of administration by pension providers, but I reassure the hon. Lady that individuals will not lose out. HMRC will ensure that all pensioners pay the correct tax—that is what the system is designed to do. There is an interim arrangement, so to speak, but there is also a reconciliation process, and the correct tax will be paid. I hope that the Committee will take note of those points and support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

Of course, the impact of freezing national insurance for employers and employees is that throughout the life of this Parliament they can have the confidence that their national insurance rates will not change—a confidence they would not have if the hon. Gentleman had any say in it.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s team might helpfully do something about the fact that if one searches online for the impact of this Bill, one gets a 404 error message. It would be useful to have some view on the Bill’s impact.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her sensible suggestion. I know that those who put together the impact assessment online will have taken her wise words to heart and will make a change. Clearly, when one brings in legislation to freeze national insurance rates, the impact is that there is no change in national insurance and therefore no impact to report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

As the Minister described, the Bill provides for the Government’s commitment, as set out in their manifesto, to a tax lock: a commitment not to increase the rates of VAT, income tax or national insurance in the next Parliament. The Bill provides for the national insurance element of that pledge. Such a measure has to remain separate from the Finance Bill currently going through Parliament, because statutory provisions regarding national insurance contributions cannot be included in the annual Finance Bill.

As we have heard, the Bill prevents any increase in the current rates of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers for the duration of the 2015-20 Parliament. It also provides that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the higher rate threshold, which is to say that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit.

Responding to the tax lock announcement during the election campaign, many people wondered why such a commitment etched into the statute book would even be necessary. If Ministers—indeed, the Prime Minister—commit to not raising income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT in the run-up to an election, surely such a commitment should be taken at face value. Apparently not in the case of Conservatives, who perhaps felt that the low levels of trust in their pledges were such that they would have to go much further. No wonder, when we consider that the Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only then to raise it to 20% after entering Downing Street.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Lady confirm that in her party’s manifesto, on which she just stood, there was a similar commitment not to increase national insurance rates, yet the new leader of her party has stated publicly that he would like to increase them by 7% for higher earners?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will come on to my party’s manifesto commitments in a very short while. I do not think it is helpful, and I am not going to respond, to any interventions or points made by Government Members that refer to things the current Leader of the Opposition said before he was Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] That is a different situation. What I have just said is that when the Prime Minister was elected in 2010, he raised VAT when he had said that he would not do so.

Beyond the broken pledge on VAT, which is a serious matter—[Interruption.] Government Members can sit giggling, but these are very serious matters that hit the country hard. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister appeared to rule out cuts to tax credits when appearing in front of a special “Question Time” audience during the recent election campaign. Yet, we are due to vote later today on that measure, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits will leave some 8 million families on average over £1,000 a year worse off. That is a shocking broken pledge.

[Simon Hoare]

Unlike the hon. Lady, not all Government Members are obsessed with the new leader of the Labour party. Surely she has to accept that on broken promises, the greatest albatross around her party’s neck is the previous Prime Minister, Mr Brown, who promised the end of boom and bust? That was signally incorrect and is the biggest albatross from which the Labour party can never be freed.

[Barbara Keeley]

Government Members should stop going back in time. I have just referred to the fact that the Prime Minister promised before the 2010 election not to raise VAT. [Interruption.] Look at your record. You’re in government. You’re defending your Bills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Lady is using the term “you” which refers to the occupant of the Chair, not Government Members.

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is really helpful. It is sometimes easy to forget.

I have made the point and I am prepared to come back to it again and again. In five years, there have been two serious broken pledges that have cost the British public dearly.

Let us get back to the Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not make the diversion. Let me be clear, Labour in opposition wholeheartedly supports the principle of not raising taxes for working people. The Minister has just questioned me on this. During the election campaign, it was the Labour party that first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions. In fact, we did it before the election campaign, because the pledge was made on 25 March. As such, we will not be opposing the Bill today. Regardless of that, however, there is no doubt that this tax lock has become the height of gimmickry. It was said to be such during the election campaign and it remains so today.

Let me give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members present, some quotes relating to the tax lock. On 29 April, the Financial Times, lamenting what it saw as the level of gimmickry coming all too often from the Conservative campaign, put in its leader:

“What is more of a shock is the stream of gimmicks and poor policies coming from the Conservatives…arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance…the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise more than £350bn for the exchequer would make the challenge needlessly harder.”

[Andrew Stephenson]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying—she believes the Bill is purely a gimmick—but would she not agree that this so-called gimmick will save money for millions of hard-working families? It is not a gimmick to the hard-working people we represent.

[Barbara Keeley]

In a minute, I will record how other commentators also think it is a gimmick. I have said we are not going to oppose the Bill because we do not want working people to pay more, but we have just seen in this Parliament a tax-raising Budget. I will talk more about that in a moment.

One of the main concerns about this policy gimmick is the serious constraints it will place on the Treasury and the Government’s ability to raise taxes or maintain the flexibility to raise revenue in response to economic events. As Alex Henderson, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said:

“Arguably the lock means the Government has less flexibility on where tax revenues could come from, with the burden more thinly spread.”

He also pointed out that it would not constrain Ministers’ ability to raise revenue from the same taxes in other ways—for example, by delaying the uprating of thresholds and removing reliefs. So it is not true that people are not going to pay more; there are other ways. We know the Chancellor used such measures, otherwise known as fiscal drag, to great effect in the last Parliament, because, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they have raised taxes of roughly £64 billion a year by doing so. The headlines people read do not indicate tax rises, but the measures used do.

Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said:

“While IoD members are opposed to increases in the rates of VAT, Income Tax and National Insurance, we consider it imperative that the Government’s commitments do not prevent bold tax reforms to both simplify taxation and reduce the burden upon businesses and individuals.”

As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out, the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms, such as the treatment of national insurance contributions for the self-employed, which has already been referred to.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am a little confused. The hon. Lady has said that she supports the policy but is now quoting a load of people who do not support it. Surely, she supports it because it gives hard-working people the chance to keep more of their income and gives businesses certainty about the number of people they can employ.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Lady confuses our not opposing a pledge that we made first on 25 March—it is our pledge, if you like—with a Bill that I am denouncing as a gimmick. It is not just me who is denouncing it as such; a range of commentators have done so as well.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

No.

Paul Johnson believes that the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms. That is the answer to the question from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). The commentators and others who work day in, day out on these issues think it ties the Government’s hands too much. Paul Johnson said it was

“extreme to tie your hands for such a long period with the main rates of the three largest taxes”.

It is worth reminding Members of The Guardian’s view of the tax lock—Members may not have read it—as set out in its editorial on 29 April.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Nobody reads it.

[Barbara Keeley]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members do. It read:

“No one can see into the future. So a responsible chancellor ought to be duty-bound to keep options open, to be able to respond to events and adapt to unexpected changes in the economy, not close them off. Instead, the Conservatives are now committed to tying their hands behind their back, placing the taxes that provide roughly two-thirds of all government income – income tax, national insurance and VAT – wholly off-limits, come what may, for five years. This is madness.”

[Harriett Baldwin]

So it is not a gimmick then, but welcome certainty for families and business.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Lady is not listening.

The Financial Times leader, to which I referred earlier, said:

“It is unwise for the Conservatives to bind their hands, legally or otherwise, against using tax rises to close the deficit. Much of public expenditure is unavoidable or politically protected”—

that is the important thing; these days certain budgets are politically protected—

“so that ever more savings need to be found from the shrinking funds for welfare, social care, justice and defence. It makes sense to leave oneself the option to turn to tax in times of adversity to smooth the path of consolidation.”

Nothing better reflects the gimmickry of this measure than the fact that the recent summer Budget included some significant revenue-raising measures that amounted to significant tax rises for millions of people. As the Office for Budget Responsibility set out, the tax-raising measures announced in the summer Budget amounted to nearly £16 billion of tax rises by 2020-21—we touched on this point last week—£3 billion of which will come from changes to vehicle taxation, as well as increases in the insurance premium tax, which will raise £8 billion by 2020-21.

Last week, we debated the increase in insurance premium tax, and as I pointed out then, some of the UK’s biggest insurers, including Aviva and RSA, have confirmed that they plan to pass on the cost of that tax increase to customers. Experts say that many people will now see their household insurance bills rise by between £50 and £100 a year, if they have more than one car and they insure their buildings and contents. I highlighted the fact, and still think it a serious point, that young drivers would be hardest hit, and many might wrongly take the risk of driving uninsured. In the last week, therefore, we have seen a £50 to £100 tax bombshell for millions of families, and this tax-lock Bill does nothing to guard against that.

What is more, the Government are yet to offer any assurances that they will not raise insurance premium tax further in subsequent Budgets. Given that a Conservative peer, Lord Northbrook, has called insurance premium tax an “easy target”, I invite the two Treasury Ministers present to say whether they will be increasing insurance premium tax any further. Would either like to say what their intentions are?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance about whether we ought to be discussing something that Parliament settled last week or the Second Reading of this Bill?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that if she wishes to raise a point of order, she can do so by way of a point of order. However, the point she raises is a matter for discussion, so I invite the shadow Minister to respond, if she wishes.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think that the whole range of the tax regime and national insurance is under discussion today.

Given that we hear no assurances that there will not be further increases to insurance premium tax in this Parliament, I want to make it clear again that we support the principle of not raising taxes for working people. That is why we do not oppose the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, before the election campaign started properly, we pledged not to raise national insurance contributions, so this could rightly be described as our idea.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady says that the Opposition will not oppose this welcome measure. Does that mean they will vote for it, or simply abstain?

[Barbara Keeley]

As I understand it, there will not be a vote because it will not be opposed, but I cannot speak for other parties in the House.

The Government’s tax lock, of which the Bill forms a part, is nothing more than a gimmick of epic proportions, as I have outlined and demonstrated with many comments from people outside the House. It speaks volumes about the lack of belief that Conservatives have in their own policy commitments. We vote annually on tax legislation, and the Government regularly introduce Bills on NICs alongside Finance Bills—we have already heard about suggested changes to NICs—and, as such, primary legislation, debate and Division are already required in the House.

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady keeps referring to the measure as a gimmick. It would be helpful if she could explain why, when the Labour party commits to it, it is not a gimmick, but when the Government commit to it, it is.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening. I know that Conservative Members often sit there with their Whip’s brief and try to find a way of working in some point that the Whips have given them to say. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is looking at. The point is, as I said earlier, this is a gimmick because we do not need legislation. A commitment was given on this. All that is required is that the Government and the Prime Minister stick to that commitment. It is a question of delivering on what was pledged. We do not need a Bill for every single element of what a party has pledged in the run-up to an election campaign. I am questioning—and people outside the House are questioning—why we need a Bill for the Government to bind themselves not to increase the rates, which they have already set out. It is very strange indeed.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I can understand why the shadow Minister does not want to comment on her new leader’s position, but will she comment on the shadow Chancellor’s position? The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) recently said that he would commit his Administration to a 7% rise in national insurance and to a 2.5% increase in corporation tax. What she is saying now seems to suggest a change in position. Will she confirm that that is the case?

[Barbara Keeley]

We are not signalling any change of position. It is amusing to hear this from Conservative Members, after a tax-raising Budget that is taking £8 billion from British people through the insurance premium tax, and after they put VAT up to 20%—when they promised not to do it. The absolute gall of Conservative Members in raising these points is amazing.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I will not.

The tax lock restricts the Government’s ability to respond to unexpected economic events. That is why this Bill is seen, both outside and inside this place, as a gimmick. If we have learned anything in the last decade, it is that such flexibility is absolutely essential. Indeed, it was this flexibility at the time the Labour Government left office in 2010 that meant we had an economy recovering and growing once again. Above all, this tax lock provides no protection to millions of hard-working families, who, if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members later today—

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not indicative of the level of trust in politics and politicians generally, but specifically in this Government and their record on tax, that they need to come to the House of Commons to legislate not to increase a specific tax, rather than allow people to accept their pledges at elections at face value?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for raising that point. I think that Ministers have got to think about what they are doing to public trust if they have to introduce gimmicks such as this Bill—it is a gimmick, and was seen as a gimmick by a host of commentators outside this place.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I have nearly finished.

As I have argued, the Bill provides no protection for millions of hard-working families, and if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members, those families will be £1,000 a year worse off on average. That will be a direct result of the Chancellor’s fiscal decisions, and I believe many Conservative Members will come to regret it. Ministers should not be wasting their time on legislative gimmicks such as this so-called tax lock.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She will know that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland. I have listened very patiently to what she has said here today, but I think the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom generally are entitled to know the policy of the Labour party, the main Opposition party, after a change in the leadership and with a new shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. What exactly is their policy on national insurance contributions? Is Labour not going to increase them? Does Labour agree with the Government that they should not be increased for five years? Is that the clear policy of the Opposition?

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, it is. I am the shadow Treasury spokesperson responsible for the Bill today. [Interruption.] Well, I am standing here today. We made the pledge first. I am very pleased that the hon. Lady raised the question in the manner she did. As I say, we made the pledge first: it is our pledge. Let us get back to that point.

Rather than wasting their time with gimmicks such as this so-called tax lock, Ministers should perhaps direct their focus on supporting low and middle-income families. [Interruption.] Ministers should really bear in mind that every time they sit there laughing on a day when they are going to take £1,000 off 8 million hard-working families, they simply provide grist to the mill of people who contribute to newsletters up and down the country. The Government’s fiscal policies are too serious for Ministers to sit there laughing. I really advise them to stop it. They should direct their focus at supporting low and middle-income families who will be worst hit by the summer Budget of this Conservative Government—with or without a tax lock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I agree completely. The cut in corporation tax allowed this Government to justify the increase in the living wage, as it offsets that. Such a change would put all that at risk, although I very much hope that we will never see that day.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the House for giving me leave to speak again.

We have had a very lively debate on this somewhat peculiar measure. As I said earlier, many people will wonder why we are debating it at all—we have spent a considerable time on it—and many commentators have called it a gimmick. If the Prime Minister commits not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT in the run-up to an election, surely such a commitment should be taken at face value. The essence of this debate is that what the Prime Minister commits to should not be questioned, but taken at face value.

However, other pledges made by the Prime Minister and his party have been broken. The commitment made in 2010 not to raise VAT was followed by an increase in VAT to 20% soon after the Conservatives entered government. I have found several other broken pledges that I would like to refer to Government Members. Before the 2010 general election, David Cameron—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr that he had no plans to cut front-line services. Interestingly, for a Leader of the Opposition preparing for government, he said that if

“any cabinet minister if I win the election…comes to me and says, ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”

Since then, we have seen cuts in the number of NHS nurses, hospital beds, firefighters and front-line police officers.

As I said earlier, the Prime Minister said he had absolutely no plans to raise VAT. On child benefit, he said at a Cameron Direct event:

“I would not means test it.”

The coalition Government in effect abolished the benefit for higher earners and then froze it for three years. On the NHS, he said, “No more top-down reorganisations”, which is perhaps the most infamous broken pledge. It was made both by the Prime Minister and by the person who became Heath Secretary. On education maintenance allowances, the Prime Minister said in January 2010, again at a Cameron Direct event:

“We don’t have any plans to get rid of them.”

On Sure Start, he said:

“Yes, we back Sure Start.”

Over 550 Sure Start centres have closed, while more than half those still open no longer provide on-site childcare. I could go on and on, mentioning the future jobs fund and what the Chancellor said about bankers’ bonuses and many other pledges.

As I said earlier, following our discussion on the Bill, the next item of business will be a debate on the Government’s cuts to tax credits, which will leave some 8 million families over £1,000 a year worse off, on average. Let me say again that the matter we are voting on—or not voting on, because we support it—was a Labour pledge. [Interruption.] Presumably Government Members do not want a vote and would prefer the Bill to be supported. I have said that we will support it, so why raise such matters? There is no question about it.

We first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions, and, as I said earlier, we will not oppose the Bill. I have not heard any Member say that they oppose it. I say to Treasury Ministers—I hope that they will take this serious point away from the debate—that breaking pledges and using gimmicks, such as the so-called tax lock, further undermines people’s already reduced belief in government and politics. As I said earlier, one of the concerns that many people have in this policy gimmick is that it will place a serious constraint on the Treasury and, indeed, on the Government’s ability to raise taxes or to maintain the flexibility needed to raise revenue in response to economic events. That is the other serious point that I was making. The Government, as I and my hon. Friends have said, will have to resort to measures such as delaying the uprating of thresholds and removing reliefs, as they did in the last Parliament.

The suspicion remains that future Budgets will mean further increases to taxes like the insurance premium tax, which seemed to be regarded in the last Budget as an easy target. I am disappointed that Ministers declined my offer for them to use this debate to pledge that no further increases would be made to the insurance premium tax in this Parliament. The insurance premium tax, which we debated at length, will bring in £8 billion for the Government by 2021, but will hit many millions of hard-working families. It may lead, as I mentioned last week, to the negative consequence of even more uninsured drivers. The rate of uninsured drivers is already nearly 3% or 1 million vehicles on the road. We have to think about the negative consequences of the tax increases that we saw in the summer Budget.

As I have said on a number of occasions, we will not oppose the Bill. It implements our pledge and we stick by it.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to a lively debate. I thank all those who have contributed, not least the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who contributed twice. She carries a heavy burden on behalf of her party and I hope that it is noted by the powers that be. I welcome the shadow Chancellor to the Chamber. No doubt he will have noticed the effort that she has put in.

I thank Government Back Benchers for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) began his speech with the sensible point that, ultimately, it is not companies that pay tax. It is always families and individuals who bear the tax bill, regardless of who writes the cheque. Like a number of hon. Friends, he went on to speak about the importance of providing stability and certainty in the tax system both for individuals and for companies. The tax lock will provide much greater certainty and stability.

That point was also well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who highlighted the importance of low taxes to businesses in her constituency and to employees. She made the point that a number of those businesses compete with businesses in silicon valley, and that they need the certainty that the Bill and the Government’s other policies provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made a similar point about the need for economic policy to support business. It is through the success of our businesses that we will see the economy grow and tax receipts come in, which will enable us to pay for high-quality public services. We must not forget the importance of an enterprising economy. It may well be that that point becomes more important in the debate in this country over the next few years, as the consensus appears to be breaking down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) rightly criticised the characterisation of the Bill as a gimmick. I will turn to that in a moment, but he was right to say that this is an important measure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) highlighted the fact that in 2001, a Labour Government were elected with a promise that they would not put up income tax, but shortly afterwards they put up national insurance contributions. We must not forget that national insurance contributions are paid by people in much the same way as a tax. It should not be open to Governments to use national insurance contributions as a stealth tax. That is why, as well as introducing legislation to provide a tax lock for income tax, it is important to have legislation on national insurance contributions. Given that national insurance contributions cannot be dealt with in a Finance Bill, such a measure is contained in this Bill.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am astonished that the Minister can talk about things that happened in the past and not reflect on the more recent pledge made and broken by his Government not to raise VAT. How can he stand there and talk about any issue when that is in recent memory? How hard did that hit many millions of families in this country? I think he would be better leaving that topic alone.

[Mr Gauke]

For those of us who were debating such matters at the time, the state of the public finances, and the deterioration identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the summer Budget of 2010, revealed that we needed to take steps to put the public finances back on track. We took those measures, and I remind the hon. Lady that the Labour party abstained on the increase in VAT. Labour Members did not oppose it at the time, presumably because they recognised that it was necessary. That was, I suppose, a time when the Labour party was flirting with fiscal responsibility. I am sure it would never repeat that now.

[Barbara Keeley]

My points are about the way the public feel about broken pledges. This gimmick of a tax lock means nothing if, whatever the circumstances, the Government are prepared to change their mind on things. I read the Minister a long list of pledges that his Prime Minister and Government have broken, and every time such things happen, the public get sick of it.

[Mr Gauke]

We are underlining our commitment not to increase the rate of class 1 NICs by introducing this Bill. The hon. Lady asks why we are legislating rather than making a pledge. She could apply exactly the same argument to the legislative commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, yet that was actively supported by the Labour party. If she feels that this Bill is a meaningless gimmick, why does she not oppose it today?

Let me finish thanking my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) described this as a short but important Bill, and may I say that he delivered a short but important speech? My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) highlighted the need for greater certainty in the tax system and welcomed the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who also highlighted the importance of stability in the tax system. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) supported that argument and suggested that the Bill would provide greater confidence to businesses in his constituency.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised a number of questions and asked about the potential for integration between income tax and national insurance contributions, and the work being undertaken by the Office of Tax Simplification. As he said, it was announced in the summer Budget that the OTS will undertake a review of the closer alignment of income tax and national insurance. The overall aim of the project is to build on earlier work undertaken in that area, and to understand the steps needed to achieve closer alignment of the taxes, as well as the costs, benefits and impact of each step. The terms of reference were published on 21 July, and the OTS will publish a final report ahead of the 2016 Budget.

On the one hand we heard from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that this measure is a gimmick and unnecessary. On the other hand, I was also struck by the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who made the argument that we—I do not know whether she was talking about the Government or the Labour party—should consider abolishing the upper earnings limit. In other words, the 12% rate of national insurance contributions should apply also to higher rate taxpayers. That policy was supported by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins).

Let us be clear about what is being proposed. It would mean an increase in the tax rate for higher rate taxpayers of 10%, from a combined rate of 42% to a combined rate of 52%. That is not the policy of the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South made clear, but three days into the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) the Labour Front Bench appears to be being attacked from the left, something that I had not anticipated. I do not know whether the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland and for Luton North are making a late bid for inclusion in the shadow Cabinet, although I was surprised that neither was there in the first place. I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, who is in his place, will have listened carefully to that proposal, which would clobber a large chunk of middle earners.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South upbraided hon. Members for quoting remarks made by the right hon. Member for Islington North before he became leader of the party and said that she would not respond. That is a novel approach, although I have some sympathy with her and really cannot blame her.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister seems to forget that I read out to him a list of various pledges on policy that the Prime Minister made before he became Prime Minister. Will he now defend every one of those? Will he defend what the Prime Minister said about Sure Start, EMA and other things that have been changed or abolished? It appears that the Minister thinks it is all right for the Prime Minister to say what he said when he was Leader of the Opposition. The Minister cannot have his cake and eat it, but that is what he appears to be trying to do.

[Mr Gauke]

I understand why the shadow Minister does not want to defend the position of the current leader of the Labour party, but let me make this point clear. The Prime Minister came into office in 2010 with a mission to turn around the UK economy. He succeeded and was re-elected with a majority in 2015.

The hon. Member for Luton North always makes entertaining and thoughtful speeches. I noted that he praised the tax system of Denmark, but I would point out that its VAT rate is 25% and it does not have any lower rates. I can assure him that we will not follow Denmark’s example and put VAT up to 25%.

EU general budgets for 2015 and 2016

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that these should be brief? It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related, supplementary questions.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee, the first time that I have done so with you in the Chair. May I thank you for chairing our proceedings today? I hope it is helpful if I group my questions.

First, on the draft decision about the use of the EU solidarity fund in 2016 for financial assistance to eligible states affected by major national disasters or extraordinary regional disasters, the terrible floods experienced by Romania, Bulgaria and Italy in 2014 caused extensive damage to the economic and productive sectors in many towns and cities in those countries. The UK was a beneficiary of the solidarity fund after the 2007 floods; I am sure Members remember those floods and the difficulties they caused for many constituents. We received £127 million to help with their aftermath.

I agree and have constantly said in debates on these matters that there is a need for budgetary restraint and reform in the EU budget. I spoke strongly about that in the debate on the European Union (Finance) Bill. Will the Minister make his position on the solidarity fund clearer? Will he accept the need to help countries that have experienced significant problems owing to flooding? Will he agree to such mechanisms being used in a similar way in the future, or does he think that, for us to achieve budgetary restraint, we have to reform the way those instruments work?

Secondly, what plans do the Government have to ensure that this annual budget and future EU budgets are controlled and that funding is prioritised on interventions to encourage jobs and growth throughout the EU and in the UK? Today’s documents raise again some of the issues that I raised in the European Union (Finance) Bill. Funding for the common agricultural policy is still high and not being diverted to more useful programmes such as the European fund for strategic investments. Other budget amendments have pushed the budgets further into the margins, which again raises my question of whether the gap between commitment and payment appropriations is manageable and whether it is the most efficient way to ensure budgetary restraint. We had quite a debate on that when discussing the Bill. What plans does the Minister have to ensure wider reform of the EU budget?

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about the UK’s response to migratory pressures in Italy and Greece. In document 11, his follow-up letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on draft amending budget 5, responding to those migratory pressures, he outlined more details and he has said more on that today. In the letter, he said that the funding provided for in this DAB supported a range of measures to support the management of migration flows, none of which directly funded the Commission’s proposed schemes for relocation to other member states of 40,000 migrants arriving in Italy and Greece or the resettlement of 20,000 refugees from those countries. Will he confirm whether, in line with the European announcement, the project will include resettlement to other European member states? Does he agree that, contrary to the comments he made in the letter, that does appear to constitute direct funding for the relocation of some of the migrants arriving in Italy and Greece?

Labour Members in the UK Parliament and European Parliament have called for a joint approach to help cope with the increasing number of refugees. The Government have stated that they will not participate in a proposed mandatory EU programme to resettle migrants rescued when trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. Now that European leaders have voted against a quota system for relocation, something with which the Government did not agree, are there plans to engage further in the European effort to solve the migrant crisis? What future financial support are the Government willing to mobilise to help the UK and other EU countries deal with those migratory pressures, which are the consequence of unrest in the middle east?

[Mr Gauke]

May I put it on record that I am grateful to see the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South in her place? I hope we can continue to debate this and other matters in future. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe in his place, and I hope we will continue to debate Treasury matters.

First, in terms of our position on the EU solidarity fund, the Government support the objectives and principles of the fund in providing assistance to member states affected by serious natural disasters. However, the Government also take the view that the Commission should always look first to reallocate funds from within existing agreed budgets to meet in-year pressures, rather than coming to member states to request additional money. Past examples show that the Commission is able to find reallocations—for example, when programmes are delayed or take-up is slower than expected.

In terms of the budget more widely and the need to prioritise areas relating to jobs and growth, the Government’s record is clear. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the best way to put pressure on inefficient spending is to cap the overall expenditure. The deal negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2013 was the first real-terms reduction in the EU budget, and such budgetary restraint is very important. As the Prime Minister said at the time, EU spending reform is a long-term project, but the deal that he secured represents important progress, including on common agricultural policy expenditure. While spending on CAP was cut by 13%, spending on areas of pro-growth expenditure increased and now accounts for 13% rather than 9% of the overall budget.

It is also worth mentioning wider budgetary reform. The UK welcomes the objectives of Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which aims to develop a more performance-orientated budget that delivers tangible results for EU citizens. We are working closely with the Commission on that and see it as an important opportunity to help improve the value and efficiency of EU spending and to increase transparency about it for taxpayers. The Chancellor made our position clear at ECOFIN earlier in the year. We have held discussions with the Commission and offered technical assistance, and we are keen to drive this agenda forward.

On migration funding and our response to the crisis, the UK is of the view that a great impact can be made in conflict regions, which is why we are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort. We will continue with our significant efforts to ease the burden on front-line member states by providing practical, on-the-ground support. In line with the Prime Minister’s announcements, we will also take forward plans to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this Parliament.

With regard to funding of Frontex, to which we contribute not via the EU budget but through a separate bilateral contribution, we will match increased EU funding as proposed under draft amended budget 5. I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any further questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Minister for his answers. It was interesting that the hon. Member for North East Somerset made an appropriate point about the vagueness of definitions in an 88-page document and the various other attachments. What we are debating is probably as clear as the proverbial mud to many people outside the room, so perhaps we can add a little clarity.

I have made this point before: the Opposition believe—we must keep insisting on this—that the European Commission should try to make decisions surrounding the budget much more accessible to citizens. The material is dense and, even for a short debate such as this, it is hard to understand what is being said. The Commission should start to understand how to give more and better information about the budget and the budget process, and I am sure that the Minister, who has to plough through all these things, agrees. Transparency is a key factor, so I was glad that the hon. Member for North East Somerset talked about that.

I want to cover several more points, just for emphasis. A lot of this is uncontentious, albeit not all. As I have said, we welcome the fact that the draft budget states that its primary objective is to

“provide a new boost for jobs, growth and investment”.

We welcome the overall increase in the fund for competitiveness for growth and jobs of 11.4% for 2016 compared with 2015. However, there have been decreases in funding for large infrastructure projects and, at a much greater rate, for energy projects to aid economic recovery. We should encourage a focus on green energy and investment.

Funding for economic, social and territorial cohesion has received a small overall increase, although both the cohesion fund and the European territorial co-operation fund have decreased. That heading has been the subject of an extensive reprogramming exercise and the margin left beneath the ceiling is now very tight, with only £11 million of difference. We will continue to press the Government to ensure that significant changes to and reallocations of funding are made on the basis that they are likely to increase value for money for the UK taxpayer.

We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget—as I have said, it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020—but the wider reform of the common agricultural policy that is needed has still not taken place. The UK Government should push for such reform in future negotiations. Deductions are being made to sustainable growth and natural resource funding, but they involve funds for which reform is less of a priority. For example, the European agricultural fund has decreased by 24.9%, whereas market-related expenditure and direct payments have decreased by only 1.4%.

We welcome the increased focus on dealing with the refugee crisis. Draft amending budget No. 5 was intended to support the EU relocation and resettlement schemes. As the Minister mentioned, the money has been used to reinforce Frontex, to provide emergency assistance after the first arrival and screening of migrants, to reinforce the regional development and protection programmes for north Africa and the horn of Africa, and to cover emergency assistance for the surveillance activities carried out in the context of Frontex operations.

In addition, €25 million was used to implement a voluntary pilot project on resettlement. To refer back to my question, a European announcement on 13 May suggest that that project would include resettlement in European member states. Labour welcomes the use of the flexibility instrument to help to alleviate the migrant crisis, but we encourage the UK Government to engage with the rest of Europe and other affected countries to find a sustainable way of funding a response to this increasingly serious situation. Frankly, we must have something more sustainable than what is in place today. It was disappointing that many Conservative and UKIP MEPs voted on 9 September against legislation calling for a unified response to the relocation of 40,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece. Labour Members and MEPs have called for a joint approach to help to cope with the increasing numbers of refugees. My colleague, Claude Moraes MEP, chair of the European Parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said:

“We need a long-term solution, with Britain opting into a comprehensive EU plan to tackle a crisis which is likely to go on for some time and will require solidarity on refugees and measures to halt people-smuggling and the root causes.”

I believe that this is a Treasury issue as well as a Home Office one, and I hope that the UK Government engage with the EU to provide an adequate response to the crisis.

Along with our European counterparts, Labour Members fully support the letter of draft amending budget No. 1, which helps to create the budget structure necessary for the provision and creation of the European fund for strategic investments. We believe that such funding should be a priority for the EU. It will help to target areas for growth, including infrastructure in the transport, energy, digital, environment, urban and social sectors. Other areas of focus will be education and training, health, research and development, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is unfortunate that the money redirected to that fund is from funding already set aside to increase competitiveness for growth and employment. We should not be in that either/or situation. Money is being shifted from the Connecting Europe Facility to fund the European fund for strategic development. That means that money to improve cross-border rail and operability, sustainable and efficient transport, and the connectivity of transport modes has been more than halved. However, there is a new budget allowance for encouraging private investment for transport infrastructure projects. The Minister mentioned the redeployment of funds from Horizon 2020.

I want to leave the Minister with a question, although I do not know whether he will have time to answer it today. Have the Government made any assessment of whether the shifting of the funds will provide better value for the UK taxpayer? I understand that the measure uses unallocated margins, but that goes to the question of the manageability of the gap between authorised commitments and authorised payments. I spoke about that a great deal in our debates on the European Union (Finance) Act 2015, so I will not rehearse the arguments again today.

Finance Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 59, line 19, at end add—

“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, undertake, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a review of the impact of any further rise in the standard rate of insurance premium tax with particular attention to the impact on—

(a) the price charged for insurance policies; and

(b) the take-up of insurance policies”.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take clause 43 stand part.

[Barbara Keeley]

The change in the level of insurance premium tax from 6% to 9.5% will have an impact on insurance premiums, and it will mean increased costs for families. Treasury figures show that the increase will have one of the biggest impacts on Government finances of any policy revealed in the summer Budget. By 2021 Ministers will have brought in an extra £8 billion from the measure, a cost that is likely to be passed on by insurance companies to consumers, so as we debate clause 43 and Labour’s amendment I want to ask the Minister to explain the reasons behind the level of this tax rise and to ask whether Ministers have fully considered where the impact of this rise will be felt and which groups will be most affected.

In 2010 the coalition Government announced a similar but much smaller rise in insurance premium tax from 5% to 6%, but this most recent change increases the tax by 58%. I want to ask the Minister for the reasoning behind that scale of change.

A colleague of the Minister in the Lords, Lord Northbrook, has described the insurance premium tax increase as an easy target. Taxes should not be increased just because they are easy targets. Indeed, any decision to increase Government revenue should be undertaken after a robust analysis of the impact the changes will have on individuals and businesses. There are still many questions to be answered about the impacts of this measure on family finances and on the take-up of insurance. So in addition to other questions later, I want to start by asking why the Government have chosen to make such a marked increase in insurance premium tax from 6% to 9.5%, an increase of 58%.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the proposed new level of tax will still be substantially lower than the 19% rate levied in Germany, and that the proposals strike the right balance between raising revenue and making sure premiums are competitive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think making such comparisons is particularly valuable and I will come on to the reasons why.

The insurance industry has raised concerns about the impact of this increase. Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, responded to the proposed increase in insurance premium tax by warning that consumers would be worse off. He said:

“Insurance Premium Tax is a tax on people and businesses at the point at which they buy a general insurance product. So it’s very disappointing to see a more than 50% tax increase being imposed on consumers, especially when the insurance industry and Government has worked so hard in recent years to bring down the cost of essential insurance.”

The ABI calculates that the new rate of insurance premium tax will add almost £10 to the average annual household insurance policy for buildings and contents combined, and over £12 to the average annual comprehensive motor policy. However, the increase will be much higher for some groups, and I want to come on to talk about them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about householders in areas prone to flooding who might already have to pay high premiums and for whom this is an additional amount they will have to find on top? That is certainly the case for a number of properties bought under the Help to Buy scheme set up by the Treasury, as those properties built after 2009 are not eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme the Government have brought in.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and I will come on to that, because the cumulative impact of this and other changes in the Budget on specific groups is of great concern. My hon. Friend is right that there could be a real issue in parts of the country prone to flooding. We do not want to see families in the properties my hon. Friend talks about that are outside the Flood Re scheme go without insurance.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If the hon. Lady wants to forgo this substantial increase in revenue, what would she replace it with, given that her income tax proposals would also cut the revenue because the higher rate would collect less?

[Barbara Keeley]

It is not for me to make those suggestions; it is the Government’s Budget, not mine.

As I have said, the increased cost of this will be much higher than the averages for some groups. The AA has also shared its concern. After the Budget, AA president Edmund King said:

“The sting is in the tail. The Insurance Premium Tax increase on the average car insurance policy is still equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre. Either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. This is an outrageous hike which could well backfire by leading to an increase in uninsured drivers.”

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the fact that the freeze on the motor fuel duty escalator over the past three or four years has saved motorists far more than the 2p a litre to which she has just referred? It is saving the average motorist about £10 every time they fill up, which is far more than the 2p that she mentions. Will she join me in welcoming that measure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

No I will not. As I have just stated, the president of the AA, Edmund King, has said of the Budget:

“The sting is in the tail.”

It is fine to make improvements that help the motorist, but the sting is in the tail and he has made the point that this is an outrageous hike. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the impact on young motorists and the possible increase in the number of uninsured drivers. If that were the result of this hike, it would be a very dangerous development.

The chief executive officer of the British Insurance Brokers Association, Steve White, has also raised concerns about the impact of the tax on insurance policies and on the industry. He makes this important point:

“Those hit by this stealth tax will include the 20.1 million households with contents insurance, 19.6 million with motor insurance and 17 million with buildings insurance. The Government has been working with the industry to reduce the cost of insurance for consumers…It therefore seems counterintuitive to be taking measures which will add to the cost—effectively taxing protection.”

Let us be clear about what is going on. This is a tax on the protection that families need.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is now in his place, has made clear in the past his views on the impact of increases to this tax. In 2010, he said of the smaller rise that was introduced at the time:

“I am not denying that we expect the increase to be passed on predominantly to consumers; we expect that the bulk of it will be.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1130.]

Indeed, some of the UK’s biggest insurers, including Aviva and RSA, have already confirmed that they are planning to pass on the cost to consumers.

We need to be clearer about which groups will be affected by this increase and what impact it will have. Car insurance and home contents insurance policies will clearly be affected. Of course we welcome the assurances that the Government have given about preventing a rise in VAT, income tax and national insurance, but families in the UK will still be hit by these changes to the insurance premium tax. This tax increase on families comes in addition to other Budget measures that will hit families, such as cuts to tax credits. We must always keep in mind the cumulative impact on families of all the Government’s policies.

Hon. Members have asked what else we would do. The tax rise is also contrary to what the Chancellor promised before the election. He said that

“tax increases are not required to achieve”—

further consolidation, and that this

“can be achieved with spending reductions”.

So the Chancellor did not foresee these measures. Despite his claim, however, he has chosen to deliver a Budget that increases taxes as well as placing a significant squeeze on public finances and services. The average household is likely to be affected by these changes in multiple ways. Many families purchase more than one type of insurance, which means that they will have to pay this tax increase more than once.

We must also consider the effect of the policy on different groups. People’s insurance needs differ depending on their age and income and on whether they own their home. Those who have high premiums are more likely to be adversely affected by this increase to the taxation rate. The groups that I single out are young motorists, homeowners and some businesses. For example, insurers have estimated that the average cost of a year’s cover for drivers under 25 will jump by around £50. The British Insurance Brokers Association has stated that

“a young driver or an experienced driver in an inner city area would see the amount of tax on an annual car insurance premium of £1,500 increase from £90 to £142.50”.

Young motorists already pay the highest premiums, with the average policy for someone who is under 25 already costing more than £1,200 a year. For a young apprentice, jobseeker or student, the increase could make the difference between being able to afford insurance so that they can travel to work for their first job and not being able to do so. Young people are already having their eligibility removed for housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and the new minimum wage, and this is just another financial burden that the Government are placing on them.

Another group facing higher insurance premiums are people who have become unemployed. A BBC report in 2012 showed that those without a job are generally asked to pay more for motor insurance cover than those in full-time employment. BBC research with three different brokers found that car insurance premiums averaged almost a third more—30%—for those out of work, but that the cost could be as much as 63% higher. People who are out of work already face many challenges: looking for a job; finding the money to pay their rent or mortgage; and finding the money to feed their families and run their homes. Insurance premiums are higher than regular premiums, so this increase is just another blow to people who are struggling to find work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

There seems to be the assumption that the entire increase will be passed on—perhaps in part it will—but I visited one of the country’s largest insurers in my constituency and it did not seem to have cause to pass on the increase. Perhaps the hon. Lady should reflect on that and see that passing on such costs may not be automatic. It may be that a reduction in corporation tax means that the costs can be absorbed.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think that I have already covered that. In a debate in 2010 it was accepted that these costs are almost always passed on. Almost every commentator has said that the costs will be passed on. Aviva and RSA have already announced that they will pass them on, so all the signs are that they will be passed on. Clearly, it would be good if any part of the insurance industry decided not to pass on the costs, but what we are seeing is an increase in premiums across the piece.

This tax increase on a merit good like insurance could undermine the message that individuals and society benefit if the correct level of insurance is taken out. An increase in the insurance premium tax of 58% punishes families and individuals for acting responsibly. When there have been previous increases in the tax, they have been something in the order of around 1%. There is a major concern that this steeper increase could be large enough to alter the coverage chosen by customers, which means that they would become underinsured. It may be that Conservative Members do not face problems of underinsurance in their constituencies. I must say that I have seen a lot of it in my constituency. People really suffer when they are underinsured. If levels of crime are high and there are other issues affecting them on the roads, underinsurance is a real issue.

The Government need to ensure that tax policies do not lead to a situation in which families struggling on low incomes decide to forgo insurance or let their previous policies lapse because prices have risen and they decide that they can no longer afford insurance. That could leave many families at risk of great loss in the event of burglary, or if they have a road accident.

Underinsurance could be a consequence of this rate rise. People could also opt for cheaper policies, which means that they do not get the right coverage, or they opt for higher excesses, which effectively means that their coverage is less. Buying insurance can be a complicated business and a good price may often take precedence over having the right level of coverage.

The HMRC policy paper for this rate rise estimated that there would be

“a small reduction in the demand for standard-rated insurance.”

Any fall in demand for insurance that leaves families open to greater risks should be avoided. Where does the Minister believe this “small reduction” is likely to occur and what is she doing to prevent reductions in the demand for insurance?

Finally, HMRC suggests that there could be changes in the behaviour of insurance companies. It states that there is likely to be

“a small increase in tax planning activity by insurance companies.”

What are the Government doing to minimise this further potential unwanted consequence?

Clause 43 is a typical measure from a Conservative Government who promise one thing and then deliver the opposite. In this case, the Chancellor promised before the election that he had no need to raise taxes, but then he raised this tax, which will have an impact on households throughout the UK and on their usage of insurance. The increase could have a number of negative consequences. Higher insurance premiums may lead to fewer families and individuals purchasing much-needed insurance to protect themselves against everyday problems, which happen much more often in some parts of the country than in others. I am talking about burglary and damage to property and possessions.

The Government must provide more information and analysis of the wider impacts of this tax increase, as well as strategies to prevent the negative consequences that are likely to result from this policy. Labour’s amendment to clause 43 asks the Government to consider the impact of any future increase of the tax.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called for a road map to indicate a long-term strategy for our tax system. The CBI has outlined its concerns about the UK tax system in a letter to the Financial Secretary, stressing the need for Ministers to recognise that

“changes to the tax system that appear innocuous can have wide-ranging effects.”

The CBI also stated that there was a need for “renewed discipline” in tax policy making and that the lack of consultation and notice period for tax changes can cause great uncertainty for businesses. None the less, the Government continue to increase and lower taxes for short-term policy goals. Labour believes that we need to consider how to reform our tax system so that people and businesses are taxed efficiently and fairly.

As I have outlined, there are particular concerns about this and any future potential rise in insurance premium tax because of the impact it might have on the price of insurance policies and the take-up of insurance by families and individuals. With that in mind, will the Minister comment on the potential for any further increases in the insurance premium tax during this Parliament, given the comment of her colleague in the Lords that the tax is an easy target?

Labour’s amendment will ensure that the impact of any future increase is properly considered by the Government. It will ensure that there are careful deliberations—much more careful than we have seen on this occasion—on the short and long-term consequences of any further increase in the insurance premium tax and its effect on families and business. I ask Members on both sides of the Committee to support our amendment tonight.

[John Redwood]

: I remind the Committee that I advise an industrial and an investment company and the details are set out in the register.

I found it interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)speak from the Opposition Front Bench on this important matter. As someone who thinks that taxes are best kept low and that we need to do all we can to maximise the spending power of those we represent, I had a lot of sympathy with much of what she was saying. Of course, there will be people who do not want to pay an increased insurance tax—who does? In particular, some people will find it difficult because it is quite a high tax. I would have found the hon. Lady more convincing had she been able to answer the question in my intervention: if not this, what?

We have just had a passionate debate in this House in which the Opposition, understandably, wanted us to do more for Syrian refugees. That takes money. We are already being very generous with our overseas aid budget, and although we understand their motivation they are not proposing lots of reductions in spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady might well find that some of her constituents have aspirations and could be successful; I am surprised that she is so negative about them. Many people in all parts of the country welcome the idea. In 10 or 20 years’ time, if there is a death in the family and assets pass, they would be grateful not to have that limit. It was a good effort and I accept that the hon. Lady came up with the least bad of the Labour attitudes. Everything else that Labour wants to do involves either spending more money or increasing tax rates, which will reduce the revenue.

[Barbara Keeley]

The right hon. Gentleman should be directing his question to the Chancellor, because, as I said, it was the Chancellor who said that

“tax increases are not required to achieve

further consolidation, as

“this can be achieved with spending reductions”

The right hon. Gentleman ought to be asking the Government and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor his question rather than the Opposition, because the promise to the electorate—this is the important thing—was that there would be no tax increases, yet here we are soon after the Budget with a tax increase that will hit many millions of households and bring in £8 billion.

[John Redwood]

But I support the Government on that. I think that they are right to want to make more progress in bringing down the deficit—I am not sure whether the hon. Lady agrees. I also think that they are absolutely right to honour the very important promise they and I made to our electors not to increase income tax or VAT. Better still, we must honour our pledge to get income tax down, particularly for people on lower incomes, by raising the threshold. I also wish to see reductions in income tax at the 40% level, which affects many of my constituents and those who aspire to better jobs and pay, which we hope our economic recovery will deliver to many more people. We are honouring our pledge not to increase income tax rates, but to make the cuts we specified over the five-year period, and we are honouring our pledge on VAT.

[Barbara Keeley]

There seems to be a very selective honouring of pledges going on. The pledge not to increase taxes is not being met, because £8 billion is being taken. The other thing that I am very concerned about is the Government’s decision to ditch the pledge to cap social care costs. It is one thing to allow people with properties worth £1 million not to pay inheritance tax, but it is quite another when people up and down the country will be hit by the dropping of the pledge to cap care costs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that, because I am sure that it affects his constituents just as it affects mine.

[John Redwood]

I think that we are now going rather wide of the amendment and the clause that we are meant to be debating. I wish to see a generous care system that is properly controlled and disciplined. If the hon. Lady has individual cases where people will be adversely affected unreasonably, I am sure that Ministers will be willing to look at them. The last thing I wish to see is unreasonable cuts affecting people who really need the money, but I also wish to see more work done—this is what the Government are doing—to promote the abilities of many people, including those she suggests are disabled, because many people have many abilities. This Government are about encouraging those abilities, helping people to do more for themselves and, where possible, to get into work so that they can lead more rewarding lives, and so that they can receive pay in addition to the benefit assistance for which they currently qualify. There is a complete policy there to promote better lives for everyone in society, and cutting income taxes is an important part of that, and promoting abilities and opportunities is another.

[John Redwood]

That is very good advice, and that is exactly what this Committee is trying to do by highlighting the issue in a short but thorough debate.

I will now make some progress on the specific matters relating to insurance tax. It passes my first test, which is that if we have to increase a tax rate we must ensure that we get more revenue from it. It passes that test because the starting rate is sufficiently low, and the forecasts indicate that we will see a substantial increase in revenue as a result of the change.

The second question is what is its distributional effect. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South understandably made much of the cases that are the hardest, but overall I would imagine—the Minister may have some figures—that people who are better off will pay more of this tax than people who are not so well off, because a lot of it is insuring property and asset and businesses, and it will be the people with the most substantial assets and businesses who will pay rather more of that tax. It therefore meets a general test of fairness in the sense that it is progressive.

My one nervousness about that—I look forward to the Minister’s response on this—is over the issue of the young driver, which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised. I think that we need to ensure that we have a very supportive package for young people generally, because they are finding it difficult to price themselves into housing, and they do not always get the rates of pay at the beginning of their careers that we would like to see them enjoy. It is very important that we keep cutting the income taxes at the lower end of income, especially for them, because they really need to keep everything they earn if their starting pay is not very good.

The biggest problem for the young driver, particularly the young male driver, is that the starting prices for insurance can be exceptionally high. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult for the very young male driver to get insured at all. We have to ask ourselves why that is. The main reason, of course, is that the young driver is perceived to be a bad risk by the insurance company. There is some evidence that the younger driver may, on average, have a worse record than the older driver, and that is why the premiums can be particularly high on younger people.

Perhaps the Government can help rather more, through and with the industry, to tackle the main problem, which is not the tax on the premium but the initial height of the premium. Some good work has been done in the industry to provide methods of reassurance that the young person will drive well and safely by means of technology in the car that monitors them, at their own request and with their agreement. That may be the price of their getting the lower premium. We need to look at how technology and support for good driving can be reinforced so that a young person is more readily insurable at a realistic price. Of course, if the young person behaved recklessly, that would become obvious and the arrangements would have to be changed, but there are ways in which this can be done.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is not a question of technology changes. This £50 increase, at least, in the duty paid on the very high premiums that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about will prevent young people—presumably young men, more than young women—from getting to the point where they can start to gain experience. The age at which people will be able to be insured will advance and advance so that they will be unable to get started. That is the issue. It is not a question of technology but of making insurance affordable, and this makes it worse.

[John Redwood]

I am trying to deal with the underlying reason why it can be very difficult for young men, in particular, to afford insurance. The big problem is not the increment on top of the current insurance tax or the bigger increment resulting from this Bill; it is the starting level of the premium. People are working on ways in which we may be able to address that.

If the young person can accept a system that will reassure the insurer that they are going to drive sedately, prudently and safely, then the reason for charging them more disappears. By accepting the constraints of the technology, they can demonstrate that they are driving safely. That reinforces their cheaper premium and they can start to earn the bonuses that the rest of us enjoy if we have driven safely for a long period and then get discounts on the insurance costs. It is getting started that is so difficult for young males, in particular, when they are all judged by the average standards of high claims that the industry experiences. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in Departments more directly related to the insurance industry will look at this problem. It is not caused primarily by the tax system but by assessment of risk and perceptions of driving behaviour. It can be very unfair on individuals, and the more that can be done to smooth that out, the better.

I do not like tax rises. Part of the reason I am in Parliament is that I want to be a voice to try to keep taxes down and have a more prosperous society as a result. I cannot say that I welcome this part of the Finance Bill, but as someone who believes that there are important public items that we cannot cut, and faced as we are with Opposition parties that very rarely come forward with any proposals to save public money, we have to raise a reasonable amount of money. We have been borrowing too much, and this is part of a series of measures to try to get our borrowing under some kind of control. With regret, I conclude with the Government that this is one of the least bad options for trying to do that. I hope that they will take on board the need to work away at some solutions to the underlying problem of individual categories such as young drivers who may find this to be another increment on top of a difficult situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

In responding to the debate, I hope to touch on many of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members.

Clause 43 increases the standard rate of insurance premium tax to 9.5%. The policy will increase the revenue raised from the tax and help to close the deficit.

Before I turn to the amendment, I will cover some of the points that have been mentioned. I confirm that the insurance charge includes the gross premium that the insurer chargers, including the broker commission and any other directly related costs. It is a charge on the insurer rather than on the individual. It is due on general insurance, which accounts for approximately one fifth of insurance premiums. As we have heard, it includes motor insurance, home insurance, employers liability insurance and medical insurance.

Some 80% of the insurance market is exempt, including reinsurance, long-term insurance such as life insurance and permanent health insurance, and the permanent health insurance that is used to pay for critical illness insurance.

Travel insurance and insurance that people purchase on warranties with, for example, white goods, is already charged at the considerably higher rate of 20% to prevent VAT avoidance. That, too, is unaffected by the change. It is important to remember that there is no VAT overall on insurance.

The new rate for the taxable insurance premiums will begin to apply with effect from 1 November 2015. In the tax year 2016-17, it will raise an extra £1.4 billion, which can be used to reduce the deficit. If insurers pass on the increase, it will affect businesses and households, particularly by increasing the cost of their property and motor insurance. However, we expect that any impact on consumers will be modest. Most households and businesses have some form of general insurance and any impact of a rate rise is therefore shared by a large number of people and organisations, as we have heard. To give some idea of what that means, if insurers chose to pass on the whole increase, the average household expenditure on insurance would increase by 70p per week.

We do not anticipate that the tax increase will reduce the number of people taking out general insurance. Even if insurers choose to pass on the increase, any increased costs will be a very small proportion of the overall cost of insurance. As the insurance market is competitive, customers affected by the change can shop around to find a policy that best fits their needs.

[Barbara Keeley]

I hope the Minister will address the point I made about the impact of insurance costs on unemployed people. I quoted BBC research, but work done for MoneySavingExpert.com found that there is an enormous differential when people lose their jobs. In one case, insurance for an office manager to insure her vehicle went from £359 a year to £1,034. It is all right to talk about averages of £10 here or £12 there, or even £50 for young people, but insurance premiums can be disproportionately increased by unemployment. That point was made in the social media debate on the Budget, and that is one reason why I have taken it seriously. The increase is unfair, because it hits people straight away when they become unemployed. We must start to reflect on that.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will come to the distributional points raised by questions from hon. Members but, with the greatest respect, the situation the hon. Lady describes would be unaffected by the changes the Government propose this afternoon.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that the increase must be seen in the context of significant Government action to reduce costs for the insurance industry and for motorists. We are taking a lot of action to reduce insurance fraud. According to the Association of British Insurers, insurance fraud alone adds an average of £50 a year to average household insurance costs. Our previous action to reduce the cost of fraudulent claims includes a ban on referral fees in personal injury cases and reform of the regulation of whiplash claims. Those actions have been welcomed by both industry and consumer groups. The insurance fraud taskforce is due to report at the end of the year with suggestions on how further to reduce the cost of insurance fraud.

In the summer Budget 2015, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further consultation to establish how to introduce a cap on fees charged by claims management companies, and a fundamental review of the regulation of claims management companies, which is due to report in 2016. I note with interest the point my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made about banning outbound calls. More generally, the Financial Conduct Authority is working on how to encourage people to shop around for insurance, which will ensure that people find the best deal for their circumstances and that the market remains competitive.

The Government have been working hard with the insurance industry to develop the Flood Re scheme, which will continue to allow insurers to offer affordable home insurance. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I both have constituencies where there are a lot of flood-prone properties—I pay close interest to the topic. Of course, properties built after 2009 will be exempt from the scheme because we do not want to incentivise builders to build in flood-prone areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. She and I come across the same sorts of issues in our casework, and a lot of London is built on a flood plain. In some cases, I have had to work with specialist insurance broking to find a broker service. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association is very useful in that regard. I am sure she and I will continue to pay close heed to how the Flood Re scheme is delivering for our constituents.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of motor insurance, particularly for young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked whether technology could help young people with the costs of their insurance. Young people can currently take the opportunity to install a telematic device. Many insurers will reduce the cost of motor insurance in those situations.

I am able to reassure hon. Members on the impact on young drivers’ insurance premiums. Young drivers pay a much higher premium at the moment, but the overall cost impact of this change for young drivers in their 20s is estimated to be 25 pence a week and the overall impact for a driver aged 17 or 18 about £1 a week. Obviously, all tax increases are unwelcome, but this needs to be set against the fact that drivers are currently saving about £9 every time they fill up their vehicles.

[Barbara Keeley]

The figures I was given from the industry were that the increase in duty alone on the average premium paid by a young driver would be from £90 to £142.50. That is not 50p or 25p a week; that is £1 a week. Various points have been made about fuel duty, but this is a tax that has to be paid. This is a very serious increase for young people who are being hit in the other ways that I outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the overall context; this measure should not be seen in isolation. The cost to businesses was mentioned earlier. I am sure that Members will welcome the fact that, according to the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, the overall cost of insuring a commercial vehicle has fallen by more than 13% in the past 12 months alone.

I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ questions, particularly those about young drivers and household flood insurance. In particular, I want to support the points my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made about personal injury claims management.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I must stress that most households will see very little impact from the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax. It will remain at a low rate compared with many other countries and will certainly not make the UK a less attractive place to do business. I therefore ask that clause 43 stand part of the Bill and request that amendment 1, tabled by Opposition Members, be withdrawn.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not propose to withdraw the amendment. The reason for it is the lack of a full analysis of where the impact of the increase will be felt and the groups that will be most affected. I have been quite disturbed by the complacent attitude of some Government Members, including the Minister. I have quoted many senior industry figures on the impact on their business and industry and the strength of their feelings about this tax, which they have called a stealth tax. I will quote some additional comments. Janet Connor, managing director of AA Insurance, said:

“That premiums have been falling seems to be the Chancellor’s justification for the tax increase but he is wrong. His timing couldn’t have been worse; not only are premiums starting to rise but the tax can only lead to even greater premium increases than could otherwise be expected over coming months.”

She continued:

“There is no justification for this underhand and unfair tax increase.”

I have quoted various insurance organisations, but the ABI said:

“UK drivers benefit from one of the most competitive motor insurance markets in the world. But with pressure on claims costs”,

which some Government Members have recognised,

“and an increase in insurance premium tax adding an additional £12.80 to the cost of the average policy…other factors are starting to put up costs.”

The key thing is that a range of factors are in play, despite our having had a successful couple of years, which has reduced premiums and rates. I hope Ministers will not continue to be complacent about the cost of premiums for young drivers and the danger of under-insurance or no insurance.

Graeme Trudgill, the executive director of the British Insurance Brokers Association, has said:

“Insurance has been seen as a special case in terms of taxation as it is a social good”.

Ministers seem to be ignoring the fact that it is a special case, in that it is a social good. We must take that into account.

[Suella Fernandes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I will not.

Mr Trudgill went on to say:

“Young drivers are the most over-represented age group for uninsured driving and increasing the cost of their motor insurance further is likely to increase the level of uninsured driving, which we are aware has now started to deteriorate.

The increase completely undermines the constructive work that the industry and government have done in the past few years to tackle fraud—particularly with regard to whiplash claims—which previously saw premiums soar.”

Ministers and Government Members should be clear that what they are doing is hitting the industry at a point when premiums have started to go in the wrong direction and the good work that has been done could be undermined.

I want to leave Government Members with a couple of other points about this amendment. The AA calculates that uninsured drivers cost the insurance industry around £380 million a year and add £33 to cost of every motor insurance policy. Finally, the Motor Insurers Bureau reports that 2.8% of UK motorists—and about 1 million vehicles on the road—are estimated to be driving without insurance. That is the risk that the Minister is taking.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are going to help his constituents to buy their own home. The Help to Buy scheme has helped 100,000 people; the new Help to Buy ISA will help the families he represents save up for that deposit; and of course we all still want to see more starter homes being built. We have to address the acute housing shortage in London, and we have the policies to do it.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Why are the Government abandoning people with savings and those who own their own homes? They are going to be forced to spend their savings and sell their homes to pay for their social care costs. The Chancellor raised the hopes of those older and vulnerable people before the election with a pledge that no one would have to sell their home to pay for care. Those people will feel badly let down by the Government’s U-turn. Did he ever intend to keep that manifesto pledge?

[Mr Osborne]

We are going to introduce that cap on care costs in this Parliament. It is a bit rich coming from a Labour party that was in power for 13 years and did absolutely nothing to cap those costs. That is why we are introducing the cap. We have also already introduced the changes that enable people to provide for their future care costs without having to sell their home. We are making those changes, alongside the support for savers and pensions, so that we move away from the society and economy built on debt that was left to this Government to an economy that builds and rewards savers.

Finance Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I disagree. By 2020, the living wage will be £9, because that is the level at which we have set it. For the lowest-paid workers in the country, that has to be a huge advantage. I cannot believe that Opposition Members are actually disagreeing with a proposal to increase the wages of the lowest earners.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is imputing various motives and feelings to Opposition Members, and is not doing so reasonably. May I point out to her that a living wage that took full account of the take-up of tax credits would be well over £11? The level set by the Chancellor is not that level, which is why this is not a national living wage.

[Maria Caulfield]

I assume that Opposition Members will support the wage increase for the lowest earners. I am pleased to see the hon. Lady nod in agreement.

However, we are doing more than just increasing the national living wage. We are also reducing the tax that people pay, not only by raising tax thresholds but by freezing national insurance, VAT and fuel duty levels for this year, to ensure that they have more money in their pockets.

Let me now say something about housing. It is, again, the Conservatives who are helping those on low incomes to reduce their outgoings by lowering social housing rents by 1% a year for the next four years. Opposition Members feel that they cannot support that move, and will either oppose it or abstain. That, I think, shows their true measure. However, the Bill goes a step further by ensuring that social housing occupied by people who have done well, and are earning more than £30,000 a year outside London or £40,000 inside London, will no longer be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers who may be earning less than that themselves. Instead, those people will pay market rents—the same market rents that others in the same position pay in the private housing sector.

In addition, to increase the supply of affordable housing, the Chancellor has announced an increase in the rent-a-room relief, which will enable people to rent rooms without having to pay tax that acts as a penalty. The tax relief for buy-to-let landlords will be reduced, too. That will level the playing field for ordinary families trying to get on the housing ladder, who have been in competition with buy-to-let landlords who have previously been at a significant advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am answering the question. It is interesting that the Opposition were pushing for less austerity but now, when the Chancellor increases the time frame in which he wants to make the changes, the hon. Lady opposes it.

The Bill reduces taxes on working people by further increasing the personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016. The living wage will improve the lives of many people across the country. With tax credits, people are often penalised by deciding to change their hours because they lose far too much of their earnings. The Budget changes that.

It is worth noting that Labour has proposed no amendments of any nature to the Bill, which suggests that, at the very least, not everyone in the Labour party is opposed to all of it.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. and learned Lady is just not right on the detail. This is not the time for amendments today; this is Second Reading. We will table many amendments; she just needs to wait.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for that intervention. But clearly it is the time, because the SNP has tabled an amendment, and so have the Greens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree with my hon. Friend and was just about to make that point, which has been endorsed by the IFS and others. The personal allowance is one lever we can use to enable people to keep more of what they earn, but we should not fool ourselves that it is going to do something about the lowest paid in our society and that it is the only thing we should do. Let us compare and contrast it with action on the work allowance, for example, which is the amount of money people are allowed to earn before they begin to lose benefit. As my hon. Friend said, increasing that by £1,000 would have a much better effect than increasing the personal allowance by £1,000.

Our manifesto had a proposal to increase the work allowance to 20% to allow people to keep more of the money they earn. That would also provide a powerful incentive for people either to go out and get higher paid work or to get more work, knowing they would be able to benefit from that and would not lose benefits as a consequence. Under these current proposals, however, someone who today has a part-time job earning, say, £5,000 a year will either lose benefits or have to work less and earn less than £5,000 to keep their benefits. Either way, their household income will go down. That will make the poorest in our society poorer still, and it is a serious indictment of this Government that that is the direction they are going in.

On inheritance tax, I do not think any Member of this House would suggest for one minute that people should not be allowed to pass on their good fortune to their children. All of us believe in that, but this is the question: when doing that, should the luckiest in our society who have benefited the most, as well as passing most of what they have on to their children, also make some contribution to other people’s children and society as a whole? That is why we have taxation, after all. Governments and their policies are about priorities and this Government have shown their priority is to look after people who live in £1 million houses and make the tax burden easier for them while clobbering the poorest in our society.

I also want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), who proposed our amendment, and ask the Minister to examine in the context of this Bill the serious value added tax anomaly that has built up in Scotland with our police and fire and rescue services. There is an opportunity to remove this anomaly whereby the forces in Scotland are the only ones in all of these islands that have to pay VAT. Police Scotland has to pay £23 million a year to the Exchequer. That is extremely unfair and it places a great burden on that service. The money would be better spent on police officers on the streets defending us against crime. Given the Government’s apparent commitment to doing something about crime in our society, I hope they will take that on board. If Ministers cannot deal with this point in today’s debate, perhaps they will at least give an undertaking to look into it as the Bill goes to Committee.

The insurance premium tax measure is a clear example of this Bill’s policies not being about those who can afford to pay the most and who have the broadest shoulders and are able to cope with this burden. Those who live in high-crime areas are usually in poorer households and poorer communities, and they will face heavier insurance bills—if, indeed, they can afford to buy insurance. As a result of this policy, we are taxing people who have to pay those premiums in those areas more than people in the leafy suburbs who are much better able to pay. This is an iniquitous, devious little measure, and it should be rejected.

I have two further points to make. First, there is the most interesting question of this entire debate—and we have sat here for hours now. It is, where are Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition? I was taken aback when I heard the Labour party’s representative say that it would abstain on this Bill, so I spent an hour out of the Chamber doing a little research. On 6 July 2010, the Labour party voted against the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. On 26 April 2011, the Labour party voted against the Finance Bill on Second Reading. Members may see where I am going with this. On 16 April 2012, there was a Division on Second Reading and Labour voted against the Finance Bill. On 15 April 2013, there was a Division on Second Reading of the Finance Bill and Labour voted against it. On 1 April 2014, Labour voted for its own reasoned amendment and then against Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

For five years the Opposition have voted against the Government’s Finance Bill on its Second Reading. Can it possibly be that the difference then was that it was a coalition Finance Bill put forward with the Liberal Democrats, and that, now, the Opposition find this Finance Bill, put forward just by the Conservative party, to be more acceptable? Even I would find that incredibly implausible, so I urge and plead with Labour Members, because the country needs better than this. The people who did not vote for the Conservative party—63% of them—expect it to be opposed in this Chamber, and, even if Labour Members agree with one or two things in the Bill, surely they can see that its overall rubric and intent is to penalise those people in society whom they should stand up for. I appeal to Labour Members to reconsider their position on this issue and to join us in the Lobby tonight as we vote against the Bill on its Second Reading.

My final point is this: in my country this Government have no mandate to bring forward these proposals. They got 14% of the votes in Scotland; they have one out of 59 Scottish MPs. Our country is completely opposed to the Bill, and the people have sent us here with a mandate to oppose it. That more than anything else shows the need for these measures to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament—in order that the Scottish Government can deliver to the Scottish people their own democratic wishes and the type of society that they want to see.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. It seems that it is third time lucky.

We have had a lively debate. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).

Last week, the Labour Opposition voted against the Budget, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary, described as “unfair” and “regressive” and

“not equal to the challenges that we face as a country.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 768.]

This is the context in which we start our scrutiny of the summer Finance Bill. There has been much rhetoric and spin from Ministers but little acknowledgment of the hardship that the Government’s measures will cause to more than 3 million people on low incomes. We heard much on that point today.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East challenged my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary on Labour’s stance on the general direction of the Finance Bill. I am not a Hansard writer, so I do not claim that this is absolutely verbatim, but it is worth repeating what my hon. Friend said, which was that Labour disputes the Government’s characterisation of the measures in the Budget and the Bill. We do not see them as they see them. They use these descriptions of national living wage, working people and so on, but we do not see it that way. However—this is an important point—the measures we oppose are not all in this Bill. Some will be in delegated legislation. I hope that explains our position to the hon. Gentleman.

Given the hardship that the Budget’s measures will cause to 3 million families on low incomes and that we debated yesterday, the tax lock is of course welcome. However, there were giveaways in this Budget, which are detailed in the Finance Bill, such as the cut to inheritance tax. That featured a number of times in the debate. I want to question the priorities that are behind the choices made by this Government. Whenever we talk about increases to the national minimum wage, we must bear in mind, as many Members have done, that the cuts to tax credits more than outweigh those wage increases. My hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to outline our opposition to these regressive measures that will hit more than 3 million working people. Despite the gimmick of the tax lock on VAT and income tax, the Government’s other tax increases will also have an impact on families over and above the impact from cuts in tax credits.

[Ian Blackford]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned Labour’s opposition to the impact of the tax credits, but there is concern on the SNP Benches and elsewhere in the country—this goes to the heart of the matter—that people who will be affected by the Budget and what is happening in this Finance Bill need leadership. It is that failure to give leadership—to oppose, as the Opposition party in this House—and to stand up for people who are affected by these measures on which the Labour Opposition will be judged.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not believe that is the case. We have been through the whole of the last Parliament being the official Opposition and we are still in that position again after the election, much to our chagrin. I know there are a lot of new Members in the House, but I must say that a Bill does not pass through the Commons in one sitting—it does not pass through the Commons in one day—because it goes to Committee. When we come back in September we will have a Committee of the whole House, and we have started to table amendments for debate on those days. There are also Public Bill Committee sittings, Report and Third Reading, so there are many occasions when speeches can be made.

[Alex Salmond]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, the Labour Opposition have divided the House on the Finance Bill for every Budget since 2010. What is it about this Budget—this extraordinary, regressive Budget—that makes it such that the Labour party does not want to support our opposition to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I have made the point about the characterisation of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman will have to take my word for it that some earlier Finance Bills contained all the measures that were in the Budget. Much of this Budget is split. It is not all in this Bill or the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Some of it will be in delegated legislation. There will be plenty of opportunities to make the arguments he puts. Opposing at this point is not the only thing that we can do as an Opposition, and Members will just have to take my word for that.

Despite the gimmick of the tax lock on VAT and income tax, the Government’s other tax increases will have an impact on families over and above the impact from cuts in tax credits, as I said. The rate of insurance premium tax is increasing by more than 50%, which will be a hit to the cost of insurance for the family home, the family car and family holidays. A number of hon. Members referred to that. Insurance industry experts have raised concerns about the impact that this tax increase could have on the take-up of insurance. They have warned that it may mean policyholders buy less cover, in effect “taxing protection”. Half the poorest households do not have home contents insurance, and those households are more than three times as likely to be burgled as those with insurance. That leaves low-income households less financially able to replace goods lost through burglary, fire or flood. That point obviously was not understood by the hon. Member who mentioned it earlier.

We have welcomed the increase in the minimum wage set out in clauses 3 and 4. The Government are adopting a Labour policy to increase the value of the national minimum wage, a measure we introduced in 1998 in the face of fierce opposition—one could almost say ferocious opposition—from Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke effectively about implementing the real living wage and about the safety net that tax credits can provide as people move in and out of low-paid work. We had a number of useful interventions in which hon. Members clarified the status of the real national living wage versus the increased national minimum wage. Leaving aside that issue, it would help if the Chancellor got his facts right. In an article in The Guardian yesterday, he claimed that 2.7 million people would gain £5,000 each from the increase to the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission tells us that there are, in fact, 1.4 million people in minimum wage jobs, including only 1.2 million people who are over 21. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Chancellor persists in using such incorrect figures.

There is real concern about the impact of minimum wage increases on social care provision, funded through local authority budgets, if the Government do not fund the increase in the minimum wage as it is a new burden on local authorities. The care sector is one of the lowest-paid sectors. The planned increases in the national minimum wage for care workers have been estimated by the Local Government Association to cost £330 million this year, rising to £1 billion a year by 2020. The Opposition believe that low-paid care workers should have a wage increase, but we obviously need to find ways to fund it that do not involve further cuts to care or other local authority services. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who was leader of her council, has battled through that, as have other local authority leaders.

Ministers are clearly in a mess over the funding of social care. Since the Budget, the Government have abandoned their manifesto pledge to cap care costs from next year, as we heard in Treasury questions this morning. Indeed, the vice-president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said that the pressures of rising demand, punitively reduced budgets and the impending obligation to pay increased wages all

“put an intolerable strain on social care finance.”

Abandoning the care cap seems to be a short-term palliative to those funding issues, but it will come at a high cost to people living with dementia and other long-term conditions.

The Opposition therefore question the Government’s priorities. Bringing in the nil-rate band of inheritance tax for properties worth up to £1 million when the property passes to direct descendants will cost almost £1 billion by 2020 onwards, yet families of people who need social care for long periods can lose nearly all the value of their homes through paying for care. It seems, unless the Minister can enlighten us otherwise, that there is no ray of hope for them in this Parliament.

The IFS has described the removal of the climate change levy exemption on renewables as a measure that makes “no economic sense”. Friends of the Earth has said that the change shifts the climate change levy from a carbon tax to just a tax on all electricity consumed. A number of interventions and speeches touched on that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course, we should not be surprised about the changes to the climate change levy, given that the Government have already signalled their direction of travel through their proposed changes to onshore wind. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a retrograde step, given that the United Kingdom is such a leader in renewable energy?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed I do. My hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary noted that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has suggested having some kind of audit and report on the way forward for the sector, which would be very helpful.

The removal of that exemption will come at a cost to companies and to the environment. It makes little sense to remove the exemption for renewable energy generators in the UK. It will not only increase tax on business consumption of energy, but reduce the relationship between the tax paid and the carbon content of the energy, as a number of Members have noted. The Opposition believe that the Government should be encouraging the renewables sector to develop and grow. Cutting green subsidies risks being a false economy and may cost the UK economy more in the long term.

It is right that banks should pay their fair share of tax. The bank levy, as many Members have noted, was designed to discourage risky borrowing. Now the Government plan to reduce the bank levy gradually. Instead, banks will be subject to an 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits from January 2016. The IFS estimates that the change to the bank levy will cost the Exchequer £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards, whereas the 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits will raise only £1.3 billion.

There is a question of priorities here. Is it fair at this time, when working families are going to be made worse off by the Government’s plans, to reduce the levy paid by the banks in that way? The Minister will probably say that it will make money in the longer term, but many concerns have been raised. The IFS and other organisations have raised concerns about the possibility of perverse incentives and disproportionate impacts on parts of the banking sector.

We want to ensure that the Bill helps to create a system in which banks are taxed proportionately and fairly. A number of concerns were raised about the impact of the corporation tax surcharge on bank profits on building societies and challenger banks. We clearly need to examine the issue closely in Committee of the whole House.

On tax avoidance, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in his place, was asked whether £5 billion was small beer. Certainly, our Labour target for tax avoidance was £7.5 billion by the middle of this Parliament, and Labour Members have raised many points of concern about tax avoidance, including on the importance of going further to close the “Mayfair” loophole. We will return to those tax avoidance issues later in our scrutiny of the Bill.

Although we agree with some measures in the Bill, others obviously need to be amended. It is clear that the Budget, and hence the Finance Bill, together with the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will have a regressive impact, and the Finance Bill highlights the wrong priorities chosen by this Government. The Chancellor claimed that his Budget was moving us to a low-tax society, when tax increases are actually at twice the level of tax cuts. Budget giveaways, like the cut to inheritance tax, look like the wrong priority when they are viewed against measures to penalise 3 million of the lowest-income households by £1,000 a year. Families will also be penalised when they take out insurance on their family car or home contents, if they can still afford to take out insurance on their car and home contents. A point which I come back to because it is so important is that the Government’s priorities mean that one group of families, with homes to a value of £1 million, are to be protected from inheritance tax, while the families of people needing social care over long periods will have no cap on the costs of their care.

We will return to the issues of bank taxation, the insurance premium tax and the climate change levy in our debates in Committee in September, and I hope Ministers will have time in between for more reflection on their priorities.

This is not the pre-recess Adjournment debate, but a number of good wishes have been expressed and I should like to add to them. I will take a chance here and wish the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) happy birthday; I am sure I made a mess of the pronunciation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish all Members of the House a good recess and wish all the Officers and you a good summer, with some time off for a break before we return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I must make progress. I must respond to several points that were raised in the debate.

This Bill takes the next steps towards Britain’s sustained economic security, putting us on the right path towards meeting our ambition to be the most prosperous major economy in the world within a generation. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, the Bill is not about everything that is in the Budget. The Finance Bill is limited in scope specifically to tax measures intended for general expenditure. The national living wage is not within its scope, but as the direct question came up of how the Government would bring it in, I confirm that we will be making regulations to introduce it for April 2016.

I want to respond to a number of other points. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) suggested that changes to inheritance tax were only to protect the rich. As a result of rising house prices, inheritance tax increasingly hits people with normal family homes and, without action, the number of estates facing an IHT bill was forecast to double from about 35,000 in 2014-15 to 63,000 in 2021. As he will know, there are provisions such that it is clawed back from the very largest estates so that the wealthiest people do not in fact benefit.

The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and others mentioned the so-called Mayfair loophole and the treatment of carried interest. Carried interest is treated as a capital gain in the UK, as in most other jurisdictions, because it is not exactly the same as a salary; it reflects the return to the manager in terms of some of the investment risk that they have undertaken. That is aligned to the tax treatment applied to other investors.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath spoke powerfully about the vital and sometimes dangerous work done by the emergency services in Scotland, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and asked about VAT treatment. The discontinuation of local funding for police and fire and rescue services in Scotland was a decision by the Scottish Government, not the UK Government. The Scottish Government were explicitly advised of the VAT consequences of that reorganisation. Because these bodies are no longer funded through local taxation, the rationale for providing exemption under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 does not apply.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), apart from his very engaging mini-debate with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), asked about take-up of the employment allowance in Northern Ireland. It has been taken up by 27,000 businesses—an 84% take-up rate, which is a wee bit below the UK average, but fairly close to it. Of course, we must continue to draw attention to its benefits.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green rightly talked about the vital role of childcare in enabling productivity gains. She mentioned particularly the importance of enabling mums to return to the workplace sooner if they so wish. I am sure that she will therefore welcome our increasing the facility for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talked about the productivity problem. I am sure he would not suggest that it is a new problem, but if he had, it would have been misleading, as it has been around for a long time. I make no apology for the fact that in 2010, facing the economic crisis that we did, the very top priority of the incoming Government was to keep people in work. The success of that approach has been reflected in the 2 million jobs created over the past five years.

The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for East Antrim asked about what would happen with vehicle excise duty in Northern Ireland. Devolved Administrations will of course continue to get funding for roads through the Barnett formula, and they could establish a specific fund for their roads if they chose.

We heard a number of other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) reminded us of the context of the deficit. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said that it was easy to come up with reasons for not doing things now but that now is the right time to get on with these important measures. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) talked about the importance of businesses in creating jobs, and welcomed the apprenticeships levy.

Fairness was at the fore of the debate a number of times. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) put it very well when he said that we believe in a low-tax economy in which everyone pays their fair share. He is correct that our plans include improved tax recovery. It is partly because of that that we can ensure that everyone, especially the low-paid, can keep more of what they earn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) noted.

Indeed, we have always believed that working people should be free to keep more of the money they earn. That is one of the most powerful incentives to aspiration. During the last Parliament, we increased the personal allowance from the £6,475 we inherited to £10,600. Clauses 5 and 6 will increase the personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18, and increase the higher rate threshold to £43,000 and to £43,600 respectively. As a result, nearly 600,000 more individuals will be taken out of income tax by 2016-17. These are important steps towards the Government’s ambition to increase the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. We will ensure that, when that is achieved, the personal allowance will be uprated in line with the national minimum wage so that no one working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will pay income tax.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I had better continue, as I still have several of points to which I need to respond.

The Finance Bill provides further certainty for the people of this country by legislating for the income tax and VAT elements of the tax lock in clauses 1 and 2, which delivers our manifesto commitment to rule out in law any increases in the main rates of income tax, VAT or national insurance for the duration of this Parliament.

Finally, the Finance Bill recognises and rewards the natural aspiration to own your own home not just as a place to live, but as a piece of security, an asset to invest in through your working life, to take with you into retirement and one day to be able to pass on to your children.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am glad that the Minister has managed to spare some time out of the 90 or so minutes that remain. I raised the issue of the care cap, to which he has not responded at all. It will cost £1 billion to bring in the nil-rate band on inheritance tax. The Minister talked about childcare, but he has not touched on that particular point. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady. The Members who have been in the Chamber for the whole debate will wish to hear her and the Minister’s answer. If other people, who have not been here for the debate, wish to have conversations, they can have them outside the Chamber.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister respond to the point I raised: is it reasonable to spend £1 billion so that people can pass on the value of their homes while others—people with dementia and other long-term conditions—can lose everything they have and all the value of their home through paying down care costs?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady will know that we still intend to bring forward the cap. It has had to be delayed, but we intend to do it during this Parliament. The Budget delivers for all the people of this country, including those who work hard, save hard and want to be able to pass on an asset to their children. In the Bill, we introduce a new £175,000 per person transferable allowance when a person’s home is passed on at death to their children or grandchildren. With the allowance, married couples and civil partners can now pass on an estate worth up to £1 million before having to pay any inheritance tax.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The word “community” is key, because businesses are as much a part of any geographical community as the people who live in it. We lose sight of that at our peril.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I feel the need to defend my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, who is being unfairly attacked by Conservative Members. It is being said that he did not even mention business in his opening speech. [Interruption.] I am one of the people on this side of the House who does have a business background; I have a very substantial background in the IT sector, supporting manufacturing industry up and down the country. An extensive section of my hon. Friend’s speech addressed the need to do something about business rates, but there was no answer from the Secretary of State on that point. I think—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have briefer interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

It does not matter what my hon. Friend or I think, or what Labour Members think; what matters is what businesspeople think, and the feedback I had—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[James Cleverly]

I am running short of time and have been very generous in taking interventions, so if the hon. Lady forgives me I will continue.

The message that came through loud and clear on the doorsteps when I visited businesses in my constituency during the election campaign was that they did not feel that the Labour party understood them or was sympathetic to their plight. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked me specifically about business rates. We are going to have a business rates review—

[Barbara Keeley]

When?

[James Cleverly]

I am not a member of the Government. The hon. Lady needs to take that up with a member of the Government. If anyone wants to make me a member of the Government, however, my door is always open.

Small businesses need a tax and regulatory framework that is sympathetic to their needs, but they also need interventions that will unlock their potential. I am unapologetic that I am now going to mention the need for broadband in rural Britain, and I shall continue to mention it almost every time I get to my feet in the Chamber. I recently visited a business in my constituency, ESco Business Services Ltd. It provides services to the magazine industry, dealing with magazine subscriptions and prizes and so on. It is a digitally enabled business, and much of its work is done online. It is in a building in the middle of the countryside, near the picturesque village of Finchingfield. It provides good quality, well-paid local employment, and it relies absolutely on good quality digital connectivity, without which it would be unable to locate where it is. Instead, it would be forced to locate in a nearby city such as Cambridge, or even in London. If we are to spread economic activity in this country away from London, it is really important that we open the door to businesses such as ESco to allow them to locate where the potential employees are, rather than where the broadband is.

I echo the point made about road investment, and I make no apology for once again mentioning the A120, which is sorely in need of attention. My Government understand the needs of small businesses—I am far from convinced that the Labour party does—which is why I welcome the Budget and will be supporting it in the Lobby later.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will certainly make that point. It was estimated by the European Commission to be of the value of €9 billion over the previous MFF period. In this MFF period, it would be in the region of £2 billion a year, which would be a considerable loss. The Government will not be repeating that.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I would like to take the Minister back to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), because the Minister did not really answer him. In an article in The Sunday Times this week, one Conservative MP said of the Prime Minister’s intentions that he was keeping things up his sleeve, and that:

“He’ll try to negotiate a lower net contribution to the budget.”

It is definitely being said that the Prime Minister is holding that in reserve. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Mr Gauke]

We have consistently argued the case for money being spent more wisely and for greater European Union public spending restraint. We have already made progress with that argument—we made progress in 2013 and the Bill relates to the negotiation, although it is on the revenue rather than the expenditure side. We will consistently argue that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The deal that the Prime Minister reached in February 2013 was clearly a success, as our negotiating objectives were met. I am sure my hon. Friend and most of us would hope and expect similar success to be achieved in the months ahead.

[Barbara Keeley]

I invite the Minister to remind himself of a similar debate we had in January 2008, in which he and his hon. Friends on the then shadow Treasury team tabled a strikingly similar new clause that asked for a report on the review by the European Commission covering all aspects of EU spending. It was a very robust debate and he was a signatory to that new clause. He rejects my new clause, but it is very similar to the one he tabled in 2008.

[Mr Gauke]

I am tempted to point to the remarks made by the hon. Lady’s colleagues in setting out the reasons why that new clause should have been rejected. She might not have been persuaded, but I am tempted to say that six years on, after much reflection, I can see some value in them. The stronger argument I would perhaps make is that in contrast to what happened some years ago, when the previous Labour Government negotiated away part of our rebate, we have just had a successful negotiation in 2013. Let me set out the progress that is being made on that agenda. If I may, I will give a little detail on the substance, putting aside the point that the Bill focuses on the revenue, rather than the expenditure, side of things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Let me come straight to new clause 3, as he has raised that point.

Along with many across Europe, we share the concern that lies behind new clause 3 that the EU is not sufficiently accountable to EU citizens. Hon. Members will need no reminding that the Prime Minister has already made it clear that strengthening the role of national Parliaments is a central tenet of his reform programme. Within the existing legal framework, the Government already take the role of national Parliaments in scrutinising EU proposals very seriously. That is why, when the European Parliament requested the formation of a high-level group on own resources to review the EU financing system, we insisted that national Parliaments, as well as the European institutions, were given a voice as part of the consultation. We therefore amended the joint declaration on the formation of the group explicitly to take account of input from national Parliaments.

We do all we can to ensure the transparent and effective scrutiny of each year’s annual budget negotiations. An explanatory memorandum is deposited as soon as possible after the publication of the draft EU budget each year. That is followed by debates in both Houses and regular ministerial updates at significant stages of the negotiation process.

We are committed to working with both scrutiny Committees to make this process as efficient and effective as possible for all parties. However, we believe that requiring the Government to write to invited officials to appear before the scrutiny Committees would add little to the scrutiny process and would be a very peculiar precedent, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It would add little because the Committees can, and have, invited officials to appear before them. For example, in June 2014, Nadia Calvino, the Director-General of the European Commission budget, gave evidence to the Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee.

It really should not be the place of Government to determine who the scrutiny Committees should see. It is for the Committees of both Houses to decide for themselves who should appear before them and when. It would be a peculiar precedent for the Executive to begin to interfere with that freedom, no matter how benign the initial intention.

[Barbara Keeley]

I appreciate the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stone, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. In a debate in October 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), speaking for the Government, complained strongly—I referred to this in a previous debate—that Ministers had asked the Commission to model costs of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion in relation to staffing. That very reasonable request was bounced back with the very insulting comment:

“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.

If the Minister is expecting us to believe him, when such a simple request on a staffing issue is not taken seriously, then we do have some points to make.

[Mr Gauke]

I will return to that point. My remarks, when the hon. Lady intervened, were in respect of new clause 3 and the European Scrutiny Committee. I have been very clear that it would be a curious thing to do to place this in legislation and for the Executive to take that role upon themselves. I very much echo the remarks made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

In the case of new clause 2, which relates to how we deal with the way in which the Council of Ministers works, we are making progress and taking action, which includes cutting the budget. In the case of new clause 1, I do not need to undertake to write a letter calling for the Commission to do something that it is already doing. As for new clause 3. I have already made it clear that I do not think it would be appropriate for us to impose on members of the European Scrutiny Committee something that is a matter for them.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am slightly surprised that the Minister is unable to take on board what was actually a very sensible suggestion. He says that overall budget restraint is sufficient, and that there is no need for a focus on “waste and inefficiency”. As I mentioned earlier, back in 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells tried to introduce measures to reduce the staffing budget and asked for modelling, but that request was rejected. Commission representatives should not feel that they can bounce back to UK Ministers simple requests that really would help decision making.

Time and again, Members on both sides of the House raise issues relating to the Commission’s staffing costs. If that is the response that the Minister has been receiving—he is not admitting it today, but the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned it during another debate—we really must press the matter. It is not good enough simply to accept that everything is fine and we do not have a problem. We must push the case for enhanced scrutiny.

[Mr Gauke]

We care a great deal about eliminating waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The question is how we should do that. Let me say first that, if we can reduce the MFF, that will place a much greater onus on the Commission to eliminate wasteful expenditure.

The hon. Lady made a perfectly fair point about what happened back in 2012. However, the Prime Minister’s negotiation triumph in 2013 has reduced the MFF, and we are now seeing signs—which we were not seeing three years ago—that the Commission is focusing much more on the issue. Vice-President Georgieva described the 2015 budget, which was agreed last December, as

“a budget of responsibility… a tight budget that reflects the tight fiscal conditions in our Member States.”

She said that it was

“a very focused budget, focused on the priorities that we have established in the new Commission.”

She added:

“It is directed towards investments in competitiveness, for instance supporting the innovative nature of our businesses. It is also a budget where tight controls on spending will allow us to achieve the best possible results.”

Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which focuses on better rather than more spending, has come about as a direct result of the imposition of restraint at the top. The United Kingdom is engaging constructively with the initiative, and is working actively with the Commission to ensure that momentum is maintained through regular meetings at political and technical levels. We are working with our allies to increase support for the initiative and to ensure that all member states are represented in discussions. We look forward to the first meeting of the inter-institutional working group in mid-July and to contributing to the “budget for results” conference in September.

Because of what we have achieved in reducing the budget, we are seeing a culture change, but we need to ensure that the momentum is maintained. If the Labour party supports that, I am delighted, but we must remember that it was Labour that surrendered part of our rebate and failed to impose the discipline that we needed.

[Barbara Keeley]

Again, I am surprised by the Minister’s response. Let me remind him of a point that I made on Second Reading. When Labour Members voted with rebels in the Conservative party, they strengthened the Prime Minister’s hand before he went into negotiations by insisting that the MFF be cut. The Minister really ought to acknowledge that. Surely it helps if, on every occasion, Members in all parts of the House can be strong in saying that we want enhanced scrutiny, and that is what we are trying to do through our new clauses today.

[Mr Gauke]

I cannot but throw back the record of the Labour Government in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady has asked a good question. In the context of the review that the Commission is undertaking and the focus on a budget for results, transparency is certainly important. The Government’s record is clear: we want more transparency in relation to all expenditure, whether at UK or EU level, and I think that more can be done in that regard.

The hon. Member for Worsley made an important point about administrative expenditure. As part of the MFF deal, EU staff salaries were frozen in 2013-14, and EU institutions committed themselves to a 5% headcount reduction by 2017 and an increase in statutory pension age to 66 for officials who started work in or after 2014. I would be the first to accept that those reforms do not go far enough, but, working with like-minded member states, the Government will continue to press the EU institutions to show maximum restraint when it comes to administrative expenditure.

[Barbara Keeley]

Are this Minister and other Ministers having more success than their right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells had back in 2012, when the European Commission dismissed his very reasonable request for some modelling on staffing costs? Are the Commissioners being any more helpful nowadays?

[Mr Gauke]

Some progress has been made since then. The Commission has improved its transparency record, partly thanks to the Government’s ongoing work. In particular, it released a payments plan containing much more detail on payment forecasts. I accept that we can go further, and that UK citizens expect more, but requiring the Government to write a letter inviting officials to attend Select Committee meetings will not really deliver that. What is required is constant vigilance and discipline. We have shown that, and it is delivering results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The point about our position applies across the piece. To be fair to my right hon. Friend, certain eventualities that he predicted many years ago have come to pass. Because of the current situation in the eurozone, substantial reform could well be needed so that the members of the single currency are able to co-ordinate fiscal policy to a greater extent, with greater fiscal transfers and so on. That raises issues for the eurozone members which do not apply to other members of the European Union that have access to the single market but would not wish to partake in any such arrangement. We would need to ensure that if that is the direction the eurozone goes in, the position of the euro-outs is protected. Ensuring that access to the single market remains in place for all 28 member states is an important part of that, which is why I mentioned it. We need to ensure that our position is protected. That is the point I wish to make, and I fully understand the points that my right hon. Friend is making.

Finally, amendment 1 has been proposed in order that the conditions set out in new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are consistent with the terms of commencement in the Bill. I have explained to the Committee why we will not be supporting the new clauses, and we thus reject the amendment. While I have the opportunity to do so, I wish to identify a typographical error in the explanatory notes. The second line of paragraph 6 refers to a VAT-based rate of call of 15% for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, whereas it should have read 0.15%. I draw the Committee’s attention to that in case it caused consternation among right hon. and hon. Members.

In conclusion, let me assure the hon. Member for Worsley that, having made important progress in 2013, this Government are focused on ensuring maximum restraint, budgetary control, value for money and transparency in EU spending. I therefore welcome the spirit of her proposals, but requiring the Government to request that the Commission or the Council of Ministers review these issues adds little to the real work that has been done and continues to be done to improve the working of the EU budget. That work began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, which cut the budget in real terms and protected the current system of financing—we should not forget that that is what this Bill is about. That work continues through the budget for results, through the Government’s continued engagement on the annual budget and through the discharge of the budget, and it will continue during the mid-term review of the MFF.

With those few, brief introductory remarks, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her proposals to a Division and I urge hon. Members to support the clauses set out in the Bill.

[Barbara Keeley]

Before we go any further, may I point out that my constituency is now called Worsley and Eccles South? The people of Eccles would rightly be very upset if we left them out of the equation; Eccles is a very important town in my constituency.

I rise to speak to the new clauses standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are dealing with a slight complexity, in that the Bill is simple but drafted in such a way as to make it complex to amend. Amendment 1 is therefore a technical paving amendment which can bring in the new clauses, so it is that amendment that we will push to a vote, if necessary.

The Bill relates to agreement of the own resources decision that will be incorporated into UK law, based on the agreement reached at the February 2013 European Council. The Minister covered that at great length over the past hour and 20 or so minutes. Decisions on UK contributions reaching €14 billion are brought into sharper focus in a week when Ministers are discussing cuts to tax credits for the low-paid and have not been prepared to rule out cuts to financial support for disabled people. We find ourselves in a serious and austere financial context, so we must ensure that we look at every aspect of value for money, budgetary control and the reform of priorities within the EU budget.

When we debated the MFF in this House in October 2012, the Government’s motion talked about agreeing that we must see

“significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and significant improvements in the value for money of spend”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 295.]

The last debate contained many examples, some of which I shall refer to, showing that we are not there yet. I am sure the Minister would agree, so what we are simply trying to do with the new clauses is find ways in which we can enhance value for money assessments, budgetary control and the reform of priorities. That is very important to many of the Members in the Committee today and to Members throughout the House.

The proposals standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends will assist greatly in ensuring that reports are made to this House on value for money and budgetary control, and on budget priorities and waste and inefficiency within the EU budget. Examples have been given in interventions that give us an understanding of the extent of concerns about this out in the country—which we explored on Second Reading—and those can only increase.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Would the hon. Lady let me know which of her hon. Friends are so supportive of her? There appears to be somewhat of a dearth of support.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I rise to assure my hon. Friend that I am supporting her very strongly today.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think the hon. Gentleman will see when we come to the vote that we do have support.

Our new clause 3 would also improve accountability and transparency by inviting EU budget representatives to appear before the European Scrutiny Committees in this House and the other place each year before the EU budgets are negotiated. I appreciate the points made by Conservative Members that of course there should be no interference with the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in this House, but what we have tried to do in these new clauses is send the strongest statement we can send and give the strongest possible support to all those in this House who want to see these important aspects of value for money and budgetary control put in place.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sure the hon. Lady would appreciate the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee functions by virtue of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Leaving aside the merits of this proposal, if there were to be a stream of requirements imposed by Parliament on the manner in which the European Scrutiny Committee, an all-party Committee containing many Labour Members, were to conduct its business, the life of the Committee would be made pretty intolerable and its purpose would probably be undermined.

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much take that point on board.

New clause 1 requests a review by the European Commission of the basis of appropriations for the European Union budget and a study of whether alternative arrangements might offer improved value and enhanced budgetary control. On Second Reading, I highlighted a concern about the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. As I pointed out in the earlier debate, that gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% in the period from 2014 to 2020. We must now seriously question whether that gap is manageable.

The Commission describes the system as follows:

“Commitments are tomorrow’s payments, and payments are yesterday’s commitments. Commitments are planned future payments whereas payments are legal obligations from the past…if every year the increase in commitments is much higher than that in payments you end up promising many partners to pay their future bills but find yourself unable to pay those bills when they arrive years later.

This is what has been happening over the last years: as many commitments were made years ago for projects that are being completed now”.

That is a key issue with the drive to smaller EU budgets, yet, as the Commission says,

“many bills related to projects remain unpaid and have to be rolled over to the following year. This leaves no choice to the Commission but to call for increases in payments.”

[John Redwood]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the need to get better value for money in a smaller budget and to bring down the commitments. Does she have some individual proposals on things that could be taken out of the EU budget for which the Government should argue?

[Barbara Keeley]

I think that we could get to that if we had the information in the review that I am calling for, but what I want first is an examination of the system. This system is a recipe to drive up budgets rather than a way to control them.

Commitments are being made at a level of up to €14 billion a year more than payments. We have had years when the commitments have been €14 billion more, and that means bills being rolled forward, or staying unpaid, which is unacceptable. It is not a sensible system, and I think that the Minister actually acknowledged that. If it is not a sensible system, we should not be going along with it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making a fair point. It has been suggested that, in real terms, we should be paying 7% less into the European Union budget by—I think—2020. Given what she has just said, is it not likely that that will not turn out to be true, and we will not see a reduction of that kind?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, that is a very real fear. If we look down the list of commitments and compare it with the payments made, we will see the level of commitments that are still to roll forward, which is a very frightening prospect. I go back to the point that I have just made. This is a system designed to drive up budgets. We support what has taken place and recognise that the House voted for it back in 2012, but unless this system changes we will be in a situation in which commitments are being made in the period up to 2020 of €960 billion, which is €52 billion more. It is a serious matter. Clearly, it is serious if the Commission is taking on budgets and then not paying bills, but it is the upward pressure on the budget process that is the great concern.

In our last debate on this Bill, the hon. Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to a range of concerns that their constituents had about EU finance, how the EU budget is spent and the need for control of the budget. That is a point to which we will keep returning.

In the debate of 15 January 2008 on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill—I have already mentioned this—the Financial Secretary, then shadow Treasury Minister, and his shadow Treasury colleagues called for a report on “all aspects of EU spending”. Clearly, both the Opposition then and the current Opposition have had concerns about this. The Minister and his colleagues called for that report in 2008. I hope that we still have time in the rest of this debate for him to repent his view that we do not need further reviews.

As I have mentioned, there were complications in the wording of the amendment in 2008. I have read through the debate. The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the shadow Treasury team at that time ran into was that the amendment called for Treasury certification that it

“considers the outcome of the review is satisfactory to the interests of the United Kingdom”.

That seemed to be the sticking point. We have avoided such complications in this Bill by tabling simpler amendments that ask for an analysis of the basis used for appropriations and the study of alternative arrangements.

The Minister has said that such a review is ongoing. Will he tell me at this point when we will see that review?

[Mr Gauke]

On the timing, we are expecting it in 2016.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will he clarify at which point in 2016? [Interruption.] No, it is just some time in 2016.

[Alex Salmond]

Will it be before or after the referendum?

[Peter Grant]

During.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister can hear the comments being made by Members from sedentary positions. Clearly, we are working through a crucial time in the run-up to the referendum, and the budgetary information, with all the decisions that have to be made, will be crucial for the people out there.

In our amendments, we have expressed the wish to have these reviews and the reports. We want to send out the message that this House is serious about scrutinising the EU budget.

At the end of our debate on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary talked about the need for scrutiny on the payment gap. She told us that the European Commission has committed to publish more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming an enhanced level of information on the EU budget, but believe that much more needs to be done on that. Does the Minister agree now—after both of us have spoken on the matter—that it is time that the EU moved away from a system in which it can make commitments of billions of euros more than it can pay, creating pressure on member states to ever-increasing budgets?

New clause 2 calls for a reform of the priorities in the EU budget, and specifically requests a review by the Council of Ministers of budget priorities and waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The Minister has mentioned reviews that are already taking place, but I do not think that he mentioned a review of priorities of the kind that our new clause invites.

On Second Reading, I raised the need for further reform of budget priorities. Labour believes that expenditure on growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that overall spending on the common agricultural policy will fall by 13%, compared with the last financial period, and that spending on research and development will increase by 4%. As welcome as that fall in agriculture spending is, we believe that the level of spending is still too high compared with spending to support growth and jobs. The Minister has responded to points made by his own side today, but he has not really got to the nub of the point.

As I said on Second Reading, agriculture accounts for only 1.6% of the European Union’s total output. If that is the case—I think that we will keep returning to this point—is it still appropriate that it accounts for 30% to 40% of the budget?

[Alex Salmond]

Is the hon. Lady saying that, in the opinion of the Labour party, agricultural support and spending are too low in Wales?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am not making that point in particular. What we are asking for in this clause is a review of budget priorities. We can see from the percentages that competitiveness for jobs and growth is the most important. I am not making specific points about specific countries. Under the new method of agricultural spending, I think that there is a great deal of flexibility for allocating the funding between countries.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend made a very strong point about the CAP. If there were no CAP, would it not be sensible for us to subsidise sections of our own agriculture according to what we think is right rather than what the European Union thinks is right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed we could. Let me go on and make a few more points about the proportion that is allocated to that very important priority of competitiveness for jobs and growth. In 2014, only around €15 billion will be spent by the EU on that budget priority compared with over €41 billion for market-related spending and direct payments for agriculture. There is no sense in a system that takes that vital priority—vital for every part of the EU—of competitiveness for jobs and growth and spends so little on it. Out of the €6.3 billion of European Union funding allocated to the UK in 2013, only 23% was spending on jobs and growth compared with 63% on agriculture. It is the balance that we are calling into account.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said on Second Reading, although the proportion of the budget for agriculture has been falling, there has been a fairly significant increase in money terms over the past eight years. As long as this balance seems wrong to people, it will be very hard for many of us to explain on the doorstep why we are spending only 23% of European Union funding in the UK on jobs and growth but 63% on agriculture. Some hon. Members might find such an explanation easier in their constituencies than others, but it is a difficult argument.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers.

[Barbara Keeley]

The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is

“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]

If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?

It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:

“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”

As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.

We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:

“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate that much of what she says in terms of generalities is understandable, and is reflected very much in European Commission documents, which I have been looking at for the last 30 years, one way and another, on the European Scrutiny Committee, but that the inherent problem is the fact that every time there is a need to argue for jobs and growth, the answer from the European Commission is to give more subsidies, more bail-outs, and more cohesion and structural funds, when actually what is needed is deregulation and to provide people with a means of increasing productivity and jobs and to deal with youth unemployment?

[Barbara Keeley]

I hesitate to say that I think we agree on this point, but I think we do. [Interruption.] All right, then: we enthusiastically agree on this point. It is very clear indeed that, particularly with youth unemployment, we have a serious problem. It is a problem throughout the EU. We must spend more on that and we must find a way of doing so. Although the Minister spoke at great length, he did not tell us at any point what the difference would be between the ongoing review in the EU and the existing commitments. We want to send a very strong message. Until the Bill is passed, it is our last chance for a considerable period to make these points strongly to the EU, and we believe that we should do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One issue that concerns me in the area that I represent is the fishing industry. There is to be a review of the common fisheries policy. One thing that could come off the back of that is our young people getting jobs in the boats, because up until now they have not been encouraged to do so. We need not just a better common fisheries policy, but encouragement and incentives for our young people to take the jobs in the local fishing boats, and thereby create employment and prosperity for them as well. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. We have focused a great deal on agricultural spending and the CAP, but I do not think any of us would say that there has been a fair deal for people in the fishing industry. Fisheries policy, in many places, has been a disaster and has caused great problems for our fishing industry. It is a shame and a pity if, as I think is the case, young people no longer believe that they can have a career in fisheries.

[Alex Salmond]

Given that many people who represent fishing constituencies would agree with the hon. Lady on that point, does she not find it passing strange that in all of the possible treaty amendments that have been listed as possibilities for the Prime Minister’s soon-to-be-considered renegotiation stance, not once have I heard from the Government Front Bench that a treaty renegotiation on the common fisheries policy is any part of the Conservative party’s priorities?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is strange, but I cannot answer for the Minister. He may want to intervene for himself now or at some later point.

I have emphasised jobs and growth, but this EU budget priority also includes policies and programmes to promote vital areas of research and innovation—infrastructure, education, training and enterprise development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has been a staunch advocate of the importance of EU funding for research and development in the UK. In 2012 he said:

“The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 292.]

It is self-evident that competitiveness for jobs and growth should be more of a priority, but also that we would benefit more if the priorities were switched to increase funding for research and innovation.

Serious consideration of reform of the EU’s spending priorities is needed if we are to use the EU budget, as the Opposition believe we should, as a mechanism to promote future jobs and growth in the UK and other member states. We can only get that change of spending priorities if we keep a focus on the balance between competing priorities and continue to drive down wasteful and inefficient spending.

Much was said on Second Reading, as I am sure the Minister recalls, about what hon. Members consider to be wasteful and inefficient spending. Some Members might cover that again today, but we have already talked about staffing costs and administration costs, and the costs of the move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Other items of waste and inefficiency can also be drawn to the Minister’s attention.

We have already discussed new clause 3, and I do not need to keep on emphasising this, but in tabling it we did not in any way want to disturb the balance between the Government and the scrutiny Committees. I hope that hon. Members accept that. However, points have been raised in previous debates on why we need that relentless scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said in the debate on the multi-annual financial framework that we need

“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on Second Reading:

“Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1389.]

That is a very poor situation that we find ourselves in.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady referred to the need for relentless scrutiny. I have a thought in my mind that maybe some people think that the European Scrutiny Committee, at least over the last five years, has indeed been relentless in its scrutiny, and that goes for all members of the Committee, which has produced many unanimous reports. Is she effectively prepared not to press her amendment because of the problem I gave about the constant stream of legislative requirements that might interfere with our status as a European Committee?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, we could do that. We would definitely want to press the other new clauses, but there was no intention to upset that balance. It has been suggested that the Minister could solve these matters by giving some kind of undertaking on the matters raised in our new clauses. We do not resile from the position that we want to send out the strongest possible message from this House that we are serious about scrutiny. The European Scrutiny Committee is of course relentless in its focus on those matters, and so too must the House be relentless. Doubtless we will have many more reports and reviews.

When in opposition, the Minister was part of the team that tabled an amendment to get a report, as I mentioned earlier. It was not agreed to at the time, but the Commission review went ahead anyway. The results of that report, which was published in 2010, were interesting. Its main finding—it was a very substantial finding—was that the current rules for the EU budget make it slow to react to unforeseen events, while too many complexities hinder its efficiency and transparency.

This is a week of tumultuous events for the European Union. The situation we find ourselves in with the EU budget, with its complexity, its slowness to react, the difficulty in balancing priorities and the fact that it does not represent the priorities that we think are important, means that it is clear to all—there is often broad agreement on this in the House, and I am sure that there will be today—that it is past the time when it needs to change.

Our remaining amendments would assist in ensuring that reports are made to the House on value for money, budgetary control and, importantly, budget priorities and waste and inefficiency. I commend them to the Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

I have already said much of what I need to say on new clause 3, which is my main concern today, so I will make only a few points. Basically, new clause 3 is inappropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee does its job relentlessly, as the shadow Minister has just indicated, so there is no need for the new clause. We can invite officials to it if we wish to, and we do on occasion, but we are perpetually scrutinising the budget and recommending matters for consideration on the Floor of the House.

Imposing on the European Scrutiny Committee legislative functions that would be monitored by other Government Departments could cause enormous difficulty by interfering with its Standing Orders functions. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee has to form a judgment on what is of political and legal importance. We can invite European Commission budget representatives to see us, and indeed we can also recommend to the Treasury Committee, for example, that it might wish to do the same, so we already have various means at our disposal.

It is not necessary for me to repeat the points that I have already made in interventions. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing not to press new clause 3 and putting that on the record, so that in future nobody else is tempted to impose on the European Scrutiny Committee, or indeed on any Select Committee, legislative requirements that might in one way or another interfere with their discretionary judgments under the Standing Orders.

[Barbara Keeley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we have no intention of doing that, but I also hope that he will agree that it is important to send out the strongest possible message that we are focusing on these matters relentlessly throughout the House, and that the European Scrutiny Committee will continue its excellent work.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning the fact that she is sitting in glorious isolation on the Opposition Front Bench, and with nobody behind her, other than my friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not known to be enthusiastic about all matters European. Perhaps the relentless scrutiny to which she refers could be improved by having a few more Labour Members here to support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a wide-ranging debate over the past two and a half hours. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was not far off the substance of the matter before us: the disagreement is over whether there should be placed in statute a requirement to write a letter.

I recognise the spirit of the proposed changes before us, and the need for us to improve the value of expenditure in the European Union, to cut down on waste and to increase transparency. We strongly support and have advocated those points.

I have to say that writing to the Commission, asking it to review the issues, will not particularly achieve the objectives we have heard set out, but the Government have taken action and continue to do so to improve EU spending. That began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, cutting the budget in real terms. It has forced the Commission to prioritise, which we very much welcome, and it has led to the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The UK is playing an active role in that process, and we continue to push the Commission to bear down on waste in its responses to the EU budget discharge process. The Government are contributing to the simplification proposals from the Commission, and the UK will continue to fight for restraint in the annual budget.

Those steps have led to concrete results: the Commission has become more transparent and has shifted more funding into pro-growth spending. We certainly make no apologies for that—although there appears to be some resistance to it in some parts of the House—and the UK’s contributions will be lower for every year in this seven-year deal period than in the final year of the last MFF deal. That is a saving of almost £8 billion over the forecast period compared with 2013-14.

[Barbara Keeley]

If the Minister is resisting the amendments, and it sounds as though he is, will he tell the Committee whether he is happy with the balance of priorities in the spending on competitiveness for jobs and growth, which was a key point that I spent time discussing? He seems to be resisting any attempt to put forward a review or report that would make it easier for the House to push for changes, so is he happy with the current balance?

[Mr Gauke]

In the 2013 negotiations, we achieved a shift towards a greater proportion of expenditure being on pro-growth measures, such as research and development, and away from other areas of expenditure that contribute less to growth. That includes the common agricultural policy. The hon. Lady says that it is a small amount. Actually, it was not; there was significant progress in terms of a reduction in the common agricultural policy, with more spending on those areas where we think there could be greater added value. That is the right direction. I again have to draw the contrast with the surrender of £2 billion a year in respect of our rebate for common agricultural policy reform that we did not see—I am afraid that that is the record of the last Labour Government with the 2005 deal. I therefore believe that we are moving in the right direction.

If the hon. Lady is asking, “Would we like to go further?”, then, yes, I very much support that view. We want to go further and see a greater emphasis on expenditure that provides better value for money for UK and EU taxpayers. That is very much what we want, but I question the idea that the letter she is calling for will make any difference, particularly when we are seeing progress with the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The working group will meet for the first time in July and there will be a major conference in September 2015. We want to continue that approach during the mid-term review, which, as I said, will occur in 2016.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister was unable to give a date. Mid-term reviews are one thing, but we are moving towards a referendum, as we all know. We are all going to have to build this case for our constituents and for the campaign out there, and we need the information sooner. The slow trundling-on of the EU Commission will not suit our need for that information in this country, in this year and the next. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency and try to explain that this is a really good deal—the split between competitiveness and growth, and the amount that is spent on research and development—when we really should be pushing for that for our economy. We need to explain that and we need the review to be done sooner. He cannot even say when it is going to be done in 2016—it may be too late.

[Mr Gauke]

The MFF will be in 2016, as I said. The reality is that trying to transfer expenditure in the way we certainly want to—and from what the hon. Lady is saying, she also wants to, although it does not seem to have support in all parts of the House—is a major task. We have made progress. If she is saying that the situation is frustrating and she would like to go faster, I am not disagreeing with her, but I am afraid that that is the way the European Union works. We have clearly made progress and I do not think it does her cause any good to downplay our progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I am glad that new clauses 1 and 2 were discussed earlier. Given the result of the vote, I urge the Minister to consider the importance of keeping EU budget spending under review. As I said earlier, the system of commitments and payments is worrying. We want a system of budgetary control, not a system that drives up the pressure for increases through unpaid bills and commitments made in years past.

I also urge the Minister to continue to focus on the need for reform of EU budget priorities, which we spent some time discussing, and, in particular, on the need to increase funding for competitiveness, jobs and growth. It is important for Ministers to be able to reshape EU budget priorities, but, following our discussions, I am not sure that they have that ability.

The Minister resisted our amendments, and resisted our requests for him to make a sensible undertaking that would have removed the necessity for a vote. His position on our amendment and new clauses suggests that he is content with the reports and reviews that are trundling along in the EU, and it does not send the strong message that could be sent about the need for enhanced scrutiny and reformed priorities. That is a pity, and I hope that the Minister will continue to reflect on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, Treasury Ministers do not discuss individual cases, but I can say that the Government are determined to ensure we have a competitive tax regime in which everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share. We have been involved in a number of crackdowns on tax avoidance, both domestically and internationally, with the OECD base erosion and profit shifting projects, and we continue to work hard on that.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Well, it seems that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) does not have a lot of confidence in the measures being laid out by Ministers. Never mind percentages: the tax gap has increased to £34 billion. The US-Swiss tax deal raised £800 million in 2013, not the forecast £3.2 billion. Despite these failings, the Minister has just mentioned the manifesto promise to raise a further £5 billion. Will he start to tell us how he will do that? He has not even brought in tougher penalties on the general anti-avoidance rule.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend has taken me in the direction of the wider issue of our EU membership. As became clear this week, the people of the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to vote on that, but this is the system that applies while we are members of the European Union. My right hon. Friend may wish to present his argument during a future debate, but what cannot be in doubt is that the Prime Minister’s achievement during the 2013 negotiations constituted a huge improvement on the record of the last Government. It protected the rebate, and it ensured, for the first time, that we were able to reduce the overall expenditure of the EU over the multi-annual financial framework period.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Before I give way to the hon. Lady, may I welcome her to her position in the shadow Front-Bench team?

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I just wonder whether he intends to mention the debate in the House and the votes, particularly by Labour Members, that gave the Prime Minister such a strong negotiating position and played an important part in strengthening his hand at that time. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that?

[Mr Gauke]

It would be a bit rich for the Labour party to claim this success as its own. We have a record of a Conservative Prime Minister who was able to protect the rebate in full as it stood, and also managed to reduce EU expenditure. That is in stark contrast to the record the previous time this process was undertaken in 2005, when part of our rebate was surrendered at significant cost, as I have already set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his welcome. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but we will table some amendments that we suggest will improve it. Of course we welcome the fact that a cut was agreed on the seven-year payment ceiling for the European Union budget. This was made clear when we debated the agreement reached at the European Council in February 2013. I remind the Minister of the point I made earlier. The House had voted for a real-terms budget cut in October 2012, which of course helped to create a strong negotiating mandate for the UK. Labour votes in that debate, combined with a Conservative amendment, helped to force a rethink. It was clear at that time that the EU budget could not have continued to rise, year on year, when national Governments were implementing such difficult and deep cuts to public spending.

We all need to work to ensure that the European Union better reflects people’s concerns and that the people who pay for our budget contribution understand and approve of this use of their money. Most people probably do not understand how the EU budget is set or, within that, how our contribution is decided. The language used to describe EU finance is of course technical—the Minister has just used some of that language in his speech. We speak of financial perspectives, own resources decisions, resource ceilings for payments and enlargement-related adjustments. Over the coming months, in the lead-up to the EU referendum, we need much greater transparency in relation to how the EU uses our funding and how the multi-annual financial frameworks and annual budgets are agreed.

An area of concern that has been raised with the Prime Minister is the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. The gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% from 2014 to 2020. When questioned on this during the 2013 statement, the Prime Minister said that the gap was “not untypical”, but we feel that it is important that the public can be reassured that this gap is actually manageable.

We believe that there must be a regular review of the level of EU budget spending and that the process of commitment and payment appropriations—and the gap between them—must be kept under review. There must also be a review of whether alternative arrangements may offer stronger budgetary control and improved transparency. It would help if the European Commission thought it was important to give more and better information on the budget and the budget process, and in language that members of the public could understand.

[John Redwood]

Is there any extra tax demand that the EU makes on us that the Labour party disagrees with?

[Barbara Keeley]

We are actually supporting the Bill—

[John Redwood]

So the answer is no.

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, indeed. I am making the point that we need to make this process clearer, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister would agree with that. It is a difficult technical process, but the people outside this place need to be able to understand it. In my view, they do not.

[John Redwood]

What do people not understand? The EU is taking £12 billion of our money, and this Bill is going to give it more.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think people do understand that. The point is that the benefits are not understood. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has his view, and other people have a different one. The process could be made clearer, and it is my contention that we will have to do that. As we put this important decision in front of people in the coming months, they will have to be able to understand this better than they do at the moment.

Interestingly, the European Commission recently sent hon. Members a document promising to tell us “How the European Union works”. We have a host of new Members with us today, and I do not know whether any of them have seen that document in among the mountain of material that has landed on them recently. It is a 40-page document, but it contains only two short paragraphs—indeed, 10 lines—about the EU budget. It does not give figures for that budget, nor does it describe how the money is spent. Yet in the months ahead, as I said, that will be a key aspect of the debate for the people of this country.

The debate in the House in February 2013 and other debates since have focused on the fact that substantial reform of priorities is still needed in the EU budget. We have had questions about the balance of agriculture spending, but the Labour party believes that growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending and other similar priorities. Spending on the common agricultural policy fell as a proportion of the budget from 55% in 1997 to 46% in 2010. We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget; it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020. The difficult reflection for people outside Parliament, however, is that with agriculture making up only 1.6% of the total output of the European Union, why does it still account for 30% to 40% of the budget? There is still much more to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying, but although the proportion of the budget commanded by agriculture is falling, in money terms over the past eight years there has been a fairly significant increase of 26%—so agriculture is still increasing in money terms.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and that is why I am making the point, with which I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, that if we want more of a focus on growth and jobs in a smaller budget, which we do in the Opposition, there have to be further cuts and changes in priorities.

In the debate on the settlement in February 2013, the modest increase in funds targeted towards growth, infrastructure, research and development, and innovation was welcomed, but we also expressed concern that the balance away from agriculture spending towards the spending on growth and jobs was not sufficient. We need constantly to remind ourselves about unemployment —24 million people are unemployed throughout the EU, including 4.8 million 15 to 24-year-olds. In the UK, of course, we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds who are looking for work. We want to see greatly increased investment in the funds targeted on growth, infrastructure, research and development, and innovation. We need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve the growth in jobs. Our missions go further than that, however, and we also need the EU to act as a guardian of rights and protections at work. The Opposition want to talk about creating jobs and to focus on the right type of jobs and on the quality and security of those jobs.

We have supported a cut in the EU budget, but we will continue to press for a reform of budget priorities. During the passage of the Bill, therefore, we will call for a fundamental review by the end of 2015 of the budget priorities and of waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. Debates in the House have included many references to outdated practices such as relocating the European Parliament to Strasbourg each month, which costs €200 million a year. There are a number of other areas where savings can be made.

In previous debates, hon. Members from both sides of the House have suggested many ways in which money could be saved and inefficiencies prevented in the European Union, ranging from cutting spending on the House of European History Museum, costing a reported £137 million, to cutting export refunds. Hon. Members repeatedly raised the need to reform the CAP—today is no exception—and a number have also mentioned the levels of salaries and benefits for EU staff, including their differential tax rate and housing allowances.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech with many good points, but does she not think it strange that we are joining a club, paying all those billions of pounds, when for 18 or 19 years the auditors have not signed off its accounts? What other institution would the Government go anywhere near if they could not get the accounts? Do we not have to start with the basics, with that problem?

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will come on to that. Within the smaller budget that we will have, if we want to have different priorities and get new things done, clearly we will have to deal with inefficiencies and find savings.

Another suggestion for where savings could be made is to reform or repatriate EU structural funds. There are different views on that in the House, but it has been mentioned, as has reforming a number of EU quangos and agencies.

I have made a short list to show the level of pressure in this House for changes to be made to the EU budget and the wider EU institutions. The question of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) showed that we are now expecting future action on the review of such matters from within the EU. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has said in the past, an effective EU budget review means having

“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

In the debate on the multi-annual financial framework in October 2012, we called for a more effective and independent EU auditor—exactly the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We would then be able to examine the different programmes and their impact on the EU economy. It is time we had that. An auditor could also improve the accountability of spending on pro-growth activities, bringing together all Commission priorities under the auspices perhaps of a single Commissioner for growth.

Those are just some of the ideas. The feeling in this House now is that it is time for action on such things. We will call for improved transparency and accountability in the EU budget process to assist in developing what we see, which is a relentless focus on EU expenditure in future.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She reminded us of a number of things. She reminded us of the first flip in Labour’s European policy, when her party chose to join a small group of Conservative Members who were concerned about EU spending, which was perhaps the foundation for Labour’s flip in policy on the EU referendum that we saw this week.

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s words about trying to look at future EU budget spending and the need for significant control of that budget and the checks on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) talked about the accounts not being signed off for two decades. For 20 years there has not been a positive statement on or assurance of the EU accounts being signed off. I have to remind the hon. Lady that in all the time that her party was in office, not once did her Government ask a question about the EU accounts not being signed off. It was only when the previous, Conservative-led Administration came to office that questions were first asked.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as the “flip” in the 31 October 2012 debate, but at the time we were referring back to a Labour position adopted on 12 January 2012 in a motion that ended with the words that we called

“on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the 2013 Budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework are reduced in real terms”..”—[Official Report, 12 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 523.]

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Excellent. If we are going back in history, I guess I should share with the hon. Lady the fact that from 1999 to 2009 I was not in this House, but in the European Parliament. I sat on the budget and budgetary control committees, watching Labour Members of Parliament and Labour Ministers at the time not particularly bothering at all about EU spending, so I am delighted with the change of heart, because there is a need for focus on this area.

I do not intend to speak for too long because I know that a number of hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches. Small though the Bill is, it is, however, important and it deserves to have a decent amount of scrutiny by the House, which I am pleased to see that it will receive. The sole purpose of the Bill is to approve and implement the EU’s own resources decision, setting into legislation how the EU budget is to be funded, including the EU rebate. That is a big deal for us, because we stick in a massive contribution to the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report gives the net contribution figures for our country to the European Union. I had a debate in the Tea Room with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who thinks that the figures are downplayed slightly, but they are the ones that I have to hand at the moment.

The net contribution for 2013-14 from Great Britain to the European Union was £10.2 billion; for 2014-15 it was £9.2 billion; and for 2015-16 it was £9.9 billion. Those are significant sums of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have the Library note. The only time we had a net receipt from the European Union, or Common Market as it was then, was in 1975.

The major problem for us has been the common agricultural policy, which has been the major drain on the EU budget and to Britain’s enormous disadvantage over that time. Mrs Thatcher’s negotiation of a rebate was based on the fact that our agriculture was very different from that of most of the rest of the European Union and we were substantial net contributors, which was seen to be unfair so we secured a rebate. That rebate is no longer as large as it should be. Nevertheless, we did secure a rebate, which arose because of the CAP.

The Prime Minister would do well to seek Britain’s withdrawal from the CAP in his negotiations. That is certainly one of my red lines in the negotiations. The common agricultural policy is not a good thing for anyone, and certainly not for Britain. Last year I went with the European Scrutiny Committee to Lithuania. Lithuania used to be self-sufficient in food. Now it is being paid not to grow things. Large swathes of the land of Lithuania are being left fallow because the farmers are being paid not to grow things under the CAP, which is nonsense.

If we were outside the CAP we could continue to subsidise our own agriculture at the same level as occurs now, saving vast sums of money for the Exchequer while subsidising our farmers at the same level; or, more sensibly, we could decide how and where we subsidise more precisely, according to our own needs and what is better for Britain. We might want to preserve Welsh hill farms which may not be so efficient but are part of our culture and our environment and it is nice to keep them going, but we would not necessarily want to give such large subsidies to very large grain farmers in East Anglia, and so on. We could target the subsidies more sensibly, according to what we in this Chamber think, rather than what is decided in Brussels.

We should also be free to buy agricultural products on world markets and not have to pay EU duties on such imports. The EU still subsidises the dumping of sugar surpluses on world markets, a nonsense which discriminates against developing and poorer countries that produce sugar. There are many nonsenses in the EU budget and, as was pointed out earlier, it has failed to be signed off by the EU auditors for more than a decade and a half—a scandal. No business could operate having been refused audit approval for 15 or 20 years. It would be illegal to do so, I suspect. I want to see the EU budget substantially reformed.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he wish to comment on the sheer difficulty of bringing about reform? In the October 2012 debate the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said that the British Government had asked the Commission to model cuts of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion in staffing costs. I know that my hon. Friend took part in the debate, but it is worth looking at the Commission’s response to our Government when they asked for that work to be done:

“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 297.]

If that is the response that we get, is it not time that we took a more robust approach?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend, who anticipates my next point: you do not go into a negotiation with the other side knowing that you will give way in the end; you go in making them think that if they do not give you something, you will walk away. Before entering this House, I spent many years working as a researcher in the trade union movement. Trade union negotiators do not go in quietly giving way to the employers. They start off with a tough stance and try to get something real out of those negotiations. We should be doing the same.

The new hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), currently the Mayor of London, has made the point that we should be prepared to say to the other side in these negotiations that if we do not get a satisfactory conclusion, we would not be resistant to the idea of leaving the EU. A strong negotiating stance is necessary to win anything at all. I think that should be our position. I have a number of other red lines, which it would be inappropriate to go through in this debate, but the budget and the many irrationalities and nonsenses within it, primarily the common agricultural policy, should be addressed in the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to respond on behalf of the Government to the debate on the European Union (Finance) Bill. I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to her position as shadow Economic Secretary.

We have had a good-humoured debate today on this important topic. I have noticed that a large number of former university professors chose to speak in the debate. I welcome the eight new Members who made their maiden speeches during the debate. As my opposite number pointed out, they have been shrewd—they know that Thursday afternoon business on a Bill that takes up all of one page and has general cross-party support is an excellent opportunity to enjoy less stricture from Madam Deputy Speaker in respect of a time limit.

We were privileged to hear a range of maiden speeches, first from the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who shocked us by revealing that he already has his bus pass. He tempted us all with the information that his vegetable garden is ambitious and painted a delightful picture of East Lothian. My grandmother, Flora Maclean Macleod Morison, was born in Dunbar in his constituency, so he will forgive me if I take an entirely different view from him of our United Kingdom, but I enjoyed his maiden speech very much none the less.

We then had the pleasure of hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who emphasised the fact that his interest in European finance was related to the fact that his wife is French. He took us on a very interesting tour of his constituency that involved Wimbledon strawberries. He also spoke of his valuable and important tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the nation is deeply grateful.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) who, I think it is fair to say, is the first person of Iranian-Irish heritage to serve in this place. She took us back to the wars of the roses. The atmosphere seemed to get quite heated on the Conservative Benches at times during the afternoon, but my hon. Friend made a very funny speech and took us on a metaphorical open-top bus tour in a Leyland bus around South Ribble. The House was alarmed to hear that she reversed into her first constituent. We would all like to hear in her subsequent contributions what happened to that constituent. I was left worrying about what happened next.

We had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who complemented the strawberries from Tonbridge and Malling with some Pimm’s from Glenrothes to add to our summer delights. We also heard from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has been not only a university professor but, I understand, a DJ. She took us around the musical highlights of Ealing Central and Acton. She clearly knows her area extremely well from having lived there for so long, and she paid a well deserved tribute to her excellent predecessors, Angie Bray and Sir George Young. I only regret that Sir George Young’s letter to her when she was 18 failed to persuade her of the virtues of voting Conservative, but a place is reserved for her, should she ever wish to cross the Floor.

We heard a remarkable speech from my hon. Friend the new Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who enchanted us with his description of some of his perhaps less successful outings on the cricket pitch. I think it fair to say that he is already one of the most famous new Members, as his name has been mentioned on numerous occasions by his constituency champion, our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). We are delighted to meet him in the flesh. He was elected as the youngest councillor in the country in 2007, which we in Malvern Hills were slightly annoyed about, as we had only the second youngest. None the less, I congratulate him on being here so early in his life and look forward to his being here for many years to come.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has a very tough act to follow. Not only has his predecessor left a lasting legacy in this nation’s politics by ensuring that we kept the pound and remained strong in our approach to a wide range of foreign policy issues, but he turned up at his advice surgeries in a Harrier jet—a tough act to follow indeed, but the new Member for Richmond (Yorks) clearly shares the oratory, wit and intelligence of his predecessor. I am sure that his speech today gave us the first inkling of the great contribution he will make.

Today, the House has also had a picture painted for us of a spa. What could be nicer on a Thursday afternoon in the House of Commons than to hear about the city of Bath and its place in European tourism? It was an enchanting picture of an historic and famous place. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) shared his pride in the fact—we all agree with him on the great news—that, after 23 years, Bath is once again a blue city. He told us about the innovative and prosperous place that he represents. He, too, will be a great champion for his area in the years to come.

A stable, prosperous society is possible only if the Government spend citizens’ money wisely. We have before us a Bill that is an eloquent rebuttal to all those who claim that we cannot get a better European settlement. Back in 2013, people said we could never do something as ambitious as cutting the EU budget—it was unheard of. But we worked with our partners, we negotiated hard and we did not give in, and that work paid off handsomely. The seven-year deal we secured represents the first ever real-terms cut to the EU budget, at the same time as protecting our hard-won rebate. That is what happens when we stand our ground, fight hard against unwelcome proposals and defend the interests of the British taxpayer. That is exactly the sort of leadership that is needed in Europe.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to ask the hon. Lady a question that is important for the next stage of the Bill. Does she think that “standing our ground” will be extended to what the Labour party has suggested and Labour Members have talked about today, which is cutting the CAP and funding for agriculture even further and spending more on growth and jobs? Does she think that that switch of priorities is possible?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady mentioned that earlier and I was going to get to that point in a moment, but yes, we do accept that expenditure on the CAP is still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget. As she will know, this settlement reduces the amount we spend on the CAP by 13%, but as the Prime Minister said at the time of the deal, reform of EU spending is a long-term project. I will say more later in my speech.

Before I reply to points made in the debate, let me remind the House what the Bill covers and what it does not cover. It relates to the mechanism by which member states finance the EU budget. The mechanism was agreed unanimously by member states in 2014, in a Council decision that fully and accurately reflects the historic deal that the Prime Minister secured. The Bill therefore gives UK approval to that Council decision, finalising the Prime Minister’s historic deal in 2013, which the Government worked hard to achieve and which received widespread praise from both Houses as delivering a good deal for taxpayers.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South made a number of points, including on the common agricultural policy and the overall enthusiasm her party now feels for reform of the European Union. We welcome that new-found enthusiasm, but I encourage her to induct into that feeling her colleagues in the European Parliament, who play a vital role every year by scrutinising the European budget. I look forward to her being able to engage with them and ensure that there is a good deal of scrutiny, and not only on the points she raised about the common agricultural policy, but on the payment gap, because clearly the Commission has committed to publishing more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. We welcome the greatly enhanced level of information on the budget but recognise that there is still a great deal more to do.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is worth saying for the record that in the latest round of CAP reforms, covering the six-year period from 2014 to 2020, Labour MEPs voted against the final outcome, because we believe that the reforms were not far-reaching enough. The Minister mentioned talking to those MEPs, but they have already voted against it.

[Harriett Baldwin]

As I said, I welcome the hon. Lady’s European colleagues’ new-found enthusiasm for rigour and reform in the European Union, and I look forward to working closely with them to ensure that happens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made an excellent speech that revealed his deep knowledge of the subject. As a former MEP who sat on the Committee that scrutinised the European budget, he has been assiduous in his scrutiny of this legislation—no doubt the Whips will have noted his enthusiasm to take part when the Bill goes to Committee. He asked a range of questions about the ESA reporting and the accuracy of the EU budget. The UK agrees that more can be done to improve compliance, including simplifying the rules that member states have to comply with to release their funds. We believe that the Prime Minister’s deal on the multi-annual financial framework shows that EU spending can be improved, but that will require a strong UK voice to be heard.