Autumn Statement

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am pleased to say that the current Member for Sedgefield probably gets a better hearing at the Treasury than the last Member for Sedgefield ever did. The formulation centre is great news for the north-east and Sedgefield, but the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point that we will have to look at. The Smith commission—and, to be fair, the Calman commission before it —recommended the devolution of air passenger duty, and we absolutely accept that recommendation. However, we will have to consider the impact, particularly on the airports in the north-east of England, which are geographically close to some of the Scottish airports. The shadow Chancellor raised the same point. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and the Labour Front-Bench team, on a cross-party basis—we worked together like that on the Smith process—to see what we can do to support airports in the north-east.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Chancellor used to receive representations that he was doing too much, too fast, but now Labour Members think he did not go quickly enough. Given their muddled and confused position, if we were to adopt a plan from these people, what would be the implication for interest rates in particular and economic policy and growth in general?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, Labour economic policy would increase unemployment, reduce GDP and potentially put Britain back into recession. We know that its feeble commitments on borrowing would allow at least £26 billion of extra borrowing every single year, and as has been demonstrated over the past hour or so, every Labour MP actually wants to spend more money and increase welfare bills. That is the real Labour party, and of course it would bankrupt the country again.

The Economy

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I have only just started my remarks. I shall come on to employment, the levels of under-employment in our economy and the changing nature of the employment market because that is crucial. It links in particular to the health of our public finances and I want to touch on some of those issues, but I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of the Chancellor’s promises made in the autumn statement of 29 November 2010, just so everybody can see the context in which we have to appraise the Chancellor’s performance.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but it is not just on the deficit that we have seen difficulties, as there is a second aspect of the Chancellor’s promises back in 2010. He promised that by this financial year, he would

“get debt falling as a percentage of GDP”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 532.]

Yet it turns out that he has failed on that, as well. In fact, he is now saying that debt is not going to start falling as a percentage of GDP until some time in the middle of the next Parliament. It is really important to pin down the Chancellor’s promises and the failure to deliver on them.

[Chris Leslie]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I said I would give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) first.

[Charlie Elphicke]

This morning, 30.8 million people went to work—a record in our country’s history. That is no mean feat after Labour’s crash. With the storm clouds gathering again in the eurozone, why would we ever want to go back to where we were four and a half short years ago?

[Chris Leslie]

When it comes to the nature of our recovery, the fact is that most people are not feeling the great benefit that the hon. Gentleman espouses. The vast majority of people—confirmed in opinion polls just last week—are reporting that, as far they are concerned, life is getting harder and their living standards are falling, not rising.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

This may even be the worst situation since the 1870s. Perhaps we should ask the House of Commons Library to go back in history, and tell us how bad things were in the 19th century.

I have set out our priorities for the autumn statement. However, we do not just need a strong economy to ensure that everyone gets a piece of the action; we need a strong and sustained economy to deliver strong and sustained public finances, which is why the autumn statement also needs a plan to balance the nation’s books in a fair way.

When will Ministers realise that the health of our economy shapes the health of our public finances? During the first seven months of this year, borrowing has been £3.7 billion higher than it was during the same period last year. Why? The Office for Budget Responsibility itself says that stagnant wages and all those low-paid jobs are keeping tax revenues down. The Chancellor has to realise that a low-wage, low-productivity economy will not deliver the goods. The OBR is predicting that growth will slow down next year, and yesterday the OECD cut its growth forecast for this year and next year.

The deficit has not been tackled effectively, and not just because of falling revenues. The Government like to sound tough on welfare inflation, but they do nothing to tackle the underlying causes of it. The Department for Work and Pensions has overspent by £25 billion since 2010. Let me give the House a few examples of where it has gone awry. It has spent £5 billion more than it planned to spend on tax credits during the current Parliament, because of the failure to tackle rising levels of low pay and insecurity. The number of working people—working people!—who are claiming housing benefit has risen by 50% since 2010 and is set to double by 2018, which will cost nearly £13 billion.

Whether the underlying issue is low pay, rising rents or the 700,000 young people who are in long-term unemployment, the Government have produced no serious, structural response. For them, tackling the deficit means little more than lopping off a fixed percentage from every departmental expenditure limit in each 12-month cycle. We need an economy that delivers higher-quality jobs, decent living standards, and robust and sustained growth, as well as tough decisions on spending and tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer caved in too easily to the lobbying of his friends who pushed him for that £3 billion a year tax cut for the top 1% who are earning over £150,000 a year. They must have been pestering him—“Give us that tax cut!”—and he did not have the will power just to say no. Instead, he piled higher VAT and cuts in tax credits on to millions of working people, because he did not mind that so much. I am afraid that a fairer plan for reducing the deficit must mean reversing the huge tax giveaway for millionaires—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

Which I know the hon. Gentleman, in his heart, recognises is deeply unpopular with his constituents. Or am I wrong?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let me point out not only that a record number of people went to work this morning, but that both long-term unemployment and worklessness rose under the Labour Government. Thanks to this Government’s welfare reforms and long-term economic plan, long-term unemployment has fallen by 99,000, and worklessness has fallen dramatically. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government’s long-term economic plan and welfare reforms have worked extremely well?

[Chris Leslie]

How disappointed the hon. Gentleman’s constituents must be to hear his comments, which contained no reflection or recognition of any of the problems that they face, including their cost of living difficulties. No, as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, everything is fine and wonderful: it is all working totally as it should be. I must tell him that he will have to face his electorate in a few months’ time, and that he will face their anger and concern about his failure to deal with the living standards that they have been experiencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The Opposition are firmly against the reforms that we have brought in on welfare. We inherited a broken welfare system; let us get that on the record and be categorically clear about it. Our reforms are about making work pay and providing opportunities through work, training and employment.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Our welfare reforms have resulted in a jobs revolution that means that it is morning again in Britain. If we look out from Dover across the channel, we see the sun rising over the white cliffs but we also see the storm clouds over Calais and the rest of the eurozone. Does the Minister agree that the biggest risk to our recovery would be a Labour Government and their crazy spending plans?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The public should be terrified of going back to the same old days of more borrowing and spending and higher taxes under Labour.

Income Tax

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman nods and says, “Quite right” from a sedentary position, but of course he is not seeking re-election and so he is brave enough to say that. I wonder whether his Liberal Democrat colleagues would also say that about the cut from 50p to 45p. I will give way if Liberal Members want to defend the way they voted on that.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised the issue of the personal allowance, and I expect the Minister will do the same. But the public out there are not going to be fooled by Government Members saying, “Just look over here at this particular change”, because they know very well by now that Tories and Liberals give a little with one hand but take away far more with the other. On the tax burden, there is a sense of people being worse off year after year, and they know the truth.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

If Labour went down the route of a 10p tax band in place of the £12,500 personal allowance that Government Members want to see, surely that would leave people on £11,000 worse off.

[Chris Leslie]

No, we believe that instead of having the married couples break, which does not actually help many married couples, it would be far fairer to introduce that 10p starting rate of tax, because it would help many, many more people. The hon. Gentleman has hit upon yet another example—perhaps this is one for an Opposition day debate on a different occasion—where the Government constantly choose the route of unfairness, limiting the help to those who need support and assistance. Labour believes that everybody should have a share in growth and prosperity, which is precisely the opposite of the trickle-down economics that we have had so far from the parties in the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that business investment is increasing. The last few quarters have been very positive on that front, and we are moving in the right direction, despite having to deal with the mess that we inherited. The truth is that in the place where a credible Opposition economic policy should be, we have an empty gesture that will do nothing for economic growth, nothing for job creation, nothing for the public finances, and nothing to help reduce taxes for working people.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my hon. Friend confirm the position on the change in receipts? It looks to me from my studies of Inland Revenue statistics, which are frequent, that the receipts from this additional rate seem to have risen from about £40 billion to £49 billion.

[Mr Gauke]

I will turn to the analysis done by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is at the heart of the debate, but there is no reason to believe that that has proven to be inaccurate, or that suddenly there is this huge stream of revenue that is available to the Exchequer that we have forgone. The truth is that there are much better ways of raising money from the wealthiest than a 50p rate that proved to be ineffective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We have already got in about £800 million, and we will get more, but that is money that we would not otherwise have received. That is a deal worth doing. It is worth pointing out that some people said that if we had not had this deal with the Swiss—which has brought in additional revenue—we would not have been able to make progress on automatic exchange of information, whereas the reality is that just last week the Chancellor signed a deal on behalf of this country that made progress on that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that under the previous Government the tax gap grew and that all the running in this Parliament on ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax and cracking down on tax dodgers has come from our side of the House, and that this Government have made the case internationally as well?

[Mr Gauke]

The tax gap as a proportion of tax receipts was higher under the previous Government than for every year under this Government. We have introduced about 40 measures to close loopholes, one of which, on disguised remuneration, let us not forget the Labour party opposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to ending child poverty by 2020. Under this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, child poverty has fallen by more than 300,000 since 2010. The best route out of poverty is work and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support that route.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on her debut at the Dispatch Box. She has referred to child poverty falling under this Government. Will she confirm that it rose under the previous Labour Government in the previous Parliament?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm remarks. He is absolutely right. It is this Government who have gone out of their way to focus on a child poverty strategy, reducing the numbers, and that is something of which we are proud.

Childcare Payments Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will move on to talk about the importance of the scheme for the self-employed and for those setting up or growing their own businesses. I am very pleased that he has raised that at this stage in the debate.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

This measure will be welcomed by my constituents in Dover and Deal who work hard but do not get paid a lot of money. How many working families with children will benefit from this important measure?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Some 1.9 million working families will have access to the scheme. Of those, 1.25 million will have qualifying child care costs and will benefit under the scheme. As I will explain, more families will benefit under this new scheme than currently benefit from employer-supported child care vouchers.

Of course, for some families there is no choice about who should look after the children, because the parent or parents have to go to work, and must therefore arrange child care. It is worth reminding Members that the research shows that this issue has had, and continues to have, a disproportionate impact on women. The Women’s Business Council, which has done an excellent job in its first year in drawing attention to the barriers women face and suggesting changes to help remove them, has frequently pointed to the way in which child care costs can have an undue impact on women’s careers. Recent survey data from the Department for Education show that more than half of mothers in the United Kingdom who are not in paid work would prefer to be in paid work if they could arrange reliable, convenient, affordable and good-quality child care.

We need to think about what is at stake, not just for the mothers whose careers are held back, and not just for the many fathers who are primary carers and experience the same problems, but for our economy. If we can equalise the labour force participation rates of men and women, the United Kingdom can further increase growth by 0.5% per year. That will be a huge change which could make a real difference to our families and our economy.

Hon. Members will know that the Government have already taken action on this matter. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds, which is available to all families, including those where a parent is not working. We have funded 15 hours a week of free child care for the 20% of two-year-olds who are most disadvantaged. From this September, we are extending that offer to about 40% of two-year-olds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I want to begin by saying that the Opposition welcome any new investment in child care and any extra support for the millions of hard-pressed people—parents and families—up and down the country who are battling to juggle their work and family lives. We are the party that, in government, set the precedent for investing in early years and supporting the families that needed help the most and, as a result, tackling disadvantage and improving the life chances of children. Of course, those are aims and priorities that all political parties now accept, thanks to the progress that was made in that area under the last Labour Government. Welcome though any support is, however, the Bill still falls far short of the mark when it comes to making up the ground that has been lost under this Conservative-led Government in regard to meeting and furthering those goals.

Since 2010, all parents have seen reduced support, fewer child care places and spiralling child care costs. We know that families up and down the country are struggling with this. Investing in early years and focusing support on those families that needed help the most are among the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government, and those principles are now universally accepted by all parties of government. Under Labour, parents benefited from a range of policies and investments that helped more parents, but particularly single mothers, into work and lifted more children out of poverty. As a result, more children were given a better start in life.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, according to the measure adopted by the previous Labour Government, child poverty actually rose under that Administration, and that it has fallen under this Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I do not accept that. It is tempting for Government Members to quibble about measures and markers, and I know that a lot of time has been spent arguing about how to measure child poverty instead of recognising the desperate increase in it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected that there will be 1 million more children in poverty by 2015 than there were in 2010. Government Members need to be careful when obsessing and arguing about those measurements while ignoring the reality, which is that hundreds of thousands more children are now living in homes that their parents cannot afford to heat, and struggling in households where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table and are using food banks.

When we look back on Labour’s record in government, we are proud of the introduction of the Sure Start local programmes and the subsequent huge expansion of Sure Start centres up and down the country. We are proud of the free part-time nursery education that we introduced for all three and four-year-olds. We are proud of the more affordable and higher-quality child care that we brought in through the employer-supported child care voucher scheme, and of the child care tax credits and the introduction of the early years curriculum. We are also proud of the increased financial support for families with children, including the introduction of tax credits and the increases in child benefit and maternity pay and grants. Those policies and changes were aimed at giving every child the best possible start in life but, perhaps more importantly, they lifted 1 million children out of relative poverty and more than 2 million children out of absolute poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do not recognise what the hon. Lady is saying. If she is saying that that is happening in her area, I would be interested to see the data to back that up. We know that 35,000 fewer child care places are available and that prices are rising. Parents out there are struggling with the cost of child care—indeed, the Government accept that it is a challenge for many households up and down the country—and I think that they would find it deeply disconcerting to hear an hon. Member suggest that prices are falling and that everything is fine. Government Members seem to be very detached from the reality that families are facing up and down the country.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how the number of childminders changed under the previous Government? Does she accept some responsibility for what amounted to a war on childminders by the Labour party?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is reading that argument from a Whip’s handout, although I know it is one that Government Members like to quote. The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, which I would trust more than I would trust the hon. Gentleman on this subject, has commented specifically on that issue, stating that that statistic has often been quoted in the past few months but it is not one that it recognises. The association does not recognise the statistics that the Government are trying to use to establish the case that Labour let the country down on child care. The reality and experience of households and families up and down the country is that Labour has a proud record of supporting families with children to get into work and with the costs associated with child care, and of ensuring there are enough child care places—certainly not the reduction of 35,000 places that we have seen since the Government took office.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to come back and dispute again what the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years says?

[Charlie Elphicke]

For clarity, I did not speak from some handout. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time, and I garnered research from the House of Commons Library which sets out the official statistics on numbers of childminders. Those numbers were massively reduced under the previous Government, which caused a lot of difficulties for families that I represent in Dover and Deal who are hard pressed and find it hard to afford more expensive child care options.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look again at his House of Commons Library note and explain in his contribution why we have seen 3,000 fewer childminder places since the Government took office. Overall, there is a worrying trend of reducing child care places and rising child care prices, and he will understand that basic economics mean that households up and down the country are struggling to deal with the cost of child care. Many households—particularly women—are making the choice to stay at home because it is simply unaffordable to go out to work.

The Minister spoke passionately about the increasing number of women in work, but she will acknowledge that there is a lot more work to do on that and we still fall behind on maternal employment in OECD comparisons. We need to make progress on that so that parents who want to work can do so and so that child care is affordable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We need reassurance from the Government that they have considered the data from experiences in other parts of the globe. Examples show that dealing only with the demand side, supporting parents with child care costs, simply increases the price of child care for families rather than bringing it down. Ultimately, that costs parents and the Government more, because they end up forking out more for a smaller number of child care places.

There seems to be a huge debate about the figures, but official figures show 35,000 fewer child care places across the country. In my region of the north-east alone, we have lost more than 5,000 places. Even the coalition’s flagship offer for two-year-olds, which is due to be extended in October, has floundered, with the child care Minister, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), admitting last November that 38,000 of the 20% most disadvantaged two-year-olds—38,000 out of 130,000—did not have the places to which they were entitled. In May 2014, she updated the House on progress, with 10% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds still without places. Perhaps most worrying of all is that there are 536 fewer Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010—an average loss of three a week. That is the figure we have, but the Minister removed the online database last autumn. Perhaps she will comment on this. I would have thought that, given her professed interest in supporting families and dealing with these issues, there would be a desire to continue to monitor the number of child care and Sure Start places available. It is alarming that we can no longer keep track of the figures on the Government website.

In addition to all that, parents have seen the Conservative Government give a £3 billion tax cut to the top 1% of earners, more than three quarters of whom are men. At the same time, parents have seen cuts of £15 billion. Support to families to balance their work and family life, such as tax credits, child benefit, maternity grant allowances and statutory maternity pay, has been reduced. The reductions to tax credits alone have meant that some families have lost up to £1,560 a year, while the House of Commons Library estimates that families with newborn children could be up to £1,725 worse off over the initial two years.

New analysis of the households below average income statistics published earlier this month shows that under this Government it is families with children who have seen the biggest falls in their income, relative to those without children. Since 2009-10, a couple with two children aged five and 14 are on average £2,132 a year worse off in real terms. In contrast, a couple with no children are £1,404 a year worse off. A single person with two children aged five and 14 is on average £1,664 worse off, compared with a single person with no children, who is £936 a year worse off. We know that everybody is worse off, but families with children in particular are bearing the brunt. These figures only reflect tax and benefit changes, and the impact of wages falling relative to prices has left working people on average £600 a year worse off since 2010.

Even more worrying is that new research published last week by the Resolution Foundation suggests that the official statistics may well have underestimated the fall in living standards, because they take no account of the wages of the self-employed. The fall in wages could be between 20% and 30% greater than originally thought. As we know, this could prove particularly relevant to women’s experiences, because according to the Office for National Statistics, women have made up more than half of the growth in the number of self-employed since 2008.

We must not forget that the true impact of this coalition Government’s failure is felt not just by parents, but by their children. The latest HBAI figures show that the progress Labour made in lifting more than 1 million children out of poverty has ground to a halt. Equally worrying, the number of children living in what is deemed to be material deprivation is on the rise, with 300,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to keep their house warm, 400,000 more children living in families that cannot afford to make savings of £10 a month, and half a million or more families unable to afford to replace broken electrical goods. Worst of all, a forecast by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates that while Ministers and, clearly, their Back Benchers squabble over how to adequately define child poverty, which seems to be a distraction from their failure to deal with it, almost 1 million more children will be living in poverty in 2020.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady challenged me on my figures. In a House of Commons Library note, taken from the Department for Education and Skills statistical volume, there were 365,000 childminder places in 1997, but by 2010 that number had fallen to 280,000. Does she recognise that that is a really poor record on child care with childminders?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have gone off the subject of child poverty, which is what we were dealing with. Going back to childminders, there was some movement in respect of the database of those registered when the Ofsted registration system came into place. If he is suggesting that he does not support Ofsted registration, I would be interested to hear more of his views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government need to reassure us over NS&I’s ability to provide this contract and to tell us whether services will be provided by Atos, especially as Atos’s delivery of universal credit and personal independence payments has been such a shambles. With just a year to go, it is important that Ministers get a grip and make some decisions. As with universal credit, any further delays in implementation will only hurt hard-pressed families who are already struggling with the cost of child care bills.

Let me turn briefly to our proposals for investing in child care which, on top of what the Government are providing today, would deliver a real difference to hard-pressed families who are struggling with the child care crunch. We have said that we will build on previous efforts and extend free child care for three and four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents. We will give parents peace of mind by setting down in law a guarantee that they can access wrap-around child care—from 8 am to 6 pm— through their local school, if and when they want it.

As with the 15-hour early years entitlement, introduced under the previous Labour Government, the new 25-hour offer would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child per year. It would not demand that working parents spend more and more of their own money on child care in order to receive some cash back from the Government, as this Bill will demand of them. Regardless of what working parents of three and four-years-olds choose to spend on child care, they will be entitled to 25 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year.

We know that having school-age children can be a logistical nightmare for many parents, and that too many of them find it increasingly difficult to find after-school and before-school child care. According to a Department for Education survey last year, 62% of parents of school-age children said that they needed some form of before-and-after school care or holiday care to combine family and work, but of these, nearly three out of 10 of them were unable to find it. That is why Labour will introduce a primary child care guarantee to benefit parents of primary age children, because that is when families most require child care support.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will not give way, as I must make progress.

In conclusion, while we welcome any extra investment in child care, the Bill does not make up for how much more families are paying for child care under this Tory-led Government, and it confirms that no help will arrive for parents facing a child care crunch for at least another 14 months. Families have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than pay. Many already spend more on their child care than on their mortgage. Parents have seen the number of child care places fall by the thousands, and, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary, too many communities have seen their local Sure Start children’s centres close.

Most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, have already said that child care costs are the biggest barriers to their either going back to work or increasing their hours. Working parents and families need help now, not in 14 months’ time. But equally importantly, Ministers need to come clean over who will benefit from this scheme and by how much, so that parents can make an informed decision about which form of support will be most appropriate for them.

We will support the Bill’s Second Reading as we welcome the additional support for families because we know how much they are struggling, but we will scrutinise every detail to get the answers to the questions that we put today, as there are many areas in which the Government are not being up front. Critically, this Bill falls far short of what is needed to make up for the last four years of spiralling costs, falling child care places and cuts to vital support for families. Parents deserve better than that, which is why the next Labour Government will extend free child care for all three and four-year-olds as well as introducing a primary child care guarantee to give parents peace of mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure it took you many minutes to work out who the next speaker would be in this balanced debate that demonstrates that it is the Conservatives who are on the side of carers and hard-working families.

Child care is an important issue for the many working families I represent. I have been talking to lots of mums and dads, nurseries and pre-schools in Norwich, and I have already had the privilege of raising in Westminster Hall and this Chamber points they made about quality and affordability of child care. Too many people are prevented from being able to earn to support their family or to fulfil their career ambitions by the high cost of child care. As we all know, even part-time nursery places can cost thousands of pounds a year—indeed, child care costs have now overtaken mortgage interest payments to become the most significant monthly outgoing for many British families.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I was wondering whether my hon. Friend has noticed the complete absence of any Back Benchers on the Labour side of the Chamber? Increasingly it seems that the Conservative party is not only the party of the workers, but the party of child care as well.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, and perhaps makes my next point for me, which is that the previous Government failed to deal with the problem of child care costs, and it is the present Government, in particular the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who are doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who is responsible for child care, has rightly said in the past that a changing economy means that parents need affordable and available child care more than ever, and a changing world means that children need a rigorous, rounded education more than ever. We have before us an opportunity to do both things at once. The context is the tax and benefit changes that came into being this financial year. The biggest reforms in a generation, they will create more jobs—indeed, they have already done so—and they are getting more people off welfare and into work. Child care follows from that, so let us see it in perspective. It is only by sticking to those kind of economic actions—a long-term economic plan, in fact—that we will build a more resilient economy and a more financially secure future for hard-working people and their families.

The cost of living cannot be seen in isolation. The British people cannot be flannelled with phony figures. There can be no economic or household security without the honesty and courage to control the public finances. Labour’s old way has failed—Labour Members would argue with that, if they were here to do so. More public spending led to more welfare bills and more government jobs that the country could not afford. They propose in this debate to use a levy they have already spent 10 times over. Why can they not afford parents the respect of some honesty? This Government, on the other hand, are backing businesses by cutting their taxes, so they can create jobs; cutting tax for individuals, so that their job pays; and controlling welfare, so that getting a job pays more. Universal credit is of course crucial and will be one of the most important reforms this Government make. By replacing working tax credit, it should help my female constituent who wrote to me last week to say:

“When I did work we were over the threshold for working tax credits by around £300 yet I would have to pay £12,000 in childcare cost to continue working.”

Let us look at some other current figures. I am drawing now on the Mumdex—the helpful piece of work that Asda does every month. The latest report shows a rise in spending power for the eighth consecutive month, leaving families £4 a month better off than last year. The main cause is a slowdown in essential item inflation, particularly food, clothes and mortgage interest payments—another sign of a sounder economy. Petrol costs fell again, which eased the pressure on household finances—indeed, under this Government, fuel duty is now more than 13p a litre lower than it would have been without our action, so that the average family saves £7 every time they fill up the tank.

Such results in family finances can only come about with control of the public finances, which has entailed serious decisions by the Government about what to spend hard-earned taxes on. Voters have serious decisions to make as well, as the Conservatives appreciate. As a previous Conservative election poster said,

“Don’t just hope for a better life. Vote for one.”

I am delighted that the Chancellor has put public money towards the tax-free child care scheme that we are discussing. It stands to ease costs for families even more, and here are five good reasons why I support it. First, it will be bigger and faster than first outlined, opening sooner and benefiting in its first year 1.9 million working families with children under 12. That is good progress already in the work that has to be done to bring the scheme forward. Secondly, it will be simple, flexible and easily accessible online. Thirdly, for the first time self-employed parents and those working for the great majority of employers who do not offer the existing employer-supported child care scheme will be able to take part.

Fourthly, the scheme will also help those working part time and on the minimum wage because of the low minimum earnings threshold of £50 a week. Fifthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, it offers more help for parents of disabled children by recognising that assistance ought to continue until the child is aged 17, rather than 12. I know from experience in my constituency how welcome that will be.

This all means that all working families where the parents earn at least £50 a week will have access to Government support for child care costs unless one of the parents earns more than £150,000 or receives support from tax credits, universal credit or ESC. All told, this gives families greater stability and more flexibility to make their own choices about their family picture. A male constituent told me:

“I’m now on £10K a year, at 39 years of age. My wife, an amazing mother, has to stay at home to look after two of our children, as we cannot afford the child care or would be worse off if my wife went to work.”

The personal allowance will rise in April next year to £10,500. My constituent then may be one of the 400 people in Norwich North who will be taken out of tax entirely by the actions of this Government. He will certainly be one of the more than 38,000 people in my constituency who will benefit from our tax changes. Universal credit will address the abhorrent benefits trap, which is reflected in the quote that I just gave. My constituent and his wife may also benefit from the scheme before us today. I welcome the targeted provision of taxpayer-funded child care for families on the lowest incomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I strike a blow for working fathers, who are also parents, in a joint working household, which is the norm in this country? Sharing the child care responsibility and engaging in that work-life balance—that juggle—is increasingly the norm. I welcome the Bill. Tax-free child care will help all working parents, including fathers like me, with child care costs so that they can go out to work and provide greater security for their families.

That matters because it is important that we help all hard-working people who go out, work hard and do the right thing. Providing 20% support for child care costs up to £10,000 is important to help to make that happen. It is a key part of our long-term economic plan. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) were here today, whereas no Labour Back Benchers whatsoever were present. That says that the Conservative party is not just the party of the workers, but the party of child care, and the party that is modern, forward-looking and concerned about the kind of future we can build for this country and the hard-working families who do so much to make this country great.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We of course expect Qatar and FIFA to ensure that the rights of all migrant workers are upheld and respected.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

5. If his Department will commission research on methods of improving mobile telephone coverage; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)]

We need to improve mobile coverage in the UK, and I have been discussing with Ofcom and the mobile network operators what more can be done. The mobile infrastructure project will extend coverage to remote and rural areas that currently have no coverage.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Many visitors from the European Union travel by ferry to my constituency of Dover and, because of international roaming, those from France get better mobile coverage than my own constituents. How can this be?

[Sajid Javid]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is true that French nationals who visit the UK get better coverage than his constituents because of international roaming. I encourage operators in the UK to go further and I am discussing the issue with mobile operators and Ofcom. No firm decisions have been taken at this point, but it is a very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The 0.1% increase in the pay gap in the past year is certainly not a sign of things going in the right direction, although it was a very small increase. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that 40 years after equal pay legislation, it is not good enough that we still have a pay gap in this country. We need to look at the causes of that pay gap, which might include time out of the workplace. The new flexible working entitlements regime that came in this week will help to change the culture of our workplace. As I mentioned, we need to look at occupational segregation. We also need to look at discrimination and outdated attitudes when women are not being paid the same for the same work. We need to change that, which is why we are working with businesses.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

What more can be done to get women to consider a wider range of careers, particularly in science and engineering?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Only 7% of engineers are women. That difference in the sectors is a significant driver of the pay gap. The problems start very early in children’s lives, so we need to look at the messages that are being put out through the education system but also more widely in the media regarding stereotypes and what young girls are encouraged to aspire to. We are encouraging parents and schools to have the information they need to assist their children.

Finance Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 10 takes us back to 2010 and the heady first few months of this Government. It takes us back to a time when the coalition, having inherited a growing economy from the Labour Government, choked that recovery off by adopting an anti-growth, short-termist, short-sighted approach to supporting business and jobs. As hon. Members will be aware, one of the Chancellor’s first moves in government was to announce in the June 2010 Budget that he was cutting Labour’s annual investment allowance. The new clause asks the Government to undertake a proper review of the impact on business investment of that terrible decision. We need to learn the lessons from that dreadful mistake.

Before we consider the new clause in more detail I want to remind hon. Members of the background to this important issue. The annual investment allowance was announced as part of the 2007 Budget by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). It was introduced as part of a package of reforms to enhance Britain’s international competitiveness, encourage investment and promote innovation and growth. The new allowance replaced first-year capital allowances and meant that from April 2008, under the Labour Government, businesses were able to offset up to 100% of expenditure on general plant and machinery in any given year against taxable profits, up to a limit of £50,000.

We recognised the value of this important allowance to companies up and down the country in supporting them to invest for the long term, and in helping them to create and safeguard jobs. That is why Labour took the decision to double it as part of a series of measures announced in the March 2010 Budget—in order to

“support start-ups and small and medium sized enterprises…to position the UK as a leading centre for research and innovation, and to ensure that the UK is equipped with skills for growth and the infrastructure it needs to be successful in a low-carbon economy.”

The March 2010 Red Book stated:

“In order to provide further cash flow support and an incentive to increase business investment, the Government will increase the threshold of the AIA to £100,000 for expenditure incurred from April 2010.”

That announcement was hugely welcome to businesses up and down the country.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady say what the allowance is today—is it £100,000 or has it gone up?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are still at 2010; we will get to the present day in due course, but the hon. Gentleman seems to miss the point somewhat. Obviously, the Conservative party would like to airbrush out the unpleasant blip in 2010, when it almost abolished the investment allowance, and all the impacts that flowed from that, which were evident from the fall in business investment. That is the point that our new clause reinforces. The decision taken at that time was terrible. I do not know what the thinking was behind it—whether it had been planned for a long time by the Conservatives while they were in opposition, or whether it was simply a case of spitefully thinking, “It’s a Labour policy, so we will reverse it”—but it had catastrophic implications. As the hon. Gentleman’s question indicates, they had to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Once again, Conservative Members, and indeed the Minister, want to brush over this inconvenient part of their so-called plan. They clearly made a bad decision in 2010. The purpose of the new clause is to show that. If the reduction in the annual investment allowance was offset by the reduction in corporation tax, as the Minister argues, why did they revisit the decision and increase the allowance again? That would not have been necessary if their only plan for supporting business up and down the country, which was to reduce corporation tax, had been successful. We supported that plan, but it was not enough on its own to offset the damaging uncertainty created by slashing the annual investment allowance from £100,000 to £25,000 in one fell swoop.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady rule out an increase in corporation tax under the next Labour Government, should one ever be elected—yes or no?

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

We are not discussing that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point: that is not what we are discussing. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will rule out slashing the annual investment allowance with no notice if the Conservatives are re-elected in 2015. Will he confirm that—yes or no?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I hate to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I am not part of the Government. It is not for me, a Back Bencher, to rule anything in or out. I am proud that the Government have set the annual investment allowance at £250,000 and have massively reduced corporation tax. That is really great for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is the first time we have heard a Government Minister confirm that this is a temporary measure. I think that reinforces the argument in the new clause, which is that we should analyse the impact of the various changes to the AIA, year on year—it has gone up, down and all around—on businesses and their investment decisions. Hopefully, that will inform any decisions on the allowance, whether by a future Conservative Government or, as is more likely, a future Labour Government.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The temporary nature of the investment allowance is clearly set out in a press release issued on 1 January 2013, and I am staggered that the hon. Lady says this is the first time she knew about it. The Labour party ought to brief itself better than that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well, it simply reinforces the impression—in fact, the reality—that the Government are perfectly well disposed to chopping and changing their policy and approach to the annual investment allowance. That is the point we are trying to make, and the point behind the new clause. The Government should stop and take a look. I have heard from businesses that they would rather have no investment allowance than have chopping and changing of the AIA, because that can be destabilising for investment decisions. They would rather have a more stable approach to policy making than that being displayed by the Government.

Returning to the history of the investment allowance, the previous Labour Government doubled it, recognising its importance to giving businesses confidence to invest for the future, and to be supported within the tax system to make such decisions. What happened after it was doubled? We know that, in his infinite wisdom, the Chancellor decided as part of his emergency Budget—or so he called it—in June 2010, to announce to great fanfare that the annual investment allowance would be cut. However, it would not just be cut. At a time when the economy was growing after the financial crisis, the Chancellor decided that the best way to secure the recovery and back British businesses and jobs was to slash the annual investment allowance to just £25,000 from April 2012, as in the Finance Act 2011. He sought to reassure us that the impact of that reduction from £100,000 to £25,000 would be limited because:

“Over 95% of businesses will continue to have all their qualifying plant and machinery expenditure fully covered by this relief.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]

In other words, the Chancellor believed in June 2010 that only 5% of firms were receiving any benefit from the annual investment allowance. HMRC’s tax information note at the time stated:

“Over 95 per cent of businesses are expected to be unaffected as any qualifying capital expenditure will be fully covered by the new level of AIA (£25,000).”

It went on to clarify that

“between 100,000 and 200,000 businesses will have annual capital expenditure of over £25,000”.

Therefore, in the Chancellor’s terms, only 5% of businesses would have been affected by his decision to slash the allowance. In anyone else’s terms, however, that is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 firms. That is a significant number of businesses that are employing—or potentially employing—a significant number of people, while also indirectly supporting employment through their supply chains. That seems to ring true of the Government’s approach because when they speak about being pro-business, they seem to forget the many businesses out there that do not fit the Tory vision of what businesses are, and it seems that those 100,000 or 200,000 firms did not feature on the Chancellor’s radar.

Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the views expressed at the time about the decision the Chancellor took. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies commented that losers from the cut

“would be those firms with capital intensive operations—with long lasting equipment and machinery—that currently benefit most from the capital allowances. While this is likely to apply to more firms in the manufacturing and transport sectors, it may also be true for some capital intensive service sector firms.”

A senior economist at the manufacturers association, the Engineering Employers Federation, said that financing cuts to corporation tax by

“cuts to investment allowances will be a heavy price to pay, especially for smaller companies. It might be a positive signal for large companies, but not for their suppliers.”

In evidence to the Treasury Committee on the June 2010 Budget, John Whiting, then tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation and now director of the Office of Tax Simplification, expressed his concern that the measure would particularly hit medium-sized firms.

The June 2010 Budget cut the annual investment allowance to £25,000 from April 2012 on the grounds that, in the Chancellor’s view, only 5% of firms would be affected. We then had two autumn statements and two Budgets, at which we put these arguments to the Government, before the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement 2012, again to great fanfare, that he would “temporarily” increase the AIA—the one he had just cut to £25,000—to £250,000 from January 2013.

What happened to business investment between the June 2010 Budget and the 2012 autumn statement that drove the Chancellor to move from feeling perfectly comfortable in slashing the annual investment allowance, because more than 95% of businesses would be unaffected, to announcing in 2012 a significant increase in the AIA to £250,000? Let us cast our minds back to what the Chancellor said when he announced that decision in autumn 2012. He said he was increasing the annual investment allowance because:

“It is a huge boost to all those who run a business and who aspire to grow, expand and create jobs.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 881.]

What exactly does that say about the Chancellor’s cavalier approach back in 2010? Surely the complete opposite—[Interruption.] I see Government Members rolling their eyes, but unfortunately they need to face the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman is rather confused. The purpose of the allowance is to enable companies to invest and to take advantage of tax support. If they are not able to take advantage of the annual investment allowance, there is no cost to the taxpayer, so why chop and change the regime and create uncertainty? Businesses need, from one year to the next, to be able to project and say, “This year we cannot afford to make an investment, but next year we can afford to invest so much in plant and machinery and we will be able to offset so much of that against tax.” The Government, however, have been chopping and changing the allowance. Companies cannot make long-term investment decisions from one year to the next without knowing exactly what their tax position will be.

The hon. Gentleman is actually making a very good argument for new clause 10 and I will be very surprised if he does not support us in the Lobby this afternoon. He speculates on companies that may or may not be able to invest and take advantage of the annual investment allowance. Our new clause asks the Government to undertake a proper review of the impact of slashing the annual investment allowance and then increasing it on a temporary basis. Many businesses have said to me—I am sure they have said it to the hon. Gentleman—that it is that uncertainty that creates the difficult environment for businesses to invest. They do not know, from one year to the next, what any tax allowance might be. We want to get to the bottom of that, so the mistakes the Chancellor made in 2010 will not be repeated.

Andrew Gotch of the Chartered Institute of Taxation commented on the increase announced at the 2012 autumn statement:

“This is a very generous increase that will be warmly welcomed by many small businesses...However, we note that it is only a temporary increase. Business would really welcome some stability in this area. In recent years, the allowance has fallen from £100,000 to £25,000. Now it will rise to £250,000 before, apparently, coming back to £25,000. Businesses like certainty above everything and the chopping and changing of the AIA has been a problem”.

Hon. Members do not need to take it from me, but from a whole range of sources who have raised this as a concern. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales welcomed the increase to the allowance, but said:

“We are less enthusiastic about the frequency of the change to this amount.”

Let me be clear, the Opposition welcomed the 2013 increase in the annual investment allowance to £250,000, but we share the very serious concerns about the extremely complex manner in which that was implemented. As hon. Members may be aware, many organisations and individual businesses raised concerns that the increase to £250,000 would run from January 2013 to January 2015, rather than over companies’ usual accounting periods, making it problematic for firms, particularly small ones, to administer. Indeed, as the Association of Taxation Technicians neatly put it at the time,

“the chopping and changing of capital allowances will lead to error, confusion and higher professional costs for small businesses.”

The Opposition also welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in Budget 2014 to extend the period of the temporary increase to 31 December 2015, with the allowance being temporarily increased again to £500,000 from April 2014. The straight fact, however, is that the Chancellor and his Government have tied themselves in knots over this vital issue. Just last year, when we considered in Committee what is now the Finance Act 2013, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), explained why the increase in the allowance to £250,000 from January 2013 would be a temporary measure only. He said:

“We recognise that the change follows quite soon after the decrease in the annual investment allowance to £25,000 that was announced in the June 2010 Budget and implemented in the Finance Act 2011, which took effect from April 2012. The Government’s central position has not changed and remains that, in general, a lower corporation tax rate with fewer reliefs and fewer allowances will provide the best incentives for business investment, with the fewest possible distortions. That is why we have announced a further reduction in the main rate of corporation tax, as we discussed earlier, from April 2015 and is also why the current 10-fold increase in the maximum annual investment allowance is time limited rather than permanent.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2013; c. 145.]

A matter of months later, at Budget 2014, the Chancellor decided to about-turn once again, and extended and temporarily increased the annual investment allowance further—before, presumably, he intended it to return to £25,000 from 1 January 2016. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation put it so well, the one thing businesses need most, particularly in challenging economic times, is certainty. They need long-term stability and predictability to give them the confidence to invest, to make plans for the future and to take on more staff. What they have got from this Government, however, is a continual chopping and changing, with U-turn after U-turn and what seems to be a complete lack of strategic thinking.

What we need to hear from the Minister today is confirmation that the Treasury and his Government have taken seriously the impact of their decisions on business confidence, investment and jobs. We need to know that they have learned from the Chancellor’s mistake back in 2010, and that they will properly review its impact to ensure that the same mistake is not made again.

What assessment has the Minister made of the number of businesses that were not able to grow after the annual investment allowance was slashed? How many jobs could have been created during the last three years of flatlining growth while we have undergone the slowest recovery for 100 years? How many households could have been better off as a consequence, but will find themselves worse off in 2015 than they were back in 2010? Let us not forget that in 2010, back when the Chancellor was slashing the annual investment allowance, he said that the economy would have grown by 9.25% by now. Instead, it has grown by just 4.6%—far slower than in the United States or Germany. Indeed, GDP growth this year is still expected to be lower than the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in 2010.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made an important speech about Labour’s approach to developing a business tax system that promotes long-term investment, supports enterprise and innovation and, most importantly, provides a stable and predictable policy framework for business, which is founded on fairness. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition set out how a future Labour Government will mend Britain’s fractured economy and develop a genuinely long-term approach to backing growth in every part of this country to ensure rising prosperity for all.

It is this long-term approach to growth and backing Britain’s business and jobs that has been so lacking from this Government, and nothing illustrates it better than their shambolic and chaotic approach to the annual investment allowance since 2010. For that reason, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to back new clause 10 this afternoon, to ensure that the Government understand the impact of the Chancellor’s dreadful decision making back in 2010, and that they do not make the same mistakes ever again.

[Charlie Elphicke]

This new clause highlights two problems relating to its proposers and their party. The first is that they are stuck in the past. They have talked about the past and completely failed to set out their case for the future and the kind of Britain they would like to create. They just want to talk about something that happened previously. This is another one of the instrumentalised nuggets of attack, policy and press strategies referred to by Labour’s head of policy.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. He seems not to have been paying attention to my final comments, which were very much about Labour’s strategy for boosting economic growth and sustaining long-term economic stability for the future. The purpose of new clause 10 is to reflect back on past mistakes, of which we believe the Government need to take account.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let us be clear what we are talking about. Labour and the hon. Lady want to spend two hours of the time available to debate this Bill talking about a period of nine months that happened nearly two years ago. In 2008, Labour introduced the annual investment allowance—an interesting point to which I shall return. It was set first at £50,000; then raised to £100,000; in April 2012, it was reduced to £25,000, which lasted nine months until January 2013, when it went up to £250,000—a far greater amount than under the legacy left by Labour.

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Let me develop my point, and I shall give way again in a few moments.

It is important and instructive that this Government have incentivised investment. What the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) did not develop during the debate is what underpins the whole issue of investment allowances and capital allowances. Why we need capital allowances takes us to the whole issue of business investment. The challenge we all face, and have done for a very long time, is the rising corporate cash balances—about £750 billion—and the desire of us all to see that money spent.

Let us look at the Government’s policy in this area. They initially announced a reduction to £25,000 from April 2012. The hon. Lady’s first argument was that that created some form of uncertainty. The traditional argument goes, “We need to give businesses time to plan ahead; otherwise, we create uncertainty.” Well, the reduction was part of the June 2010 Budget, and it was about two years after the policy was announced before it came into effect, so I do not think that the certainty argument succeeds. The Government increased the amount substantially after only a short period of time, highlighting their concern to ensure investment.

The second problem I have with the hon. Lady’s case is that it is high risk to consider a policy on setting an investment allowance or a capital allowance on its own, as the Minister argued in an intervention. It is instructive that when Labour introduced the investment allowance, they funded the initial £50,000 by reducing general capital allowances from 25% to 20%. All policies need to be seen in a package taken together; they cannot properly be considered and debated unless the other pieces in the jigsaw are taken into account.

[Stewart Hosie]

That argument is fine as far as it goes, but in the space of seven years, we went from the abolition of the industrial buildings allowance to having an annual investment allowance of £100,000, which was then reduced to £25,000 followed by the very welcome increase to £250,000 for two years—and then there was another change. Of course making that many changes in such a short period of time is going to have an impact on planning for investment. Surely the hon. Gentleman can understand that.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point, which is that under Labour there were substantial reductions and changes to capital allowances that were part of the 2008 package. As I said, the main rate of capital allowances was reduced from 25% to 20%, followed by the creation of what was effectively the old first-year allowance—initially at £50,000. A number of other changes went on in parallel, including the phased withdrawal of the industrial and agricultural buildings allowances—IBA and ABA. We need to look at all policies in context and think about what else was going on, and that includes the changes that the Government announced in the Budget of June 2010. No policy can be viewed in a vacuum.

Finance Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In relation to eurobonds, I read a report that the shadow Chancellor has suggested that there is £500 million at stake. Will the hon. Lady confirm her understanding of the costings?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will turn at length to costings of the abuse of the quoted eurobonds exemption, but it is certainly true that many of the estimates of how much it might be costing the Exchequer have placed the figure at around £500 million.

Let me start with the context and explain the thinking behind our new clause. Public concern about tax avoidance is high, and this is a problem not only for the Government but for parties across the House. The setting of tax rates, decisions about tax reliefs, and the collection of tax are among the most important functions of government. If the system is not working as well as it could be, that needs to be addressed. Over the past couple of years, there have been a number of high-profile media stories focused on the tax arrangements of particular companies and individuals, as a result of which, it is fair to say, public trust in the tax system has been eroded.

The deficit, as we know, is high and will not now be cleared by 2015, as the Government promised when they came to office in 2010. It will not, in fact, be eliminated until well into the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will take further interventions later, but I want to make some progress.

What else has been happening on this Government’s watch? The Government have raised expectations in respect of some aspects of their tax avoidance policy, but they have not been met. In particular—we have put this point to the Minister on many occasions—the Swiss deal, which was supposed to bring in £3.12 billion, a sum that would have gone some way towards making a dent in the tax gap, has in fact brought in only £818 million. I know the Minister will say that the figures were okayed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility when the costings were put in the Red Book, but that does not mean that the Minister can simply get away with it. At the end of the day, there is an unexplained and substantial difference between what was meant to happen as a result of that deal and what did in fact happen, raising questions about the substance of the deal.

Another feature of public debate as the issue of tax avoidance has shot up the public agenda relates to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If we are to close the tax gap, we need HMRC to be as effective as possible. Last year’s Public Accounts Committee report “Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes” found that HMRC did not know how much it spent on its anti-avoidance work and had not evaluated the effectiveness of its efforts. It calls for HMRC to improve its recording and monitoring of the cost of its anti-avoidance work and to set out clearly how it will evaluate its anti-avoidance strategy. This is a substantial gap in knowledge; again, it has a direct impact on the Government’s ability to tackle tax avoidance effectively and thereby close the tax gap.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is worth noting that last year tax inspectors collected a record £23.9 billion, about £4 billion of which was from criminals and tax avoiders, so HMRC has been quite effective in collecting that record amount.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as I just said, the tax gap has widened: despite those efforts, it has gone up by £1 billion or more.

The Public Accounts Committee also raised concerns about the monitoring of tax relief at HMRC and the Treasury. In 2013, there were 1,128 tax reliefs in the UK taxation system—a number that continues to grow. Tax reliefs can range from fundamental components of the tax system, such as the level of the personal allowance, to tax expenditures with more specific objectives to change behaviour, such as film tax relief. They play an important role in the tax system, but can be abused. Indeed, even in this Finance Bill the Government have had to take steps to close down the abuse of tax reliefs. It is therefore very worrying that the Public Accounts Committee has concluded:

“There is a lack of transparency and accountability for tax reliefs and no adequate system of control, following their introduction. HMRC and HM Treasury share responsibility for tax reliefs, but there is no accounting officer with responsibility for the stewardship of tax reliefs, as there would be for”

other elements of

“public spending. In 2010, HM Treasury committed to developing a framework for the introduction of new reliefs”.

However, no measures have been implemented so far.

In December 2013—this is relevant to what the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said a moment ago—there were just four full-time officers in the fugitive unit, trying to catch 124 HMRC fugitives. The Government launched a “most wanted” campaign in August 2012, but earlier this year it was found that just four fugitives had been caught since the publication of the list. Moreover, it was admitted that of the 32 “most wanted”, 11 could not be located. If the Government are to support their claim that they are succeeding in the fight against tax avoidance and evasion, they must be able to demonstrate that they will catch those who break and abuse the rules, and will prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

That may be the hon. Gentleman’s view, but I am simply pointing out that in order to fall foul of the GAAR someone has to have engaged in the most egregious form of abuse. It seems odd to me that falling foul of the GAAR will not therefore attract any additional penalty on top of the tax that is in dispute.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No, I am going to make some more progress.

Tax avoidance and how to tackle it effectively and thereby close the tax gap remains a real problem for this Government, hence our new clause. We need more action from this Government, and where they fail the next Labour Government will step in. We are pushing the Government for greater action in three specific areas. Let me take each in turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I may yet take the Minister up on it. But it would be a mistake for him to think that our proposal has been made without consulting experts who are very much engaged on the issue of eurobonds. I am confident that the information we have put out as a result of our business taxation paper, launched yesterday, is accurate and that we have considered the different legal and other ramifications of limiting the abuse of the exemption as it currently stands.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

Let us say for the sake of argument that the figure is close to the £200 million or so set out in the original HMRC consultation. I was surprised that the Minister did not think that sum would merit action. The tone of his comments to me suggested that he considered that to be a small sum and so it was not worth going ahead with the attempt to close down the abuse of the exemption. I am afraid that, as an argument, that is not something that I am prepared to buy. Why? Well, in this year’s Finance Bill Committee, we have debated and supported a measure in clause 61 on business premises renovation allowances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was talking about the overall yield. On the difference between the Government and the Opposition in relation to the technical way in which to seek to close down the exemption, the Government consultation looked at situations in which the bonds are not being actively traded. We agreed that that was not an appropriate way in which to close the exemption but, as I have said, we would explore removing the exemption where the bonds are issued to connected persons and, in doing so, we would look at mechanisms to simplify rebate claims under the double taxation treaties and consider, in consultation with industry, streamlining the withholding tax rebate process.

[Charlie Elphicke]

On these particular provisions, the hon. Lady said that she consulted experts. Will she confirm which particular experts she consulted?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I would be happy to have a long conversation with the hon. Gentleman about all the different experts, but let me just say that our experts were drawn from across the business and legal worlds. They gave advice and assisted us in thinking through many of the issues related to the abuse of the quoted eurobonds exemption. I will not take this opportunity to put that advice on the record, because I have not sought the permission of those experts to make public some of the assistance and advice that they have given to us. However, our paper is thorough on the issue of how we would seek to close down abuse of the exemption. That tells the House that we have considered these issues deeply, and have thought through all of the problems that might arise from the different attempts to close down the exemption.

I was talking about yield, and how far a potential yield should dictate the Government’s policy in deciding whether to close down an abuse of the system. I referred to the business premises renovation allowance in clause 61. The Government have taken action to close down some of the abuse associated with that allowance, but the impact on the Exchequer was, we were told, negligible. So we see the Government proactively closing down a loophole in which the Exchequer impact is expected to be minimal, but where a loophole exists that is estimated to cost the Exchequer upwards of £200 million a year, they do nothing. How can they justify their decision not to take action to prevent the abusive use of the eurobonds exemption when there are hundreds of millions of pounds at stake?

The potential complexity of the change that would be required is no justification for the failure to act. It has not stopped this Government on other measures, including on the business premises renovation allowance. There seems to be no reason—not money, complexity or anything else—that could stop the Government from acting other than intense lobbying from the affected parties seeking to protect their own interests.

The Government have failed to act, but our new clause gives them the opportunity to do so. If they do not act, the next Labour Government will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I assume that Members taking part in the Finance Bill debate are arithmetically astute, so will be able to work out as quickly as I can that, if the Minister is to have any chance of answering the many points put to him, particularly by Opposition Front Benchers, the four people wishing to speak have little more than 10 minutes left. If they take less than three minutes each, everyone will get to speak; if they take more, they will be being discourteous to each other.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I will endeavour to be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have often made the case against tax avoidance—international and national—in the House. I have often mentioned the behaviour of the water companies, which used the quoted eurobond exemption to further their strategies. Yet I cannot support the new clause, which is, in the words of the Labour party’s head of policy, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), nothing less than an “instrumentalised, cynical” nugget

“of policy to chime with…focus groups and…press strategies”.

The shadow Chancellor showed that at the weekend.

The new clause would not raise £500 million. I will be interested to hear the Minister say exactly how much it would raise, as in many cases double taxation treaties could be used. When I raised the loophole in question, my case was about the debt-equity gearing ratio—a far more effective way of looking at the issue. I would be surprised if the Labour party had consulted experts beyond its own advisers. Indeed, there was a consultation on this issue in 2012. I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe the Labour party gave a response to that consultation. It simply thought, “What wheeze can we table as a new clause to plonk out there for our press strategy as our instrumentalised policy nugget?”

The new clause is highly cynical. It has been devised purely to make a case and to say, “Yes, we are on the pitch in the tax avoidance debate.” In fact, when the Labour party was in power receipts from income tax doubled but receipts from corporation tax went up by 6%. Again, we heard cynicism in the debate today with remarks about the tax gap going up by £1 billion to £35 billion. That is because the economy is growing. In reality, the percentage has fallen from 7.1% to 7%, so the tax gap has been heading in the right direction.

The Government have done a lot to make the case on this issue and to take the battle to the tax avoiders. I support the accelerated payments regime—I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on this—because people who are subject to it know that they are engaging in a tax avoidance arrangement that is going to be under attack, and so should be prudent and keep the money to one side. If they are not doing so, they should be thinking about things rather more carefully, because they know they have entered into an arrangement that is likely to be under attack from the Revenue.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a disgrace that while millions of ordinary people suffer the privations of wage cuts, unemployment and poverty, a rich minority is avoiding and evading taxes. I am talking about corporates and billionaires. There is indeed one law for the rich and one for the poor, the poor being the great majority of wage and salary earners. They are not necessarily poor in the specific sense, but they pay their taxes—I pay PAYE myself.

The Government’s concerns about the deficit seem hypocritical given that they have failed to collect the taxes that are owed. The estimate of the amount of uncollected tax made by HMRC and the Government is of the order of £40 billion. But estimates by others—including the Public and Commercial Services Union, the trade union that represents the workers in the tax collecting industry, the TUC and Richard Murphy, a noted tax expert I have seen speak on many occasions—put the amount at £120 billion or even more.

Even if we take the £40 billion figure, if the Government collected half of it, that would be an extra £20 billion a year, equivalent to 5p on the standard rate of income tax. I suggest that that would not just bring down the deficit but would give us plenty more to spend on the health service and on decent pay rises for public servants, who have suffered so much for so long.

As for staffing in HMRC, I have spoken out about that under previous Governments as well, not just this one, because that has been a weakness for Government efforts to challenge tax avoidance and evasion for a long period. I will tell a little anecdote. In 1997, when I first came into Parliament, I went to visit my local VAT office. The people there said that if they had more staff, they could collect more taxes. In VAT from local businesses alone, every individual tax inspector collected five times their own salary. Naturally I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I got an answer back from a civil servant, not from the Chancellor, which said that the Treasury wanted to make savings by cutting staff. That is utterly irrational when staff collect many times their own salary.

As I said, with VAT from local firms the amount collected is five times a staff member’s salary. When it comes to the big corporates, extra staff collect many, many times their own salary, and we should have many more tax staff. Perhaps if HMRC did not have such difficulties with staffing, it would be able to work more accurately and would not make the mistakes that have been mentioned.

We have recently seen Vodafone, which apparently owed something like £7 billion in tax, do a cosy little deal with Dave Hartnett, the then boss of HMRC, and pay £1 billion. The rest was siphoned through Luxembourg, I think—wherever it was, large amounts of money were lost from the corporates. Interestingly, Dave Hartnett, who was a public servant and should have been committed to the public interest, retired and finished up as an adviser to corporates on tax avoidance. That is unacceptable. Civil servants should be motivated by the public service ethos and be determined to collect taxes. They should not be cosying up to the corporate world.

Finally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has pointed out, the 1,000 richest people in this country have seen their wealth double in the past five years from a quarter of a trillion pounds to half a trillion pounds. That is a staggering amount of money. Much of that must be to do with tax avoidance and tax evasion. If we were to collect just some of that, we would have no deficit and plenty more to spend on the health service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

We have seen that the savings ratio has gone up under this Government, but my hon. Friend is right. The causes of poverty are many and various, but the important point is getting people into work. The troubled families programme, which this Government have introduced and overseen, has shown that getting an adult in a workless household into work has a transformative effect, alongside steps such as increasing savings. Getting people into work is the most important thing we can do.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that child poverty, wider poverty and inequality rose in the previous Parliament and have been declining so far in this Parliament, as has the number of people who struggle to pay their food bill, according to OECD figures?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right about the figures. We remain committed to continuing the fall and to eradicating child poverty by 2020. Our draft strategy sets out how we intend to achieve that. Children are three times more likely to be in poverty if they live in a workless household, which is why work remains the best route out of poverty.