Fuel Duty
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Jobs and Growth
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that intervention.
Labour Members may be rejoicing in their election results, but before they start measuring the curtains for No. 10 it is worth noting that they fell well below the magic number of 40%. That suggests that those results were more about sending a message to the Government of the day than voting for an alternative. Of course people are worried about jobs, the cost of living, rising fuel prices and generally making ends meet, and we must not lose sight of that. The results therefore reflect a backlash against the establishment which is having to implement these very difficult decisions.
Three observations can be drawn from the results. First, such backlashes are often witnessed. Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, she went down to 24% in the polls but then continued to win general elections. Likewise, in 2000 the Tories managed to get 40% only to lose the general election in 2001. Secondly, the electorate should be cautious about listening to Labour’s alternative economic strategy of spending more, because it is that sort of irresponsible stewardship that got us into the financial crisis in the first place. Thirdly, the Government need to listen and must not be distracted by less important issues. They must focus on the priorities of the economy, education, welfare, reducing crime, and the NHS.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I know that he has a great interest in tourism and leisure. Does he agree that it is imperative that the Government make a decision soon on airport capacity in the United Kingdom, in particular in the south-east, to drive economic growth, jobs and the renaissance of our economy over the coming years?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a busy year for tourism in Britain and we must get those aspects right. This is not the first time that those points have been mentioned in this debate, and I think that the Chancellor has taken them on board.
The other thing I would like to point out about the local elections—this will be the same in future elections—is the deluge of news that has been thrown at us by the 24-hour news industry. We must think about how the message is managed, not just about the message itself. The Budget is remembered more for Labour’s sensationalist catchphrases, which have been heard again today, than for its game-changing announcements, such as the increase in the personal allowance, which will affect 24 million people; the largest single rise in pensions ever; and the cuts in corporation tax, which make us the most competitive country in the G8.
The latest phrase that Labour is peddling, which has leaked into the media, is “double-dip recession”. If I took my son, Alex, to the fairground and we went on a rollercoaster called “The Double Dip”, he would be pretty disappointed—even at the age of three—if the second dip was eight times smaller than the first. Labour is being disingenuous with the figures and undermines our economy by constantly peddling that phrase. [Interruption.] I hear Labour Members grumbling, so perhaps we should look at the figures. The Q1 results for 2012 were better than the GDP growth results for 2011, which suggests that the graph is going in the right direction.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect he is one of the few Opposition Members who supported the 50p rate throughout the period of the Labour Government, and is not one of the late converts that many of his hon. Friends have become.
As I have said, it is important that we create the right competitive conditions for business to flourish, and this Government will continue to invest in our nation’s future. We have announced that we will take forward many of Alan Cook’s recommendations on roads and develop a national roads strategy; we have confirmed investment to provide ultrafast broadband to 10 cities across the UK, with a second wave of cities to be identified in future; and we will continue to support the establishment of a new pension infrastructure platform to unlock an initial £2 billion of investment by as early as 2013.
However, a return to prosperity in the UK depends not only on what is happening here, but on what happens beyond our shores.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a coherent argument, but we have been told on many occasions that what happens in the eurozone is important for exports. Without any monetary stimulus, and without major fiscal changes or major structural reforms, how can a cumulative 3% year-on-year reduction of budgets in southern Europe in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Italy possibly assist us in growing our economy out of the recession of the past few years?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend needs to recognise that, in several countries that have a programme in place, there is a requirement to make structural reforms. A number of member states are already embracing structural reforms, tackling issues such as restrictions on the labour market and looking at ways to tackle the burden of regulation. We are seeing the structural reform that goes hand in hand with fiscal consolidation to create a stable and sustainable platform for economic growth. Here in the UK, we are undergoing fiscal consolidation, but at the same time we are engaging in supply-side reforms to help stimulate growth in the economy. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. Indeed, they need to go hand in hand if we are to deliver growth.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being his normal generous self. Do we not have a responsibility to the millions of young people in southern Europe who are on the edge of penury and economic misery, essentially because of this institutionalised, obdurate approach, principally from the Germans, and the failure to accept that the European Central Bank should be the lender of last resort? This political project, which the euro is, is plunging millions of working people in southern Europe into poverty for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. Surely we have a moral duty not to be complicit.
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend would, I think, be the first to criticise other member states seeking to lecture us on our economic policy, so we need to be careful not to lecture them either. As I said, there is the political will in the eurozone to keep the euro, and its actions are consistent with that. Whether through closer fiscal integration or increased firepower for the European stability mechanism, those signs are there. The fiscal compact is a significant step towards closer fiscal integration.
Chris Leslie
I am afraid that I am not surprised to hear that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time and effort monitoring how these issues progress. Personally, I feel we need to find ways of supporting and stabilising the situation in the eurozone, but I do not think that the Government’s strategy is the right way to do that. However, I digress.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I feel it appropriate to give the shadow Minister some friendly advice. One reason why my party was not credible on the economy until quite a few years after we lost the election was that in many respects we did not face up to the fact of the legacy we left. I remind him that he really should be looking at the wider picture of Europe rather than focusing on the national situation here. The fact is that real-terms public expenditure rose by 53% from £450 billion to £700 billion between 2000 and 2010. His party ran a structural deficit in times of economic growth. That is the situation in which we find ourselves now.
Chris Leslie
I obviously disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, but he made an important point earlier about the plight of those who are suffering as a result of the austerity approach being applied in southern European countries in particular. I worry greatly about that; it is a matter of concern. It is also a concern, however, for our constituents here in the UK. We take a different approach on principle about the right ways to repair our economy. We believe that a stronger emphasis on growth is necessary to generate revenues; it is not just about public expenditure cuts, which do not provide the way out of the situation. I also disagree that the motion is a general debate about the state of the European economies. We are debating whether the Red Book provides a right, accurate, fair and good assessment of the state of the British economy such that we can submit it, as we are required to do by the treaties, to the European Commission. I am simply following the strictures placed on us by the Maastricht treaty.
IMF
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
No it is not, and there is no connection between the two matters. An IMF loan comes out of our foreign exchange reserves. That has been the case under Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and this coalition Government. It is a contingent loan that will be drawn upon if the IMF needs resources. We swap our foreign exchange asset for the IMF loan. The Chief Secretary said what he did today because we are trying to get a grip on the public finances. To do that, we have to ensure that Departments can deal with their own contingencies, as and when they arrive.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
We all know that what we are discussing is state-sponsored money laundering to prop up the failed and doomed European project called the euro. The deal does not come without a heavy human cost. In southern Europe, it means the imposition of a net tightening of 3% per year, yet there is no monetary stimulus to offset that, no demand for growth in the rest of Europe and no demand for structural reforms. Why is the Chancellor throwing the good money of UK taxpayers after bad for this economic madness?
Mr Osborne
This money comes out of Britain’s foreign exchange reserves and is swapped for an IMF loan. It is therefore not money that we would otherwise spend on public services or use to cut taxes. My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the countries that are having to undertake difficult structural reforms. For example, Spain has recently passed significant reforms to its labour laws to make its employment market more flexible and Italy has made difficult pension reforms. People will remember the scenes in Italy when those reforms were announced a few months ago. Britain is also having to make difficult reforms and take difficult decisions to make our economy more competitive and to deal with the problems in our public finances.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Even during the International Monetary Fund crisis in the mid-1970s, things never got so tough that the Government of the day felt the need to interfere with child benefit. It was a reflection of the fact that families with children had higher costs than those without.
The proposals will create all sorts of perverse incentives, and the people who want to try to avoid the measures will have a field day. This has been well covered by the Treasury Select Committee’s recent report, as well as by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other expert bodies. The fundamental issue is the proposals’ lack of fairness, as between one family and another.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The Centre for Social Justice says that the Government’s policy
“could threaten a new wave of family instability and breakdown”,
and that it
“flies in the face of their commitment to ‘shared parenting’.”
Does my hon. Friend find it incongruous that that policy is being pursued at the same time as the Government are failing to honour their commitment to introduce marriage or family tax breaks in this or future Budgets?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a really good point, which was also covered in the recent Adjournment debate on this subject, which received what I can describe only as a rather woolly response from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke). He said that, basically, something was going to happen in this Parliament but the Government were not quite sure what or when. That was not good enough. We need an opportunity to look at the whole issue of transferrable tax allowances, and allowances in the tax and benefit system that recognise the family and marriage.
Returning to the issue of fairness, two people on £50,000 a year with children will not have to pay the high income child benefit charge, whereas a family with children with one person earning over £60,000 will have to pay it.
Cathy Jamieson
With respect to the hon. Gentleman—he said he had some sympathy with my points, so I do not want to be entirely negative in response—we will not solve the complexities of the taxation system by adding even more complexities that are unfair to families and will affect children negatively.
Let me put one final issue on the record. People who are not in work and who receive child benefit for a child under 12 receive national insurance credits to enable them to build up entitlement to state pensions. The Government’s original announcement led to concerns about the impact on future pension entitlements of women, in particular, if families stopped claiming child benefit. The Government said from the outset that no one would miss out on national insurance credits as a result of the child benefit changes, but it is unclear how they proposed to ensure that. Under the latest proposals, people who are entitled to child benefit and families affected by this charge may elect not to receive it, but a claim for child benefit will still need to be made in order to receive national insurance credits. Information published by HMRC confirms that.
I am extremely conscious of the time so I will not say anything more, other than that I think that everybody should listen carefully to the debate and to the points that have been made. When Members consider how to vote, they should consider both the principles involved of support for families with children as well as the layers of complexity and confusion there will be if the proposal goes through.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I had not intended to speak in this debate so I shall keep my remarks brief. I do not have at my fingertips the comprehensive figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) gave; he made some cogent and powerful points. From my point of view it is always a very risky endeavour when a political idea is fleshed out to become a fiscal policy of any Government. The remarks made just after the general election at the Conservative party conference were really an aspiration that is now being turned into a policy. I believe that this policy is a fiscal time bomb that will blow up in the faces of this Government. I also believe that what we are doing—[Interruption.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking.
Mr Jackson
I defer to the parliamentary private secretary to the Financial Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). [Interruption.] At least he is at the moment.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a very important point about crossing the Rubicon of undermining the universality of child benefit. The same point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Some time ago, the Child Poverty Action Group said this about child benefit:
“A benefit which goes to virtually all children is of course expensive. But it can also be argued that it is more likely that such a benefit will have ‘substantial and wide-ranging support’, and may be difficult to abolish; provision for the poorest children only, whilst cheaper, is often more precarious.”
Specifically, intergenerational redistribution and the value placed on children are universal values that we are seeking to undermine.
Harriett Baldwin
What would my hon. Friend say, though, about the example of two wealthy Americans who have four children born in this country who receive child benefit tax-free from the UK Treasury, but have to pay tax on it to the internal revenue service?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I accept her argument, but we need to look at this proposal within the context of the wider proposals in the Budget. We are rightly reducing the top rate of tax and corporation tax, so for those in the upper 20% income range we have introduced fiscal policies through which we seek to support entrepreneurship and business, supporting those higher-rate earners. We are also proud to be taking a substantial number of poorly paid working people out of tax. My concern is that we are not extending those same tax breaks to the squeezed middle and it is a very important message that we are sending. I accept that the Chancellor has tackled the specific issue of the cliff-edge effect, but he has not done enough to secure my vote in terms of the discrepancy regarding the one taxpayer in a two-person household.
Mark Reckless
A rather larger category than that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is the very minimum of £62 million a year—and I suspect much more—that is paid to children who are resident elsewhere in the European Union where costs are much cheaper, many of whom have never even visited the UK.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an extremely apposite point. If we really are all in this together, it beggars belief for my constituents and his that we are talking about looking after the interests of people on low or median incomes but are remitting abroad, within the European Union, anything between £40 million and £75 million in various benefits for people and families who do not even live in this country.
It would not be fair not to mention that the Chancellor has sought to ameliorate the concerns that various Members across the House have expressed about this policy and I give him due credit for that. Unfortunately, however, I think this policy will go badly wrong and will have a specific impact on aspirational, ambitious families and will breach the basic tenet of universality in child benefit. For that reason, I cannot and will not vote for it.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must call the Minister at 5.48.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nia Griffith
I certainly applaud measures to give young people the opportunity to take out loans to start up businesses, but even people with immense experience are finding it incredibly difficult to do that. There is just not the right climate at the moment to start a business. I would like to see more stimulus for the economy so that people who want to establish start-ups have a viable chance of making a success of them. At the moment, it is terribly difficult for anybody to sell anything to anyone or to persuade anyone to part with their money, which is the essence of getting a business going.
In Wales, we are trying to create jobs for young people; we are also investing money in infrastructure projects, again within the limitations of the Welsh budget. The Welsh Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science is providing grants and loans to companies to help them to expand and get their businesses going, because we are having so much difficulty with the banks. For example, in my constituency, Tallent Automotive has received money to keep workers in work, which people are very pleased about, and EBS Automation, a very enterprising engineering firm, has received money to expand, which means new jobs for young people in a high-skilled field. Those are the sorts of programme that I would like to see from the UK Government. What the Welsh Government can do affects only a small part of the economy in Wales. I would like to see the same kind of stimulus across the UK. First and foremost, my concern is about the lack of a coherent growth strategy.
Consumer confidence remains low. Many people fear that they may lose their job or have their hours cut. People have been hit hard by rising prices, which have been compounded by the VAT rise. Obviously, people on low and modest incomes have little spare income to put by, so their money goes straight back into the local economy. That contrasts with the money given away to millionaires at the top, who do not have to do anything with it immediately and do not know what they will do with it. They know that there is no benefit to them from putting it back into the local economy.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
What does the hon. Lady say to the 810,000 people in the eastern region who are better off because their tax allowance has been altered? Those are low-paid working people who have had a stimulus and are spending the money locally as a result of the measures in the Budget.
Nia Griffith
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me explain that those people have already lost that money through the VAT increase. That is a stealth tax and a regressive tax, which always affects the least well-off the most. Many of the people who will get a little more in their pay packet because they will pay a little less tax when the personal allowance goes up will find that because of other taxes that have been implemented, they have lost that money already. Sadly, those people will not do so well.
The personal allowance helps people nearly all the way up the income scale, particularly those in two-income families. Frankly, although it is an expensive measure, it is not a well targeted one. As I mentioned, I would have liked to keep the tax credits system, which helped those who really needed it and took account of people’s different circumstances because it was based on the household income.
There is nothing to incentivise people to put their money back into the local economy and nothing to encourage people to unlock their savings and help the economy. We had the car scrappage scheme, so that people who were planning to buy a car that would last them for the next 10 or 12 years would bring the purchase forward by a year or two to take part in the scheme. We did the same thing with the replacement of boilers. Those schemes were introduced specifically to get the economy going. What have this Government done? They have thrown out of the window the one such scheme that they did have, which was the solar panels scheme, under which people were unlocking £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 of their savings and spending it immediately in the local economy. Even if the panels were not made locally, all the fitting work to install the solar panels was done by skilled plumbers and craftsmen, so the money went directly into the local economy.
The Government completely messed that scheme up and destroyed the industry’s confidence by incompetently changing the rules before the consultation was finished. They did not scale the scheme down in a sensible way, as the industry had asked. People in the industry accepted that the tariff would change over time, but they could not stomach being treated like idiots. The Government just said, “We’re going to change all this,” even though people had invested a lot of money. Some people had spent £3,000 on a course learning how to convert from being an ordinary central heating plumber to a solar panel installer. Some firms had expanded for the purpose, and firms in my constituency are laying people off because of the ridiculous changes.
What other scheme do the Government have in mind to get people to unlock their savings for an excellent investment that is environmentally friendly and provides local jobs? We have not seen such a scheme in the Budget. We have made some suggestions, but it seems that the Chancellor has ignored them. For example, we suggested a cut in VAT on repairs and improvements to houses. With the construction industry on its knees, that would have enabled plumbers, carpenters, electricians, plasterers and so on to find extra work, and people would have been encouraged to take on home improvements. What did the Chancellor do? The exact reverse. He slapped additional VAT on alterations to listed buildings.
Nia Griffith
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that over the whole country, 4.4 million pensioners who earn between £10,000 and £29,000 will be affected, including a huge number in my constituency.
People are incensed—not just pensioners but their friends and relatives. They say, “This is how it’s been since the 1920s, and the change came from nowhere.” Older people like to plan; they tend to be careful and like to know what will happen. In a Budget that was leaked and leaked, this change was just pulled out of a hat like some dreadful spotted rabbit. People were appalled, given all the emphasis that had been put on other measures that might be in the Budget.
Pensioners have to face that on top of losing their winter fuel allowance, which was a universal benefit and very useful for all manner of pensioners. We are talking about pensioners who have put by a little money and made some provision for their old age. They feel aggrieved because they have tried to do the right thing. They have been hit by the VAT rises. They have been lucky that it has been a mild winter this year, but they all tell me, “Look at my electricity and gas bills.” What are the Government doing to control energy prices? Absolutely nothing. Prices have gone through the roof even though the weather has been milder than last year, and pensioners are struggling to pay those bills. Then there is the fiasco at the petrol pumps. People had already been hit by mid-March with very high petrol and diesel prices, when suddenly the Government inflamed the situation by telling everyone to rush out and panic buy. Of course, everyone now faces even higher, inflated prices at the petrol pump.
Pensioners have been hit time and again. For those on a fixed income when interest rates are low, the rampant inflation that we have experienced is particularly hurtful. Again, pensioners have been badly affected. All in all, there is a feeling that the Budget takes from the wrong people. It takes from people who spend their money locally, tend to be careful with their money, and have saved. They spend a certain amount on their grandchildren, but they will have less money to do that—all to fund the cut in the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £150,000. For some people who earn millions, it will mean that they are not just hundreds but thousands and tens of thousands of pounds better off. That is extremely unfair.
The people I meet ask why that is happening and why we are not all in it together. They ask why the 50p rate is not kept so that there is a fairer distribution of taxes across society.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I must remind the hon. Lady about the deficit. The previous Labour Government ran a structural and a cyclical deficit before the financial crisis. Between 2000 and 2010, they increased public expenditure in real terms by 53%, yet managed to double youth unemployment. The hon. Lady extols the virtue of Keynesian economics and growth management, but we have to deal with the deficit, and that is why we must make such difficult decisions.
Nia Griffith
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, until 2008, we were reducing the national debt. Obviously, when a world crisis occurs, a stimulus must be provided. By the time we left government in 2010, the economy was beginning to pick up. It has flatlined since. We gave the Government the opportunity on a plate to try to get things going, but they squandered it and have put us back behind the starting posts. We are now in a truly difficult situation because getting things going again will be much harder.
The Budget has the wrong priorities. We do not seem to be getting the economy going and we are not putting money where it needs to go. Instead, we seem to be giving it away frivolously and stupidly. The money that is used for tax cuts for the wealthy should be put into stimulating the economy so that everybody can have a share of the wealth.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, although we have not heard too much about transport, despite that being the theme for today. I suppose that that is a feature of Budget debates, but I suspect that it is also down to the fact that the Budget did not contain that much about transport. I am therefore not going to delay the House too much by talking about transport but will talk about the broader measures and about the Chancellor in the broader context.
People say that the Chancellor is a man who already worries a lot about his legacy, despite it being very early in his Chancellorship. I suspect that explains the volume of leaks, which reported that he wanted this to be remembered very much as a watershed Budget. The word used in the press quite a bit was “Lawsonian”, which I understand is a compliment where he comes from. Well, it was a watershed Budget and it will be remembered—there is no doubt about that—but perhaps not for the reasons he wanted and not in the manner he anticipated.
It was a watershed Budget for two key reasons. First, it shattered, once and for all, the illusion that this Chancellor is a master of political tactics or economic strategy. The only masters are the masters of the universe, down the road in the City, who will be thanking him for this Budget. They might be the people who think he is still smart about economic theory. I hate to tell him, but the only vanity that is burning right now is his own, on the front pages of the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and all the other newspapers in which I read this morning that one Tory Back Bencher, who remained nameless—I cannot think why he wanted to remain anonymous—said:
“Everybody was saying George is a great economic strategist and political strategist and how unique he is to have both skills: that is going to be questioned. In fact, colleagues already are.”
More important, this Budget was a watershed because it gave the lie, once and for all—[Laughter.] The laughter indicates that Government Members are not worried about this in any way, shape or form. However, the Budget gave the lie to the notion that we are all in it together in this country in a period of austerity, because after this Budget we clearly are not. Clearly after this Budget, the old Tory order is restored and some people in our society are, in their view, more equal than others.
The themes the Chancellor sought to pursue in his speech were that his Budget would be simple, predictable and fair—that was how he described it just a couple of days ago. This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies described it as a “hotch-potch” of reforms that
“may turn out to be less fiscally neutral than intended”.
It is hard to disagree with that conclusion from the independent IFS, because everywhere one looks in the Budget one finds measures that are mis-described, such as the tax increase on pensioners that is described as a simplification, and outcomes that are overstated. We have heard a lot today about this being a Budget for business, but according to the OBR, it is resulting in a 0.7% reduction in business investment this year, which is down 7% on the anticipated volume of business investment over the past year.
Crucially, numbers have been massaged throughout the Budget or just plain made up—guessed at—on the basis of Arthur Laffer’s famous cocktail napkin curve. I am afraid that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) will find that numbers in the Budget will fall apart.
Owen Smith
In a moment.
Those numbers are absolutely crucial to the debate because they are crucial to the claims of fairness and fiscal neutrality. The key number is that relating to the 50p rate costing only £100 million, because the OBR endorses HMRC’s findings. That is what the Government estimate will be the long-run annual cost to the Treasury of cutting the 50p rate. The Chancellor swept the number aside the other day as though it were nothing, just as he swept aside with an imperious flourish of his hand the £1 billion that we actually saw going into the Exchequer in the first year of the 50p rate.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate and to reinforce, at the end of the first few days of Budget discussions, the Government’s determination to restore the UK to prosperity.
I regret that you have not been here for the whole debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the day, we have heard from the Opposition, in general terms, vacuousness, hypocrisy and a lack of ideas. Specifically, the efforts from the Front Bench of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) show no grasp of the situation. I note he continued to put forward the view that child benefit should continue for millionaires. That is not something that the Government support.
As the House is already aware, it is because of decisive action that this Government have taken since the June Budget of 2010 that we have secured and maintained the stability of the UK economy. This year’s Budget builds on that strong foundation; it safeguards our economic stability; it creates a fairer, more efficient and simpler tax system; and it drives through reforms to unleash the private sector enterprise and ambition that is critical to our recovery.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is being rather shy about sharing the good news this week? Because of this Government’s decisions on the tax and regulatory reform and regime, GlaxoSmithKline is going to provide £0.5 billion and 1,000 jobs to his constituency.
Miss Smith
That is right, and the word I would use is “churlish.” Perhaps the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) will justify now why he does not welcome that type of investment.
Amendment of the Law
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Budget is set in the context of continued uncertainty in the global economy, but it is a Budget that binds many threads of Government policy as we seek to reward work and enterprise and to rebalance our economy. The House would do well to remember that it is only by virtue of the deficit reduction plan set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in June 2010 that the UK has managed to achieve a relative safe haven status and achieve record low interest rates, which will save the taxpayer a projected £36 billion over this Parliament.
The Chancellor today announced measures that will allow companies and individuals further to share in the benefits of these low interest rates, achieved no doubt by international acceptance of the fiscal competence of this Government’s policies. The deficit reduction plan, however, is not just about reducing the size of the increase in Government spending; it is also dependent on achieving growth. Although the eurozone crisis has damaged economic growth rates across the continent and globally, it is a testament to this Chancellor and this Government’s handling of the public finances that the deficit reduction figure was ahead of target this year, while at the same time achieving a growth rate in the economy of 0.8%.
As we have heard during the debate, the Opposition try to argue that deficit reduction is being pursued at the expense of growth, and America has been mentioned. They should look at the International Monetary Fund’s fiscal monitor, which shows that fiscal policy in America was tightened by 0.8% of gross domestic product last year, at the same time as a growth rate of 1.7% was achieved. This fact completely contradicts the inaccurate claims of the Leader of the Opposition in his Budget response and those in the Labour party who still cling to the misguided mantra that the only way to obtain economic growth is through fiscal stimulus. When will they learn that they cannot borrow their way out of a debt crisis?
There is, however, no room for complacency and the economy needs to start growing at a faster rate. I welcome the measures outlined today that will stimulate the economy and see taxes cut for 24 million taxpayers through the increase in the tax threshold. That is another example of the Government’s commitment to the lowest-paid and stands in stark contrast to the actions of the previous Prime Minister, who removed the 10p starting rate of tax in his final Budget, hitting the lowest-paid the hardest. The increase in the personal allowance to £9,205 is very welcome and will lift an additional 66,000 people in the east midlands alone out of income tax and benefit more than 1.7 million individuals nationally. The Government will have lifted a total of 148,000 people in the east midlands out of tax at this rate.
Another damaging legacy of the previous Prime Minister was the 50p rate of tax—a purely political and cynical attempt to lay a bear trap for the Conservative party. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained, it is raising little or no money and damaging the competitiveness of our economy. It was a Trojan horse of a tax. It raised no money and at the same time damaged our economy.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is it not the case that the Opposition have no credibility on this issue, because even though the shadow Chancellor knows that the 50p rate damaged entrepreneurship and collected very little revenue, he still refuses, even this afternoon, to confirm that the Labour party, if in office, would bring it back?
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; they have no credibility and will not confirm whether they would bring the rate back. I remind the House of the comments of their former leader, Tony Blair, who stated:
“I wanted to preserve, in terms of competitive tax rates, the essential Thatcher/Howe/Lawson legacy. I wanted wealthy people to feel at home and welcomed in the UK so that they could bring more business, create jobs and spread some of that wealth around.”
Whatever happened to new Labour? Even Mr Blair accepted that the top 1% of earners pay almost 30% of the taxes in this country, and many other countries certainly feel the same, but our top rate of tax was the highest in the 10 largest economies in the world.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman refers to interest payments, but he knows that on that score this Government are paying out £150 billion more than they predicted, so his argument does not hold up.
A Budget is a mechanism for the distribution and allocation of scarce resources, so let us examine what this Budget means for a child born today. A child born in my constituency today brings us this message: “By the time I reach my 18th birthday, the world will require 30% more fresh water, 45% more energy and 50% more food.” This child is part of the generation that will see the global population move from 7 billion to 10 billion people. How do we respond to this child? Do we become the most selfish generation of the most selfish species in our planet’s history? Or do we become the generation that understood that justice and sustainability are essentially the same thing? If you want peace in the world, create justice. If you want justice, live sustainably.
We must get away from both sides of the political divide arguing that they uniquely possess the key to growth. We listen to the stale arguments about whether more spending now will raise growth and reduce the deficit more quickly, or whether less borrowing now will ultimately be a surer path to bring our economy back into GDP growth. But what both sides are talking about is yesterday’s economics: Hayek pitted against Keynes.
The Chancellor wants to set markets free and insists that we cannot spend our way out of debt, but he wilfully ignores Hayek’s equal insistence that the boom gets started with an expansion of credit—the very liquidity that the Chancellor has told the banks they must provide for business. Hayek would have been appalled to find his theories invoked by a Chancellor literally printing money through quantitative easing. In Hayek’s view, that leads only to unrealistically low interest rates and to the cycle of boom and bust starting all over again.
Keynes of course believed in consumption-led growth as an economic stimulus, but he did not live in a world of 7 billion people. He assumed that growth was sustainable and natural resource was, for practical purposes, infinite. We know that it is not. As a result, we have an obligation to make sure that growth is sustainable, not simply to assume that it will be.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is making a cogent and interesting argument. We all agree that we should give 0.7% of our GDP to international development. Surely he will concede that unless we grow our GDP, the absolute amount of cash that we have to give to good causes across the world, in supporting sustainability, will not be enough to do the things that he wants to do.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman precisely misconstrues my point; the issue is not about the amount of aid given to developing countries, but about understanding the valuation of natural capital and incorporating that into the Government’s accounting framework. That is in the natural environment White Paper, if he cares to read it.
In a world of 7 billion people, growth can be sustainable only if it is predicated on advances that bring increased productivity and greater efficiency in the use of resources. That is what Hayek would have called a sound capital structure and proper allocation of capital. For the world to continue to achieve a 3% per annum growth target, and to maintain a trajectory that keeps carbon emissions below the 2°C threshold of dangerous climate change, we must increase our productivity per tonne of carbon emitted 15 times over.
The Budget simply does not address that technological challenge. It was extraordinary to see the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change join forces with the Treasury last Friday evening and issue a press release at 6 pm, embargoed until midnight, to exempt gas-fired power stations from the emissions controls set out in the fourth carbon budget by the Committee on Climate Change. Those emissions reductions were, in the Committee’s view, part of the necessary regulatory framework for achieving our target of at least 80% emissions reductions by 2050.
The press release set out no alternative mechanisms that would be adopted to keep to those targets and no Minister has sought to expand on the issue since last week. It is a measure of the shame that the Government felt on reneging on the fourth carbon budget that they issued their press release in such a furtive manner. What is worse, what happened shows that the new Energy Secretary has no command over his brief and has been fingered by the Treasury as a weak Secretary of State.
Since William Ewart Gladstone instituted the modern accounting and budgetary processes of the House of Commons 150 years ago, modern economics has come a long way in its understanding of capital. In Gladstone’s day, the notion of capital was very simple; it represented money and machinery. Gradually, we have come to realise that capital is not just money and plant. We have developed sophisticated concepts of social and intellectual capital. We know that a well functioning legal system is very much a part of the wealth of a society, inviting commerce and trade to practise where certainty and redress prevail. That is certainly a form of capital different from a bridge, printing press or motorway, but we now measure them all in our assessment of the national wealth of a country.
Resource economists now point out that we have left out of our economic calculations perhaps the most important capital of all: natural capital. We have left it out for a very simple reason—we always took it for granted. We thought that it was a free good. It cost us nothing and we assumed the supply was infinite. In the language of classical economics, natural capital was a mere externality, “as free as the air you breathe”.
What we have now begun to realise is that the air we breathe is not actually free—at least, it is not without a quantifiable value. Any sound cost-benefit analysis of public policy must take that value into account. The Environmental Audit Committee report on air pollution estimated that the costs from air pollution are up to £20.2 billion. That is the cost of respiratory and other diseases associated with poor air quality, both in treatment and lost productivity.
The natural environment provides not just a physical stock of resources—forests and fish, minerals and fresh water that human beings depend on—but a network of services essential for human life. The pollination of our crops by insects, the stabilisation of our soil by trees and the regulation of our watershed by peat bogs are just some of the ecosystem services that a new economic model must begin to incorporate into our Government’s accounting framework. That new accounting renders inadequate the concept of GDP growth because it reveals one of the central conundrums of classical economics: that a country can become poorer while increasing its GDP.
The Chancellor said nothing today that showed that he understood that. Another important consideration is that those wider benefits, although immensely valuable, do not accrue to an individual private property owner; they are experienced by a community at large. They are regarded as free goods by the wider community, and in classical economics as externalities, and because they are not directly captured by a landowner they rarely feature in a landowner’s decision on how or whether to dispose of them. That is why the exercise of private property rights can often be to the public detriment. It is also why the role of the state in regulating the disposal of land is so important. Today we have heard much talk of stamp duty and how to raise revenue from the rich. It therefore seems quaint that no one has commented on the fact that the land registry for England, which was established in 1928, still accounts for only some 64% of the land in England, while in the registry for Scotland the figure drops to a mere 21%.
Of course, there is a reason why almost a century later we have not yet been able properly to map the title of land in the UK—it is that so much of it has never been sold but has been passed down in families, from parent to child, in enormous estates. If the Government genuinely want to raise tax from the very wealthy, they should examine not only houses sold for over £2 million but the vast tracts of our country that have been accumulated in great estates for centuries and are still owned and managed not for the benefit of the population at large but to maximise the income and pleasure of a very few private individuals. I do not claim that all hereditary estates are badly managed in respect of the environment, but I do claim that good management comes not only as a result of inheritance. Land tax reform is long overdue. If we wish to become a more equal society, then we need to consider the taxation of land and land use in different and more imaginative ways, for the benefit of society as a whole.
The Chancellor sought in his Budget to bury another important piece of environmental news. Next Tuesday, the new national planning policy framework is published. That deserves our attention not least because we know that the Chancellor takes the view that the planning system is a blockage to economic growth. The NPPF will cause havoc up and down the country as planning uncertainty and ambiguity filters down to local communities. Fundamental to the new framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In practice, this means—