Cost of Living

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), as I have to many Opposition Members, but on the question of what we should do, I have not heard much. The honourable exception was the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), whose speech had some coherence, but I guess he is far too moderate to be included in the Labour party’s Government-in-waiting, assuming that position remains—we hold out that hope.

The motion is a listing of some of the pain points that many of our constituents are feeling as they look to balance their budgets each week. “I feel your pain” is an important expression of empathy. Empathy is important for politicians of all parties; we have to be empathetic with the constituents we represent. However, empathy is no substitute for policy, and Opposition Members have shown a complete absence of policy in dealing with the points of pain that they can so lucidly set down in their motions. That is why I shall support the Government in the Division later.

When we have seen a policy from the Opposition, it has often been about ways in which they would seek to intervene in markets. I suggest to Opposition Members that Government intervention should always be used sparingly and where it can be effective. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen as his flagship intervention policy one where he cannot be effective, and nor does it make economic sense. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) pointed out, the consequence of the Labour party’s position on an energy price freeze has been to crater the willingness of energy companies to invest in effective energy in the long term. It is very sad that just a few weeks after the Chancellor had been to China to secure investment in our energy sector—something that the Labour Government sadly missed out on year after year—the Labour party came up with another policy designed to make our energy more inefficient, rather than efficient, in the long term. If we are going to address some of the issues about the cost of living for members of the public, we have to be honest about what the Government can and cannot do.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the subject of honesty and admitting the failures of the past, is it not strange that last week the shadow Chancellor told a National House Building Council lunch that a future Labour Government would deliver 200,000 new homes a year when, in their last year in office, the previous Labour Government presided over the lowest number of homes built since 1923? Is there not a huge chasm between Labour’s promises and its record in office?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the chasm between reality and certain things promised by Labour. There is also an absence of a basic understanding of economics. It is nice to see the shadow Chief Secretary in his place again. It was not clear from his opening speech whether he understood the difference between deficit and debt, which is quite an important thing to know for someone who wishes one day to hold an important Treasury position.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The most recent GDP figures suggest that our economy might finally have started to turn a corner, which everybody, especially the Opposition, welcomes. We have had three years of flatlining growth under this Government. How much damage has that economic stagnation done? How long will it take the country, families and businesses to recover from a starting point that is so much lower than was promised back in 2010?

The Opposition motion states that

“growth of 1.5% is needed in every quarter between now and May 2015”

just to catch up on the ground that has been lost. Stagnation and no-to-low growth means that the Chancellor’s much hailed deficit reduction plan has been a failure, with borrowing rising—the coalition is set to borrow £200 billion more than it planned in autumn 2010. Will we get an explanation for that? That failure—the slowest recovery in 100 years—means that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not have a chance of meeting their promises to balance the books by 2015.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman answered a question. Does erasing those promises from the Conservative party website mean that people will forget they were made?

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady was doing so well. She is airbrushing the previous Labour Government’s record. If Labour is elected in 2015 and the economy is growing, does she recommend running a structural deficit, as the previous Labour Government did?

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is time for Government Members to take responsibility for the economy: three wasted years, lost opportunities and the loss of jobs and growth as a result of this Government’s failing economic policies.

Finance Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Jim Shannon]

Transferable allowances work by families claiming against them for the previous year. Thus this year’s Finance Bill makes provision for transferable allowances for the financial year 2014-15. People will not be able to claim against them until the financial year 2015-16. I will be seeking from the Government an assurance that that will be addressed this year so that it can happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It was not that long ago that we were told that the reductions in public sector employment would not be met by new jobs in the private sector, but they have been met many times over. The reality is that we have an astoundingly good record on job creation over the past three years, despite the fact that the economy has faced significant challenges.

This Government have established a corporate tax system that attracts international investment to the country and that encourages UK businesses to grow. Corporation tax will be eight percentage points lower in 2015 than the levels we inherited in 2010. This Bill cuts the main rate to 21% next year and 20% the year after, which will give us the joint lowest rate in the G20, the lowest of any major economy in the world and the lowest rate this country has ever known.

The Bill does that alongside separate action to incentivise activity across the economy. It introduces a new above-the-line credit for large company research and development investment, provides reliefs that are among the most generous in the world for the animation and high-end television industries, and gives long-term fiscal certainty to the oil and gas industry on decommissioning tax relief.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

There was no time to debate new clause 3 on air passenger duty so I will not speak to it, but will the Treasury continue to review the effects of APD on the travel industry and the wider economy?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with our proposal—I suspect that we might not have the same agreement over some of the other issues up for debate today. He raises important issues. That is why, through new clause 2, we want to ensure that a report would be produced. We are calling on the Government to do that now, rather than put it off into the future. The Government could put in place monitoring measures now; that would allow for a temporary VAT cut, which would help stimulate the economy.

Borrowing to pay for the cost of economic failure has risen—it is now forecast to be £245 billion more than planned at the time of the spending review. That, of course, excludes the one-off transfers of the Royal Mail pension fund and asset purchase facilities. The Government are not going to balance the books by 2015 as the Prime Minister promised. National debt as a percentage of GDP is not now forecast to start falling until 2017-18. It is important to remember that, as it breaks one of the Government’s own fiscal rules.

As this week’s labour market statistics show, halfway through a Parliament, Britain is still being scarred by rising unemployment, an issue raised in earlier debates by many hon. Members, who brought attention to what was happening in their constituencies in the real world.

Not only are more people unemployed than at the election, but the number is rising. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North referred to the rising numbers: 70,000 more people are on the dole now than last month; long-term unemployment has risen yet again; and, most damagingly of all, the next generation is paying the brutal price, with youth unemployment up yet again, by 20,000.

People are no longer giving the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt. I think I said that about this time during last year’s debate; I felt that at that stage the public were beginning to lose confidence in the Chancellor’s economic strategy. This week, we have to take note of what the International Monetary Fund’s chief economist said:

“In the face of very weak private demand, it may be time to consider adjusting the original fiscal consolidation plan”.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with interest and read the new clause with greater interest. She really has not addressed the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). The new clause represents a spending commitment. Given that she is not able to specify what “strong growth” means, how will she fill the fiscal gap? Will she increase another tax, and if so which one? Alternatively, which departmental budget would be cut to pay for the measure?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We argue that the new clause would be part of a package of measures. We have heard about other initiatives that could be brought forward, and it is important to recognise that others in industry and business are also saying that one way to stimulate the economy would be to introduce at least a temporary cut in VAT. There are serious questions to be asked about the other issues, but if we could get unanimity about this issue, it might be possible for the Government to consider it and bring forward further proposals.

In the Budget, the Government had the opportunity to change course, make the necessary changes and kick-start the economy. Sadly, however, more and more commentators are reflecting that all we got was more of the same from the downgraded Chancellor. As a result, the cost of living for people up and down the country is rising day by day. The economy is flatlining, inflation remains high and food bills are rising. Energy bills are soaring, thanks to the Government’s failure to break the stranglehold of the big six energy companies. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent figures show that people will be worse off in 2015 than when the Government came to office.

The reality for people is that real wages are now £17,000 a year smaller than they were in 2010. To add to that hardship, any benefit that hard-working people might have received from the Government’s much trumpeted rise in the personal allowance has been uniformly swept aside by the raft of tax and benefit changes that the Government have made since 2010. Those changes mean that families will be an average of £891 worse off in the new financial year, according to the analysis of figures made by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies—even more money out of the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country.

The truth is that even if those tax and benefit changes had never happened, any benefit from the rise of the personal allowance would have been wiped out by the Government’s 2011 VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% alone. Research from the TUC confirms that by the time of the next election, families of all incomes will lose more from the VAT rise than they will gain from the increase in the personal allowance and the changes to national insurance, with low-paid workers losing up to four times more per year from the Government’s increase in VAT than they will gain from the raising of the personal tax allowance to £10,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

indicated assent.

[Mr Jackson]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to make a bit more progress. I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton about times being hard and the idea that somehow the problem is to clear up the mess left behind, as he described it. People out there in the real world are getting tired of hearing that same old mantra. The Government have responsibility for what is happening now. They have to take responsibility for policy decisions taken in Budgets that impact on the lives of ordinary people.

I go back to the research from the TUC. Some Government Members may look sceptical about it, but I assure them that many ordinary people in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends recognise the value of the work that the TUC and trade unions are doing in standing up for those finding that their individual and collective incomes are being affected.

The TUC research considers the impact of direct and indirect tax changes over the Parliament. It shows that a household with an average weekly income of £195.92, the lowest income band for working people, will gain £1.09 a week—that figure is underlined, so I have not made an error—from the above-inflation rise in the personal allowance by 2015. However, and importantly, the same family will lose £4.26 a week through the increase in VAT, which went up in January 2011, leaving them with a total annual loss of £164.84 as a result of the Government’s tax policy.

Many on the Government Benches may say, “Well, that is not a huge amount.” I repeat what I have said in previous debates: it may not be a huge amount for someone with a decent job and income—I include all of us here in that—but it is a huge amount for those trying to have a reasonable standard of living and ensure that their families have food on the table and that their kids have clothes.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jackson]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I give way first to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is being most generous in giving way. Surely it is churlish of her not to concede that most independent specialists, such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have said that as a result of the fiscal changes since 2010 the biggest impact has been felt among the richest 10% of earners in the country. Is it not fair to put that on the record, too?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope I am not being churlish in hoping that the hon. Gentleman will understand that most of those independent commentators also point to what is happening to those on the lowest incomes. Opposition Members feel strongly that those people are taking a disproportionate share. It is not a case of, “We’re all in it together.” When ordinary people see millionaires and those on the highest incomes getting a tax break or a tax cut, it seems unfair to them that their wages or incomes are hit hard by the Government’s policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful for that clarification. I recall that Labour Front Benchers said at the time that the proposal was specific to one thing, but this is a flexible measure. We can exempt certain goods from it. Yes, there are the European directives, but we could do this immediately and in doing so send out a positive message to the country and the business community and increase footfall in our shops and high streets.

The argument about reducing tax and increasing yields is perfectly legitimate. Some say that reducing corporation tax automatically boosts business, but it also results in a drop-off in the money that the Treasury takes. Nevertheless, it seems to be a favourite of the Conservatives, and I, too, support it. I support having a low-tax economy and reducing many of these taxes, but we should be consistent and do the same with VAT. The increase in it was supposed to raise several billions of pounds, but it has failed to do so because spending has fallen.

I support the proposal to reduce VAT. Action is need and needed now. The Chancellor could do it, and if he wanted to, he could do it straightaway. I accept that the poorest in the country, on the lowest wages, will benefit from the change to income tax thresholds, but they will lose out overall. The TUC is not alone in making this point. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the combined tax increases, of which there have been several, both direct and indirect, will make the average family £900 worse off. If families are worse off in this country, spending is reduced and the economy is bound to contract. That is basic economics. We need to stimulate the economy, and one way of doing it correctly is to reduce VAT temporarily from 20% to 17.5%. Let us get the economy moving. The Chancellor has the power to do it, and he should support the new clause.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I am not sure that it is necessarily a pleasure for the Whips, because the Committee will know that in the last Budget I was not exactly that supportive of my party on VAT, having opposed VAT on caravans and, by virtue of my being the Member of Parliament for Peterborough, on ecclesiastical buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the numerous observations and reports suggesting that, in fact, capital is available? Many businesses have capital available; the reason it is not being used to invest is that there is low demand in our economy.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady anticipates my next point. By any respectable indicators over the past few years, the cash reserves that British business has for investment are enormous. The issue is business confidence. To develop that point, parts of the economy are doing significantly better than others and have not been affected by this cyclical change, which has lasted since the onset of the Northern Rock crisis of 2007-08 and the wider banking crisis.

I am a Conservative, so of course I am in favour of tax cuts. Would that we were in a position to have a tax cut by virtue of the Opposition’s new clause 2, but let us make no bones about it: it is an unfunded tax cut—if it walks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck. I always thought that Labour’s credo in recent times was not to support unfunded tax cuts. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who is a very competent, proficient performer at the Dispatch Box, she failed to answer the points raised by me and the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and say where the money would come from. We are talking about £100 billion of indicative funding, which has to be found from somewhere. It is all very well saying, “We’re going to have a progress report at the end of this Parliament to see how things are going,” but once we put in place that tax cut, we would cut off that income stream. We would then have to find other ways to fund core expenditure.

[Albert Owen]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he referred to a figure of £100 billion, which is the total VAT take. We will not lose all of it: there will be a 2.5% reduction.

[Albert Owen]

Yes, a 10% reduction. The hon. Gentleman is talking about losing that, but unemployment is going up—these are the factors—and we will be paying more out of the Treasury for those things. We are talking about stimulating the economy, which I understand is difficult to quantify, but it would be positive.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman might say that, but it is incumbent on Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to specify the amounts and where the cuts would be made in other ways. It is not acceptable to dodge the issue, and that goes even for the simple question of what is “strong growth”. At what stage would that be measured? How would we quantify “strong growth”? It is rather mealy-mouthed.

Let us look at the wider context. Interest rates are historically low. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not old enough—or maybe he is—to know that in 1975 they were 27%, under a Labour Government. Inflation was substantially higher through most of the ’70s and ’80s. We now have big cash balances, lower interest rates, relatively low inflation, lots of money in the economy and quantitative easing, which has been in place for many years. Even if we accept the traditional Keynesian view—that just pumping money into the economy will deliver growth, jobs and prosperity, which seemed to inform the argument that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made—we should accept that it has not worked so far through quantitative easing, with the balances that are available. The issue is business confidence.

In the wider context—wider even than that—between 2000 and 2010, public expenditure rose from roughly £450 billion to more than £700 billion. That is the context in which we should look at these fiscal changes. It is not as if we have starved the economy of money in the public sector. The difficulty for the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in arguing in defence of the Government at that time is that the economy was so unbalanced. It was focused disproportionately on the housing market, public expenditure and financial services. Part of our challenge as a Government is to try to rebalance the economy, so that it can make people prosperous and create jobs across wider economic activities, which is happening organically on its own.

Those on the Opposition Front Bench also fail to take into account the other, bigger policies that the Government have embarked on. I will not pretend that things such as the national insurance holidays or the regional growth fund have been an enormous success. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee and we have been critical of things that the Government have pursued in some areas. Nevertheless—the hon. Gentleman alluded to this—the Government are looking at tariffs for utility bills, the beer duty escalator and the fuel duty escalator. We are looking at substantial changes that will have a fiscal impact on welfare, through the universal credit and so on making work pay, rather than paying for idleness and allowing people’s talents to be wasted. We are also putting money into the mortgage market and assisting new house building. Some 42,000 of my constituents had a tax cut last week as a result of the massive fiscal changes that this Government have made, with 2,000 of my constituents paying no tax at all and 24 million people affected. It seems rather unfair not to take that on board.

I also alluded earlier to the progressive nature of our tax changes. Whatever we say about them, it cannot be argued that we have not looked at the top 5% or 10% of income earners in this country to ensure that they are paying a significantly higher share than others. They are the people who will specifically be more worse off than anyone else, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not.

[Mr Redwood]

It is unfair to say that VAT is a very regressive tax. If it were applied across everything, it would be, but because it does not apply to food and some other items that figure much more highly in low-income budgets, it is not nearly as regressive as has been suggested.

[Mr Jackson]

Exactly. We could argue at length about the progressiveness of various taxes—no doubt others would want to—but my right hon. Friend makes an astute point.

The final example is council tax. That depends on the local authority, but in general, most councils have frozen council tax. Therefore, the suite or portfolio of the Government’s fiscal changes that have helped working people is quite significant.

Let me say in finishing that we expect more from an Opposition two and a half years into a Parliament. We expect them to come up with policies that are credible. We expect them to move on from policies that just tick the box of opposition. No doubt the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who is well connected in the Labour party, will have read the comments of Tony Blair, a three-time election winner, in the 100th anniversary edition of the New Statesman. He cautions the Labour party not to fall back into the comfort zone, not to be a repository of anger, but to be an outward-looking, forward-looking progressive party. I am sure that the Labour Whip on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), would agree with his predecessor and say that that is sage and intelligent advice. It is so because we expect proper, costed policies. What we have had today is an unfunded tax cut that does not help the people I believe the Labour party genuinely wants to assist to have a better life. I would caution the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun to come back with more coherent, more intelligent and more credible policies. That is why I will not support new clause 2.

[Alex Cunningham]

Some Members have chosen to talk about billions of pounds. I will speak about the odd pound and the odd penny, because that is what makes the difference to many of the people I represent.

The cost of living is one of the defining issues of this Parliament not only because of what the Government are doing but because of what they are not doing. Following the announcement yesterday of a huge increase in unemployment—12,000 in the north-east of England—in the last hour, we have learnt that another 160 jobs are going at SABIC, a pharmaceuticals company on Teesside. That is not good news.

The Chancellor’s VAT hike has been shown to be a mistake and it is hitting the vulnerable and those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest. Yes, one of the millionaires who uses his £100,000 tax cut under this Government will pay more VAT than the vast majority of other people when he buys himself a luxury car, but that will not make the difference to whether or not he can buy an extra loaf of bread or a pound of mince for his family’s evening meal. A cut in VAT of 2.5% may just buy some extra peanuts when the banker buys his champagne to celebrate his latest million-pound bonus, but it is the people earning peanuts for working hard to support their families who can put the extra pound or two from a cut to good use.

The previous Labour Government showed that that works when they temporarily reduced VAT to 15%. The reduced tax on sales provided an effective stimulus to the economy. Likewise, a VAT hike was always going to suppress consumption, and hit ordinary families in places such as my Stockton North constituency hard.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Imagine announcing such a scheme, and then delivering only 1.5% of the goal that the Government set out so confidently at the inception of that project, which has clearly failed. We want to see the careful and detailed thought, piloting, workings and evidence that the Government have put into this latest venture.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is now going to assure us that all that careful and thorough work has been done.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. We would take his critique a little more seriously, had not his Government’s regional spatial strategy delivered the lowest number of homes since 1923, doubled the number of homeless families and built 117,000 homes on flood plains between 1997 and 2005. Is that not the reality of the Government he supported between 1997 and 2010?

[Chris Leslie]

Setting aside the fact that there is probably the lowest number of Conservative MPs here in the Chamber today since 1923, they do not have room to criticise any previous Government on these issues, let alone the last Labour Government. We believe that there is a crying need for housing, which is one of the crucial foundations for future economic prosperity. It is about time Government Members recognised that they have had three years in power, and have their own record to defend. They have to take some responsibility for the decisions they have been supporting.

I do not know whether my hon. Friends recall the infrastructure guarantee scheme, a key feature of the summer before last. It was part of the Government’s emergency legislation, and they rushed it through Parliament. It was supposed to enable guarantees to underpin £40 billion of investment in infrastructure and £10 billion-worth of new homes, including 15,000 new affordable homes. However, so far as I can see—I am sure the Minister will intervene if I am wrong—not a single tangible penny of support from that scheme has been allocated for house building. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to correct me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I know that the Minister pursues his duty to this House with great diligence and that, in responding to the debate, he will want to update us in detail on the number of extra houses that have been forthcoming as a result of the vital emergency legislation that the Government put through. It would be extremely helpful if he did so. However, it is clear to us that the overwhelming barrier for the housing market to overcome has been the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget made in the 2010 spending review, and of course, matters have been made worse by the subsequent lack of growth in the economy. It is therefore no wonder that the Chancellor felt the need to reboot his various schemes back in March. That is why we come now to the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, the detail of which I want to spend a little time considering.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I pay tribute to the Minister, who does indeed know what he is talking about, having been, like me, a member of the board of management of the New Local Government Network. If there is a Labour Government within the next year or so, will the hon. Gentleman abolish the affordable rent model and put funding directly back into social rent—yes or no?

[Chris Leslie]

I will come to some of those details because I think it important that we look at the contrasting policy options for housing support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington has been developing our plans for house building and housing supply in a number of different ways, and I will touch on those, if I may, after having looked at the Government’s approach: the Help to Buy scheme, which consists of two parts, the first being an equity loan element. The Government have said that they want to extend what was known as the First Buy scheme—there are so many names that it is sometimes difficult to keep track—whereby people would purchase new build homes up to a value of £600,000 and could borrow 20% of the value of the property interest free for five years in return for the Government taking a stake in the equity. The fee for that would increase annually, but only in line with inflation, so the Government are essentially committing, they say, up to £3.5 billion over the next three years to this shared equity loan scheme.

Tax Fairness

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman will be alert to the fact that I came into this House only in 2010. We can all look back with hindsight and be critical of decisions made at different times. One of the issues for us all in these difficult times is whether with hindsight on the decisions we are making today people will say we made the right decisions.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that between 1998 and 2010, in a period of sustained economic growth, the welfare bill under the party he supports went from £53 billion to £111 billion? Does that not speak to a failure to tackle endemic issues of welfare dependency, which this Government are addressing?

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but this debate is focused on fair taxes. He is right to draw attention to other things, but you would bring me to order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were lured down that route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Yes, that was absolutely regrettable. I know that my party will commit to introducing a cap on bonuses in our first few days in power after the next election.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman always makes a powerful point. Having served on the Public Accounts Committee and on the ongoing inquiries into tax avoidance, I concur with him. I am a defender not of crony capitalism but of popular capitalism. He might not agree with me on that, being slightly on the left. In order to tackle corporate tax avoidance, we need to look at multilateral, bilateral, international and domestic legislation, but would he acknowledge that the previous Government flunked every opportunity to look at those issues over 13 years?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We have seen successive Governments going in for what is called light-touch regulation on all fronts. I have never believed in light-touch regulation; I believe in tough regulation. I believe in employing thousands more tax officers to ensure that we collect the taxes. At the beginning of my time in Parliament, I visited our local VAT office, and the inspectors there told me that if they had more tax inspectors, they could collect billions more in tax. Each of those VAT inspectors collected more than five times their salary. I wrote about this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, and got a letter back from a civil servant saying that the Treasury was trying to reduce costs by reducing staffing levels. That was a completely illogical non sequitur; it was complete nonsense. Reducing the number of tax officers will reduce income by more than the amount of their salaries.

I have made the point many times—and I shall continue to make it—that we need more tax officers and more rigorous regulation. We need more control over what the corporates and the fat cats get away with. The reality is that ordinary working-class people have to pay tax through PAYE. They cannot escape paying their tax, but the corporates and the fat cats can. So, I have agreed with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on one or two issues, and I am pleased about that, although we have different philosophical views when it comes to economics.

I want to talk about the deficit problem, because that is what taxation is about. I do not think that we actually have a deficit problem. We do not even have a spending problem. We have a revenue collection problem. That can be addressed either by collecting tax in the way that we do now, or by changing tax rates, as proposed in today’s motion.

Tax collection is a serious problem, and we could make serious changes there, but I want to look back to a time when taxes were more progressive. During the previous Parliament, I made suggestions in this Chamber about the kind of tax changes that I wanted to see. I went beyond what our leadership is now suggesting, although I welcome its proposals. I think we should go further, however. In the 1970s, Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that he wanted to

“tax the rich until the pips squeak”.

I cheered him for that, and we did not lose any votes because of his statement. In fact, a lot ordinary working-class people said, “Quite right too! We want those who can afford to pay more to do so. Those who can only afford to pay less should pay less.”

The Economy

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I have not had a recent conversion to capital expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in the spending review in 2010, we committed over £2 billion a year more to capital expenditure than had been set out in the previous Government’s plans. In the autumn statement last year we added £5 billion and in this year’s autumn statement we added another £5 billion for a range of projects. I hope that he will recognise that the Building Schools for the Future programme was expensive and bureaucratic. The proposals that have been brought forward by the Department for Education are a better and more cost-effective way to meet at least some of the needs in the school system in this country.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the subject of apologies, will my right hon. Friend invite Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to apologise for the debt millstone of the private finance initiative in the national health service, which amounts to more than £63 billion? The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is aware of that, because it was all about hiding the debt off balance sheet and ensuring that our children struggle with it. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. We will not have shouting across the Chamber and we will not have wagging of fingers, even from a Whip. Have you finished, Mr Jackson?

[Mr Jackson]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with my analysis of PFI.

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend adds another item to the long list of items for which the people of this country deserve an apology from the Labour party. We have had no such apology yet, but we live in hope. Perhaps the shadow Chief Secretary will begin her speech with an apology for the many and various mistakes. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Alexander]

Not off the top of my head, but I dare say that hon. Members on the Government Benches can speak for themselves. I have, however, heard a number of objections to the structure of PFI contracts. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, the PF2 model is not designed to abolish PFI and can play an important role in developing new projects. We want to strip away some of the most egregious features such as facilities management costs—a couple of years ago the Treasury was going to be charged several thousand pounds by the PFI holder for putting up a Christmas tree. That issue was resolved but it is a small example of the excessive costs involved. In Treasury questions earlier today the Chancellor gave an example concerning the cost of changing a light bulb in a hospital in Cumbria.

I am sure that on reflection the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) would agree that reforming PFI to strip out some unnecessary features such as facilities management costs and so on, and having a simpler, clearer model in which the taxpayer can share in any gains, is a big improvement. I hope that when he has looked at what is being proposed, he will welcome it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

My right hon. Friend may wish to comment on the fact that another example of Labour prudence was spending £250 million on private contractors in the NHS for operations that were never carried out.

Transferable Tax Allowances

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Turner, to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, and it is a great honour to have the opportunity to put these important issues before the Chamber.

One of the key policy focuses in the run-up to the general election, and one of our key election manifesto commitments, was the introduction of a transferable allowance to recognise marriage in the tax system. The commitment to introduce the necessary legislation was included in the coalition agreement—for the avoidance of doubt it was on page 30—with provision also made for the Liberal Democrats to abstain.

The transferable allowance proposal was the main headline-grabbing recommendation among many other recommendations arising from the Conservative party’s social justice policy group and its two reports “Breakdown” and “Breakdown Britain”. Both reports highlighted the centrality of family breakdown to many of the social problems facing Britain today, which are a real issue, as I see in my constituency and as my hon. Friends will see in theirs. The reports recognised that the lack of policy support for marriage—the relationship at the heart of a stable family life—was not helping.

Britain is unusual in having a tax system that does not include any spousal allowance or credit. The group was very clear that addressing that shortcoming and recognising marriage in the tax system through a transferable tax allowance would help to bring us back into line with international best practice, and define the best way forward.

Before going into a more detailed presentation of the rationale for the transferable allowance policy, it is important to be clear from the outset about its importance to my party, as is reflected by the Prime Minister’s frequent references to it. When speaking as the Leader of the Opposition in response to the publication of “Broken Britain” in 2007, he said:

“I welcome this report’s emphasis on the family, and on marriage, as the basis for the social progress we all want to see…Britain is almost the only country in Europe that doesn’t recognise marriage in the tax system”.

He continued:

“Our support for families and for marriage puts us on the side of the mainstream majority, on the side of a progressive politics, on the side of change that says we can stop social decline, we can fix our broken society, we can and will make this a better place to live for everyone.”

In July 2008, in Glasgow, the Prime Minister continued to affirm that stance by saying that

“when it comes to perhaps the most important area of all, families, we will take action not just to support marriage and family stability”.

He told parents:

“your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.”

Furthermore, in 2010, during the run-up to the general election, during a speech in Doncaster, my right hon. Friend seemed to become even more vociferous in his support for marriage, saying:

“I absolutely feel at my very core that recognising that relationships matter, that commitment matters and, yes, that marriage matters is something we should not say quietly but something we should say loudly and proudly.”

He continued:

“What is so backward looking in a country where we have social breakdown and social problems of saying that committed relationships, encouraging people to come together and stay together is a bad thing? Of course it isn’t, it’s not outdated”—

I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is listening—

“if you look around the European Union, if you look around the OECD, we’re almost alone in not recognising marriage in the tax system. And why do we…think that with our appalling record of family breakdown that somehow we are in the right position and everyone else is in the wrong position; we’re not, they’ve got it right and we have got it wrong.”

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The Conservative party is standing up for marriage in the House. With the exception of the representative from the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), 14 Conservative Members account for all the Back Benchers in the Chamber, so we are clearly showing that the only party on the side of marriage is the Conservative party.

[Mr Jackson]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It will be noted that family policy is low on the agenda for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

The Prime Minister has said during Prime Minister’s questions:

“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

That was a seasonal reference. I could go on, but I hope that I have made the point that delivering transferable allowances, about which we have talked so much, is now of central importance if we are to be deemed to be reliable and trustworthy.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for leading this debate. Does he recognise the concern that many of us have—we will no doubt be feeling it in the months to come—that the changes to child benefit are another example of where the rhetoric about marriage will be undermined? A stay- at-home parent in a household earning only £60,000 will be deprived of all their child benefit if those proposals go through, yet two working parents earning £45,000 each, so with 50% more income, will not lose a single penny of their child benefit. That is one of the unforeseen circumstances of this ill-thought policy.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an astute point and I hope that the Chancellor is listening. We will hear his autumn statement a week today. In fairness to the Government, they have sought to ameliorate the cliff-edge effect of the changes that were announced in October 2010, but uprating benefits by 5.2% while seeming to punish people who are aspirational and have done well for themselves sends a confused message, and the Chancellor should seriously think again about that policy. With respect to the Minister, I am not convinced that the infrastructure is even in place to enact that policy change to the maximum degree, but I must not meander on to child benefit.

Back in February 2007, the fact that Britain came bottom of the UNICEF league table for child well-being hit the headlines and rightly caused a stir. On 16 February 2007, that was picked up in an important speech by the then Leader of the Opposition entitled “Nothing matters more than children”. He gave a strong affirmation of the importance of marriage for child development and said,

“I want to see more couples stay together, and we know that the best way to ensure this is to support marriage. Not because it matters how adult men and women conduct their relationships. But because it matters how children are brought up. Nothing matters more than children.”

Who in this Chamber could disagree with that?

Why is marriage so central to child well-being? As “Breakthrough Britain” demonstrated, fewer than one in 10 married parents have split by the time a child is five, compared with more than one in three couples who were not married. That is hugely important because although most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, the evidence is clear that, on average, children brought up in married families do better than those brought up in single-parent families on every significant measure: educational attainment, health, likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse.

As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in February 2011:

“The Centre for Social Justice has found that those not growing up in a two-parent family are: 75% more likely to fail at school; 70% more likely to become addicted to drugs; and 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem…And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that children from separated families have a higher probability of: living in poor housing; developing behavioural problems; and suffering from a host of other damaging outcomes, whose effects spill over to the rest of society.”

Some might be tempted to respond to that by suggesting that the principal cause for those different outcomes is not marriage, but wealth, and it just so happens that wealthier people are more likely to get married. However, that analysis does not add up. No one is trying to argue that marriage is the only important consideration or that wealth is not relevant. However, as the Under-Secretary of State for Education, Lord Hill of Oareford, has noted, research from the millennium cohort study suggests that the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.

In that context, the least we should do is to ensure that getting married in this country is no more difficult than in other developed countries. Given that Britain is unique among large, developed OECD economies in failing to provide any kind of spousal allowance or credit, the fact that it is relatively insensitive to couple and family responsibility must come as no surprise. In making that point, I am aware that when the recognition of marriage in the tax system is mentioned, it provokes in some quarters embarrassed smiles and sarcastic comments such as, “I got married for love.” I hope that we all did—those of us who are married—but such comments demonstrate a complete failure to understand the situation in which we find ourselves.

Let me be clear that people do not fall in love for fiscal reasons. However, when they fall in love and decide that they want to be together, they face a choice. Do they marry or cohabit? Do they make a public lifelong commitment to each other in front of families and friends that is recognised in law, or do they just move in together relatively casually and see how things go? The suggestion that that judgment is in no way impacted by financial considerations can be made only by people whose wealth is such that they are entirely insulated from the real-world considerations that impinge on the lives of most, and they are in danger of seeming very out of touch—I hope, again, that the Deputy Prime Minister is listening.

What of the pertinent financial considerations? The latest international comparison figures demonstrate that one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children face a tax burden that is 42% greater than the OECD average. Why should we make it so much more difficult for people to marry in the UK than in other OECD countries? That is a pressing question, especially when considered in the context of polling.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Let me emphasise that what he is asking for is not a preserve of the middle classes, and nor would it undermine other forms of cohabitation that people are in, in many cases through no choice of their own—particularly when a husband has abandoned a wife. The reason why people go into marriage in the first place is also not based on money, but the empirical evidence that he has started to reel off absolutely shows that marriage is the most sturdy and stable form of bringing up children.

Does my hon. Friend agree that next week’s autumn statement by the Chancellor is absolutely the last opportunity for the Government to make clear the importance that they place on marriage? A commitment was made in the coalition agreement, but we need a full-blooded commitment, not one that only tinkers around the edges with a half-hearted endorsement of what we all believe in.

[Mr Jackson]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend’s intervention allows me to pay warm tribute to his fantastic work as children’s Minister. I look forward to the day that he is back in government, sharing his plethora of talents with the nation, but I know that he will do a fantastic job on the Back Benches for his constituents and the country.

I return to my argument about polling. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said during marriage week in February 2011:

“When asked about their aspirations, young people are very clear: three quarters of those under 35 who are currently in cohabiting relationships want to get married, and some 90% of young people aspire to marriage. So perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is this: if people from the youngest age aspire to make such a commitment in their lives, what stops them doing so? Government cannot and should not try to lecture people or push them on this matter, but it is quite legitimate to ensure people have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.”

I must, in addressing this point, congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing in the long-overdue reform that our benefits system requires and on introducing universal credit, which takes important steps to erode the couple penalty. However, the couple penalty remains such that, even with a fully transferable allowance, it would still be in place for all couples, apart from those without children. In other words, where one is dealing with one-earner married couples with children, the provision of a fully transferable allowance would not even create a level playing field, let alone any incentive to marry. It would simply erode the disincentive not to marry.

In the current context, where we make it harder for people to marry in this country than it is across the EU on average, the lack of support for marriage gives rise to family breakdown, not primarily through the breakdown of existing marriages, but by making marriage no more fiscally attractive than cohabitation, despite requiring a much higher and much more costly level of commitment than cohabitation. In such a context, cohabiting, which, as we have seen, is far less stable, inevitably becomes more attractive.

“Family breakdown in the UK”, a publication from December 2010, made the point that

“the problem is not divorce. While marriage accounts for 54% of births, the failure of marriages—i.e. divorce—accounts for only 20% of break-ups and 14% of the costs of family breakdown, amongst all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80% of the break-ups and 86% of the costs.”

It subsequently stated:

“These new statistics demonstrate dramatically that family breakdown is a huge and growing problem and that the main driver of family breakdown is the collapse of unmarried families. A failure to acknowledge these key points will lead to the inevitable failure of any government policy aimed at strengthening families. Witness the continued rise of lone parenthood since the 1980s at a time while divorce rates remained stable or declined.”

The arguments for a transferable allowance for married couples, defined narrowly in terms of the benefits of marriage, are more than enough to justify the change, but there are other compelling arguments for introducing transferable allowances: first, to make the tax system fairer by reducing the tax burden on one-earner families with modest incomes; and secondly, to make work pay, which is even more important.

In the first instance, it is not fair to place a tax burden on the income of one-earner families that is 42% greater than the OECD average. Crucially, most one-earner families who would benefit from a transferable allowance are in the poorer half of the population. The Institute for Fiscal Studies published figures shortly before the election showing that the transferable allowance proposals in our manifesto would have overwhelmingly benefited families in the poorer half of the population. In contrast, the IFS said that raising the tax threshold—the implementation of which has been prioritised to date in order to please the Liberal Democrats—would benefit mainly taxpayers in the top half of the population.

When independent taxation was introduced in 1990, it was realised that, unless special provision was made for families, they would lose out. As Nigel Lawson recognised at the time, the logical solution was to give a non-earner in a one-earner household the right to transfer their unused personal allowance to their spouse. He was not able to do that and as a compromise, the married couples allowance and the additional personal allowance were introduced. It is now clear that, without those allowances or transferable allowances, one-income married couples, most of whom are relatively poor, were bound to end up bearing an increasing share of the tax burden. That is what has happened, generating a completely unfair situation.

A few years ago, the Treasury published figures showing that, in 2009-10, a single taxpayer on three quarters of the median wage—approximately £20,000—was paying 21% less tax than in 1990. A single-earner married couple were paying 11% more tax. Under the coalition agreement, we are putting considerable resources into raising the tax threshold. For a single person under 65, the tax threshold this year is 170% higher than it was in 1990. However, the tax threshold for a one-earner married couple has risen by only 71%, so in real terms it is lower than it was in 1990. I urge the Minister to examine those figures carefully and to draw them to the Chancellor’s attention.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his compelling analysis. Listening to him reminded me of something that my mother—my single mother—said about 40 years ago. She used an old phrase, “When money troubles come in the door, love goes out the window”, which is a good measure of the stresses that are put on families by financial pressures. Does he agree that there is no more important time than now for this issue, when the least well-off in our society are facing job and cost pressures as never before, which will put pressures on marriage as never before?

[Mr Jackson]

My right hon. Friend is bang on the money. Although such tax changes would be costly in the short term, the benefits for society would be incalculable, were we to enact them, which I hope we will in the Budget next March.

In considering the fairness arguments, it is also important to deal with the misguided claim made by some that, rather than helping one-earner families, the answer is to make them two-earner families. That logic is the occasion of great unfairness, because more often than not that option is not available. The latest DWP figures demonstrate that in 2.2 million households one member is in full-time work and the other is not earning; that 1.2 million, or 53%, of those households contain children; that in 700,000, or 58%, of those households with children there is a youngest child who is under five; and that a further 300,000, or 21%, have a youngest child between the ages of five and 10. Some 61% of all one-earner couple families have a young child under five, someone who is disabled or someone with caring responsibilities. Many of the remainder are likely to be doing voluntary work. It is clear that the majority of one-earner families are one-earners out of necessity rather than choice.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is making an important point about low-income families and the second person in the family having to obtain work. Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that, for a second earner on a low wage, there is the massive impediment of child care costs, which usually take up most of that second income?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are fortunate that the ministerial teams in the Treasury and the Department for Education are thinking carefully about how important child care is. Balance is important. We must not send a message through the tax system that child rearing, caring for children and bringing up a family are less important than going out to work, but at the same time we must, as Conservatives, take a liberal approach, so we should not put disincentives in the tax system for those who want to work. One of the abiding negative legacies of the previous Government is the appalling, mismanaged tax credit system, which tied so many people up in knots and was a disincentive for them even to consider any form of work.

I will not detain hon. Members too much longer, because other colleagues wish to speak. In addition to the marriage and fairness argument, there is also the important “making work pay” argument. In his Conservative party conference speech this year, the Prime Minister placed great emphasis on the goal of building an aspiration nation. Realising that goal necessitates addressing the principal obstacle, namely that our marginal effective tax rate is currently a staggering 73% for many people in receipt of tax credits. This is hugely out of line with international best practice. The comparable OECD average is just 33%. I am afraid that the elusive right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) must bear that huge burden. Clearly, he has better things to do today than attend this debate and listen to descriptions of the mess he made of the tax credit system.

We have got ourselves into such a situation because we moved from placing the burden of recognising family responsibilities on both the tax and benefits systems, as in most large, developed economies, to placing it entirely on the benefits system. That necessarily inflates benefits and, in so doing, creates an inflated marginal effective tax rate and a huge disincentive to work one’s way out of poverty, wherein the person concerned only gains 27p in every additional pound earned. Across the OECD, comparable employees take home on average 67p for every additional pound earned. The introduction of a transferable tax allowance will restore to the tax system some responsibility for recognising family responsibility and thereby float some poorer families off benefits, releasing them from high marginal effective tax rates.

The transferable allowance policy is timely for those wanting the UK economy to grow, such that those trapped under the burden of crippling marginal effective tax rates are released—liberated into productive, constructive employment, wherein they can deliver the aspiration nation goal.

To date, Ministers pressed on the transferable allowance point have always reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the policy and said that they will introduce it at the appropriate time. However, the truth is that if they do not act at the next Budget in March 2013 the appropriate time will have passed, because it will take at least 12 months from the passage of the legislation till the law can be implemented, because of information technology and other preparatory changes that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have to implement. We have now reached the crunch point, which is why I call on the Chancellor to announce in the autumn statement, a week today, that the 2013 Budget will introduce transferable allowances.

I am told that the cost of a transferable allowance restricted to married couples with a child under three would be less than £1 billion. If it were restricted to married couples with a child under six, the cost would be £1.4 billion. The cost would be £2.4 billion if it were restricted to married couples with dependent children or in receipt of carers’ allowance. These are not insignificant amounts, but they must be seen in context. At 2010 prices, £13 billion is being found to raise the threshold for everyone to £10,000, and some £3.3 billion is being found to increase the basic personal allowance by £1,100 next year.

[Mark Field]

For context, my hon. Friend will know that £2.4 billion is roughly eight days’ borrowing for this Government.

[Mr Jackson]

I am sure that the wise point made by my hon. Friend will be heard by the Minister, the Front-Bench spokesman for the Treasury.

In presenting these options, I hope that the Government do not opt to introduce the limited partially transferable allowance mooted in The Sunday Telegraph just published, which would be worth only £150, or £3 a week. If the limited funds available are such that we have to start with a limited transferable allowance proposal, it would be much better to focus a transferable allowance on those with young children, providing such families with a meaningful transferable allowance, rather than something minimal spread over all one-earner families.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. I agree with everything he said. Does he agree that tax allowances should be given by introduction of a transferable marriage allowance, rather than by substantial tax allowance given to higher-rate taxpayers on their pension contributions, even if they are earning six-figure salaries?

[Mr Jackson]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a good, important point. This is an opportunity to make real our commitment to fairness and equity.

It is worth noting that the Prime Minister himself seemed a bit bothered by the nature of the partial allowance proposal. On 10 April 2010, he told Sky News:

“Of course, I want to go further”

than just a partially transferable allowance

“and I’m sure over a Parliament we would be able to go further, but this is a good first step that says commitment is important, marriage is important. I want us to be the most family friendly country in Europe and this is one step along that road.”

For the reasons I have elucidated in the past 20-odd minutes, the transferable allowance policy is a win-win policy for this Government that will help us make our fiscal arrangement less hostile to marriage, deal with some current unfairnesses in our tax system and help to make work pay. I hope that the Chancellor does the right thing next Wednesday and brings in a transferable tax allowance, which will be good for our constituents and for the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The sad thing is that we are heading for divorce. [Laughter.]

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a time-limited contract, unlike other marriages, but the issue is that there are also good fiscal reasons why this partnership, or relationship, should seek to have as a priority the implementation of this promise, despite the differing views in the coalition.

We need to tackle the Deputy Prime Minister’s argument; he freely expressed his views in one way, so we are free to express our views in another. As has already been mentioned, he said in December 2011:

“we should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, breadwinning dad and aproned, homemaking mother, and try and preserve it in aspic.”

It is important for us to make the point very clearly and to emphasise, as hon. Friends do, that the Deputy Prime Minister and others, such as the Opposition, are wrong about the two-parent family and wrong about the motives of others. Indeed, their arguments are old and very much out of touch with the British public, and they are themselves increasingly preserved in aspic. We are not harking back to the outdated 1950s model, and it is very condescending to caricature not only our views in that way but the married people up and down the country and those who want very much to support marriage. Marriage is a popular institution—increasingly so—and it is one that the public welcome.

We simply believe that marriage is best for children and for society, and the evidence supports us. A review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the research in this area, which has already been mentioned, shows unequivocally that

“children raised by two happily and continuously married parents have the best chance of developing into competent and successful adults.”

The evidence provides clear support for implementing policies that encourage couples to stay together, and shows that married couples with children are far more likely to stay together than their unmarried counterparts.

It has already been quoted, but it is important to keep repeating the evidence of the “Breakthrough Britain” report, which was published by the Centre for Social Justice. It demonstrated that children born to unmarried parents have a nearly one in two chance of seeing their parents split up by the age of five, whereas for children whose parents are married the figure is only one in 12. That is a huge difference that the state cannot ignore; indeed, the state needs to recognise it properly.

We all recognise that stability clearly matters. Most single parents undoubtedly do a fantastic job raising their children in difficult circumstances. We are not here to judge or to make moral judgments on people’s relationships, but the evidence is very clear that on every significant measure children who are brought up in married families do better on average than those brought up in other relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing this debate. We have heard many sincere contributions. The previous speaker—the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)—said that he was looking forward to hearing my response, but I think he should be looking forward instead to hearing the Minister’s response, because that is where the lack of clarity lies about what is actually going to be happening with this policy proposal that hon. Members have so vociferously supported this morning.

This is an important debate, given the lack of clarity and detail from the Government on what kind of scheme—if any—they plan to introduce. Conservative Members have repeated—I agree with their comments—that they intend to introduce some kind of recognition for marriage in the tax system; indeed, the Prime Minister himself repeated his commitment to such a plan at one of his first Prime Minister’s Question Times. Since that day, however, we have had no confirmation of what the policy might look like.

I want to tackle head on the allegation that families are a low priority for Labour Members. Quite the contrary: the Labour party stands up daily for hard-pressed families, who are feeling the squeeze in these tough economic times. However, we look to stand up for all families, not just couples who are married where one spouse stays at home and the other earns at the 20% rate of tax. It is those couples that the hon. Member for Peterborough and the Members supporting him propose to support.

It has been quite interesting to hear the number of comparisons made with our European neighbours and to hear them spoken of with such great admiration, with Members wanting to follow their lead. That is refreshing in many ways.

I understand the importance of marriage, but I am not convinced that recognising it through the tax system as proposed is the right way to go about this, and I will set out clearly the reasons why.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Perhaps the hon. Lady is feeling her way towards informing us of what the Labour party would do if this issue were brought to a Division in an indicative vote on the Floor of the House. However, I should remind her that the previous Labour Government established the precedent of recognising marriage in the tax system in 2007, through transferable allowances in respect of inheritance tax, so it is not as though the Labour party has never considered transferable tax allowances to support the family.

[Catherine McKinnell]

As I said, I am going to set out clearly why we do not agree that this policy is the right way to go about supporting the families Members believe it will support.

When the Minister without Portfolio told The Daily Telegraph that married couples should not count on getting a tax break before 2015, the party machine swung into action to correct it. A retraction was issued within 24 hours, and the Minister without Portfolio now completely accepts that a tax break will be introduced and that tax is a matter for the Chancellor. It is therefore good that we have the Exchequer Secretary with us to clarify what the Government plan to do, because it has been two and a half years, and Members on both sides of the House are waiting to hear the Government’s proposals. As Members have said, the Conservative party set out in its election manifesto its view of what a tax break for married couples might look like, but times have changed significantly. I therefore look forward to the Minister telling us what the policy might look like and whether it will be implemented, and I am sure other hon. Members look forward to his remarks in the same way.

The strength of feeling on this subject is clear from the number of Conservative Members who have contributed, and that is entirely appropriate. There are, however, serious concerns about the proposal, and Members have referred to the Liberal Democrat party.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing the debate, on making such a forceful, passionate and well-informed speech and on ensuring that there would be significant participation—at least among my hon. Friends. I congratulate all those who made speeches: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).

The debate has demonstrated the degree to which members of my party value commitment and how important we believe the institution of marriage to be to society. That point came across clearly, and, as has been pointed out on several occasions, the Conservative party said, in our 2010 manifesto, that we would recognise marriage and civil partnerships through the tax system. We want to send a clear message that marriage is important and commitment is valued, and that we want to encourage and support hard-working families.

In the past two and a half years, the Government have taken a lot of action to help hard-pressed families in difficult economic times, and I want to say a word or two about some of the steps we have taken before returning to the specific issue of marriage. The Chancellor has said, in his principles for good taxation, that our tax system should be fair, rewarding work and supporting aspiration, and that it should ask most from those who can most afford it. In the context that the Government inherited a difficult financial position in 2010, we have taken steps to bring Britain’s tax system into line with those principles. First and foremost, we chose to focus on tackling the deficit and promoting growth. Among other things, we have focused our efforts on reforms that are intended to ensure that work pays—that point was raised by several hon. Members—including through the introduction of universal credit and our successive increases in the personal allowance.

Given the current economic climate, it is more important than ever that we recognise the wide variety of pressures faced by working families, and we have taken action to help them. For a start, our policy on the personal allowance has helped low and middle earners by improving rewards for work and putting money in their pockets. We have said that raising the personal allowance to £10,000 is our priority for the income tax system, and we stand by that. In the June 2010 Budget, we announced a £1,000 increase in the personal allowance for those aged under 65. We talked about making real-terms steps through the rest of the Parliament to achieve our goal, and those were not idle words, because a further increase of £630 followed at the 2011 Budget. This time, the benefits were passed on to higher rate taxpayers, which meant that there was a real-terms increase of £42 for every taxpayer earning up to £115,970. We promised that we would raise the personal allowance by at least the equivalent of the retail prices index until our objective of £10,000 was reached, but both those increases were significantly above inflation, thus making a real-terms difference to hard-working people.

Those two announcements have taken the personal tax allowance from £6,475 in 2010-11 to £8,105 in 2012-13, and basic rate taxpayers have gained £210 a year in real terms. In the 2012 Budget, we went further and announced an increase of £1,100 from April 2013. That is both the largest real-terms increase in the past 30 years and the largest ever cash increase in the personal allowance. The increase will take the allowance to £9,205 from April 2013, which will provide a real-terms gain of £170 for most basic rate taxpayers in 2013-14. The £10,000 goal is now within touching distance.

Other policies, such as on cutting fuel duty, on council tax, and on keeping interest rates low, have of course helped hard-pressed families. We have provided extra funding to support family support services. The Department for Education set up a relationship support division worth £30 million over four years, which will encourage stability—the very thing that several hon. Members have raised in the debate—and provide support for couples who are experiencing difficulty in their relationship. We hope that that will help some couples to stay together, and that when that is not possible, for whatever reason, it will lessen the impact that the breakdown of parents’ relationships can have on children.

We have touched during the debate on child care. The Government have taken steps to help families with three and four-year-olds by increasing the child care support that they get in a week, as well as to extend support to 260,000 disadvantaged two-year-olds. Indeed, we are looking at what we can do to improve the affordability and accessibility of quality child care.

Universal credit has been touched on in the debate. We are reforming the benefit system to ensure that work pays. Entitlement to universal credit will be based on household income and a single payment will be made to the whole household. That will support family budgeting and ensure that there is no penalty for families, whether one parent chooses to stay at home or both choose to work. Families will be able to keep their benefits for longer before withdrawal at a single rate, which is a much needed improvement on the current system of multiple earnings disregards, as multiple withdrawal rates can leave families confused and trapped out of work.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will the Minister disabuse the Opposition of the notion that the policy is about giving married couples an unfair tax break? It is about nudge behaviour, so that they can make a proper choice between cohabitation and marriage, which is a different thing.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend was right to point out that the previous Government recognised marriage in the context of inheritance tax, which is generally applicable to wealthier households, yet seemed resistant to any recognition of marriage in the tax and benefits system that would help poorer households.

Marriage and civil partnerships are about commitment and stability. They represent a firm promise to stick to something and keep working at it. We want to rectify the way our tax and benefits system relates to that. Studies have shown that married couples are less likely to split up than cohabiting couples, and stability is vital to children. An unstable home life can have a detrimental effect on their happiness and development, and that has been shown by numerous studies, some of which have been quoted today. A recent example is the “Understanding Society” survey by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, which found that parents’ happiness in their relationships had a quantifiable effect on the happiness and well-being of their children. Family is one of the most important influences on a child’s development. The family is where one learns a sense of responsibility. It is where people learn how to behave and how to treat others, and about the things that are important in life.

We are committed to finding ways to support marriage in the tax and benefits system. My hon. Friends will be aware that at the general election we set out a policy of allowing married couples and civil partners to transfer up to £750 of unused tax-free personal allowance when the recipient is a basic rate taxpayer. There is, as we have heard, a reference to that in the coalition agreement, with a statement that the Liberal Democrats can abstain on transferable allowances. None the less, the Government—from the Prime Minister downwards—have made it clear that we remain committed to recognising marriage in the tax and benefits system. I reassure hon. Members that considerable work has been done to examine ways of doing that, and we have heard various ideas about where we should focus our attention during the debate.

During difficult economic times, we want to provide real, tangible support to families. We remain committed to recognising marriage in the tax and benefits system, the case for which was powerfully made by several of my hon. Friends. Our policies have helped hard-working families. It is true that we are prioritising increasing the personal allowance, which increases the rewards for work for those on low and middle incomes, but we remain committed in the way that I have set out.

Fuel Duty

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Anyone who listened to “The Westminster Hour” last night—perhaps it is only sad political anoraks who do so—will know that Ministers and Government Whips have been at their Back Benchers over the weekend, and no doubt for some days before, feeding them the line that they should not worry because everything will be all right in the autumn statement and the fuel rise will not really happen, so there is no need for them to vote against the Government tonight. Clearly, the Government are terrified that there will be more votes against them. However, it is not fair to people in Britain to tell them, with a nod and a wink, “It should be all right.” Government Members have sought to criticise our motion, on the ground that we should find a way to pay for not going ahead with the increase, but what they are really saying—the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) gave this away completely—is, “This is not going to happen, but we will not tell you how we are going to pay for it.” Therefore, they cannot lecture us and accuse us of hypocrisy.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the issue of fiscal strategies and paying for things, does the hon. Lady really think that it is a compelling case to say that the catch-all concept of addressing tax avoidance is the way in which the Opposition will pay for any reductions that they make to duty? This afternoon, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee and listened to evidence from Google, Amazon and Starbucks, and it quickly became apparent to me that, over 13 years, the Labour Government allowed crony capitalism and did nothing about tax avoidance.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he has just walked into the Chamber to make it; I do not think he was present throughout the debate. I am glad that he and his Government want to act on these issues, and we look forward to seeing—perhaps in the autumn statement—the measures that they intend to put in place.

We heard from the Minister nothing about the fuel duty increase, but a lot of rehashed issues to do with the economy. There have been accusations that the Opposition are suffering from amnesia, but the amnesia that the Government are suffering from is even more profound; they seem to have forgotten that when, two and a half years ago, they came into office, they had an emergency Budget, which, we were told, would sort out the economy. If Ministers recall, at the time of that Budget and in the autumn statement of 2010, we were told that the economy would grow over the next two years, and that they would reduce, and indeed eliminate, the deficit in their term in government. They have since had to concede that there has not been that growth, and that they will not eliminate the deficit over that period, so if anyone has amnesia, it is the Government. That happened because of the absolute insistence on trying to cut the deficit so quickly, including by making cuts in investment spending; that has produced a lot of the problems that we have.

Even some of the Government’s supporters, including David Smith, who writes on economics in The Sunday Times, said recently that it was a huge mistake for the Government to cut investment in their first year—in their emergency Budget—and in their next Budget. They have tried, in some small way, to say that they will reinstate investment, but the damage has been done. Investment that could have been made in affordable housing and school building was cut—for ideological reasons, I would contend. As a result, there has been no growth for most of the period, and people have suffered from very high prices, in many respects, at a time when many people are on short time, and are not earning what they did.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

2. What recent steps he has taken to support nationally important infrastructure projects.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect that investment in infrastructure will have on the economy.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

A competitive market economy such as Britain needs modern infrastructure if it is to succeed, yet in areas such as roads, energy and broadband, the last decade saw us fall behind the rest of Europe. This Government are righting those wrongs by overseeing a £250 billion investment in infrastructure—double the amount in the previous Parliament, even in these straitened times. Our new legislation will guarantee billions more in investment from the private sector. This will bring the new roads, the superfast broadband to our cities, and the new rail connections such as the northern hub. We are also cutting through the delays in Whitehall and in the planning system to make sure that we deliver faster than Labour did.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend points to the stark truth that, as he says, for every 10 jobs created in the private sector in the south of England only one was created in the north of England. In a region as important as the west midlands, for example, private sector employment fell during Labour’s period in office, and that was before the crash. We are investing in the infrastructure. The trans-Pennine electrification is incredibly important. The stretch between Liverpool and Manchester is already under way, and of course it then crosses the Pennines. We are also fully committing to the northern hub—something that was not done under the previous Government.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I support the Government’s national infrastructure plan. I particularly welcome specific projects such as the dualling of the A11 and the potential new A14 toll road in Cambridgeshire near my constituency. Is not the lesson of such discrete local transport infrastructure projects that they deliver a much more profound impact on jobs and growth than grandiose projects such as High Speed 2, the business case for which is fatally flawed?

[Mr Osborne]

I agreed with my hon. Friend until his last sentence. He is right to say that it is not just the big projects announced from this Dispatch Box that count; the local projects in Peterborough and elsewhere will also unlock jobs, development and investment. Of course, we cannot make all those announcements here in the House of Commons. However, we have provided local authorities with the funds to make those transport changes and improvements. We call it the Growing Places fund, and it is worth about £500 million. In the city deals that we are striking with different cities, we are improving road and rail connections to create jobs and get the private sector growing, which is what we all want to see.

Finance Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

As I explained to her hon. Friend, I do not think it strikes a good balance because the children who live in families with lots of siblings are the children who live in poverty. I know that Conservative Members are not as committed to addressing child poverty as were the last Labour Government, and we will see the results of that as we go through this Parliament. I regret that. I am surprised that the hon. Lady, who is in general a practical, well-rooted person, does not see the power of that point.

Another issue is the fiddly definitions of partnerships and the difficulty that Ministers will have in establishing what those are for the purposes of the measure. The measure is both administratively fiddly and extraordinarily mean. It will affect more than 1 million families; about 1 million people are going to lose £1,300 a year. That is a significant sum and I wish that the Government would take more seriously both the practical and the fairness arguments that we are making.

The Minister has still not addressed one final issue: people who at the moment get national insurance credits by claiming child benefit. They will lose their national insurance credits, which will impact on their pension entitlements for many years to come.

I hope that the Minister, even at this last stage, will have a last-minute conversion.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I say gently to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) that it is incumbent on her party to offer suggestions for alternative sources of funding, rather than the endless criticism. I speak as someone who is generally extremely sceptical of the policy, but alternatives came there none from the Opposition. Even the alternative offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was cursorily rejected by the hon. Lady.

I have been consistent on the issue since it first arose at the end of 2010, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement. It would be churlish and unfair of me not to concede that he took on board the issue of the cliff-edge effect. He sought to ameliorate that perverse issue with the taper system, which was broadly supported on the Government Benches.

Apart from administrative issues, there are a number of other criticisms that were comprehensively covered by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). For example, the Government are not abiding by their own tax consultation policy. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who is proud to have been the tax personality of 2010, launched a document called “Tax policy making: a new approach” in June 2010. He also responded to the public consultation of December 2010, which called for thorough consultation and cost-benefit analysis and impact assessments for key stakeholders. That has not happened in the case of this change, which will affect 790,000 couples and 30,000 lone parents who will lose the entirety of their child benefit allocation, and 330,000 couples and 20,000 lone parents who will lose some of it. That is a major problem. Apart from the lack of consultation, we still have the unfair situation that a single-earner couple earning just above the threshold rate, which was then £42,475, will lose child benefit, but a two-earner couple earning just under that amount will receive it in full. That has not been properly addressed.

As my hon. Friend said, we have a moral responsibility to focus on clearing up the deficit left to us by the previous Administration, but this proposal, in particular, fails on the grounds of fairness. How can it be right? It will send the message that ambition is wrong, that the basic tenets of fairness will be disregarded, and that there will be a perverse anti-marriage and anti-home maker bias and an attack on hard work, ambition and family responsibilities.

The policy means that a two-earner couple with two children on a combined income of £100,000 will keep their child benefit while a one-earner family with two children on just over £50,000 begin to lose it and, if their income rises to £60,000, lose it completely. The former household is already far higher up the income distribution yet keeps its child benefit, while the latter household, which is lower down the income distribution, loses it. Let us remember that this proposal was predicated on clobbering the top 15% of the income distribution, but it does nothing of the sort. Only if the family has one child will they be in the eighth decile of the income distribution; if they have two, three, four or more children, they will, largely speaking, be skewed towards the middle. We are not clobbering the richest in society; we are clobbering people who want to do well and are ambitious and aspirational. Unfortunately, that will have perverse consequences that will backfire on this Government politically and in terms of what is needed to make sure that the administration of the system works properly.

This issue is inextricably linked to the popular commitment that we made in the 2010 general election to give a tax break for marriage and families, which we have not yet carried through. We need to keep faith with that, particularly as the coalition agreement guaranteed the Liberal Democrats, who had some ideological problems with it, the chance to abstain. If the Government want to keep the faith with the people who elected us as Conservative Members of Parliament, they should make sure that that is in the pipeline now, because after April 2013 administrative difficulties with IT systems might preclude its coming to fruition.

In terms of cash in the pocket and real tax bills, a one-earner, two-child family earning £60,000 currently pays £13,950 in tax per annum while a two-earner, two-child household with each person earning £30,000 pays just £8,768. That difference will increase substantially as a result of these tax changes. The first family will see their bill rise to £15,667, meaning that there will be a substantial difference of 59% between the tax paid by the two families.

[Nadine Dorries]

To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), there are more financially astute means of dealing with child poverty and with large numbers of children than a universal benefit in the form of child benefit.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and astute point, which is that the Rolls-Royce minds at the Treasury, of whom the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was one, can surely find alternative methods to collect income. We know that the deficit is a problem that the Government have to grapple with, mainly because of the splurge of public expenditure under the last Government and the debt millstone that they left. We must look at all the alternatives, including putting a cap on the number of children, such as two or three. Incidentally, that policy is hugely popular with the public, according to polls taken in the past few weeks.

The higher income child benefit charge fails on at least two bases. First, it is transparently unfair, because it treats families on lower incomes more harshly than those on higher incomes, merely because of the way in which the incomes come to them. Secondly, in the distinctions that it makes, it discriminates between different types of families in a way that is profoundly unenlightened and completely unacceptable. I urge Treasury Ministers to think carefully about the alternatives. This is a potential disaster in the making. It is unfair. I ask them to think again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Speaking as a Conservative, I consider that all the British people are our people.

By raising £1.8 billion by 2014-15, we will ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. That was why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we would seek to withdraw child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. We always said that we would consider ways to implement the measure, but we have been clear that a complicated new means-testing system, which is what would happen if we extended the tax credits system in the way that some have proposed, would not be a sensible way forward. Instead, we should look to existing systems and processes to ensure that we can achieve our goal.

Clause 8 withdraws financial gain from child benefit from families in which one partner has an income of more than £60,000, and reduces the gain if one partner has an income of more than £50,000. It does so in the most efficient and pragmatic way possible, applying a tax charge on those high earners using existing processes. That charge will apply to an individual in receipt of child benefit, or to their partner if they are married or in a civil partnership or living as if they were married or in a civil partnership—a point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made. That is an existing definition of partners within social security legislation and means that other adults living in the household will not affect the liability.

The changes will not affect those receiving child benefit who have income under £50,000, or whose partner does. Some 85% of families receiving child benefit, or 7 million families, need not be troubled by the changes. If an individual or their partner has income of more than £50,000, the charge will be tapered depending on their income. The equivalent of 1% of the child benefit award will be charged for every £100 increase over £50,000 in adjusted net income. Child benefit will be withdrawn in full only at an income of £60,000. Furthermore, the thresholds between which the taper will operate will not depend on the number of children.

The changes will take effect from 7 January 2013, and the individuals affected will include information relating to the charge on their self-assessment returns for the first time for the tax year 2012-13. The first payments of the charge will be due by 31 January 2014 if a taxpayer chooses to pay in a lump sum. Those affected will be able to opt out of child benefit payments—that answers a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) asked. Some may wish to do so, although Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will set out clearly the options and implications. For example, if an individual’s income were to fall below £60,000, they may revoke their election not to receive child benefit, and payments would be resumed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

If my hon. Friend is going to consider the efficacy of different policies, will the Treasury undertake to consider alternative sources of funding as a corollary to this change, such as a cap on the number of eligible children?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have made the case for a cap on the number of children receiving child benefit. I hear his point about an alternative policy, but we must ensure that the child benefit regime provides support for those who need it most. The policy for which we are legislating maintains that principle—those on the lowest income will retain support.

The Government strongly discourage anyone from not registering for child benefit on the birth of their child, even if they decide to opt out of receiving payments. The child benefit system does not process only child benefit, and failing to register can affect state pension entitlement and make it less straightforward for the child to receive a national insurance number when they turn 16. It is therefore important that children remain registered.

Amendments 21 and 22 would allow those on the taper who have opted out of child benefit retrospectively to receive the payment. I am pleased to confirm that HMRC will apply the legislation as it is to enable such a claim to be made. I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the amendments are not necessary. As I have said, the legislation provides a claimant whose income, or whose partner’s income, is more than £50,000 with the opportunity to elect not to be paid child benefit, so they are not liable for the high income child benefit tax charge. A claimant who has elected not to be paid child benefit can subsequently revoke that election and ask HMRC to reinstate payment of child benefit.

The payment of child benefit would then normally be made from the first pay day after the revocation has been received by HMRC, and not from the date when child benefit was first stopped. That is because it would make no sense to pay arrears of child benefit to those whose income, or whose partner’s income, is more than £60,000. However, the legislation provides for retrospective revocation when a claimant discovers that, contrary to their original expectations, they do not have an income of £50,000 or above. That retrospection will be limited to two years after the end of the tax year to which the original election applies. That means that child benefit can be paid for up to that two-year period.

When a child benefit claimant or their partner has income of between £50,000 and £60,000, the decision whether to elect to receive child benefit is not so clear cut, because the amount of the tax charge is dependent on their income. HMRC recognises that a couple might be nervous about making an election if a later decision to revoke the election would apply only to future payments, leaving them worse off. The legislation provides HMRC with the power to issue directions as to how the election process will be administered. I hope I have cleared up that point.

Let me try to deal with the few remaining points. Draft guidance is being prepared over the summer, during which time HMRC will consult external representatives, including the Social Security Advisory Committee and the HMRC benefits and credits consultation group. The directions will confirm that an election that has been made by a claimant whose income or whose partner’s income is between £50,000 and £60,000 can be revoked retrospectively, to the point at which the child benefit ceased.

I have dealt with this point on the state pension, but it is possible to be registered even if people are not receiving cash. I have also dealt with the point on the definition of partners used in the Bill. As for the argument that the measure is complicated, we have looked at alternatives, but we think the measure is the best available to us. On the principle of individual taxation, HMRC is committed to protecting confidentiality. For taxpayers who are unable to discuss their incomes with each other, HMRC will develop a process with appropriate security checks so that they can answer yes or no to simple questions about the income of their partner.

As I have said, the Government have had to make difficult decisions. The measure means we can continue to provide child benefit, and so, in a sustainable manner, protect those who need it the most. We accept that this is not an ideal situation, but the budget deficit left by the previous Administration is the challenge we must overcome if we are to avoid a far worse predicament. I urge the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.