Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2013

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord German

Monday 18th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments. He concentrated, as indeed I will, on the uprating of tax credits. He said little about the guardian allowance uprating, which is the only issue that gives rise to the traditional debate between RPI and CPI, which I shall certainly leave aside. Enough has been said about that to expose the Government’s use of that device to extract money from the welfare system.

The noble Lord pointed out in his introductory remarks that the measures that he described were withdrawing a total of £2.7 billion, I think it was, from the pockets of the poorest in this country. These contemptible measures represent a fundamental economic failure and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of tax credits and of the security system in our economy. He referred extensively to the idea that this was somehow fair. In particular, when addressing the issue of working tax credits he justified what is being done by referring to the personal allowance change, from which the noble Lord himself benefits; from the fuel duty change, from which the noble Lord himself benefits; and from the freezing of council tax, from which the noble Lord himself benefits.

My point relates not to the motivations of the noble Lord but to the fact that these benefits benefit everybody in the economy. The changed personal allowance benefits 24 million people, which is just about every taxpayer, including the noble Lord and me. These measures are no justification whatever for withdrawing support from those who are on the lowest incomes and who need support the most.

I was struck by the table of the decline in benefits that was attached to the Explanatory Memorandum for these measures. The basic element of tax credits is down by £45 in real terms. The second adult element is down by £25 in real terms. The lone parent element is down by £25 in real terms. For child tax credits, the family element is down by £15, the child element is down by £30 and the disabled child element is down by £30. These may seem trivial sums, but for families who are absolutely on the edge of survival they are absolutely fundamental. The £2.7 billion that the Government are extracting from this part of our community in order to attempt to reduce the deficit is a direct attack on targeted benefits that were actually associated with the poorest in our community.

The Government have also, perhaps unintentionally, weakened a fundamental aspect of the Chancellor’s economic policy. The Chancellor has referred on several occasions to the fact that his measures are designed to attack the structural deficit and not the deficit as it occurs from year to year, as it may be affected by fluctuations in economic activity. There, the Chancellor has pointed out, the effects of any decline in activity are mitigated by what are called the automatic stabilisers: the fact that benefits rise automatically as people become more impoverished and are reduced automatically as the economy grows, although the Chancellor has of course not experienced that. Now we are weakening the automatic stabilisers.

Have the Government calculated the effect on the overall multiplier consequences on government expenditure of the weakening of social security payments that we have before us? Can the noble Lord tell us what the overall impact will be of this reduction in spending for the poor on the level of activity in the economy, now that we know, by virtue of the IMF, that the multiplier consequences of reducing government expenditure are much higher than was contained in either the Treasury’s or the OBR’s calculations? Can he tell us the impact of this on the overall level of activity and the consequential impact on the increase in the deficit that these spending changes will bring about? It is a trivial economic error to look at first-round effects and not to look at subsequent consequences on levels of activity and revenue.

We have before us the first step in a steady attack on the welfare system, which is to be progressed year after year over the next three or four years. I find it a dispiriting image of our country that we are prepared to do this in the most dire economic circumstances, attacking those who are the weakest while simultaneously, from this April, reducing the top rate of tax for those with the highest levels of income, over £150,000, from 50% to 45%. The noble Lord referred to this group, telling us that the top 20% are contributing a major share of tax revenue to the reduction in the deficit. Does he not realise that, arithmetically, that arises because they are so darn rich compared with everybody else?

The distribution of income in this country has deteriorated and become so skewed that the higher tax revenues contributed by those on higher incomes are a direct function of the extraordinarily high pre-tax incomes observed in the top portions of our society. The Minister’s references to the proportion of revenues now being derived from the purchase of £3 million houses, or from the impact on £1.25 million pension pots, will seem like a Hollywood fantasy to the people with whom we are dealing in these measures.

Will the Minister also confirm that the reduction in real incomes of the lowest two deciles in the economy is greater in proportion than that of the top decile, once one takes out the tax increase introduced by Alistair Darling, which the Government always put into their calculations in order to produce the spurious argument that the top decile has contributed most? Once one strips out the measures taken by the previous Labour Government in the March 2010 Budget, the proportionately larger contribution of the top decile disappears.

These measures directly attack the weakest members of our society and reduce the overall welfare budget at a time when it is needed more than anything else. It is not only inequitable but economically illiterate, because it reduces the transfer of funds to that section of society that provides the overwhelming economic benefit of spending every penny it gets, thereby helping to sustain activity in the overall economy. These are vicious measures from an economically illiterate Government.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I had hoped that we would not have a second round of our debate in the Chamber about the welfare uprating Bill, but clearly we have just had it. It slightly disappoints me because we will be re-rehearsing similar arguments. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I support interventions that help people in their lives. I support very much the pupil premium, and investing heavily in helping young people, particularly young children, to find a better way of life. I also support the uprating and raising of tax thresholds, because we can raise the bottom tax threshold and adjust other tax thresholds in a different direction.

I note also, by way of a second round in this debate, that I heard no answer to the question about savings, except the £100 million according to the OBR, which was the only example that we heard of another way of saving money. In order to get this concretely in my mind, I would be grateful if my noble friend would say, for the year 2013-14, what the savings will be from the freezing of tax credits and from the elements that are before us in these regulations when they are added together. We can then compare them with the £100 million offer that we have just heard.

I have two further small questions. First, the Government are obliged under the Tax Credits Act 2002 to review the level of tax credit payments. They have done so for 2013-14, but while the review may have been made public it is not very easy to find. Perhaps my noble friend would either point me in the direction of the report or send me a link so that I can have a close look at it. I should add something in response to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talked just now about the freezing of council tax benefits. I live in a Labour-run authority and my council tax has gone up. It does not benefit me at all. It is also managed by a Labour-run administration.

The second part of my question relates to the guardian’s allowance. I can understand why it has been excluded, given that the majority of people who are guardians will tend to be of an older age. I wonder whether that is the only logic or whether there is another logic behind uprating fully by CPI. I welcome the move, but I just want to understand why it has been taken.

Loss of Tax Credits Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Eatwell and Lord German

Monday 18th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. Broadly, from this side of the Committee, we support them wholeheartedly. However, they raise a number of questions in my mind which I would be grateful if the noble Lord could answer.

On my first, broad-brush, question, the Minister referred to the scale of benefit fraud as £1.9 billion a year. Can he tell the Committee how this compares to the Treasury’s estimate of the losses due to tax avoidance and evasion? I think he will find that the estimate of losses in those areas is many, many times greater than that for benefit fraud, even though there is, quite rightly, a condemnation of benefit fraud.

The specific measure, as the Minister told us, removes benefit from those who have been fraudulently claiming it. Has the department or the Treasury investigated whether those people from whom benefit is being removed actually needed the money, and whether there are those who did not need the money? If a relatively wealthy crook is pursuing benefit fraud, taking the benefit away from them costs them nothing. They have just taken a punt on a particular scam and now they have lost out, so this measure does not really matter very much. However, if they were people who were actually impoverished but for some reason or other were not adequately covered by existing regulations and were then behaving fraudulently, they may not now have anything to live on. What are they supposed to do? Do we have an estimate, among these fraudsters who are depriving us of £1.9 billion, of those who needed the money and those who did not?

I raise this particularly because the Minister’s welcome remarks on child tax credit suggest that there is a feeling, perhaps not in the Treasury but in the department, that people may need the money; the Treasury never thinks that anybody needs any money. I am a bit puzzled as to the nature of this penalty. Of course, if somebody is fraudulently extracting funds from the Government, from the taxpayer, they should be stopped from doing so. However, if it so happens that this person will then be completely impoverished, we must ask what our society will do about them. This comes back to whether they needed the money. How many of these fraudsters are in fact quite well off crooks from whom this is a trivial change, and how many of them are people whose circumstances are so desperate that they are willing to break the law? Of course we should not allow them to break the law, but can we consider what the circumstances of such families might be once the appropriate penalty is applied?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I, too, welcome these regulations, but again they are a round two as they match the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. I have a number of questions. The first relates to what happens under universal credit to the various sets of regulations that we have been discussing today, which also have their mirror in regulations brought forward by the DWP. It may be a bit of a heresy to say this, but if we are to have separate regulations from separate departments, might it not be a little more useful if we were to back to back them in the same slot so that we could at least look at them together and perhaps save a fair bit of time and effort? Universal credit gives us that opportunity, since we will be looking at these regimes in the round.

My second question relates to the three-year sanction, which is the heaviest of all the sanctions, and the use of the words “deliberative or organised offences”. Has that definition of what is a deliberative offence and what is an organised offence been codified in the handbook and regulations given to decision-makers—both those in the Treasury and obviously those who are to be responsible for universal credit—in order that the level of understanding is of a high nature? When someone goes to court and gets a sentence, we can see that being clearly identified. However, there may be occasions when this is dealt with outside the court through an administrative procedure, in which case there needs to be a clear understanding of when these heavier sanctions will be applied.

I understand that the decision-makers will also be given a level of discretion about the boundaries between some of these sanction periods. Can my noble friend say a little more about the nature of that discretion and whether a framework will be given to the decision-makers in each of these cases, so that we have some certainty that the worst and most difficult offenders will be given the heavier sentences? Will there be any form of appeal internally, apart from the normal tribunal case, where someone has appealed against their sanction? Perhaps my noble friend could give us some idea of how that mechanism will work.