Tax Credits
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for this debate on the Floor of the House for a number of reasons. First, this is the most important aspect of the first Conservative Budget for many years; I have forgotten how many. Yet, by the nature of how the authorities decide how we give or withhold authority, we were not able to vote on the biggest change proposed in that Budget. I therefore think it important that we have the opportunity to debate it, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving the whole House the chance to debate the “crown jewel” of the first Conservative Budget.
The second reason has already begun to erupt on the Conservative Benches. Not only is this the most significant fiscal change a Conservative Government have made, but it affects disproportionately the poor. Many Members will want to put on the record their disquiet with the Government—not just Labour Members, as one would expect, but Conservative Members, too.
The figures speak for themselves. We are talking about people at the bottom of the income pile. Just one headline figure tells us that well over 3 million of the lowest paid workers in this country will lose in the region of £1,300 a year. That might affect the standard of living of MPs; it will certainly affect the standard of living of many of our constituents and the choices that they will be able to make, whether they are represented by Opposition or Government Members.
Frank Field
I will not, partly because I am anxious that other Members have the opportunity to contribute.
I am surprised that the Chancellor is not present—this was my main reason for calling for this debate—because he was clearly the architect of the Budget. He is the most political Chancellor I have known in my whole period in the House of Commons. In the lead-up to the last election, and during it and since, he managed to push Labour into a very unpleasant corner where we were the welfare party and the Conservatives were the party of the strivers. In one single move, he has destroyed his 2020 election strategy. We heard the Chancellor’s very powerful speeches saying that the Conservative party was in favour of individuals who, when they got up in the morning to do grotty jobs for very low pay, passed the windows with the curtains still drawn of their neighbours on benefits. Individuals in this country who still get up with the work motive, which is so important for both economic and human advance, will know as they pass the windows with the curtains drawn that they do so with, on average, £1,300 a year less in their pocket.
It is an advantage to debate this proposed change in the House. The Government may not be harmed that much in the vote, but this issue will rumble and then catch fire in Members’ constituencies when the cuts come through. If Mrs Thatcher would bend under pressure from her Back Benchers when they did not like what they were hearing in their constituencies, I would be very surprised if our most political Chancellor did not bend like her.
Tax Credits (Working Families)
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage would have to rise by 25% overnight tonight if the Government make these changes tomorrow. I shall come later to the difficulties and to the changes we need to make to the national minimum wage.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
To help reinforce that point and in response to the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), was not mark 1 of welfare reform—moving large numbers of people from benefits into work—one of the successes of the last Labour Government and the coalition Government—and is not mark 2 of welfare reform how we now help those individuals to so increase productivity that they can be paid a fair or living wage? Should we not have been relaxed about this, given that we have five years to make these changes and make mark 2 a success? Instead of punishing people in work—the strivers—should we not be encouraging them up the career ladder?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is where I disagree with the tenor of the comments from Government Members in the debates on the economy thus far in this Parliament. For them, a job is a job is a job, whereas we have a better, bolder vision for people moving into work, not just for their first job, which could be any job, but for progressing. We do not do that by punishing people and taking away the support they rely on when stuck in low-paid work. We have to chart a course towards a higher skilled, higher wage economy, but that is not going to happen before tomorrow’s Budget. The support for those on tax credits should not be removed before we have that high-wage economy.
Finance Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Had we voted on the new clause tonight, I would have voted for it. I encourage the Government to be much more ambitious in the review that they are undertaking. The new clause is about how we maintain greater tax equity between households with two earners and those with one earner, whichever sex those earners may be.
When the Government abolished child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, they did an injustice to the tax system. May I briefly recall why? The background to this, which you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that we used to have family allowances and child tax allowances. The tax allowance and the benefit were merged into the single payment of child benefit. Child benefit then had two functions: it was a cash payment to mothers but it also maintained tax equity between people further up the income scale who have children and those further up the tax scale who do not have children. By abolishing child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, the Government forwent the one instrument at their disposal to maintain tax equity for higher-rate taxpayers between those who have no children and those who do have children.
Might I make a plea to the Minister? When the Government undertake the review about the workings of this measure, will they extend it and rectify the injustice whereby in abolishing child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers they abolished the tax-free income for higher-rate taxpayers if they had children and therefore put them on the same level as people who do not have children? We never had that in the tax system before; we have had it in the past couple of years.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The House will know that I led a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall on 28 November last year. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others who have been so stalwart in this campaign.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will have a word with his Front Benchers, because this is about social justice and redistribution. It is about a transferable allowance for married couples disproportionately benefiting those in the lower half of the income distribution much more than under the current policy of encouraging the personal income tax threshold. That is a fact.
The “make work pay” argument is very important too. Transferable amounts would help to make work more rewarding for many of the poorest in society. Moreover, we are out of line, on international comparisons, in not supporting the family.
Those are important issues and this is a big subject. I am sorry that the Minister’s speech was so short, but delighted that those on the Treasury Bench have seen fit to give us these assurances. We will hold them to their word.
Corporate Tax Avoidance
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I have three points to make, but I begin by expressing my anger at companies who take us and the Government for fools. We have a fairly united view about welfare abuse. I should like the Government to enact measures that reflect the sense of urgency the country feels about people who similarly abuse their tax position.
The Government’s fiscal crisis is of long standing. In the vast majority of the 60 years since 1948, Government accounts have been in deficit. We have developed a habit whereby Governments are elected to implement programmes for which they have no intention of raising the necessary tax revenue. In only a handful of the years since ’48 have Government budgets been in surplus; for the rest of the time they have been in deficit, and under Tory periods the deficit was twice as large as during Labour years.
We habitually have real difficulties in raising revenue to support the level of expenditure taxpayers would like to see. We know that the position will get worse in the future, and I shall give two examples of where it will harden. Let us look at long-term trends in revenue in relation to the tax on fuel. We know that thanks to more efficient fuel use, the revenue gained by the Exchequer from tax on fuel will fall dramatically. At the same time, there will be pressure on Government budgets from demands for the health service and pensions, and it is not impossible to envisage that by 2060 they could be taking half of the total.
We hold this debate at a time of crisis, but not the immediate crisis about the deficit with which the Government are trying to grapple. There is a longer term crisis, because as a nation we have grown accustomed to demand far more than we are prepared to pay in tax. I have three suggestions for the Government about what they could do to convince taxpayers, as well as the House, that they are as serious about clamping down on tax abuse as they are about clamping down on other forms of abuse in our public finances.
The first suggestion is that we issue kitemarks to companies that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believes have paid their fair share of taxes. We would then develop a “white list” of companies with which we know it is safe to trade, and would have warnings about those with which it is not safe to trade, or would know that if we did trade with them, we were aiding and abetting the crimes that they were committing against the commonwealth of taxpayers in this country.
Secondly, I make this plea: why cannot the Revenue be more bold in exposing companies that it believes are abusing their position and fiddling their tax rates? Might not that threat, certainly if carried out, concentrate the mind of many companies and get them to start behaving better, to the good of taxpayers?
My third suggestion relates to a point on which I do not agree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), whom I congratulate on his contribution; I do not think that we have the time to wait for groups of countries to behave, let alone to get the European Union to agree on a common stance. Let us look at those who are outside the European Union. Norway, for example, has to pay to trade within the European Union. Why cannot we say to companies such as those that the hon. Gentleman listed, “If you wish to trade in this country, you have to pay a fee, which will be more than we would gain from you in taxes if you paid corporation tax honestly”?
We might start with companies—coffee houses and so on—that could well find that other companies could substitute for them. There would be no diminution of the public good if we could not go to Starbucks. The country would not come to a standstill. We would not have breakdowns if we could not buy Starbucks coffee—there are plenty of alternatives—and we might begin to turn the tide in favour of honest taxpayers and against those who are taking us to the cleaners. I would be greatly interested to hear how, if the Government wish to be taken seriously on the subject, they will respond to those proposals, and other proposals that I know right hon. and hon. Members wish to put to the Government in this debate.
Mr Frank Field
If Governments are inactive on this front, what action does the hon. Gentleman propose taxpayers should take, other than that mob action?
Mr Bacon
Governments should take notice when they see outside 100 Parliament street, the headquarters of HMRC, large crowds of riot police—there are photographs to that effect, which can easily be found on the web. When Governments see such a thing happening, they should sit up and take notice that the system is not working and that it is not fit for purpose. I understand the burden of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I understand why people are so angry and feel that they need to do something. There are many people, including those who have given their lives and those who have fought overseas on behalf of this country, who probably would have had better equipment if more tax revenue had been collected—if more of the tax revenue that should have been paid was paid.
It is not always a case of the tax not being due. If HMRC does not have the resources in the right places to check whether the tax is due or not, it may indeed be that corporations are acting illegally, that what they are doing is evasion and that they are getting away with it. That is why it is so important that HMRC is able to have the right management information at the top level so that it can align its investments in skills and in people with its business priorities in a way that currently, as is clear from the NAO study, it is unable to do.
I believe that the solution to all this must be much greater simplicity, and I mean radically greater simplicity. The time for tinkering is over. It was Einstein, I think, who famously once said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect different results. It is time that we got different results and we will get them only by taking different action.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing the debate, and I thank him and the other 19 Members who participated— 14 Government Members and five Opposition Members. Time is short, but I will make a few remarks before my hon. Friend concludes the debate. I will begin by putting into context the problem that we face on tax avoidance, and then I will lay out in some detail the actions that the Government are taking. I will also try to respond to some of the concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have raised.
As I am sure all Members will understand, it would not be right for me to discuss individual examples of alleged tax avoidance. I therefore do not intend to respond to accusations made this evening against specific businesses. However, I do want to point out that the vast majority of UK taxpayers, whether they be businesses or individuals, pay the tax that is due on time. They do not try to dodge, avoid or delay paying their tax. Large businesses, which are the subject of our discussion tonight, pay about 60% of all taxes in the UK, or more precisely, they write the cheques. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that everyone contributes to reducing the deficit by paying their fair share of tax, and we are determined to clamp down on the minority who engage in tax avoidance.
As other Members have pointed out, tax avoidance not only damages the public finances but undermines the perception of fairness in the tax system and is anti-competitive, which in turn risks harming genuine investment by those who play by the rules. At a time when we all have to tighten our belts, it is particularly unacceptable for some taxpayers to manipulate the system and act to reduce their tax liability in a way that is contrary to Parliament’s intention. It is for that reason that where HMRC finds tax avoidance, it takes action.
It is important that those who should pay do pay. It is also important that we have a competitive tax system. Our intention is to have the most competitive tax system in the G20. That is the best route to economic prosperity. Foreign direct investment plays an important role in that. It is worth pointing out that approximately half our total corporation tax receipts in 2011-12 that came from large businesses was from foreign-owned companies. The Chancellor recently announced a further cut to the main rate of corporation tax, so that by 2014 it will reach 21%—the lowest it has ever been and the lowest in the G7. Having set a competitive rate, we aim to ensure that all businesses, including multinational companies, pay the right amount of tax by taking action internationally and domestically.
Mr Gauke
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman sets out a practical approach by proposing that we should deny those companies markets and engage in protectionism. We have to ensure that all businesses pay the tax due under the law in this country.
There are two ways we can look at this: domestically and internationally. Internationally, it is clear that our tax system, as with all other major economies, works within internationally agreed OECD guidelines—we have heard a number of hon. Members make that point. I know that there are concerns about whether the current corporate tax rules adequately capture the profits generated by multinational companies in the jurisdictions where the economic activity is located. We take those concerns seriously. Reform in this area will require concerted international action. This is an issue that all countries face. We need to work with others to develop the appropriate solutions. We are doing just that through the OECD, on the erosion of the tax base and the shifting of profits to lower-tax rate jurisdictions.
Two months ago the Chancellor issued a joint statement with the German Finance Minister calling for concerted international co-operation to strengthen international tax standards. Following that statement, the UK, together with France, offered voluntary contributions, equivalent to €150,000 each, in order to make rapid progress in achieving concrete results. The OECD’s work is vital in helping to promote a better way of dealing with profit shifting and the erosion of the corporate tax base at the global level, and it will be reporting to the G20 Finance Ministers on progress in February. I should also mention that only last week the Prime Minister wrote to G8 leaders calling for international action to tackle tax evasion and aggressive avoidance. He suggested that the issue should be at the heart of the forthcoming summit’s agenda. We agree that more needs to be done in this area internationally. I hope that the fact that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have intervened on this issue will reassure Members that it is very much a priority for this Government.
As far as domestic action is concerned, we have strengthened HMRC’s capability in this area. It is worth pointing out that since March 2010 HMRC has collected £14.8 billion in additional compliance revenue through its large business service. In particular, £1.5 billion has been raised since 2010 through increased efforts in tackling transfer pricing. We want to build on that success, which is why we have announced additional sums. In the autumn statement we announced a further £77 million in new investment by the end of 2014-15 for HMRC to expand its anti-avoidance and evasion activity. Together with the package we announced in the October 2010 spending review, we expect to see additional yield, rising from £13 billion a year when we came into office to £22 billion a year by the end of 2014-15. Some of the money we announced recently will be focused on tackling tax avoidance by multinationals.
Let me deal quickly with the point about HMRC staff. The point was made that staff numbers had fallen. The big fall, from around 94,000 to 65,000, occurred under the last Government. Yes, there will be a fall in the total number of staff from 65,000 to 55,000 during this Parliament, but the number of staff who deal with tax evasion—the tax inspectors—is going to go up. The number of people working on enforcement and compliance will go up by 2,500, in contrast to the 10,000 reduction that we saw during the last Parliament.
I should also point out HMRC’s success in other areas, including its litigation strategy. Over the past two years, 85% of tax avoidance cases in the courts and tribunals have gone in HMRC’s favour. We have also taken legislative measures to deal with a whole range of corporate tax avoidance arrangements. Indeed, just before Christmas we closed down a further corporate tax avoidance scheme that sought to exploit tax rules to generate artificial loss relief from a property business. HMRC had become aware of the scheme only a week previously.
We are also bringing in a general anti-abuse rule, following the advice of Graham Aaronson’s committee. He is a distinguished tax QC, and his committee comprised a number of distinguished figures from the tax world. They recommended measures that focused on the abusive end of the matter. We believe that that will not have the disadvantages of the proposals suggested by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), which would create uncertainty for ordinary taxpayers. Also, his proposals contain an exception for any arrangements specifically permitted by legislation, and much avoidance is built on that. His proposals would therefore be defective in some respects. I think that we have struck the right balance, and that the concerns expressed by some of my hon. Friends are unfounded. It is right that we should focus on abuse of the system.
Finance Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that not just the Church of England is involved. I said earlier, however, that the Church of England had led on behalf of all the churches on this matter. On his second point, we have made the transitional rules more generous for churches that were close to commencing work at the time of the Budget. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case in his constituency without knowing all the details, but I think that he will find that many cases in which plans had reached an advanced stage will benefit from the transitional rules. He mentioned the funding for the scheme. We believe that this is a generous settlement, but we will of course keep such matters under review. He also mentioned bureaucracy. The scheme is organised by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but the Treasury will also take a close interest in it. The two Departments have worked together very effectively on this matter, and we are keen to ensure that the scheme works in an adequate way. I would underline the point that the representations that we have received from the churches suggest that they are happy with the arrangements.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Minister says that the two Departments are now working closely together on the scheme. Was there a similarly close working relationship when the Treasury was thinking up the proposal? Did the DCMS know about the proposal and approve it—before it was modified, of course?
Mr Gauke
The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into dangerous, and perhaps more interesting, territory. All I would say to him is that all decisions are for the Chancellor, although of course the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was involved at an appropriate level.
The Budget proposal for self-storage changed the liability of supplies of facilities for self-storage from exempt to taxable. Following consultation, we planned to avoid creating a competitive advantage for those larger operators with more expensive facilities. These businesses can partially mitigate the impact of the change by using the capital goods scheme to claim back some of the VAT they had previously paid on the purchase of these facilities, whereas smaller businesses with less expensive facilities cannot. We will therefore make a separate provision by statutory instrument to amend the capital goods scheme so that self-storage providers affected by the measure whose individual capital items are worth less than a £250,000 threshold for the scheme can opt into it and have the same input tax recovery benefits as larger providers with capital items that would already qualify for the scheme.
We also propose to ensure that the storage of live animals will remain exempt, as the original proposal might inadvertently have applied VAT to stabling, and we propose to introduce an anti-avoidance provision so that if the storage is used by a third party with the permission of the person who contracts for the storage, it is taxed in the same way as if it were self-storage. This will prevent someone from avoiding taxation by getting a third party to contract with the supplier. We have revised the exclusion for storage facilities provided to persons connected with the supplier so that it is more directly targeted on facilities that are subject to the capital goods scheme. This fine-tuning reflects the benefit of consulting and listening to what respondents say, but it does not undermine the rationale for the measure.
For hairdressers’ chairs, the schedule provides a clearer description of the services typically provided under a chair rental agreement and excludes services that could legitimately be provided with a simple supply of a right over land. The schedule also reflects a change to make it clear that the supply of a whole building to a hairdresser will not become taxable unless it is supplied along with other goods or services.
Finally, regarding the measure to apply VAT to all sports drinks and to clarify the definition of premises for the purposes of determining whether food is consumed on or off the suppliers’ premises, we are proceeding as planned in the Budget.
Sarah Newton
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that intervention, because I was going to talk about that issue. First, however, I would like to make a little more progress on the analogy I was drawing to the House’s attention. We all get behind the wheel of a car from time to time—sadly, at the moment, I cannot, but I hope to be back there before too long—and when on a journey we are often certain of our destination, but sometimes we are not as good navigators as we would like and have to put on our sat-nav to help us, and sometimes we get an instruction from that irritating person on the sat-nav saying, “As soon as the road ahead is safe and permits, please do a U-turn.” At that point, do we throw up our hands in horror and say, “Oh, it’s just appalling to have to make a U-turn”, or do we think, sensibly, that to reach our destination in a safe and timely way it is appropriate to make the occasional U-turn? I have no problem with the Government making U-turns if it gets us to our destination in a timely and safe way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the changes to listed buildings. Having the beautiful Truro cathedral in my constituency, I was concerned about the proposals and immediately consulted the diocese and a wide range of churches in my constituency about their implications. I brought all that information to the Chancellor’s attention, as, I am sure, did Members across the House, and I was satisfied with his response. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), is to be congratulated on how he co-ordinated all our efforts and on the work he has done with the Church Commissioners and the Treasury. Their solution is both practical and actionable, and has met with the perfect satisfaction of churches in my constituency.
I know that many Members wish to join in the debate, so I shall conclude. It is immensely important that we have a Government who listen, who consult on proposals and who then act on them. Whether on fuel duty, pasty taxes, caravan taxes or fuel taxes, my constituents are immensely pleased and relieved that the Government have listened and helped hard-working people and small businesses during these difficult times.
Mr Frank Field
I want to speak to new clause 3, although it might first be appropriate to pick up on one theme from the speech by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She said she was pleased that the Chancellor was creating a level playing field. Well, if there is any area of the country where it would be difficult to create level playing fields, it would be in Truro. But anyway, I am pleased that she is satisfied.
I wish to make a plea for a level playing field for young people in my constituency and other constituencies who go to sixth-form colleges, and I wish to compare their tax position with that of young people undertaking sixth-form studies in school. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), we discussed how poorer young people in sixth-form colleges or similar establishments were discriminated against in respect of free school dinners compared with young people in school. Here is yet another example of discrimination against young people, depending on the institution they attend.
I plead again with the Government, in respect of VAT, to treat sixth-form colleges as we treat schools with sixth forms. In Birkenhead, most pupils have no option but to attend sixth-form college if they want to undertake post-16 studies because the sixth forms of most of the schools were pooled together in that one enterprise. The VAT on services that the college purchases, but which schools do not pay, adds £300,000 to the college budget—a reduction of 4% in that budget.
My plea to the Chancellor will be brief and simple;I will not go up and down the country lanes, visiting various constituents, bakers and so on. He hoped to create a level playing field for taxation for sixth-form colleges and sixth forms in schools by the end of the Parliament. That was a noble objective, but the 2015 election, as it draws ever nearer, will certainly concentrate Government Members’ minds not only on small U-turns but perhaps on more major ones.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies undertook an analysis of the Government’s public expenditure changes which showed that the part of the education system that will be most handicapped and suffer the largest cuts by 2015 will be colleges of further education. Indeed, they will experience a 20% real-terms cut in their budgets by 2015. I know that it would not be in order to ask the Minister to respond to that, but given that the Government’s policies are making the playing field even more unequal for sixth-form colleges, compared with the treatment of sixth forms in schools, let me make a plea for him to concede that point and exempt sixth-form colleges, whose students are of an age that if they were not at college, they would be in school.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I do not understand why this has ever occurred. How come a sixth-form college is not treated exactly the same as a sixth form in a normal school? They may be in different areas, but they are essentially the same kids. I do not understand it, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman—my friend, because I have known him a very long time—can tell me the answer.
Andrew Percy
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who made an interesting contribution, on an issue that I was not planning to speak about, but which I hope will be pursued if his new clause is not accepted this evening.
This has been an interesting debate. I am only sorry that the Minister’s attempt to take us through every VAT change since 1973 was cut somewhat short. We got to about 1983, which was probably as far as most of us needed to get, but it was interesting none the less. The debate has also been interesting because of the number of food products that have been mentioned. At one point, when we were talking about rotisserie chickens, pasties and sausage rolls, I thought it was lunchtime at the Percy house, but apparently not. I am proud to say that I eat pasties: I ate my last one from Fuller’s bakery on the precinct in Goole just the other day. I cannot say that I partake of sports drinks, so I will not take much of an interest in that part of the debate, but I am certainly pleased that the Government have seen sense on pasties. I am not sure that I necessarily share the full analysis offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the seamless transition of policy. I do not think it has necessarily been the Government’s finest hour, but at least at the end of the process we have a system with which we can all live.
I want to make a few brief comments about the caravan tax. It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who assisted with—[Interruption]—sorry, who led the campaign. I chide him with an in-joke. He led the campaign very ably and got us all together. He deserves credit for that, and I am pleased to see him here for this debate. The impact that the measure would have had is well documented in the various debates we have had. The Minister knows from the meetings we had with him that we were very concerned, particularly in our part of the world, where the vast majority of the relevant manufacturing is and where a lot of the supply chain is based, including, in my constituency in Brigg, a number of companies that were affected. I also have some of the parks that would have been affected in my constituency. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who would have similarly been greatly affected, from the point of view of the park owners, had the measure gone forward. It is therefore incredibly important that we have reached the position we have.
Some genuine points have been made about the consultation. One needs only to do a Google search to find headline after headline, in both local and national papers, about the state in which the industry has found itself in recent years. Indeed, it had to go to the previous Government looking for support, although I am not sure that a great deal was forthcoming. We are talking about an industry that has struggled considerably over the past few years, so quite who came up with the idea of slapping on 20% VAT, thereby affecting sales by up to 30%, I do not know, and I hope that some lessons will be learned. I prefer to see what the Government have done not as a U-turn, however. There was a US politician who used to describe a U-turn as a recalibration of policy, so I welcome this recalibration of policy. It is a shame that the previous Government did not do that on more occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness mentioned.
Finance Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
Well, there were some robust exchanges on that issue in previous debates. If the hon. Gentleman feels that is a difficult point, I cannot understand why he does not also feel that it is unfair that people on the very top earnings—those earning millions of pounds each year—are to get a tax cut of £40,000 per year, instead of focusing on the needs of children. I find that extremely odd, and I shall say a little more about the unfairness of the proposals later.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) is mistaken? We are not talking about redistribution from poorer to richer people. When child benefit was introduced, it took over the function of child tax allowances. Its purpose was to maintain tax equity. That is why there was the element of free income regardless of whether people were on £8,000 a year or £80,000 a year. It made a distinction between those who were responsible for children at any given level of income, and those who were not.
Cathy Jamieson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which explains the history extremely well. That is why I have focused so much on reminding us that this is supposed to be about children and doing the right thing by people who have the responsibility for caring for them, whether parents, or grandparents or other family members who may be entitled to claim the benefits. I hope to have enough time to be able to say a few words about that towards the end of my contribution.
The Government did revise the original proposal, but that revision has not gone far enough to deal with the inherent unfairness. The revised proposal will affect about 1.2 million families, of whom it is estimated that some 70%—790,000 couples and 30,000 lone parents in 2013-14—will lose the full amount of their child benefit. A further 330,000 couples and 20,000 lone parents affected by the charge in 2013-14 will lose a proportion of their child benefit. The average loss for those who are going to lose out is estimated at about £1,300 a year. In a previous debate, I highlighted the difficulty for families who are going to lose about £500 a year because of other changes that have been made. That £1,300 is a very significant amount for anyone caring for children in today’s economic climate.
Jobs and Growth
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as Second Church Estates Commissioner. He has been in discussions with me and the Treasury about how to make sure that we live up to the commitment I gave in the Budget that churches and other places of worship would not be impacted by the introduction of VAT on alterations to listed buildings. Of course, it is already charged on repairs to listed buildings. I have been in discussions with my hon. Friend and with the Bishop of London, whom the Churches asked to lead on that work, and I confirm that we have reached agreement. The Government will provide £30 million of grant to the listed places of worship scheme. That will be 100% compensation, exactly as we promised in the Budget, for the additional cost borne by churches for alterations. It should also go a long way towards helping the situation on repairs and maintenance, where in recent years they have not been able to get 100% compensation. We think it will deliver 100% coverage for repairs and maintenance. I thank my hon. Friend and the Churches for working with us on delivering what we promised in the Budget.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, and even more grateful to him for his statement. I congratulate him on the way he dug himself out of the hole into which he placed himself. May I use this opportunity not only to draw attention to those outside the House who campaigned on the change, but to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who played his role in the negotiations superbly?
Mr Osborne
I certainly pay tribute to the Second Church Estates Commissioner. We were clear in the Budget that we wanted fully to compensate Churches for the impact of the change and I am glad that we have done so.
Business and the Economy
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
That is the type of case that needs to be investigated; clearly, I do not know the facts behind that particular case. I do not want to take this as an opportunity to have go at Tesco; of course, its highly competitive retailing has been of great benefit to millions of customers, and we should not lose sight of that.
This intervention is designed to promote healthy competition, but it also speaks to a wider agenda that has emerged from this crisis, which is for business to be not only confident to expand and invest, but responsible too. That is the motivating factor behind one key element in the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill: our proposals to address directors’ remuneration, where the link between performance and reward has been weakened in recent years. We have a responsibility to make sure that shareholders of UK-quoted companies have sufficient information and power to challenge boards. Under the current regime, companies can all too easily ignore shareholders, and that is why we intend to give shareholders binding votes on directors’ pay.
We published detailed proposals in January and our consultation has just come to a close. We are now considering the responses and working carefully with stakeholders on the details. When we have finalised and published them, legislative measures will be introduced by Government amendment at the Committee stage of the Bill. Shareholders have shown admirable spirit in challenging boards. The so-called shareholder spring is a positive development. They are right to challenge boards; after all, it is their money. Our measures will give them the tools to maintain this challenge and, I hope, to reverse a trend that Labour was far too relaxed about.
Nowhere was Labour more relaxed, and with such disastrous consequences, as in relation to the excesses of the banking sector. We have been persuaded that it will be possible for the banking sector to perform its proper role in channelling savings towards productive business only if there is structural reform separating the so-called casinos from real, traditional banking. The banking reform Bill will boost the resilience of the UK banking sector, making it easier and less costly to wind down banks that get into trouble and curtailing the implicit Government guarantees from which the banking sector benefits. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), we intend to achieve this by mandating the ring-fencing of essential banking services from riskier wholesale and investment activities, as recommended by the Independent Commission on Banking chaired by Sir John Vickers.
The Government have given a clear commitment to legislate by the end of this Parliament, and banks will be expected to implement a ring fence as soon as practically possible thereafter. Implementation of the banking reforms will proceed in stages, with the final, non-structural changes fully completed by the beginning of 2019. This is another historic reform, and one where we lead the world.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am sure that most of our constituents are grateful for this aspect of the Queen’s Speech. Does the Secretary of State see some link between the support that the Governor of the Bank of England has given him for these reforms, the hoped-for effects of reform on the City, and the fact that certain journalists are now trying to rubbish the Governor of the Bank of England for his support?
Vince Cable
I am not here to attack journalists; I am not sure which ones the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is certainly true that the Governor of the Bank of England has been absolutely clear from the outset that in order to have long-term stability in banking, these reforms, or something very like them, had to be implemented, as we are now doing.
One area where business success and responsibility coincide is in relation to flexible working. The UK employment framework compares well internationally and has helped to keep unemployment relatively low, despite the extremely difficult economic conditions, but that is not to say it cannot be improved, both for workers and employers. We want a flexible labour market that supports growth and creates employment, and making sure that that happens requires acknowledgement of changes in family life.
Most women now go out to work and men shoulder more of the duties at home. As roles and responsibilities have changed, our lives have become increasingly complex. That is not just true of parents with young children. Many have to combine working with looking after an elderly parent, a sick partner or a grandchild. Extending the right to request flexible working to every employee will make that easier.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am immensely pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I am sure he will forgive me if I do not develop the themes that he outlined, although I very much hope that his ideas for a corridor in the south will be taken up in the north-west as well.
I want to make a single contribution to the debate, if I may, by stressing the effect that the Queen’s Speech has had on me and therefore, I guess, on many other people in this country. I think we will see it as a dividing line in this Parliament. Before the Queen’s Speech, I guess that many in the House and probably even more in the country wanted to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Now, however, we begin to see that the Government are bereft on two fronts—first, on ideas about how we achieve growth; and secondly, and equally important, they seem to have no understanding of what would normally be called the art of government. It is not merely a matter of assembling Bills and pushing them through this place. It is about understanding the reaction to them outside and what response to those measures we should expect from outside. The Queen’s Speech is a dividing line in this Parliament. The jury is ceasing to be out on whether the Government have shown that they have both the ideas and the competence for good government.
I shall concentrate on one element that I think is crucial to growth. Of course there is a discussion about how Lord Keynes’s ideas could and should be applied to the economy. There are those who emphasise the importance of reflation. I do not totally go down that route. This year the Government will be borrowing £24 for every £100 that they spend. If that is not reflation on stilts, I do not know what is. If we could conduct a séance and call Lord Keynes up now, he would not, I hope, minimise the importance of reflation, but he would draw our attention to one other aspect of what he thought was crucial at this stage of the business cycle: business confidence.
In the period after the general election, generally speaking, businesses believed that the Government knew what they were about. They did not lay off workers to the same extent as in other recessions, but hoarded them and negotiated more flexible arrangements with them. They believed that there would be a light at the end of the tunnel and it would not be an oncoming train. The key moment when business confidence began to change was the pre-Budget report. Businesses increasingly realised that the Government did not have many ideas in the cupboard about how to deal with the size of the deficit, which was important, but do that skilfully so that we managed to engender growth.
I think the Business Secretary, though he did not mention it in his speech today, hinted over the weekend at what the Government had hoped for in an investment-led boom. The Government’s failure could not be clearer than on that front. Business after business in this country is sitting on huge reserves of capital, waiting for some encouragement from the Government to use that capital to start an investment-led boom, which would lead to employment and increased prosperity for our country. The failure of the pre-Budget report, followed up in the Budget itself, convinced the business community that there was little point in spending those reserves. Quite what they do with them now is anybody’s guess. Until the Government come up with a strategy that convinces the business community that they can do two things at once—bring down the deficit but in a way that encourages business confidence in the future, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said, confidence particularly in this country—it is difficult to envisage anything at all getting this economy off the bottom of the recession we are enduring.
A Tory-led Government, who pride themselves on understanding civil society, would never have applied VAT changes to the crucial sector of churches and historic buildings in this country. We are concerned with what goes on not only in churches, but in the surrounding area—in cathedral closes, choir schools and so on. The Government have understood nothing about how standing up at the Dispatch Box saying things can have the most deadly effect in the country on people’s hopes and expectations.
As I said when I began, it is with sadness that I rise to say that now, in the second half of the Parliament, the jury is ceasing to be out, and it believes that the Government have neither the ideas nor the expertise in the art of government to see us through the crisis.
Living Standards
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point about her constituents. All hon. Members will have heard at our surgeries from people who are beginning to realise that in just a few weeks’ time, they will lose all their working tax credit, despite the fact that they are working and doing the right thing.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend put it to those on the Treasury Bench that when child benefit came in, it replaced family allowances and child tax allowances, and therefore played a crucial part, because whatever level of income people with children were on, we in some way maintained equity with tax-free income? The Government are abolishing that for the sake of higher rate taxpayers. How can they maintain that the tax burden is being shared between single and childless people, and those with children, if they abolish child benefit?
Rachel Reeves
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. This country will be one of the few that does not support families with children across the income distribution. Having children is expensive, and it is right that when people bring up a family, and when they retire, the state is there to provide that bit of extra support when they need it. The Government’s changes go entirely in the wrong direction.
That is a shocking illustration of the Government’s failure to come to grips with the crisis that our country faces—the crisis that is putting families under strain is the crisis in jobs, incomes and living standards. The cost-of-living crisis does not hit the headlines like a banking crisis or a currency crisis perhaps because it is a crisis from which those with the loudest voices can too easily insulate themselves. For the vast majority of people, however, trying to keep going and keep their heads above water is one of the toughest challenges that they have ever faced. Every day is a battle in a long war of attrition.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I have not yet heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has to say about it, but the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that we have discussions not just in the Chamber but outside it as party colleagues. My right hon. Friend will make his case in a moment, and I will listen to it and respond in due course. There are some issues that we need to consider, but it is not for me to respond to amendment 30; it is for the Exchequer Secretary to say why he has let down low-paid workers across the United Kingdom through his promises before the elections and his actions in the Budget. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend in short order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has yet again tabled an amendment that has a great deal of merit. Although I do not expect it to be pushed to a vote, I want to hear what he says about it, because he has important points to make. The key point on all the amendments is that the Government need to provide clarity. We need clarity about what they are doing on the 50p tax rate and on low-paid workers, and on the points raised by my hon. Friend’s amendment. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the Exchequer Secretary in due course.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I shall not press amendment 30 to a Division tonight, because we will return to the subject in greater detail later in the Parliament. However, I want to address some questions to those on the Treasury Bench. I accept that there are problems with the amendment, but it was the only way that I could find to debate the matter in the House.
I wish to remind the Minister that in the Budget debate of 2010, the Chancellor said that
“the Government are asking the public sector to accept a two-year pay freeze, but we will protect the lowest paid…They will each receive a flat pay rise worth £250”—[Official Report, 22 June 2006; Vol. 512, c. 171.]
He said that the cut-off point would be not £18,000 but £21,000 a year, and he, not the Opposition, estimated that 1.7 million people would receive that pay increase.
A number of Opposition Members, including those who put their names to amendment 30, and many hon. Members, have constituents who believed what the Government said. They believed that they would be protected. The Chancellor’s announcement was a crucial part of protecting those workers, but it was also a crucial part of selling to the wider public the pay freeze that the Government announced. However, those people have so far received no £250 pay increase.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister two questions. First, of the 1.7 million whom not I, but the Chancellor, said would be eligible, how many have received the £250 across-the-board pay increase? Next year’s earnings figures show that the numbers eligible will rise to 2.2 million. Therefore, my second question for those on the Treasury Bench is this: how many of that 2.2 million will receive their £250 pay increase?
I conclude by merely trying to express, perhaps inadequately, a sense of how low-paid workers in my constituency feel. They feel that they have again been let down. The previous Labour Government did not do too well by that group, with the 10p tax rate abolition, and this Government have done not too well by them. Many are women coming up to retirement age who now learn that they must work two years more. They thought they would get £250 as a lump sum to protect them against rising prices and a general wage freeze, but many now find that no such increase is forthcoming. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could give us answers to those two questions.
John McDonnell
May I associate myself with amendment 30, which I also signed? For my constituents, £250 means a lot. It is a lot of money in terms of paying daily bills, but it is also the difference between some children having a summer break this year and not. I hope the Minister responds positively and examines that matter, but I will give him this assurance: if we do not have positive assurances from the Government, we will be back time and again until that money is paid.
I wish to speak to amendment 14, which is in my name. The amendment simply proposes that, as we determine personal income tax rates for the coming year, we look carefully at their impact on inequality. The proposal is from various lobbies in recent months, from religious groups, churches, welfare rights groups, trade unions and other civil society organisations, which have expressed their anxiety about inequality in our society. Like them, I believe that our country is disfigured by inequality and the extremes of wealth and poverty. Consequently, I believe that we should use every legislative weapon possible to address it.
I mentioned some of the extremes of wealth and poverty in the earlier debate on executive pay—some top executives earn a salary that is 145 times the average salary of their workers. The Government’s assessment of wealth distribution last year showed that the total wealth of the top 10% of the population is now 100 times that of the bottom 10%. The simple reason is that the poorest have so little wealth.
In 1986 in the UK, the richest 1% held 25% of marketable wealth. Twenty years later, that had risen to 34% of total national wealth. The poorest 50% had gone from holding 11% of the nation’s wealth to holding just 1% today. That is not solely the result of economic trends or globalisation—it has been Government policy, largely in the 1980s and 1990s, to pursue the systematic redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and the last Government at least held back the tide for a period.
Taxation policy has a key role to play in addressing inequality and I note that the Treasury Committee quoted Wendell Holmes’ popular dictum that tax is the price we pay for a civilised society. I agree, but civilisation has a range of definitions, one of which is that we should not live in a society that is so starkly unequal—
Mr Gauke
We will make further announcements as and when necessary, but we are publishing much more information on distributional analysis than any previous Government have. It is right to do so, and to take steps to ensure that the House and the whole country can debate such matters with as much information presented in future. A striking contrast can be drawn with regard to one policy—the doubling of the 10p rate—about which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) had concerns. It was difficult to obtain any information on that policy’s impact, although we have learned in recent weeks that much of the information about that was available to Ministers at the time.
Amendment 30 seeks to provide a one-off £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector employees earning less than £21,000. In the June 2010 Budget, we announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000. That is one of the many difficult choices that we have had to make to help put the UK’s public finances back on track, and it does not mean that we do not value the work done throughout the public sector. All Members know that those in the public sector work hard for the benefit of society. However, pay freezes of this sort save jobs. Given that we are having to constrain public spending and given that the fiscal deficit requires cuts, a pay freeze will help to mitigate the effect of those cuts. Because we recognise that the freeze will be hardest on the lowest-paid public sector workers, it was announced in the June Budget that those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less would receive an uplift of at least £250 in both years of the freeze.
Both the Labour party’s manifesto at the time of the last general election and the 2009 pre-Budget report announced a 1% increase for public sector workers across the board, apart from the armed services. No distinction was made between the low paid and the high paid. Under a Labour Government, none of those earning less than £21,000 a year—including nurses, teaching assistants, police community support officers and hospital porters—would be receiving a £250 increase.
Mr Frank Field
What we said at the last general election is not very relevant, because we lost. The other side won, and made a commitment in the Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister is standing tonight, and said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive an increase of £250. What we now want to know is how many are being paid the £250, and, if 1.7 million are not being paid that sum, what steps the Government will take to ensure that they are paid it.
Mr Gauke
The policy advocated by the Labour party when they were in government would have resulted in none of these public sector workers receiving £250.
We will ensure that the policy on pay increases for low-paid local government workers is applied across the civil service and to work forces with pay review bodies. That will include civil servants, NHS staff, teachers, members of the armed forces and those working in prisons. Many civil servants, nurses and prison officers, and the armed forces, have already received the £250 increase this year and can expect a further £250 increase next year, but other work forces have responsibility for negotiating their own pay deals. Decisions on the pay of local government work forces are for local government employers, rather than central Government, to negotiate. Provision was made in the local government settlement for local authorities to pay the £250 increase, but the fact remains that the decisions are made by local authorities. We gave them the opportunity to pursue the policy that we are pursuing at national level, but it is ultimately for them to decide how to pay their employees.
Mr Field
At the Dispatch Box, the Chancellor said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive increases of £250 this year and next year. Will the Minister please tell the House how many of those 1.7 million have received the promised sum—promised by the Chancellor, not by me?
Mr Gauke
Where it is within the Chancellor’s control because the money is paid through central Government, those low-paid public sector workers will receive the £250. For those who work in local government, which is not within the control of central Government, we have provided local authorities with the funding to be able to meet that policy objective.
Mr Gauke
No. The funding settlement with local authorities was made on the basis that the money would be available for them to pay to low-paid public sector workers, but it is ultimately their decision.
Returning to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I understand that it is intended to help enforce the Government’s policies, and I am sure he intends to be helpful. However, we do not believe that using the tax system is the right way to address this; we do not think that will be practical. It would add complexity to the tax system, and I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment, especially as I know he will return to this subject at a later date.