Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hoey and David Gauke(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hoey
I welcome new clause 7 and hope that everyone can unite in supporting it. I do not think it goes far enough, but it is a great step forward, and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on introducing it. Many people watching the debate tonight—and I hope many millions of women will be watching it—will have started to ask why we still cannot proceed on the basis of what I think everyone in the Chamber believes, which is that sanitary towels and tampons are not a luxury and we should have the right to decide the level of tax on any product in this country. The people who have listened tonight will know that whatever we say about negotiations and working with our EU partners—let us not forget it is the EU, not Europe—we will not be able to win the argument because the reality is that the European Union wants to maintain control of how we run our affairs in this country. This is the beginning of a hugely important debate on the referendum, and important issues of this kind would never be recognised by the European Union. I hope that the Prime Minister will go and at least negotiate, although I do not think he will get anywhere.
If the Minister really believes in democracy in this country, and given that our Parliament wants this tax reduction, why do we not just do it? What would the EU do if we did? I hope that every Member will support new clause 7 tonight.
Mr Gauke
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on his debut at the Opposition Dispatch Box—and what a debut it was, consisting of a speech lasting more than an hour. In the time that is available to me, I shall attempt to respond to his speech and, indeed, the many other speeches that we have heard this evening, but let me first deal with the measures that we are discussing.
New clause 9 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a comprehensive review of the inheritance tax regime within one year of a current budget surplus. Amendment 89 would remove clause 9 from the Bill, as a result of which the additional transferable nil-rate band for all individuals who leave their home to direct descendants would not be introduced. Clause 9 represents a commitment that was made in the Conservative party manifesto—a promise made to the British people—and recognises that more hard-working families face an inheritance tax bill than has been the case at any time since the introduction of the system nearly 30 years ago.
Last year, 35,000 estates had an inheritance tax liability. It has been forecast that that figure will nearly double, rising to 63,000, in 2020-21. Thousands more worry about leaving their families with inheritance tax bills when they die. The additional transferable nil-rate band will simply return the number of estates with an inheritance tax liability to 37,000 in 2020-21, broadly the same level as in 2014-15. I remind the Opposition that that level is still higher than the level in any year between 1997 and 2010. Furthermore, we have ensured that the wealthiest will make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax. It will not be possible for the largest estates to benefit from the new allowance. It will be gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million.
Those who support amendment 89 demonstrate that they do not understand those who wish to save, pay their taxes, work hard to own their own homes, and pass them on to their children and grandchildren without facing a hefty tax bill. We believe that it is right for people to be able to pass on their homes to their descendants rather than the taxman.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West expressed what sounded like concern about the fact that no properties in his constituency—or very few—would be affected. He also said that he opposed measures taken by the last Labour Government to introduce the transferable nil-rate band. I remind him that in the year in which those measures were introduced, 4.3% of estates paid inheritance tax. If we do not act, some 11% will pay it by 2019-20.
Given the comments that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, suggesting that they wish to raise more revenue from inheritance tax, I rather suspect that their desire for a review is connected with their perception of it as a potential cash cow. If I have misunderstood, I am happy to withdraw what I have said, but that seems to me to be the direction in which Opposition Members want to go.
Mr Gauke
Doing full justice to that question in the five minutes available for me and for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West would be a challenge. This has been part of the VAT regime since 1973, but on this specific area, as we have heard, time has moved on and it is right that we look again at it.
Mr Gauke
It is not just a matter of the EU law; the UK courts would ensure that we have to comply with the law, one way or the other. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would be happy to explain the position to the hon. Lady, but it would not be lawful for us to reduce that rate.
Age-related Tax Allowances
Debate between Baroness Hoey and David Gauke(11 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gauke
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the measures in the 2012 Budget, he will see that the amount raised from the wealthiest, in increased stamp duty on the most valuable properties and the cap on reliefs used by the wealthiest to reduce their income tax bills, raised far more money than the cost of reducing the 50p rate of income tax—a rate that the evidence suggested was not raising anything like the sums for which the previous Government hoped. There is a good reason why the Government in which he served for many years had a top rate of income tax of less than 50p: a top rate of 50p is not a terribly effective way of raising revenue. We must place this in the context of all the other measures that the Government are taking for pensioners. The overall tax system remains favourable to them, and there are measures that protect pensioner benefits, not least the triple lock for the increases in the basic state pension.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I, too, apologise for not being here earlier, particularly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) in his moving of the motion.
Does the Minister not agree that so many pensioners feel aggrieved about the change because having worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement they now discover that they are getting absolutely no interest on their savings? Many of them have been living on their savings interest, and now they do not even have that—and will not for the next few years, it seems, if the Bank of England’s new independent director is right. Does the Minister not understand just how angry many pensioners are? They feel they have been let down.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the difficulties faced by many of those who rely on their savings to support themselves. It is in all our interests that we have a strong and growing economy, and in the current economic climate it is right that we have low interest rates. We acknowledge that that creates difficulties, but the alternative—higher interest rates—would have significantly damaged the economy over recent years. Importantly, we have been able to bring in the triple lock, which has enabled us to increase the state pension at a faster rate than before and has included the largest-ever cash increase. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting pensioners wherever we can.
It is also worth re-emphasising that as a result of the decision to remove age-related allowances no one will pay more tax than before. Other factors, such as wage inflation and increases to the basic state pension, may, of course, affect tax liabilities, but no one will pay more tax from one year to the next because of the policy change alone. In fact, people over the age of 65 who pay no income tax at all—about half of all pensioners—are completely unaffected by the reform.
It is also worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members that, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget two years ago, the Government remain committed to exempting pensioners from national insurance contributions. There is a strong, principled case for that, because people have contributed throughout their working lives on the basis of a return, and I distinguish that argument from the one about personal allowances. I have debated this matter on a number of occasions and have never heard a strong case for those under the age of 65 having a lower personal allowance than those over that age.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Baroness Hoey and David Gauke(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that the Government had specifically given this money to local authorities. If we are now hearing that authorities—of all political persuasions, perhaps—such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) have not been paying it as they should, will the Government take that money back?
Mr Gauke
No. The funding settlement with local authorities was made on the basis that the money would be available for them to pay to low-paid public sector workers, but it is ultimately their decision.
Returning to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I understand that it is intended to help enforce the Government’s policies, and I am sure he intends to be helpful. However, we do not believe that using the tax system is the right way to address this; we do not think that will be practical. It would add complexity to the tax system, and I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment, especially as I know he will return to this subject at a later date.
Scotland Bill
Debate between Baroness Hoey and David Gauke(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I do not think it an unprecedented statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I have served on many a Committee where that has been suggested. I wait to hear how persuasive the case is, but I suspect that I will not be persuaded, and that, to some extent, the amendments may be probing. We await the arguments, and I look forward to them.
New clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has two purposes. First, it seeks to legislate for the Chancellor, within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed, to
“lay before the House a report on the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government, and the alternative ways of calculating the sums to be paid.”
Secondly, it would require that within
“six weeks of laying that report…the Chancellor…lay before the House proposals for a new…formula which would ensure that the funds allocated to the Scottish Government are no more than 5 per cent. below or above the equivalent figure for each of the other nations of the UK.”
As hon. Members know, the formula for allocating funds from the Consolidated Fund to the Scottish Government is known as the Barnett formula, and as hon. Members will recall, the Bill seeks to increase the accountability of the Scottish Parliament to its people by devolving fiscal powers from Whitehall to Holyrood, and deducting a corresponding amount from Scotland’s block grant.
The Bill does not change the level of funding for Scotland. Future decisions taken by Scottish Ministers will affect the overall funding for Scotland’s public services, because Scottish Ministers will decide whether to increase or decrease devolved taxes relative to the UK. Reforming the Barnett formula is an entirely separate issue from those we are considering in the Bill, and one that the Calman commission did not make any recommendations on. The current formula is an administrative procedure and does not appear in legislation. It is not specific to Scotland, but is a mechanism for allocating funding across all four countries of the UK, so it would not be appropriate to legislate to alter it for Scotland in isolation. The Bill would not be an appropriate place for that
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I understand why the Minister does not think that discussion of the Barnett formula is appropriate for this evening’s debate, but my constituents feel strongly about the fact that Scotland gets so much more than they do generally. What mechanism could we use to have the Barnett formula looked at?
Mr Gauke
Partly following the strictures of the hon. Member for Dundee East, I would say that I am loth, at this stage of the debate, to make strong recommendations to the House about which new clauses should be accepted and which should be withdrawn and so on. I simply want to provide the context and argue why the Barnett formula should not be addressed in the Bill. I appreciate that there is a wide range of views on this issue, and that there are strong feelings throughout the UK. I dare say that a number of those views will be expressed this evening—indeed, this debate provides an opportunity for it. At this stage, however, I just want to draw the House’s attention to some of the difficulties with trying to address the matter in the Bill. I shall turn to the substance of the debate in a moment, but that is what I am seeking to do at the moment.