Autumn Statement

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was a splendidly pithy answer, but questions are becoming rather long. There are still nearly 50 Members seeking to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate them, but I can do so only if people can—to put it bluntly—abandon the preamble and get on with the pithy, preferably single-sentence, inquiry. I am sure that we can led in this by Caroline Lucas.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Disappointingly, this Chancellor has joined his predecessor in failing to mention the words “climate change” even just once anywhere in the statement. That is in the year that is set to be the hottest on record, when parts of the country are under floodwater. Can he justify continued handouts to the oil and gas sector when there is no assurance of support for clean energy post-2020, no reversal of the critical solar tax hike, and nothing on keeping homes warm this winter?

[Mr Speaker]

One sentence if it involved the abandonment of punctuation.

Good Parliament Report

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Good Parliament report.

“The Good Parliament” report was published in July and during my speech I will quote a couple of sections from it. The first is this:

“Parliamentary reform is too often the result of individual MPs expending significant time and political capital.”

For me, that is the key reason why this report is important.

The intention behind the report was to try to ensure that Parliament is a more representative place, so that it is more representative of society, has a better division between the genders, has a better representation across classes, so that it is not quite so middle class, male and of a certain age, and so that it has greater diversity.

Another line from the report is this:

“2018 is a timely reminder of the promise of equality in parliamentary participation and representation in the UK.”

The report comes in the run-up to 2018 and hopes to make changes in advance of both 2018 and the 2020 election. This is absolutely the perfect time for it to come out. I recognise the incredibly hard work that Professor Sarah Childs, who is in the Public Gallery today, put into it, and the good intentions that the House and Mr Speaker in particular had in commissioning it, which are hugely appreciated.

Before I talk about the report’s recommendations, I will talk a bit about who I am, why my circumstances matter and why the report is so relevant to me and people like me in Parliament. I am not from a wealthy background. Nobody in my family has a degree. I am absolutely not from that kind of traditional privileged background that people imagine politicians come from. I am not saying at all that I grew up on the breadline, but my family were certainly not affluent in any way.

I am also an MP from quite far away. My constituency is 500 miles away from here, so I am tackling geographical issues. I am not unique in that. My Scottish National party colleagues are similarly from far away places. We tackle geographical issues that London MPs, for example, cannot even imagine. It is really quite difficult to tackle them.

I am also a female MP. Women are still very much in the minority in the House of Commons and we still face— I do not want to say “discrimination”—barriers because of our gender.

I am also a relatively young MP. I was 29 when I was elected, which in House of Commons terms—we could include the House of Lords in that—is incredibly young. In House of Commons terms, 29 is still pretty young to be elected.

I am also a parent of young children. I have a three-year-old and a five-year-old. When I was elected, they were obviously even younger than that. It is unusual, particularly for female MPs, to be parents of pre-school children, because it is incredibly hard to do this job if you have them, particularly when tackling all the other issues that people like me face. I am so far from home. I also suddenly have to finance this role. Obviously we get paid, but coming into this House without having a salary beforehand and having to pay back all of the money spent during election campaigns is hard to begin with. It is not easy. I feel that there are a lot of barriers in my way. I am from the SNP. I am no big fan of Westminster. I am not about this place being wonderful, but even if Scotland gets its independence, or when Scotland gets its independence, future generations of parliamentarians should not have to face the barriers that I have had to face in becoming an MP and in being an MP.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way so early on. I commend her for what she is saying and I agree with everything she has said so far. Does she agree that one way to address one of those barriers is to consider the possibility of MPs job sharing? The report does not consider it, but a future one might. One way to keep one foot solidly in our constituency, perhaps to provide the kind of family care that she is talking about, and represent people here is job sharing.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will come to that. First, I am going to talk about some of the recommendations in the report and the reasons why they are so good. I will also talk about a few things that are not in the recommendations but that I feel would have benefits—job sharing is one of those.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I expect that the Minister also defers to his hon. Friend on the matter of knowledge of kings.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister consider the proposal put forward today by 1,000 lawyers of establishing of a royal commission or independent body to receive evidence from a wide range of groups, particularly about the risks and benefits of triggering article 50 at various times? Will he ensure that such a body will be able to report before Parliament votes?

[John Penrose]

I think that I am not being over-cynical if I wonder whether a proposal by 1,000 lawyers for a commission to deliberate at length might be a delaying tactic. The concern will be not to tie the hands of the incoming Prime Minister or her negotiating team in how we approach this matter. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) rightly pointed out, we must ensure that whatever we do and however we handle this, we aim to get the best deal possible for this country with not just other European member states, but other countries in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What fiscal steps he is taking to support the development of solar power.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

We are continuing our support for solar, keeping the small-scale feed-in tariff scheme open beyond January 2016, setting tariffs on a path to help transition the industry to a sustainable, subsidy-free future.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary for that very short answer. Given that the EU’s VAT reform action plan will give Governments discretion in applying rates of VAT, including on solar power, will he confirm categorically to solar installers in my constituency that the UK has officially and permanently dropped the proposal to hike solar VAT to 20%?

[Damian Hinds]

The reduced rate of VAT remains in place on all 11 of the categories of energy saving materials. Following the decision by the European Court, we have consulted interested parties on the issue and, given the complexities involved, we are still considering the responses.

HMRC and Google (Settlement)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The point I would make is that this is a highly complex area, but there is a need for international co-operation in it, which is why we instigated the OECD looking at this as part of the BEPS process. That process has come forward with a number of recommendations. We have already legislated for two of those recommendations. There is a third that we are specifically looking at and consulting upon in terms of interest deductibility. It is right that we bring the international tax system up to date to reflect the way multinational companies are working. This has been left for too long; we are taking action.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the Minister recognise that people’s anger is very legitimate and even more justifiable given that Google is effectively freeriding on publicly funded infrastructure, not least the £1.2 billion the Government have invested in superfast broadband, and may I urge him again to make sure these calculations are put in the public domain so people can see how the figures are arrived at?

[Mr Gauke]

We will see if the National Audit Office wishes to look at this particular area, but again I point to the fact that previously when people have made allegations about particular arrangements, it has turned out on closer inspection that that has not turned out to be true.

Small Businesses: Tax Reporting

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden]

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend. I will come on to that point shortly—

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Dowden]

If the hon. Lady will give me one moment, I will finish answering the previous intervention.

When we seek to change the taxation of small businesses, it is vital that we should do so in a way that reduces the net impact on business.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing the debate. On the burden on small businesses, does he agree that there appears to be no evidence that all small businesses or self-employed people already keep track of their affairs digitally? Will the Minister tell us what his evidence base is for asserting that any change to the requirements will not be cumbersome for them? The assumption is that they are already keeping track of things digitally, but many constituents tell me that they are not. Therefore, the change will be a burden.

[Oliver Dowden]

I will come on to such points, but full consultation on any measures is important to inform exactly the situation faced by small businesses. The Chair of the Treasury Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), has pointed out the specific problem of those without access to computers and IT altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

May I thank the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for securing the debate? I share his condolences for the family of his predecessor, who passed away today. Even though his predecessor was not a Labour Member, he certainly made a big impact on politics in his day, and that legacy will be remembered for a great deal of time.

I am the Member of Parliament for Hove, in the city of Brighton and Hove, which is one of the most entrepreneurial cities in the whole country. It also has one of the highest rates of self-employment in the country. The self-employment rate for 16 to 64-year-olds in work is 13.5%, against a national average of 10%, with 55% of those people working in construction and 36% in professional, scientific or technical trades. That shows the nature of self-employment in the south, and self-employment is often a gateway to entrepreneurialism. Many of those self-employed people will go on to set up limited companies and become creators of wealth and employment, which drives the economy in Brighton and Hove.

Statistics, however, do not cover the nature and challenges of making the move to self-employment or setting up a microbusiness. I became self-employed early in my career and then moved on to set up a limited company and a microbusiness. I co-founded a local business, which, looking back, was the most educative experience of my life. We learn a huge amount when we decide to jump in with both feet and set up a business, as an enormous breadth of understanding and skills goes into setting up an enterprise and becoming an entrepreneur.

One key thing I learned from that experience was the nature of the risk involved in becoming self-employed or running a microbusiness. When we talk about people who are self-employed or run small businesses—sometimes as their friends, but particularly as policy makers—there is often an assumption that growth is linear, and that money increases and risk diminishes each year, as they get used to growing business and to the sector they are involved in.

My experience was very different. Growth came on the back of extreme risk and extreme vulnerability, followed by a period of comfort. I then had to make a decision: should I stay in my comfort zone or take the decision to move out of it, back into extreme risk and vulnerability? The business jumped into periods of growth, with each jump and each improvement in annual figures coming on the back of a period of risk. As the business employed more people and its growth increased, the risk did not diminish; it got greater and greater, because more depended on the business’s success. I have a huge appreciation for entrepreneurs who are growing businesses, because there is no inevitability about the success of any business. It comes only on the back of extreme hard work and the ability to take risk on behalf of a business and the people who depend on it.

Few people enter self-employment or set up small businesses with all the skills they need to do so. They sometimes lack skills in sales, admin, accounting, marketing, social media and product development. No one inherently possesses all those skills—particularly accounting—when they go into business or become self-employed. It is very unlikely that all of the 55% of self-employed people in the city I live in who work in construction have all the administrative and accounting skills they need. Talk of changes to accounting and reporting can therefore be extremely intimidating to them.

Gaps in people’s skills can be not just intimidating but terrifying. While people are learning skills, or worrying about lacking them, they are not doing. They are not out there selling, building the relationships that every business and self-employed person needs or winning new business. We must be mindful of that when we heap new regulation, and changes in accounting and reporting, on people who are self-employed or run small businesses. Talk of regulatory change can be intensely worrying for those who lack accounting skills. People who are worried become risk-averse and do not have the boldness of character we need in our entrepreneurs, particularly in the small business sector.

The self-employed have a lot to worry about. One third of them will earn less than the minimum wage for two or three periods in a year. They have no statutory holiday, and the working time directive does not cover their work. All of us will have heard stories from knocking on doors and talking to constituents at community events or reading their correspondence. I was struck by one particular story when I was campaigning during the general election. I knocked on the door of a tradesman who was self-employed and always worrying about the next contract. He told me, as he held his young baby in his arms, that he had never once been on a full week’s holiday with his wife and children. Instead, his wife takes the children away for a week once a year and he goes to meet them for the weekend, because he cannot take the risk of not completing a contract. That type of experience is repeated throughout the self-employed sector and the microbusiness sector. People in those sectors make a lot of personal sacrifices in order to drive the economy, particularly in the south of England.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and he tells a strong story about the constituency of Hove, which is relevant to my constituency next door. Does he agree that the pressures on small businesses are made even worse by the fact that they often struggle to get hold of HMRC advice right now, whether on the phone or by other means, because tax offices are closing? As well as having a bigger consultation on the issue, the Government should look again at the resources going to HMRC.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. We have both been involved in local government issues and campaigned on national issues. Every moment that a self-employed person spends on the phone to the local council, HMRC or any other Government Department is a moment they are not spending getting new business, delivering new contracts and earning the money that will give them the security they need in the long term.

We know that HMRC has a lamentable record on customer service, which the Minister graciously acknowledged in answering questions in the main Chamber recently. I know that he will focus on that issue, and people such as myself and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will continue campaigning on it, because it is extremely important. In the interests of fairness, I will also carry on campaigning against my council in Brighton and Hove, which is a Labour-run council, to ensure that it offers better services for, and better contact with, its local businesses and self-employed people.

I am well aware that people who run big businesses in the city that I represent, whether American Express in Brighton, Kemptown or EDF in my constituency of Hove, have a named contact in the local authority. That contact is called the chief executive. If the chief executive of one of those big businesses wants to get the council on the phone, they call the council’s chief executive. However, the drivers of our local economy—people who run companies that employ fewer than eight people, which make up 90% of the businesses in our city—do not have a named contact in the local authority. There are no consequences if a phone is not picked up, or if a message is not returned. That symbolises how power is distributed in the wrong direction.

It would be wrong if we designed and implemented policies that put people off wanting to become self-employed. The calls that Members from all parties have made in this debate, imploring the Minister to ensure that there is a period of consultation, have been extremely well put.

Tax Credits

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right, and as far as the public are concerned Conservative Members have lost the argument. It is now time for their constituents to ensure that they support the changes that we propose, and that they hold the Government to account at the next election.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has described the use of a statutory instrument as an attempt to avoid scrutiny, and on 6 October he said:

“The Government has to balance the books, but the burden shouldn’t be on the poorest…I hope this doesn’t turn out to be our poll tax.”

Even the Bow Group, which perhaps speaks for several Conservative Members who may not be able to speak today, has said:

“Tax Credit cuts could damage Britain’s entrepreneurial economy and the Conservative Party’s claim to be the workers party”.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. In my constituency more than 4,500 families will be affected, in particular because of sky-high private sector rents. Does she agree that people will be hit particularly hard when cuts combine with the fact that Governments have not taken action to bring down rents in the private sector?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady is right, and cuts are being made without any recognition of rising rents and the cost of living that affects household budgets. We cannot make such a move without thinking about the impact on family budgets, particularly of rents.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Of course, the problem with people who say that now is a good time to borrow is that they always say it is a good time to borrow: in bad times they say we should borrow because we cannot afford not to, and in good times they say we should borrow because we can afford it. According to them, there is never a right time to stop borrowing and start saving. That is precisely the thinking that got Britain into a mess eight years ago.

This budget charter provides the discipline we need along with the flexibility we might require. It says that debt as a share of GDP should be falling every year when the economy is growing normally, but when recessions come or economic growth is very weak and below 1% the rule is suspended and the automatic stabilisers kick in. Then the Chancellor of the day will come to Parliament and present a plan to return the public finances to health and Members will either support or reject that plan. That is simple, clear, accountable, strong and flexible. It is a commitment to sound money and stability—the bedrock of economic security for working people.

The third argument we have heard today is that we do not need fiscal rules at all and that they are meaningless. Again, I disagree. I believe that democratic Governments should set out their approach to public spending. It is the public’s money, after all, and we should be held to account by them. Successful countries do set out long-term objectives and hold their Government Departments to account, rather than lurch from one year to another.

Of course, rules are meaningless if people are their own judges of the rules they set—we know that from the golden rule the Labour party set when it was in office—but we have an independent Office for Budget Responsibility and it is the impartial judge of whether we deliver what we promise.

There is an argument that because we have the OBR it can come to its own conclusion about the soundness of our fiscal policy, but that is profoundly undemocratic. Public spending should be determined by this House of Commons. That is why we are having this debate and this vote tonight. Under our system, the rules are set democratically and are independently judged, and the people can hold us to account.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

This might be clever politics, but it is staggeringly bad economics. The Chancellor is incredibly irresponsible to imply that borrowing is always bad. If we borrow to invest, we increase jobs, stabilise the economy and increase tax revenues. That is good for the economy, not bad for it.

[Mr Osborne]

That is borrowing forever. There is never—[Interruption.] When would the hon. Lady stop borrowing and run a surplus? I am happy to give way to her as the representative from the Green party. When is the moment to stop borrowing and run a surplus?

[Caroline Lucas]

The moment to stop borrowing is when we can no longer afford to pay it back—[Laughter.] We can perfectly afford to pay back our investment, which is why economists are laughing at the Chancellor—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Order! Mr Cleverly, you are convulsed by mirth. You are in an uncontrollable state. I am worried about your perilous condition, man. Calm yourself and get a grip. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) must be heard—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. The hon. Lady’s remaining contribution, which I know will be extremely brief, will be heard by the House and the clock will be stopped if she is interrupted again. We had better be very clear about that.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we are investing in jobs, that gets taxes going back into the Revenue, which is good for the economy. That is why economists are saying that the Chancellor’s silly trick is very bad economics, even if it is very clever politics to make all his friends laugh a lot. People across the country are not laughing, because he is increasing austerity and increasing the burden on the poorest.

[Mr Osborne]

Borrowing until it cannot be paid back leads to national bankruptcy. That might be a good pitch from the hon. Lady to be the next shadow Chancellor, but it is not how we should run this country’s economic policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Chancellor is deliberately misleading the public by continuing to claim that all borrowing is irresponsible. It is not. What is irresponsible is failing to borrow to invest, providing we are able to sustainably meet the cost of borrowing. That is exactly what I was saying earlier, and what seemed to cause such hilarity on the Government Benches. As long as repayments are affordable, borrowing to invest makes sense. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, nobody will be saying to homeowners that taking out a mortgage to buy a home is irresponsible, provided they can afford to meet the monthly repayment costs. It represents an investment in the future.

The Chancellor wants to deny the country the same kind of chance of security combined with planning ahead, whether it relates to investing in energy efficiency and renewables or building enough affordable homes. Fiscal surplus means taking money from the public but not spending some of it. That deprives the economy of money. Compensating for what amounts to a loss of earnings and spending power in the private sector through those unspent taxes is likely to lead to more borrowing elsewhere. In other words, focusing on the Government running a surplus simply means debt being moved somewhere else.

Even with a reduced rate of cuts to public spending in the run-up to the general election, there has already been a rapid and worrying increase in consumer borrowing. Personal unsecured debts are at an all-time high. The average UK household owes close to £9,000 in unsecured debt and this is expected to rise to £10,000 by the end of 2016. The poorest 20% are taking on more and more debt, while the top 20% have been paying it off. Already, Government policy is not just having the effect of shifting the debt burden on to householders, but is falling disproportionately on the poorest in society.

Many people might find their debt affordable now, but a 2% increase in interest rates would mean the average household having to find an extra £1,000 a year and an increase in bad debt. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that household debt will rise to a massive 180% of household income by the end of this Parliament. This is completely unsustainable and should be far more concerning to the Chancellor than affordable levels of public spending, not least because the consumer debt levels we are heading for are even higher than the previous record at the height of the debt bubble which brought the economy to its knees in 2008.

Finally, there is a certain irony in what the Chancellor is doing: clearing a space in the public finances for dealing with the outcome of the next crash, by way of making a fiscal surplus requirement that itself paves the way for future economic crises.

Finance Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Clause 45 ends the exemption from the climate change levy for renewably sourced electricity. The CCL renewables exemption was misaligned with today’s energy policy and represented an inefficient way of supporting renewable electricity generation. In the past 15 years the UK’s renewable energy policy has fundamentally changed. When the renewable electricity exemption was introduced in 2001, renewable generation made up just 2.5% of the UK’s electricity supply; it now makes up around 20%. Since the exemption was introduced, more effective policies have been put in place which support renewable electricity generation directly.

In contrast, the CCL exemption provided indirect support to renewable generators. Together, policies such as the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff will provide over £5 billion-worth of support to renewable generation in this financial year.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

How can the Minister possibly justify this measure when the Government’s own impact assessment says that as a result of this measure the UK will be producing over 1 million more tonnes of CO₂ every single year?

[Damian Hinds]

I can absolutely say how we justify this measure. As I have stated, there are now more effective and efficient direct methods of encouraging renewable generation than the CCL exemption. We have also seen a sharp decline in CCL revenue over the last Parliament. The forecasts from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility show that, without change, by 2020 virtually no CCL would have been paid on electricity at all. Removing the exemption helps maintain a price signal through the CCL for all business to use energy more efficiently. In addition, last year a third of its value went to renewable projects based overseas—projects which of course do not contribute to our climate change or international development commitments, making this a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

Clause 45 ends the existing exemption for renewable energy from the CCL. It applies to any renewable electricity generated after 31 July 2015, when it is supplied to businesses or the public sector under a renewable source contract. From 1 August we entered into a transitional period in which suppliers may claim a CCL exemption on any renewable electricity generated before that date. The Government are discussing the details of this transitional period with the affected suppliers, to determine an appropriate length for it. We intend to put the final transitional arrangements in place through legislation in the Finance Bill 2016.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister tell me what consultation he had with the solar industry in Britain before announcing the ongoing discussions that are now going to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It is a bigger rug than that. The climate change levy is only a relatively minor part of the support that was given to the industry, compared with the support given through the renewables obligation and through contracts for difference.

It is essential that we show that our measures to achieve climate change and renewables objectives provide good value for money, in order to retain long-term public support for them. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views and I urge them to give their support to the clause.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this clause, which I believe should simply have been deleted. Ministers have failed to provide a robust or even remotely convincing justification for removing the renewables exemption to the climate change levy. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Chancellor has complained that this is all very fine because the UK now has

“a long-term framework for investment in renewable energy in place”.—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 331.]

If only that were the case! The reality is becoming increasingly distant from the rhetoric, especially now, after yet another wave of destruction has been unleashed by the Treasury on sensible and popular climate and clean energy policies.

The most outrageous of those policies is the proposal to cut support for rooftop solar by up to 87%. That risks making it impossible for my constituents and many others to afford solar panels for their homes, schools or community centres. Solar power can become subsidy-free, but not if Government cuts to support are wildly disproportionate to the admittedly impressive cost reductions that the industry has managed to achieve. And then there are the 35,000 people who work in the solar industry and who are facing a very uncertain future.

Clause 45 of the Finance Bill is one of several such senseless attacks on sustainable energy and climate policies. It will have negative impacts on existing and potential renewable energy developments, some of which are already being reported to have become unfeasible and which have now been cancelled. It will also have negative impacts on the overall investment climate for everyone from small community groups to multinational businesses, all of which are looking to put their money into clean power. This is the very last thing we need, for our economy, for our jobs and for tackling climate change, and it flies in the face of public opinion. New polling this month found, yet again, overwhelming support for renewables, including onshore wind and solar, with even greater levels of support for community energy generation. Some 78% would support local projects, even within 2 miles of their home. For all those reasons and more it seems intelligent to have an incentive, so that when a business or public sector organisation purchases clean renewable power, rather than dirty polluting power, it pays less tax.

Ministers claim that the change is intended to prevent taxpayers’ money from supporting renewable electricity generated overseas, but in reality ditching the renewable energy exemption is a completely disproportionate measure, which turns a policy designed to encourage low-carbon electricity into little more than an electricity tax for businesses. If a third of benefits do go overseas, that should surely still mean that two thirds support home-grown renewable power generation and jobs here in the UK. If Ministers really want to cut out overseas generators, they should therefore modify the policy to fix the anomaly at that rate. Did anyone ever even consult industry about what level of cut to make? We have already seen by the Minister’s inability to answer my question a few moments ago that there simply was no consultation with the industry in advance. Ditching this exemption completely is, as Friends of the Earth has said, like making people pay an alcohol tax on apple juice. It harms British renewable energy businesses and undermines efforts to tackle climate change. No wonder it has received widespread condemnation, on both environmental and economic grounds.

This is all happening less than three months before the crucial climate talks in Paris. Yet at that time we will hear the spin machine in the Department of Energy and Climate Change going into overdrive, coming out with all kinds of lovely rhetoric which is completely at odds with what the Government are doing on the ground with this measure. It is yet another example of the huge gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of the policy. When it comes to avoiding dangerous climate change, the shift to clean renewable energy is key. Phasing out fossil fuels and phasing in a 100%-clean agenda has to be at the top of the agenda. Yet, once again, the UK is going in the wrong direction, with generous tax breaks and taxpayer-funded propaganda propping up the fossil fuel companies, while the knife is being stuck into our own home-grown renewable energy sector.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that this is only part of an ongoing series of issues: a lower strike price for nuclear than for renewables; the continuing unfairness with the connectivity charges, where the bulk of the renewable potential is; the pulling of support for onshore wind; the threats potentially even to the green investment bank; and the threatening of funding for future projects? This is all part of the same anti-environmental agenda.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and of course he is absolutely right; long gone are the days of hugging huskies and we are now in the days of “green crap”—even, ridiculously, when there are strong economic arguments for pursuing green policies. The idea that that is somehow against the interests of business is completely belied by the fact that so many businesses are crying out for a change in direction on the part of this Government.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Lady’s comments, which are always passionate, well made and eloquent. Does she not agree that the industry is complicit in the problems she alludes to because it has gone for the easy win of developing on agricultural and green-belt land, rather than doing the more difficult thing, which is developing on previously developed land? That is why people have been resistant in communities to solar energy projects such as those in my constituency.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are some cases where renewables are being sited in areas where there is opposition, but those are a minority. I assure him that if he thinks there is going to be much popular objection to renewables, he should just wait until his constituents and others see the impact of fracking. That is when he is going to see an awful lot more opposition to the energy choices that this Government are making.

The fact is that the renewable energy industry is a fantastic advantage to our economy. It does some brilliant things, and it does so despite Government policy, not because of it. It is now absolutely at risk of not being able to get away from the subsidies. It does not need subsidies for much longer and has always understood that there will be digression. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is suggesting that this industry is surviving only because of subsidies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The subsidies are coming down. There is digression, but it has to happen in a planned way. It is not justifiable, or even reasonable, to expect an industry to not know what kind of economic situation it is working in from one year to the next. This Government keep changing the goalposts on an almost monthly basis. The renewable energy industry and the solar industry know that digression will happen and that subsidies will be withdrawn, but it must be to a predetermined timetable. When that timetable keeps changing, it is incredibly difficult for business to adapt.

Compare that with what is happening to the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry will have subsidies for decades to come. It is already 50 years old, and yet Hinkley Point C could not even begin to be built were it not for the fact that it has massive subsidies, which are hugely bigger than anything that the renewable energy industry could ever dream of. I will not hear suggestions that the renewable energy industry is somehow greedy when it comes to subsidies; absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I am sorry for stopping her in mid-stream, especially as she was getting so passionate about the subject. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that renewable electricity and power are coming down in cost because the industry is becoming more efficient, and at the same time wish to have tax breaks and subsidies maintained. Either the industry is becoming more efficient, its costs are converging and the tax breaks are not needed or, as many of us suspect, it will always be a lame duck and will always impose higher costs on electricity consumers.

[Caroline Lucas]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had done a little bit more homework before making that point, because it is simply not the case. The point about the subsidies to the solar industry is that it has always been deemed that they would come down over time. The objection here is that they are suddenly being forced to reduce overnight at a time when the industry had been told that there was going to be a very different economic situation. Of course the costs of solar are coming down; they have been coming down in a remarkable way, and all credit to the solar industry for achieving that. But they are coming down in spite of the Government—in spite of their chopping and changing, their uncertainty and their lack of vision—and not as a result of something that they have done.

In conclusion, if the Government go ahead with applying this climate change levy to the renewable energy industry, they will strangle an industry that has so much potential for getting climate emissions down, creating jobs and bringing on a stronger and more resilient economy.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that keeping the lights on is one of the primary duties of any Government. Some of the more senior Members in this Chamber will recall the three-day week in the 1970s—I apologise for glancing over my shoulder to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—when British businesses were forced to conserve their electricity at great commercial cost and television companies could not broadcast beyond 10.30 in the evening. We have come a long way since those bad old days and we cannot and should not allow this nation to find itself in a similar situation ever again.

With that in mind, we also need to recognise that the energy industry in modern Britain cannot be taken for granted. Like any other business, energy companies make difficult decisions every day. They decide what projects to invest in, using reasonable commercial principles. It has not been fashionable in recent years to praise energy companies, but we should not forget the significant number of jobs that rely either directly or indirectly on energy companies in this country. Many Members present will be aware that in my own constituency in North Yorkshire, energy companies have played an important role in the community over many decades, employing thousands of local people and generating millions of pounds in business for local companies.

Recent events in my constituency have prompted me to participate in today’s debate. Sadly, last week the Czech owners of Eggborough power station announced that the station was set to close, shedding 240 jobs in the process. That is not only a great personal loss to my constituents but a great loss to the nation, given that Eggborough provides roughly 4% of the UK’s electricity. I remind the Committee that National Grid recently announced that the capacity margin this winter is only 1.5%, and many analysts predict it could be much lower next winter.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I have made very clear the priorities for myself and my electors. In the situation in which the country finds itself, guaranteeing keeping the lights on and having the power for industry and commerce is a fundamental objective that I take very seriously. I also take seriously the need to ease what Labour used to call “the cost-of-living crisis” to ensure that people have more money to spend for a better lifestyle, so affordable energy is crucial. Those are the priorities I set out for these policies. I think they can be achieved while ensuring that we reduce pollution, which I am very much in favour of. I wish to have sensible environmental policies, but my priorities are security of supply and powering better-paid jobs and more activity, which requires lower energy prices.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[John Redwood]

I willingly give way to the hon. Lady, who always wants to price people out of energy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He, like me, would like to see affordable energy, but given that nuclear power is one of the most unaffordable energies and that we are going to lock ourselves into extremely high prices for nuclear into times to come, will he be consistent in his position? If he does not want unaffordable energy, will he also oppose nuclear energy fees?

[John Redwood]

I have not seen all the figures on what the contract prices might entail, but I entirely agree that I want affordable energy. The advantage of nuclear energy is that it is reliable energy, and the problem with too much wind energy in the system is that it is very unreliable energy. It is therefore very expensive energy because a full range of back-up power is necessary for when the wind is not blowing. That means investing at twice the cost—investing in the wind energy and then in the back-up energy. With nuclear, only one investment needs to be made. The hon. Lady is quite right that it is crucial to get value for money if it is decided to lock into a nuclear contract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We are not in a position to be able to change the approach. My hon. Friend asks about the timing. The exemption would have cost around £40 million a month to maintain. Without our change, more than £150 million of support would have gone to overseas renewable generation in 2015-16, and that figure would have risen to £300 million by 2020-21. My hon. Friend asked why not follow the same timings as the exemptions for combined heat and power, but those are on a very different scale and the timing was in the context of the coming of the carbon price floor, which would support CHPs. As I said earlier, more efficient and effective schemes have come about to support renewables through the renewables obligation and contracts for difference.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) spoke about the particular impact of the measure in Scotland, but I can confirm that Scotland receives a high level of renewables support from the UK Government. In the first contracts for difference auctions, 11 out of the 25 contracts were awarded to Scottish projects, and 30% of the support provided by the renewables obligation is for schemes in Scotland. That support, as I have said, is much more significant than that offered by the CCL renewables exemption.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about the Government’s green credentials, a point that came up again in an intervention. I repeat that the Government take our environmental responsibilities extremely seriously and we are absolutely committed to meeting our climate change commitments, but as cost-effectively as possible. We are making good progress, with emissions down 30% since 1990, and we are on track for 30% of electricity supply to be from renewables by 2020. At the same time, we want to help consumers, keep energy bills down and keep British business competitive. It is vital that we take careful account of the costs of our policies so that we are not imposing unnecessary burdens on households and businesses, making household bills unaffordable or putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister has made the case that he wants to be able to reduce householders’ bills, so will he ring-fence the extra revenue generated by applying the climate change levy to renewables and put it into energy efficiency for some of the poorest households in this country?

[Damian Hinds]

I wish we were living in a world where money that was saved was suddenly free and available to be used to do things. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have a whole range of programmes to support our objectives to tackle climate change and we will continue to do that.

I stress again that new clause 2 is not necessary. The impact of ending the exemption from the climate change levy for renewable electricity has been published by the Government. Clause 45 will not impact the UK’s ability to meet its climate change goals, will not affect renewable generators’ long-term investment plans and will not increase household energy bills, but it will provide better value for money for UK taxpayers. I commend the clause to the House and urge the Opposition not to press new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There is no disagreement over the need for a contribution from the banking sector towards the public purse. We have concluded that the better way to make that contribution is through a corporation tax surcharge, and that is what we are introducing. There was also a particular argument in 2010 about trying to influence behaviour, but, to some extent, that has now been addressed by a new regulatory regime. I agree that there is a need for a contribution. What we have here is a new surcharge on the banking sector, which performs precisely that task.

Britain’s insurance premium tax is also well below rates in many other countries, such as Germany, so this Bill proposes an increase to 9.5%. but that applies to only one fifth of all premiums. The Government are also committed to meeting their climate change objectives in a cost-effective way. Over the next five years, the climate change levy exemption for renewable energy is due to cost £4 billion, one third of which would subsidise overseas projects that bring no benefit to the UK. This Finance Bill therefore takes urgent action to stabilise CCL revenue.

Finally, to make the tax system fairer, the Bill restricts the amount of tax relief landlords can claim on property finance costs to the basic rate of income tax. That will ensure that landlords with the largest incomes no longer receive the most generous tax treatment. We are tackling tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporates, addressing imbalances in the tax system and taking bold steps to ensure that it remains fair.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman made a point a moment ago about the removal of the climate change levy for green energy. Does he recognise that that measure, by being retrospective and incredibly disproportionate to the ends he is trying to achieve, will seriously disrupt the green energy sector? The sector is already massively concerned about that. He talks about the importance of cost-effective measures to reaching green energy outcomes. Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective energies out there, but his measures are undermining it.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that point. Removing this exemption will achieve better value for money in the Government’s support for low-carbon generation by targeting support directly at generators and preventing UK taxpayers from subsidising overseas renewable projects that bring no benefit to the UK. That was the weakness; that was the failure of the existing regime, and it is right that we address it.

I now wish to deal with productivity. As my right hon. friend the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, the rate of UK productivity has been a historical problem. It is vital to increase our productivity, because that is one of the fastest routes to creating jobs and raising the standard of living for everyone. Earlier this month, we published our productivity plan, setting out how we will tackle this long-term challenge. This Bill implements a number of measures taking this plan forward. A stable tax regime with competitive rates and strong investment incentives is essential to drive productivity forward. In the previous Parliament, the main rate of corporation tax was cut from 28% to 20% as a central part of the Government’s economic strategy. This Bill goes further, by cutting it to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020, saving businesses more than £6 billion by 2021 and giving the UK the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Our record on business rates is that we have consistently looked after the interests of small businesses: we have extended small business rate relief on numerous occasions; we have introduced the rebate for retail premises; and we have made a number of reforms to business rates to assist small businesses in particular, as well as capping increases in business rates. A review is ongoing and I am not going to make any announcement today, however nicely the hon. Gentleman asks me what its contents will be. It is ongoing and the consultation period has only relatively recently finished. We are keen to progress this and we have brought forward the timetable by which we will complete that review; we will have something by the end of the year.

Improving productivity also means prioritising investment in infrastructure. Our road network has suffered from decades of underinvestment. This Bill implements reforms to vehicle excise duty to support the creation of a roads fund. The reforms will ensure that VED still incentivises purchases of the cleanest cars, while putting revenues on a sustainable long-term footing.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I completely disagree with him, but it is not just me, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also says that this change to VED means that the take-up of low-emission vehicles will be disincentivised. How can that be a positive thing to do? He talks about productivity and in other places about the importance of air quality, but these measures, again, undermine both.

[Mr Gauke]

That is an unlikely alliance, but what I say to both the hon. Lady and the SMMT is that there is still an incentive in the first year and the evidence suggests that that is most important in influencing behaviour. There are incentives within the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is a very worrying intervention for those of us who wish to get to the airport and go back to our constituencies, and I hope it will not be followed up on later in the debate.

Another issue I want to raise is corporation tax. I welcome the reduction in the rate of corporation tax and also the allowances. This has an impact on Northern Ireland, because as the rate set centrally is reduced, the cost of devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland is reduced as well. That probably reduces Northern Ireland’s competitiveness vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom. However, as the real target of the reduction in corporation tax is our competitiveness vis-à-vis the Irish Republic, a reduction in the cost of devolution—which can affect either what money we have available in the block grant or, indeed, how far we can reduce the level of corporation tax—is welcome.

We recognise the importance of corporation tax in attracting inward investment. Even though there might be lots of capital allowances and so on, the importance of the headline rate has been shown in the Irish Republic. This is something that we in Northern Ireland wish to implement as soon as possible, although given the way that some of the parties in Northern Ireland, including the Social Democratic and Labour party, have behaved in recent times in respect of the Stormont House agreement, the prospect of devolving corporation tax, with the advantages that it might bring, is being pushed further and further down the line. I hope we will not find ourselves hitting even more problems.

The other thing I wish to raise is the whole issue of taxes on energy. The reasoned amendment talks about the removal of the exemption from the climate change levy on the onshore wind. I accept the argument that the Government have given. Given that many of the companies involved are owned abroad, the tax concession given to them was not benefitting people here in the United Kingdom. We also need to bear in mind not only that there is huge opposition to many of the renewable sources, on the grounds of aesthetics and environmental impact, but that people are becoming increasingly aware of the cost of switching from cheap fossil fuels to expensive renewable energy, in terms of fuel poverty and the impact on industry.

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the Member from the Green party gets appalled when we talk like this, but why do we even have a renewables obligation? Why is there an obligation on electricity distributors to purchase from renewable sources? If we were simply depending on market decisions, that would not be done.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. Let me just finish the argument.

The renewables obligation is an obligation because the energy is more expensive. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s own estimation is that, by 2020, the cost of paying for expensive renewable energy, more and more of which is coming on to the grid, will be about £190 per household. At the same time, we in this House complain about fuel poverty, when one of the contributors to fuel poverty is the fact that we are orientating ourselves towards more expensive electricity generation. Only last week there were complaints about Tata Steel closing down its plant.

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment.

High-energy users are increasingly finding that the United Kingdom is a place where energy is expensive—it costs jobs, it dips into people’s pockets and it causes fuel poverty. This is an issue that the Government are quite rightly addressing.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong when he talks about there being no price on carbon. We are talking about the climate change levy. That is one of the costs of carbon. There is also the cost of the European trading scheme, in which carbon is traded and carbon allowances are given, so of course there is already a cost.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not sure whether or not it is parliamentary to say that the hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish, but he is talking rubbish. The point is that far greater subsidies go to nuclear power and fossil fuel than ever go to renewables. There is currently a small amount of subsidy going to renewables to bring them to grid parity. They will be there in a year or so. Solar is already there, and it is one of the most affordable sources of energy. I think he should speak about what he knows and not about what he does not know about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have two fundamental objections to the Bill. First, it continues the Government’s cruel and counterproductive austerity agenda, which is both socially destructive and economically illiterate. Secondly, it flies in the face of the Government’s own rhetoric about the threat of climate change to our economy, society, security and wellbeing. Not only does it ignore the public interest in mitigating climate risk, but it fails to realise the economic benefits to the UK of being at the forefront of the global transition to a zero-carbon, resource-efficient, sustainable economy.

Over the past few months, hundreds of leading UK businesses—not just environmentalists—have repeatedly called on the Chancellor to prioritise green investment and climate action, warning that the UK’s green economy is at a crossroads without clear policy direction. It is astonishing that, this year of all years, when the Government say that we need a bold agreement at the climate summit in Paris, the Treasury is undermining both the UK’s reputation and, more importantly, the chances of meeting our own emission targets. It is hard to see how the Government really do think that “Do as I say, not as I do” demonstrates any real leadership.

One such backward provision in this Bill is the change to vehicle excise duty. The Government claim that

“the new VED system will be reviewed as necessary to ensure that it continues to incentivise the cleanest cars.”

Yet once again there is a gaping chasm between the spin and the substance, because while zero-emission vehicles still pay nothing—so no change there—high-polluting cars will pay far less tax than at present. Again, it is not only those concerned with air pollution and climate change who are pointing out the idiocy of this measure. Once more the Chancellor has managed to unite industry and environmentalists, with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders saying that

“the new regime will disincentivise take up of low emission vehicles. New technologies such as plug-in hybrid, the fastest growing ultra low emission vehicle segment, will not benefit from long-term VED incentive, threatening the ability of the UK and the UK automotive sector to meet ever stricter CO₂ targets.”

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways: she is either anti-austerity or she is not. The measures on VED that the Chancellor introduced in this Budget were to help low-income families who cannot afford a new car. Under the previous system, people who could afford to change their car were paying less VED than those who could not afford to do that. What does she say to the hard-working families in her constituency who will benefit from this measure?

[Caroline Lucas]

I say to the hard-working families in my constituency that I do not see why they have to choose between austerity and a greener world. We can have both if we have a bit of leadership, which this Government have been so conspicuously failing to provide. Why should only richer people be able to afford greener cars? No, we want to make greener cars the norm, because it is the poorest people who suffer from the air pollution that is caused by the cars that this Government are happy to have all over our roads. The hon. Lady’s question was wrong and misguided. I am very proud to say that I am standing up for some of the poorest people in my constituency, who should be able to have decent air quality as well as not suffering from the horrendous austerity that her Government are rolling out in front of them right now. In case the Chancellor has not noticed, air pollution in the UK is a serious public health crisis that is leading to 29,000 premature deaths every year. I would love to hear what the hon. Lady says to her constituents when they are facing that degree of air pollution and health imbalance as a result of her Government’s policies.

[Maria Caulfield]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I would love to hear it, but not that much, so I am going to continue.

Then we have the senseless proposal to tax renewable energy as if it were a fossil fuel by removing the climate change levy exemption for renewables.

[Stewart Hosie]

On the VED changes being intended to tackle the debt or the deficit, I am sure the hon. Lady will have heard the Chancellor say that the entire set of measures was fiscally neutral and has nothing to do with bringing down the deficit or the debt.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—for that well-made point.

As campaigners have pointed out, the policy on the climate change levy exemption for renewables is like making people pay an alcohol tax on apple juice. The Government claim that it is intended to prevent taxpayers’ money from benefiting renewable electricity generated overseas. In fact, it is a completely disproportionate measure that turns a policy that was designed to encourage low-carbon electricity into just an electricity tax for businesses. It is interesting that Ministers remain suspiciously silent on the shocking revelation earlier this year that the Government spend 300 times more on backing fossil fuel projects abroad than on clean energy via the export credit agency. If they are that worried about the issue, one would have expected a little more consistency from them. The scandalous public spending on fossil fuel subsidies should be cut, not support for clean, green, home-grown renewable energy.

I agree with the shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), that removing the renewables exemption from the climate change levy will undermine investor confidence in renewable energy, and that we should instead be seizing the massive opportunities for jobs and investment that moving to a low-carbon economy would provide for this country. I hope that we can work together across all parties to remove this stupendously senseless provision from the Bill altogether.

The Minister spent a long time talking about how important this Bill is for productivity. I am a great supporter of productivity, but I fail to see how, for example, plans to scrap the long-established zero-carbon homes policy will support it. Indeed, in an open letter to the Chancellor, over 200 businesses warned:

“This sudden u-turn has undermined industry confidence in government and will now curtail investment in British innovation and manufacturing”.

So much for putting our economy on a stable footing; so much for this Government’s phoney concern about energy costs. Scrapping this policy means that future homes, offices, schools and factories will be more costly to run, locking residents and building users into higher energy bills. Businesses are increasingly speaking out not against the so-called green crap, but against the tsunami of Government blue crap that is putting up energy bills, harming business and undermining climate action.

I have a few last words on the welfare aspects of the Bill. The Chancellor can crow about raising the tax threshold so that fewer people on low incomes pay tax, but although that is the right thing to do, it does nothing to change the overall impact of his Budget and of the Finance Bill. As the IFS has shown, it leaves us with a tax and benefits system that is more regressive. The biggest losers are those in the second and third poorest tenths of the population—the working poor. Under the cover of austerity, the welfare cap will make housing, in particular, unaffordable for many families. Young and disabled people have been unfairly singled out to lose benefits. Child poverty already costs Britain upwards of £29 billion, and is set to rise under plans to limit tax credits, which could leave 3 million families on average £1,000 worse off, even allowing for increases elsewhere.

According to Treasury’s own analysis, the plan to raise the inheritance tax threshold will benefit high-income and wealthy households. Given that it is one of the easiest taxes to both avoid and evade, and that the very rich often find ways to pay very little, it is clear that this whole area needs a complete rethink.

On tax dodging, I welcome the Government’s recognition that the so-called Mayfair loophole needs to be closed. Many of Brighton’s residents have written to me about this, and it is thanks to the determination and persistence of individuals and campaigners that we have got this far. Yet again, however, the Government spin machine is in overdrive and the reality does not match the rhetoric. I urge the Chancellor to address that by agreeing that carried interest counts as income and should be taxed as income.

Finally, if the Chancellor is serious about tackling tax dodging, as I hope he is, I urge him to reconsider his opposition to the Robin Hood tax and to adopt the comprehensive policies set out in the tax dodging Bill proposals, which are supported by 25 UK and international non-governmental organisations and would generate about £3.6 billion in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I can confirm that absolutely. We have not managed six in my household but we do have three, and I, like my hon. Friend, do not think there is an ideal number of children to have in a family. I do not think it is for Government to say what that should be. But what we do say is that in making decisions about starting a family and about growing their family, people in different circumstances, whether they are supporting themselves entirely through employment or with the help of benefits, should have to make the same sorts of decisions.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[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.