Finance Bill
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Connarty
I did not want to cite that example, although it is a good example of what happens when people use private health care and take resources away from the NHS. I find it appalling that through private health care people can actually buy organs donated to the NHS by paying for the hotel care and all the rest of it. They are not allowed to buy the organs any longer; instead they buy the ancillary health care and then use resources that people might have donated thinking they would go to NHS patients, but which end up being used for private care. But that is an aside from this debate.
The new clause would encourage more private money to suck out resources and money needed in the NHS. The right hon. Member for Wokingham kept talking about cash increases. We should not pretend that this is not the same Member who reminded us all of the real effect of cash increases when inflation is running higher than the increase. He was—how can I put this?—dodging the issue unnecessarily and treating us as though we were stupid. Cash increases will not keep the resources at the level they are at, and the new clause will in fact take out resources that the NHS does not have to give.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I can scarcely believe that the hon. Gentleman is making that case, given that the previous Labour Government paid consultants and general practitioners respectively 27% and 44% more for doing less work, hid billions of pounds off balance sheets with dodgy private finance initiative schemes, which have reduced taxpayers to penury, and foisted independent sector training on primary care trusts, meaning that they could not plan for patient numbers or the money needed to run those centres.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Interventions must be brief; otherwise we might find ourselves sitting until the early hours of the morning.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I expect better of the hon. Gentleman than the trivialisation of this important issue. He is better than that. I know he is probably working up to the filibuster that is usual from him when we do not have a guillotine on our business, but does he concede that low-income families in North Durham who are eligible for working tax credit and in which one parent wishes to stay at home to look after the children will miss out on the child care element of that credit? That is the reality, and he should address those issues rather than trivialising the subject through knockabout.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but she knows as well as I do that many people in County Durham are facing unemployment as a direct result of the spending cuts. Many of those people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether because they will not have a job. For Members to try to trumpet that policy, not realising the damage they are doing to regions such as the north-east of England, is disingenuous.
I understand the argument made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, which is that marriage is key in ensuring that we have the units that will lead to less crime, less social breakdown and so on, but—I am sorry—I do not accept that. The root cause of many of those issues is poverty. If we consider the examples given by the hon. Gentleman, as well as those given by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he toured his Glasgow housing estate, we can see that £150 will not make a great difference to lifting anyone living on such a council estate out of poverty or giving life chances to the young children who live there. We should address poverty, and, in my opinion, provisions to do with the tax system and marriage are not the way to do that.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Would he care to comment on the UNICEF study, produced in 2007, which showed a league table ranking the well-being of children in 21 developed countries, including their material, educational and subjective well-being, their health and safety, their behaviour and the strength of their family and peer relationships? Under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, Britain came bottom of the league.
Mr Jones
I think that report has been discredited, but I can look at the north-east of England and my constituency and consider the changes in employment that happened under the previous Labour Government as well as the life chances we gave to individuals, the new hospitals we provided and the investment we made in things such as Sure Start centres. Although I accept that such changes will not have benefits straight away, they will have real benefits over the lifetimes of those individuals. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supports is taking away such provision and says that the state is not important in one respect while, in this case, they want the state to engineer people’s private lives socially. I find that a completely contradictory stance, but, again, the hon. Gentleman is a Conservative and is therefore allowed to be contradictory.
Mr Stewart Jackson
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman aspires to be the County Durham filibustering champion; no doubt he will be on his feet for many more minutes. Is he seriously denying the findings of the British household panel survey, which found that the average length of cohabitation is just over three years, and led it to conclude in its paper that, compared to marriage, cohabitation was a significantly more fragile and temporary form of family? Just one in 11 married couples split up before their child’s fifth birthday, compared to one in three unmarried couples. Those are the facts; is he disagreeing with them?
Mr Jones
As for filibustering, this is nothing; I think that my record is two and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman would like to keep intervening, I am sure that I can try to beat that. I do not deny what he says, and it is all right to cite the facts, but should one necessarily go on to say that those facts are a bad thing for society? Is he genuinely saying that the relationships of people who cohabit are any poorer than those of people who are married? Likewise, is he suggesting that if people decide, after marriage or cohabiting, to split up, that makes them bad individuals in some way—or, if they have children, bad parents? I know many cohabiting and divorced couples and single parents who are perfectly good parents and role models and work very hard to ensure that their families contribute to society financially and to local community life. The statistics that he cites are fine, but what is not fine is the next bit—the suggestion that the situation will somehow lead to the breakdown of society, or the idea that the family as a unit is the only answer to people’s lives these days. It is not.
That goes back to a Victorian notion. Before the Victorian period, it was not uncommon for people not to get married for many years. Marriage was a Victorian fashion, but in Georgian times many people did not get married at all, and raised perfectly good families. I am not sure that society came to a grinding halt because people were not married, or because there was not a tax system that encouraged people to marry.
Mr Jackson
Perhaps I might invite the hon. Gentleman to make a causal link, because he is not challenging the substantive point that I made with the figures that I gave. He will know that the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011 found that children who do not grow up in a two-parent family are 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to be a drug addict, 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem, and 35% more likely to experience unemployment. That is not about traducing single-parent families, or besmirching their commitment to their children, but there is a causal link to family breakdown, which the hon. Gentleman denies.
Mr Jones
That is complete nonsense. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition, we saw him walking around the Easterhouse estate, saying how dreadful things were. That is not down to whether people are married; it is down to poverty. That is the key driver of the pressures that people face. It is all very fine talking about drug use, but I have worked with an organisation for parents of drug addicts in Durham, and most of those parents are middle class. They have stable homes, but they have drug-addict sons and daughters. They are not bad parents, and it is not down to whether they are married. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and the Centre for Social Justice report make the mistake of saying that the family units that he describes are the reason for poverty. They are not. Addressing poverty, which we were doing through measures such as tax credits, is the way forward, rather than social engineering, and £150 a year will not go very far in encouraging people to stay married—or, for that matter, alleviate child poverty at all.
Mr Jones
It is important to note that income tax was introduced in the 1790s. We need not go back to the 15th century, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) makes a good point, which was made earlier—the tax system treated women and their income as the property of their husbands. The supporters of the new clause argue that it would strengthen society, but there is no evidence for that. The new clause will help many people who have no children. It would apply to married couples and even retired people.
Mr Stewart Jackson
To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that many more people in County Durham, Northumberland and the north-east of England generally are keen on getting married than in, say, the south of England and London? Are his constituents wrong in supporting the institution of marriage?
Mr Jones
No, not at all. Many things in the north-east are obviously better than anywhere else in the country, but the statistics show that the number of people getting married is going down. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seems to think that a tax break of £150 a year will encourage people to get married, but that is not the case at all. He misses the main point.
The MCA was abolished in the Budget speech by the then Chancellor in 1999, and withdrawn in April 2000. Only married couples who reached the age of 65 by that date would be able to continue to claim the MCA. The additional personal allowance was also withdrawn at that time. The allowance equalised the MCA so it was given to lone parents, whether single, divorced or widowed, caring for one or more children under the age of 16.
Importantly, the then Labour Government introduced the child tax credit, which was vital to ensure that support went to the children. The Centre for Social Justice report suggested that marriage was important for keeping families together, but that is not the case. The important thing is how we support children. By introducing the tax credit system, we lifted thousands of children out of poverty by helping the families, whether they were married or not.
The credit took the form of an allowance which was then set at £5,200, on which relief was given at 10%. Families eligible to claim the child tax credit were able to cut their annual income tax not by £150, as is proposed, but by £520 a year. In April 2002 the credit was increased in line with inflation, making it worth £10 a week more. That was the fairest way of supporting families. I do not question the Secretary of State’s intention to help families, but the child tax credit was a far better way of doing it than through the married tax allowance.
The debate tonight has glossed over the cost of the proposal. We are told by the Government that we face hard times and that we must make every penny count. One reason given to explain why the proposal was not brought forward was the coalition Government; another was cost. The IFS estimated the cost of various options for introducing a transferable allowance based on different criteria. On the assumption that the allowance applied only at the basic rate of tax, which was due to be 20% in April 2008, the figures are eye-watering.
If the allowance applied to all married couples, the IFS estimates the cost at £3.2 billion. I am not sure where the Government would get such a sum from. If the allowance applied to all married couples but only half the personal allowance was transferred, that would cost £1.6 billion, so we are not talking about small amounts of money. If the object is to get that money to children, is this the best way? There is no realistic hope of the present Government doing this. I understand the annoyance of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who thinks that he stood on a manifesto which will now not be implemented.
Mr Jones
I understand why my hon. Friend and Mrs P have stayed together. Although the allowance might be an incentive to get married, the important point is that it does nothing to ensure that people will stay together for longer than the tax year. As has been mentioned, what is proposed would be very unfair. What happens if someone loses a spouse though no fault of their own, for example as a result of a tragic accident? Why should someone who finds themselves suddenly bereaved through no fault of their own after an accidental death, possibly with young children, be penalised by the tax system? It would be very difficult to introduce flexibility into this system to take account of that, and if we compare that with the tax credit system we will see that the important point is to support families and their children.
I will turn to some of the statistics on marriage that the Conservative party is putting forward. The hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) are not known as great state interventionists, but by arguing that the tax system should be used to encourage people to marry, they are suggesting that the state should determine a certain model of behaviour. I find that very strange coming from Conservatives who deplore the nanny state and argue that the state should not interfere in people’s lives. There is an inconsistency there that needs to be answered.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The charming Maggie Pound deserves a long-service medal at the very least for putting up with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
On the merits and logic of the argument that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is making, is he suggesting that there is no place for fiscal incentives in directing personal and public policy? If so, does he think that we should not fine motorists for breaking the speed limit, for instance, because that is the logical corollary of his last remark?
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am generally a relaxed person. We in Cornwall are famed for being laid back and not wanting the hectic pace of life that some other constituencies thrive on. I am focusing on the debate about the Government’s policy in the Bill and whether the Government will choose to accept the new clause that the hon. Gentleman proposed in such an able and distinguished manner. I hope that the Government will not at this juncture look to act on the proposal in the new clause.
I am happy to update the House that during the course of the debate news reached me that Julia Goldsworthy, the former Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has announced her engagement, which I am delighted to hear. Whether she and Chris have been watching the debate and decided that this was it is unclear. I think it is unlikely, but I am delighted that the institution of marriage is taking a step forward in terms of our political life in Cornwall.
Hon. Members’ speeches have made it clear that the new clause is an attempt to send a signal to a group of people in society, but I am not convinced that we should use the tax system to send a signal. There are other ways in which we could support marriage.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I concur that 1999 was a vintage year for nuptials, having been married myself that year. Surely there is a discrepancy in the hon. Gentleman’s argument. By increments, he is seeking to direct fiscal policy in terms of taking poorer people out of tax—it is his party’s policy, shared by many in my party, and it is in the coalition agreement. Surely he must recognise that there are perfectly good fiscal reasons for us to prevail on the Government to pursue the married tax allowance.
Dan Rogerson
There is certainly an important debate to be had, but it is not based on income or the tackling of poverty. It is a different argument, although of course an entirely legitimate one. It is just one that has failed to convince me at this juncture.
In our long debate this evening we have explored the issues in some depth. Despite the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, he has failed to convince me that the Government should act on his new clause.
Kate Green
This is an important debate and one that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in. The first thing to say is that it is important that we take great care with what the evidence tells us. That is in two respects.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is interrupting before I have even begun to expand on the evidence, but I shall be delighted to hear what evidence he has.
Mr Jackson
I merely had the temerity to point out that the hon. Lady did not grace us with her presence until about 20 minutes ago, so she was not in a position to hear the extremely articulate and well-made arguments made by my hon. Friend.
Kate Green
I am very sorry to have missed the contribution of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), but I should point out my own credentials—something that I do not often do. I bring to the House, if not exactly an interest, probably a bias. For four years I was proud to be the director of the National Council for One Parent Families. I worked with hon. Members, including Conservative Members, on what happens when relationships break down and children are involved. I know that I speak for hon. Members across the House when I say that our fundamental concern in this debate must be the well-being of children. I know that we come at that from different positions, but it is the debate that I think it is important we have this evening. The debate is not—however much hon. Members may, with the best of motives, care about it—about the social role of marriage and the societal messages that we send. I am interested in the well-being of children. It is incredibly important that we examine what we know about what marriage means for the well-being of children, what drives the factors that improve the well-being of children and the role of the financial position of families, and particularly of mothers, in the well-being of children.
I have had the pleasure of talking to hon. Members about this over many years, including Conservative Members. It is important for us as a House that we put it on record that this is what we really care about.
Kate Green
With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman—I understand what he says—we do not know and we have no evidence to tell us that it is the fact of marriage that gives those children that advantage. That is where the evidence falls down, with the greatest of respect to the strongly held views of Conservative Members and of DUP Members, too. The evidence does not tell us that the fact and existence of a marital relationship, if we strip out all other social and economic factors, makes the difference for children. Commitment might be one important factor but there is another important factor: conflict. We know that conflict, in married relationships or outside them, is extremely damaging for children, so it is dangerous for us pick out one aspect of relationships or familial structures and to say that it makes or breaks children’s well-being. The evidence simply does not stack up to tell us that.
I said at the beginning of my speech that my concern was about the well-being of children in the context of the proposal to spend public money on supporting a particular kind of familial structure. I am concerned that we are diverting resources to families who are economically better off rather than to those who face the greatest risk of poverty.
The families who face the greatest risk of poverty today—hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on this point—are lone parent families. There are two possible policy responses to that, one of which is to try to stop those lone parent families becoming lone parent families. Saying that we should have fewer single parent families could be a policy response if we could see the mechanisms to achieve it and if we thought that it would genuinely work for children’s well-being. In the absence of evidence that this tax break or other mechanisms can compel families to stay together, we must also consider the second policy response mechanism, which is how to improve the economic prospects of children growing up in single parent families, particularly in light of the fact that one in four children in this country will spend some time in such a family. I suggest that if we are considering where the pressure of public resources need to be focused, protecting the best interests of those children, irrespective of the marital situation of their parents, ought to be our priority.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The hon. Lady is very generous in giving way, but surely she is avoiding one central fact. We alone in Europe have a tax system that is biased against families with caring responsibilities in which one member chooses to stay at home to look after the children. That is the central fact that she is avoiding.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points. First, I have been struck this evening by the interventions by Government Members about the opportunity for couples to make a choice—particularly that which many of them would like to see, which is for one parent in the couple, often the mother, to take some time out of the workplace to stay at home and care for children. They seem willing to spend money on offering that choice to mothers in couple relationships and to spend more on offering it to mothers in married couple relationships, but not to offer it to single mothers. The economic pressure on single mothers to go out to work to support their children is being ratcheted up by this Government. If it is right for children to have a parent at home for a time, not necessarily just when the children are very young, it must be right irrespective of the marital status of the parents. Government Members must think about the child-focused approach to deploying resources. If we think it right that parents should have the choice to be at home with their children, all parents must have that choice, not just those in married relationships.
In response to the interesting and important point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about what goes on in other European countries, let me say that one of the distinguishing factors is that the experience of poverty among lone parent families in this country and the much lower experience of such poverty in other European countries shows that one can design a fiscal system so that lone parenthood need not be a determinant of poverty. It need not lead families and children into poverty. This is about the redistributive choices that we make in our fiscal system. When we have such pressure on the public finances, making a choice to spend money on favouring a group of families, many of whom are already economically advantaged, rather than focusing spending on those who are most economically disadvantaged is a strange priority, particularly given that we have no evidence of the efficacy of spending money on keeping people married as a route to keeping them out of economic disadvantage.
Kate Green
It is very clear that putting the weight of expectation for supporting marriage on the fiscal system is a very unrealistic and unlikely way of providing adequate support for strong couple relationships. Of course everybody wants strong couple relationships to be sustained and of course it is right to use every instrument of public policy that we can—cost-effectively and in terms of outcome—to do so, but the evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is not that we should give tax breaks to the already better-off, and particularly not to the already better-off who do not have children, if we are concerned about child well-being. The evidence about what sustains strong couple relationships is about a much broader landscape of social and emotional support. It is about early relationship and social education in schools and ensuring we have strong services to support families in the community, including the universally welcome Sure Start services and the very good-quality child care and play facilities that can be available to support parents in raising their children.
To isolate money and spend it in the fiscal system rather than direct our attention to what genuinely supports strong family relationships and children in whatever family structure they are growing up is in my view a misapplication of public funds, particularly at a time when those public funds are constrained. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is particularly strange to spend money on couples who have no children if we are concerned about child well-being, rather than to spend money in a way that specifically focuses on the well-being of kids. I am very concerned that the new clause would take money from those with higher levels of need and give it to many couples in lesser need. I accept that, as hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches have said, some married couples are in low-income groups and in straitened circumstances, but in general we would be diverting resources to better-off families from lower-income families, and particularly from lower-income families with children.
Finally, let me address the issue of the couple penalty, about which we have heard a great deal and about which I am deeply sceptical. Let us start by remembering that there are economies of scale of living with another adult in one’s household. It does not cost twice as much for two adults to live in a household as it costs one. The couple penalty that has been much talked about by Conservative Members fails to identify that the material circumstances of children in lone-parent families are measurably worse than those of children in couple families. Whatever the intellectual and fiscal modelling might suggest about a financial couple penalty, the reality—the outcome—is that there is no such couple penalty. Indeed, the penalty works in quite the opposite way. To seek to extend the material advantage that couples enjoy at the expense of single parents seems to me a strange choice for a Government who are particularly concerned about social mobility and improving the prospects of the most disadvantaged children.
I hope that hon. Members will consider the new clause very carefully and the fact that it simply fails to achieve the laudable goals of Members on the Government Benches to improve the prospects of some of our most disadvantaged children. I hope that they will look instead at how best we can direct resources to support parents who are bringing up children on their own, usually through no choice or fault of their own. I hope that they will relieve what is often a burden from the parents who are often proud to take on that burden and who deserve to be rewarded for taking it on, as they are the parents who stay and make the commitment. Surely they are the parents to whom we should be giving extra financial support if there is extra financial support to be made available. I really do plead with Members on the Conservative Benches, and with DUP Members who I think are giving them some support this evening, to think again about the likely effect of such a new clause and about the children who would lose out. I am sure that their intentions are honourable, but I am afraid that the results will be anything but.
Mr Stewart Jackson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who always makes an intelligent, cogent and reasonable case, but she is completely wrong. I had not intended to trouble the scorers this evening, but it is important that we have a proper debate on new clause 5, that it is not rushed through, and that this is not treated as a procedural issue that the House can dismiss lightly. It goes to the kernel of what my hon. Friends and I believe in. We did not come into politics at any level—in my case, more than 20 years ago—to make people poorer, to embed disadvantage, or to have a tax system that favours some over others.
My party has a strong tradition of small “l” liberal and progressive social reform, from Disraeli onwards. One of the more depressing aspects of the debate is the straw men—or straw people, I should say—who have been set up, and the caricatures of the Conservative party that have been paraded before us.
Mr Jackson
Not at the moment; I may do so later. If a reasonable person from any other European country stumbled into the Chamber tonight, they would wonder why we were debating the issue. It is an existential issue of what we believe as public servants—as politicians—about the institution of marriage. That is not to traduce or do down the massive contribution that those who are, for a variety of reasons, single parents make to their family. They love their children and care about their family, and they are a part of the community. However, it is incumbent on us to say what we think is right. I commend the courage and dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who is willing to be unfashionable sometimes and speak out on what he believes is right.
This is a totemic issue, because my party put it in its election manifesto. It recapitulated that point in the coalition agreement and has argued for this specific policy, so it is not one that we can lightly cast aside as irrelevant now that we are in a coalition in which there must be give and take. Many of us have always believed that it is vital to take poorer working people out of tax. We heard about a cornucopia of so-called Tory errors, going back to the minimum wage. Let me remind Opposition Members that the gap between the richest and poorest 10% widened under the Labour Government. A former very senior Government member professed that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”;
that is a fact. No one has a monopoly on care and compassion for people.
It cannot be wrong to look at examples in other European countries, see that their fiscal policy decisions work, and decide to look at a similar policy. I like, respect and trust the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury; he is a decent man of his word. He will have heard the strength of views and the passion on the Conservative Benches. He will also have heard the filibustering by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which reached a nadir when he effectively said in his final remarks that people were essentially too thick to fill in their tax forms. I know that filibustering is an art form, and he has perfected it, but that is gilding the lily and taking things to a ludicrous length. This is not a subject for knockabout politics; it is about real changes to support people.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good and important case. Many people quite properly raise concerns about the gap between the rich and the poor growing over the years, but why do the same people not also raise concerns about the position of one-earner married couples on an average wage with two children? Their tax burden has increased over the years, too. Why are people not rising up and expressing concern about that discrimination, which will lead to real child poverty if we do not deal with it?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend has a long tradition of concentrating on this issue in his professional work in family law before he came to the House, and he knows what he is talking about. He is right and astute in his observation. The proposal is about ameliorating unfairness, as well as having a progressive tax policy to reward what we think is right. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in her usual decorous way, skipped the key issue, which is that European countries are making such tax changes or have established them, and we have not. It is incumbent on her to make the case why they are all wrong and we are right.
Andrew Selous
Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case the United Kingdom is the odd country out? As he so powerfully said, we need to join the mainstream of Europe on this matter.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Reference was made earlier to the Centre for Social Justice report of May 2011. The hon. Member for North Durham, who is ambling along the Back Benches towards his place, did not refute the causal link and the difference between marriage and cohabitation and some of their negative socio-economic impacts.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening; I said nothing of the sort. I said that a possible reason for marriage break-up was poverty, but the link that he is making by suggesting that marriage break-down somehow leads to poverty is not the point that I was making at all.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. We will have a look at Hansard tomorrow to see what he said. He did not refute the details and facts that I put before the House in my interventions on him and others.
Mr Jones
I know the hon. Gentleman is not a good listener. He is drawing the conclusion that poverty, and things such as drug abuse among children of single parents and others, is a result of the fact that their parents are not married. What I said, and what is clear from the work of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is that the root cause is poverty, not whether people are married or not married.
Mr Jackson
My capacity to listen is in inverse proportion to the length of the hon. Gentleman’s peroration. Given that he spoke for an hour, at the end, like many others, I lost the will to live. I expect better of the hon. Gentleman because he has given some very informative speeches over the years. Sadly, that was not the case tonight. I am sure he is distressed at my observations.
The hon. Gentleman failed to take on board any of the comments that were made or the facts that were presented. A study by the Bristol Community Family Trust in December 2010 demonstrated that cohabiting couples accounted for 80% of family break-ups, whereas divorce accounted for only 20% of break-ups. He did not specifically seek to break the causal link that I was making. One in 11 married couples break up before their child is five, compared with one in three unmarried couples. None of us wants to see the dire social consequences of family breakdown. There is a consensus across this country about it, from the Prime Minister down.
Kate Green
Accepting at face value what the hon. Gentleman says—that cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than married couples—what evidence can he give us that a financial inducement would work to keep those cohabiting couples together?
Mr Jackson
I expected better of the hon. Lady, who is learned, intelligent and usually erudite, than rejigging the caricature, “Put a ring on your finger and get an extra 20 quid a week.” That has never been our argument. We seek to influence private behaviour with public policy, and I used the example of speeding fines and points on a licence as policies that are likely to influence future behaviour. As I said to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who is no longer in his place, the Liberal Democrats made a manifesto commitment, which we have accepted, to take more poorer working people out of tax. That commitment was made on the same basis. The point I keep coming back to, and which I repeat for the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, is that the international comparators support my case and not hers.
Mr Jackson
I will not give way for the time being.
We all wish to deal with the problem of family breakdown, and I genuinely believe that this would be an important pointer and signal that we are in line with other countries and cognisant of international comparators. The hon. Member for North Durham painted a picture of a wonderful land of milk and honey, a Valhalla, after 13 years of the Labour Government, but it is worth repeating that in 2007, under a Labour Administration, a UNICEF report on child well-being placed Britain bottom in a league table of 21 countries. Members should listen not only to me on that point but to Mr Justice Coleridge from the family division of the High Court, who in 2009 summarised the position thus:
“The breakdown of families in this country is on a scale, depth and breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago… almost all of society’s ills can be traced directly to the collapse of family life… it is a never ending carnival of human misery.”
The Whips are imploring me to conclude my comments—I know it is not my aftershave—so I will do so, as I am always receptive to the admonitions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We have had an excellent debate and I believe that my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has listened. This is an important point of principle for Members on this side of the House and for many others, including hon. Gentlemen and Ladies from Northern Ireland on the other side of the Chamber. It is a totemic issue, and this Conservative-led coalition Government must, and I believe will, deliver on this promise.
Mr Jackson
On the subject of unfairness, would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise for the fact that in the financial year 2007-08, under his party’s Government, the tax burden on one-earner married couples with two children, on the average wage, rose to 44% greater than the OECD average? That is a matter of fairness. Does he think any responsible party should ignore it?
Chris Leslie
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. Maybe in the cool light of day that intervention will have more light shed on it. In his contribution earlier, he asserted that there was a causal link between marriage and the socio-economic well-being of society, child well-being and so forth. He may well have a set of statistics in which he sees a correlation, but I am sure he understands the difference between causal and correlative effect. It may well be that car ownership has a similar correlation with child well-being, but that does not mean that setting up the tax system to the advantage of a particular institution will necessarily have the outcome that he seeks.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and others have overwhelmingly proved that we need a tax and benefits system focused on need and on poverty alleviation, particularly poverty among children. That must be the driving force behind a sane and rational tax system. We do not want a system with the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies that Conservative Members advocate.
Amendment of the Law
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell
That might be the figure in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world, but it might not be a figure in other parts of the world.
Let me get back to the point—we created a balance between the public sector and the private sector and we believed that that balance was right for our country. In the north-east of England, when we lost manufacturing jobs, steel jobs, coal jobs and shipbuilding jobs, they were absorbed into the public sector. Those who worked in the public sector created careers for themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made this point: there was a relationship between the public and private sectors. They worked together.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Can he explain why the Government whom he supported were running a structural deficit several years before the financial crisis?
Sir Stuart Bell
We had no difficulty with the structural deficit because we believed in infrastructure projects. We believed in public-private initiatives and off-balance sheet finance, which was exactly the same as what the Germans were doing. At the time, it was thought a fine way of doing things and it is still a fine way of doing things. In my constituency, we got the first public-private initiative in the James Cook university hospital, so we have nothing to regret about what is now called the structural deficit. As I said earlier, the structural deficit is like any other, it is part and parcel of the fullest objective. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was right to say that, while we are tackling that particular deficit, public expenditure in other areas is going up. We need to get the balance right, but that is not happening at the moment.
The Chancellor said that we had moved from fourth in the league of competitiveness to 12th and made a big thing about competitiveness, but he did not mention the eurozone, not surprisingly. He did not mention the conference tomorrow and the day after when the 17 members of the eurozone will get together to create a competitiveness pact. Why are they doing that? Because they wish to increase their growth and exports, and we are in competition with them. We are in competition with Germany and France and we will be in competition with those other countries.
The Chancellor talked about Greece, Portugal and Spain, but why does the fourth-largest economy in the world have to compare itself with Greece, which has a deficit of 150% against gross domestic product, not the 60% or 50% we are talking about? Why does our nation state have to be compared with a small country such as Greece? On that basis, we had £67 billion-worth of deficit reduction in one Budget. Today, the Chancellor was very gracious in saying that, now he has taken all that money out of the economy, he will not take any more out. He might have said, “I’ll do you all a favour: I’ve hit you on the head with one big hammer, so I’m not coming back with another.” How gracious of him to destabilise, within the space of nine months, our economy. That is what he has done and is continuing to do. He will certainly rebalance the economy—away from the welfare state, the public sector and the work force of our country—and he will weaken the fabric of our country. He will weaken the standard of living of all our people.
Stephen Williams
I would remind the hon. Lady that we can all be selective with quotations from different party leaders or finance spokesmen in the general election. Indeed, we could do that all round the Chamber. I well remember the leader of my party saying that there would need to be “savage cuts” in public expenditure to deal with the desperate circumstances that whoever won the general election would have to deal with. He was heavily criticised for using the phrase “savage cuts”; none the less, he gave a stark warning that was also timely and well made.
Despite those circumstances, we—and in particular the Liberal Democrats in the coalition—have endeavoured to ensure that all the measures that we put in place, whether in the emergency Budget, the spending review or the Budgets to come, are underpinned by fairness. It is important that we recognise people’s concerns about the cost of living and the pressures on their household budgets. That is why today Liberal Democrats in particular welcome the further step taken towards our main manifesto commitment of ensuring that nobody on an income of less than £10,000 should face an income tax bill. From April this year, almost 900,000 people will be taken out of income tax altogether, with all average earners getting a tax cut of £200. In a year’s time, 1.1 million lower-paid people will be taken out of the income tax net altogether, leading to a tax cut for everyone on average earnings of £326 a year. This measure will, as we always pledged, help the poor and reward work.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I warmly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about taking low-paid people out of tax. Does he agree that it ill behoves the Opposition to criticise these measures, given that Labour’s contribution was to get rid of the 10p tax rate and import more than 1 million unskilled, low-wage workers from eastern Europe over 13 years to undercut the pay and conditions of the poorest people in this country?
Stephen Williams
I well remember sitting on the Opposition Benches during the final Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and being one of those who spotted the fact that the tax cut being given to higher-rate taxpayers and the cut in capital gains tax, which were cheered by Labour Members at the time, were effectively being funded by a tax rise for the poorest people in society that doubled their rate of income tax from 10p in the pound to 20p.
People are also rightly concerned about their household budgets as a result of high fuel prices. You and I will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is difficult now to find petrol or diesel costing less than 130p a litre anywhere in the city of Bristol. Even the local fuel station in my constituency is now charging 140p for diesel. I therefore welcome the measures to address those concerns by reducing fuel duty by 1p and by stopping Labour’s planned further increases, leading to a further 5p reduction in fuel duty. This will be welcomed by people not only in cities, such as those I represent, but in the rural areas around Britain represented by my colleagues.
Mr Stewart Jackson
Does my hon. Friend not agree that it takes an enormous degree of mismanagement and incompetence, after 12 years of economic growth, to leave 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, languishing in a half-life on the edge of society? That is the legacy of the Labour Government.
Mr Amess
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would just say that if Labour Members feel that they were absolutely spot on in their judgment on the economy, why was Labour not re-elected last year? We had a general election last year, and the Conservative party was overwhelmingly the largest party returned; in any case, the Labour party was defeated. I am afraid that the Labour party’s reaction to the Budget today—they were absolutely cheesed off—says it all.
Before the Budget, I had representations from all manner of organisations, including the Association for Consultancy and Engineering and others in a conglomeration of engineering companies, and Essex chambers of commerce. I have to say that the Budget was much brighter and more positive than I expected, so whatever demands have been made, I think that the Chancellor has met them completely. I am delighted that at long last something is being done about regulation. I am absolutely delighted that we are looking at how we deal with income tax and national insurance. I am delighted about the cut in corporation tax. I am absolutely delighted with what we are doing about fuel duty; one could see from Labour Members’ glum faces that they were very disappointed with that. I am glad that in the east of England, 106,000 people are being taken out of a tax band, and I am very pleased with what has happened about gift aid.
I hope that Conservative Members will become a little more robust when Opposition Members have the temerity to castigate them after nine months for the mess that the country is in. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are looking at the party that is entirely responsible for meltdown Britain. I congratulate the Chancellor on his Budget today and on cheering up the country.
Diana Johnson
That is absolutely clear.
The proposal for a business-led solution to deal with economic growth in the regions appears sensible. In my area, however, local authority politicians on Conservative-led East Yorkshire council and Liberal Democrat-led Hull council have been squabbling among themselves. The business leaders have made it clear that they want a pan-Humber LEP that will bring the economy together on the north and south banks of the Humber. As I said, we have had the wonderful announcement from Siemens on the future of renewable energy in our area, but because of the way in which the local councils in East Riding and Hull are behaving, the business community has been left without an LEP; the Business Secretary would not agree to one because it did not have the support of the business community.
This just shows that the Government’s approach is flawed. My area desperately needs economic growth, yet it has been left with no LEP and with the council in Hull squabbling with the councils on the south bank of the Humber. We have great potential for growth in the renewable energy sector, but there is no co-ordinating force. The idea is that LEPs will lead us into the growth strategy that we all want to see, but that is not going to happen in my area.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I fear that the hon. Lady might be suffering from selective amnesia. My recollection is that, in 13 years of a Labour Government, the per capita public expenditure for the people of Hull was significantly higher than for most parts of the UK—it was certainly in the top quartile—yet educational attainment, housing, skills and health outcomes were all in the bottom quartile. Why does she think that was?
Diana Johnson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, because of the additional funding that the Labour Government put in from 1997, huge strides were made in education in my city, with more children achieving at GCSE level and more young people going on to college and university. That is important because it links into the growth strategy. Unless we have an educated, skilled work force, employers will not be attracted into the area. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
What the Chancellor announced today is a return to the 1980s. As mentioned earlier, the detail on the enterprise zones is very sketchy and it looks like only limited resources will be available to the 21 areas granted this status. Hull, however, is not in the initial 10 announced today, which is very disappointing because Hull and the Humber is one area where I would have hoped the Government would see the need to invest in and support the economy for it to grow.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)—the new Member for that constituency—who will be a credit both to his constituents and to this House. We should listen carefully to his words and his warnings.
Today’s Budget is equally noticeable for what it does and does not include, because the Chancellor has not heeded the many warnings showing that the Government’s economic policies are not working. Gross domestic product figures for the last quarter of 2010 showed that our economy contracted by 0.6%. Government Members blamed the snow, but it snowed in Germany, yet its economy grew by 0.4%, and it snowed in the United States of America, yet its economy grew by 0.7%. The difference is that we are cutting too fast and too deep and they are not.
Another warning can be found in last week’s unemployment figures, which showed that unemployment is the highest it has been for 17 years and that youth unemployment is the highest on record. The OBR today showed that unemployment is set to rise to 8.2% this year and 8.1% next year—higher than it was even at the height of the recession. House prices continue to fall and yesterday we learned that the consumer prices index has increased to 4.4% and the retail prices index to 5.5%. There are many warnings that the Government’s policies are not working.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I have a quick question for the hon. Lady. Why, on the “Daily Politics” show approximately three hours ago, was she unable to name one measure in this Budget that Labour Front Benchers would vote against?
Rachel Reeves
We would like to vote, for example, on the bank bonus levy and other components of the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out today that we will consider areas of growth in “The Plan for Growth” green book. There are areas where we want to work with the Government but also areas where we disagree with what they are doing.
Given the warnings I have mentioned, it is hardly surprising that the independent OBR has today downgraded its growth forecast for 2011 to 1.7% and has revised growth for next year to 2.5%. Let us put that in context. Before the Chancellor’s first Budget last year, the OBR predicted growth in 2011 of 2.6%. That forecast has now been downgraded three times—to 2.3%, 2.1% and today to 1.7%. Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, the OBR has to downgrade its growth forecasts.
The Government will say that the only way to get growth back on track is to reduce the deficit, but we have also seen today that the OBR’s borrowing forecast is expected to be £44.5 billion higher over this Parliament as a result of lower growth and higher unemployment. Despite today’s opportunity to think again, however, the Chancellor will still not accept that plan A is not going to plan.
Although the Chancellor has no plan for growth, his implicit plan B, I think, was looser monetary policy, yet today’s Monetary Policy Committee minutes show a further split over whether to increase rates and yesterday’s inflation data show more pressure for a rate rise. Plan B is looking as forlorn as plan A, with householders likely to see a mortgage rate rise by the summer.
We have heard many times today that the Government cannot change course, but that is a fallacy. Jonathan Portes, the new director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, recently said that that intransigence
“relies on an odd view of market psychology, one that says markets have more confidence in governments that never adjust policy, even when it is sensible…history suggests the opposite: that the real hit to credibility comes from sticking to unsustainable policies”.
He is right. Now is the time—more than ever—for the Government to rethink their plan, which is sapping jobs and growth out of the economy.
We need to begin to build the Britain of the future, because confidence in UK plc requires a belief that we have a competitive economy that productively employs its resources, draws on our strengths across the sectors and regions and invests in science, skills, technology and infrastructure. Today’s Budget, however, does nothing to foster investment or hope. Although I welcome “The Plan for Growth”, which has been published today, and the announcements to relieve us of a further increase in fuel prices and to provide help for first-time buyers, the Chancellor could and should have done more.
Most of all, although the Chancellor has said repeatedly that he will be tough on the banks, page 103 of the Red Book shows that the bank bonus tax brought in £3.5 billion in 2010 whereas the bank levy will bring in just £1.9 billion this year. There is no guarantee that the banks will lend any more to small businesses because the Government agreed gross lending targets and no net lending targets. No wonder the Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, Lord Oakeshott, resigned, saying that if this was tough action, his name was Bob Diamond. The Government have washed their hands of any responsibility to help small businesses, which are being hit hard by the banks’ actions.
There are other areas where the Chancellor could have acted today. We need a plan for green jobs and there is still the potential for Britain to be a world leader, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out earlier, in the green technologies of the future, but the market requires certainty and we are losing the initiative to countries that are willing to provide it. We need action, not just words, on the green investment bank, yet today we found out that it will not be fully operational until 2015.
We need regional economic strategies. The regional growth fund is estimated to be 10 times over-subscribed, and with a two-thirds cut to regional economic investment, cities and towns across Britain are missing out on opportunities to grow and diversify their economies. We risk another overheating in London and the south-east while the potential powerhouses of the north of England are being left behind. Although I welcome the enterprise zones, the evidence from the 1980s shows that such approaches move, rather than create, jobs. Of course, the funding for enterprise zones is a fraction of what the regional development agencies had to spend.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but I am tempted to say that hers was a bit of a Blue Peter speech—here is one I prepared earlier. I am not sure that she has done anything other than regurgitate the line from the Whips Office.
Rachel Reeves
The main thrust of my speech was to point out that growth had been downgraded and we did not know that until today. It was only when we heard the Budget that we knew that growth had been downgraded, for the third time in a row, to 1.7%, so I could not have written it earlier.
Mr Jackson
I know that the hon. Lady has some expertise on these issues. She can rest assured that my criticism will be confined mainly to the Leader of the Opposition, who delivered a master class in opportunism and vacuity. His loquacity was in inverse proportion to his intellectual insight. In his 15 minutes of speaking, no policy whatever was articulated.
The Budget is supported by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and business leaders such as the deputy director of the CBI, John Cridland, and David Frost of the British Chambers of Commerce. It is about the Government putting in place the conditions for sustainable, balanced economic growth. Let us remember that the Institute for Fiscal Studies still says that public finances remain in a critical condition, but we have had no alternative whatever from Her Majesty’s Opposition. Indeed, we might have to call in Professor Brian Cox, the noted cosmologist, to search for the black hole where the Labour economic policy should be.
Mr Jackson
I will make some progress; I am sure that I can let the hon. Lady in a bit later. The priorities of the Budget are primarily to reduce the deficit; rebalance the economy, which was left out of kilter by the Labour Government, with an over-concentration on financial services, the housing market and public expenditure; reform public services; and grow, via initiatives such as the green investment bank, green expertise, knowledge, skills and jobs. If I may give a plug, yesterday a collaboration was announced between Peterborough city council and Cranfield university on a centre for renewable energy and biofuels, to be based in Peterborough.
We need to move towards a high-wage, low-taxation economy with less pressure on household incomes, and the Budget provides a road map for that. No one denies that we have had to make some very tough decisions in the comprehensive spending review and in last year’s emergency Budget. There were real-terms cuts in departmental expenditure; the cut to departmental expenditure will be, on average, 11%. However, we should remember that between 1998 and 2010, there was a real-terms increase in budgets in each Department of anything between 2% and 8%. The fiscal tightening between now and 2015-16 will mean that we have to reduce public expenditure and put taxes up, with capital gains tax, tobacco, fuel, the bank levy, consumer prices indexation and child benefit affected. Contrary to received wisdom among Opposition Members, the richest 2% will be hit hardest by the tax benefit and other changes.
What choice do we have? Labour’s poisonous legacy and debt millstone left us with simply no alternative. In 2010-11, we had to borrow about £140 billion—perhaps around £10 billion less than expected. Only Ireland has a bigger cyclically adjusted deficit. Labour ran a structural deficit some seven years before the banking crisis in 2007-08, and we entered the financial crisis with the largest structural deficit in the G7. The national debt doubled between 1997 and 2010. In May last year, we were at significant risk of a downgrading in our international credit rating, with a catastrophic impact on public services, business and consumer confidence, a long period of stagflation, and a contraction in the economy.
Rachel Reeves
I want to enlighten the hon. Gentleman with two facts. First, in 1996, just before the Labour Government came into power, there was a structural budget deficit of 4%, whereas it was 2.5% in 2007. Secondly, he compares the UK economy with that of Greece, but does he recognise the figures that show that although bond yields in Greece increased from 7% to 12% between January and May 2010, in the UK, before the Conservatives came to power, they were falling?
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady will know that the markets have recognised that the fiscal consolidation that the Government had to put in place as part of a policy of growth in the private sector and consolidation in the public sector has resulted in a lessening of the pressures in the gilt markets, with gilt yields down to 3.53% since May last year, and every 1% is £1 billion of interest payment. Of course, that is change in the pocket to Labour Members; we are spending £120 million on debt every day.
Mr Jackson
No, not at this moment.
To put that in context, £95 million could have been spent on schools each day, but we are servicing Labour’s debt, and we could be spending £35 million on police, £25 million on social care, and £90 million on defence. The entire budget deficit that the Labour party ran up in government is £42.7 billion. That is 40 Type 45 destroyers, 33 Astute class submarines, 42,700 MRI scans, or 1.3 million nurses. That is the reality of the appalling profligacy and mismanagement of the Labour Government. We do not hear alternatives. We hear a policy that is dishonest, incoherent and irresponsible. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) shares very few values, I imagine, with the former US President Ronald Reagan, who once said, “I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” That sums up the Labour party’s attitude in government, and the deficit denial on the Opposition Benches now.
Even some sensible and pragmatic Labour supporters are troubled by the incoherence and the substitution of political opportunism for a realistic alternative policy. The erstwhile Cabinet member, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), said at the weekend:
“The public expects us to at least give a broad direction—but I think they are worried that we haven’t been as clear as we ought to be.”
She is absolutely right.
The former general secretary of the Labour party, Peter Watt, went further. In a rebuke to the institutionalised deficit denial of the shadow Chancellor, Mr Watt said on the labour-uncut website that Labour
“is . . . a highly toxic brand. . . we are still opposing every cut . . .It might make us feel better and win some short term popularity. But it isn’t an answer to the charge that we had become economically illiterate and had allowed massive overspending.”
If there is one lesson that I can offer the Labour party from our long period in opposition, it is this: rarely is it enough to be populist to win the respect of the electorate. That rarely forms the basis of a credible election strategy.
Helen Goodman
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with a Budget to which the oil and gas industry responded this afternoon by expressing its shock and stating that the investment climate has been seriously damaged and the Budget will drive jobs away from this country?
Mr Jackson
That is one viewpoint from one group of people. Others, such as Baker Tilly, the tax accountants, say that it is an excellent Budget. So do the CBI, the OECD, other industry groups, house builders and others. [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Lady thinks it is humorous that people are supporting my right hon. Friend’s Budget.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
One group of people who will welcome the measures in the Budget today is motorists. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures cutting fuel prices ensure that petrol prices will not only not affect motorists directly, but will not have an impact on the price of goods in the shop, which in turn will assist middle England?
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. I lobbied the Chancellor myself, I campaigned for the policy and I am glad that he has listened to the views of people, many of whom rely on the car to travel to work. It is a matter of public record that had Labour been re-elected in May last year, petrol prices would have been going up an extra 6p. That would be the price of Labour’s profligacy.
I am delighted that we are taking more poor working people out of tax, and that we are creating local enterprise zones to drive regeneration in some of the more difficult economic areas of Britain. I am delighted, too, that we are tackling corporation tax and creating conditions in which business wants to relocate to the UK and create jobs.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
But does the hon. Gentleman not realise the great damage the Budget has done by saying to investors, “You come to the United Kingdom, you invest in success, you employ 450,000 people, you make 20% of the Exchequer’s corporation tax, and then, once you have made all that investment, the Government move the goalposts and whack up a huge extra tax on your industry”?
Mr Jackson
I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s constituency interests. Were I in his position, I would make the same points. Clearly, when we are in a less than benign financial situation, clearing up the abysmal mess left by the Labour Government, we have to make difficult value judgments. To govern is to choose, and sometimes the choices made will not please everyone. I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Treasury Front-Bench team have heard his views.
Mr Jackson
No, I do not have time. Although other Members spoke for much longer, I will have to finish quickly.
I am delighted about the permissive nature of the reforms to the planning system and about the desperately needed initiatives for first-time buyers. It was extremely important that the mortgage market review of the Financial Services Authority was not going to choke off first-time buyers. Some figures show that 37 is now the average age at which young—less young—men and women buy their first homes. We had a significant housing boom in the 1990s and 2000s and need to encourage the house building industry to build more homes without choking off house prices or the capacity of young people to own houses and flats.
I am also delighted that residential estate investment trusts will be looked at. We need to clarify the regulations relating to brownfield remediation, which is an important part of bringing back into use residential and commercial sites. In future Budgets we need to think carefully about giving tax incentives for saving to first-time buyers so that they can build up moneys for a deposit in preparation for buying a home. We also need to look at stamp duty land tax. I am pleased that we are beginning to look at self-invested personal pensions in relation to people’s capacity to invest in the housing market.
In conclusion, the Government have had the courage and determination to take tough decisions and to prepare the ground for economic recovery. A credible plan to deal with our record budget deficit is an absolute precondition for growth. The Chancellor is right to strive for a balanced Budget and a firm and consistent strategy that will deliver for ordinary families in my constituency and across the country lower taxes, more jobs, better living standards and a renaissance in our international competitiveness. That is the only way to achieve future prosperity, which is why on Tuesday I will be supporting the Budget.
Fuel Costs
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady wants to go back into history. The previous Labour Government left a huge fiscal deficit, and we have to get to grips with those ginormous debts, so the position is entirely different. The previous Labour Government left not only debts and deficit, but tax rises that will unfold over the coming years. In opposition, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives discussed helping motorists, and we still want to see what we can do to help them. Given the state of the public finances when they were handed over to us, the Labour party in opposition should be thoroughly ashamed. We have waited in vain for an apology to the British people for the state of the public finances, and I suspect that we will have a long wait before we hear any of them say, “Sorry.”
The most depressing thing is that the main adviser to the former Chancellor and former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), is now shadow Chancellor. It is like returning the car keys to the man who crashed the car in the first place, which is the worst thing for the British electorate.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The issue is not about going back into pre-history to discuss what a previous Conservative Government did 18 years ago. Her Majesty’s Opposition are not willing to make it clear where exactly the 20% public expenditure cuts would come from to pay for their opposition to tax rises. Is that not the real issue? We are paying £120 million a day in debt interest because of their debt legacy.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right. We do not even know whether the Opposition think that going ahead with the fuel duty rise, which they planned, is a good idea. We know that they rejected calls from Opposition parties to look at alternatives when they were in power. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bristol East will explain her party’s position today.
My hon. Friend is also right to point out the difficult challenges that the current Government face. He has rightly pointed out that the level of deficit and debt that we have been left as a country costs the British taxpayer £120 million every single day. To put that in the context of a 1p a litre rise in fuel duty, which is worth £500 million, the British taxpayer will pay as much in debt interest over the course of four or five days as they will pay in fuel duty, if fuel duty is subject to a 1p a litre rise. That demonstrates two things, the first of which is the importance of tackling the deficit. Clearly, this country cannot continue to pay this expense of £120 million a day and it has to be tackled, because we are spending more on servicing our debt than on transport. The challenge for this country is that if we do not get this £500 million of real money from fuel duty, it has to come from somewhere else. The Government have made it clear that they want to try to protect key spending, for example, on the NHS—the Labour party did not want to do that—and schools.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I thank the Minister, who is being very generous. The House will forgive me if I do not join in the excitement of our Scottish colleagues at the largesse of my English taxpayers footing the bill for their constituents. Will my hon. Friend take representations from areas such as mine, which is a travel-to-work area and essentially urban, but where there are pockets of social deprivation and low wages, such as the fens? In future, will she and her colleagues perhaps consider that such areas also require some support and assistance from the Treasury with significant increases in fuel duty, which have an impact on working life there too?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend, as ever, represents his constituents powerfully. The point I would make to him and to the House is that we have inherited a huge fiscal deficit and eye-watering levels of debt, and we have to get the public finances back on to a sustainable footing. We must make sure that the economy is back on a sustainable footing too, creating long-term jobs, and that the economy is balanced so that it is less exposed to the peaks and troughs of economic winds than it was, perhaps, over the past decade.
That is the best way to help people across our country so that they are less reliant on Government giving them this, that and the other, and so that they can be reliant on themselves and choose where they spend their money and what they spend it on, instead of being reliant on somebody from Whitehall telling them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
The consensus among international bodies is that growth will grow over the coming years based on the Government’s plans and that unemployment will fall. The hon. Lady might not yet have seen the OECD’s report on our economy today, which describes our Budget measures as “courageous and appropriate” and as “an essential starting point” for restoring growth and jobs in this economy. That is a position that the whole House should welcome and not criticise.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I am delighted that the shadow Chancellor believes in transparency in Government. Is my right hon. Friend minded to publish the position papers prepared by the Treasury in respect of the previous Government’s plans to increase VAT before the election?
Danny Alexander
It is striking that the one party that had a plan to increase VAT before the election—to 18% or even 19%, according to the account in one book serialised today—did not say so at the election. I am not sure that it would be appropriate for us to publish documents that were worked up for the previous Chancellor—I am not sure that that would be in line with the conventions—but the hon. Gentleman has made his point very effectively.
Capital Gains Tax (Rates)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate, which has been interesting and lively. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on an excellent, effective maiden speech, and I look forward to hearing more from him in the future. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on constructive, thoughtful and progressive speeches, which addressed the problems facing our country.
I am disappointed by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and some of her colleagues who seem to think that there is a right-wing ideological agenda. The Budget has a practical, realistic approach, from a coalition Government who are determined to get our country out of the economic mess in which the Labour Government left us. We will not forget that, and we will take no lessons from them about the situation in which we find ourselves. Many of us would prefer not to have to take some of the measures in the Budget, but the 13 wasted years under Labour have resulted in a real mess.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is no longer in his place, because his was a constructive and passionate speech. I say to him and to Labour Members, including those on the Front Bench, that most of us came into politics to improve the condition of everybody in society, not just one section of it. We are determined to look after the disadvantaged and to help the less well-off, the disabled, pensioners and those in real need, but to do that we must have a strong economy and money to invest in such services. It is regrettable that the Labour party destroyed our economy and the opportunities for many people. I agree with the comment that most Labour Members who have spoken seem to be in denial about the problems that they have created and the situation in which we find ourselves. They keep on with the mantra, “It is a world situation” and so on. Of course, there is a world recession, but it was made worse by the incompetence of the Labour Government and their failure to deal with the issues early enough and to take the necessary measures to ensure that we could weather the storm. The consequences are a disaster for the whole country. History lessons will not do when we have had 13 wasted years.
My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary made a progressive, rational and measured speech and explained to us all his thinking and how he has come to his decisions. We value that, because he has looked at the facts and figures and made a reasonable judgment accordingly. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a positive and constructive Budget in very difficult times. It was positive in its aims and objectives, based on fairness and reasonableness, and in its twin approach of dealing with the debt problems and planning for the future.
Having been a Member of the previous Parliament, I also welcome the Chancellor’s candour, openness and clarity about the situation in which the country finds itself. How different this was from Budget statements under the last Government. Those were all spin and propaganda, and Members had to leave the Chamber and read all the minutiae in the small print to find out what they really meant. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open and frank, telling the people about the problems and what needed to be done about them. He did not conceal the facts in the small print or hide them away in other paperwork.
After 13 years of Labour government, our economy has been shattered by mismanagement. We have a huge public debt and great unfairness in the tax system, and businesses, particularly small businesses, feel battered and bruised. We really do need a new approach and a new direction. Yes, the Budget is tough and austere, but it is also necessary and fair, and it is unfortunately unavoidable because of the position in which we find ourselves. We need a decisive breach with the past so that we can build facilities and services for the less advantaged and the most disadvantaged, such as those who are sick and will need more help in the future.
I want to concentrate on enterprise, pensions and training. As a Conservative, I believe passionately in lower taxation, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also aspires to achieve that goal—when the time is right. When the time is not right, we must increase taxation, however hard that may be, in order to balance the books. I know that my constituents will appreciate my right hon. Friend’s approach, because after 13 years of Labour they feel that they have been over-taxed and over-regulated, and that there has been too much bureaucracy and red tape and not enough support for their business activities.
My constituents have experienced the problems of increasing unemployment and economic inactivity, and most of them feel that bureaucracy and taxation have been excessive. Regrettably, those problems must be addressed with vim and vigour. Local business men tell me that central Government support was inadequate during the recession, and that publicly owned banks were unhelpful when they applied for credit or assistance. They were cast adrift by a Government who said wonderful things in the House, but did not follow them up with real measures to help small businesses make the wealth on which our country depends. It was clear that action by the new Government was urgently required to deal with that on all fronts.
The Government have already cut £6 billion of spending because we cannot afford it. If we are to create jobs and growth, it is vital that we help the small and medium-sized businesses that are at the heart of our economy. We need to show that Britain is open for business, and attract firms into the United Kingdom. We need reforms of tax and regulation to make it less costly and bureaucratic to run or start a business. We need to shift the balance in our economy back towards private enterprise, rather than the public sector dependency that we saw during those 13 years of Labour government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that the public sector has a vital role to play, and that it can create wealth and opportunities. Most wealth, however, is created by the small and medium-sized businesses which pay the tax and allow us to spend the money that we need to spend on our vital public services. I am amazed at the increase in public sector pay and pensions over the past decade. We would surely expect the Prime Minister to have a higher salary than anyone else in the public sector, and when we see that people at the BBC and in some local authorities are being paid considerably more by the taxpayer for doing a less demanding job, we have to ask what has gone wrong.
We also need to deal with the problem of waste. The hon. Lady mentioned regional development agencies, an issue that I raised with the Prime Minister at Question Time last week. Although some RDAs have done a good job, others have wasted money in their bureaucratic way. We have heard about extravagances and expenses that have been in no way connected with the job that those people should have been doing, involving entertainment, offices abroad, novelty items or taxis, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. That profligacy is another Labour legacy that I am pleased to see the new coalition Government will take on.
The managing director of a lighting business in my constituency advised me that he thought the support for small businesses during the recession was
“neither adequate nor well advertised.”
He also said that
“there was nothing for a small business in our position or if there was, we didn’t find out about it.”
His business also had problems with the publicly subsidised banks. Higher banking costs were imposed on it, leading to its having to reduce staff to meet the cost of the charges. That is not the way to get a successful business developing and going forward. In addition to the problems in getting Government support and dealing with an over-complicated tax system, that managing director experienced a great deal more red tape and regulation, which in turn increased costs. That was a legacy of the last Labour Government: more regulation, more red tape and more costs.
I also received representations from a car manufacturing firm in my constituency. Its managing director thought the previous Government did a good job with its advertising. However, when it came to applying for assistance, his company found that support was not available. That is a terrible legacy. He said the investment company appointed to manage the capital for enterprise fund for the Government was interested only in venture capital parameters such as high rates of return. The company also alleged that it did not receive support from its bank. In fact, it suffered increased charges from very early in 2009.
Both those businesses will benefit from the measures announced in the Budget. The reduction in corporation tax will mean they have more money of their own to invest in their business, and either to take on new staff or extend the working of current staff. The Budget will bring benefit to small businesses in particular. They will welcome the lowest ever rate of corporation tax, which will fall from 28% to 24% during this Parliament. The tax rate reduction for small companies from 21% to 20% will also be welcomed, and the extension of the enterprise guarantee scheme will provide a real boost for small businesses struggling to get credit.
The Budget therefore contains a lot that is positive, contrary to what was suggested from those on the Opposition Benches, where all was doom and gloom. There is enthusiasm for enterprise to get things moving, which is very important for the future of the country, because we must get the debt down and the public finances under control before we can have economic growth. We must never forget that high levels of debt put an unfair burden on future generations. Our role is to look after the future and make sure that our children and grandchildren are not in hock to debt because we have failed to manage the national finances. This emergency Budget will go a long way to rectifying the situation for the future.
Action to stop Labour’s job tax by increasing the threshold for employers’ national insurance contributions by £21 a week will also be positive. As a result, the number of employees for whom employers pay no national insurance will rise by 650,000. That is another real, positive move to endeavour to ensure that we get ourselves out of the appalling mess we find ourselves in.
The second issue I want to raise is pensions and pensioners. I am delighted that the earnings link is to be restored after 30 years. We have to admit that sometimes the Conservatives made mistakes in government, and it was a Conservative Government who made the mistake of breaking the link. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) laughing and smiling, because the Labour Government had 13 years to do something about that, but they did not do a thing. They sat on their hands and made nice noises, but action speaks louder than words. This coalition Government have already taken more action on pensioners than the previous Labour Government did in 13 years.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend remind the House that when we broke the link in 1980 we had an inherited situation of huge debt—an economic basket case—as a result of a Labour Government spending beyond their means. Does he think that that sounds familiar?
Mr Evennett
Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is history repeating, is it not? I am sure that pensioners in my constituency and across the country will be pleased by the triple lock, whereby the basic state pension will rise by whichever is the higher out of earnings, prices measured by consumer price inflation or 2.5%. That is good news. One would not believe on listening to the Opposition that there was any good news at all in the Budget, but there is. We will never have pensioners getting a meagre increase of 75p on the basic pension, as happened one year under Labour. That was an insult and the pensioners knew it. We will not allow that to be repeated.
Mr Evennett
That point is absolutely spot on. The Opposition’s crocodile tears on these issues are lamentable, because they did not do anything in government. They took away the 10p rate, as my hon. Friend has said, and they pushed people on very low incomes into paying tax when that was unfair. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it quite clear in yesterday’s Budget that fairness was the underlying key. It was about making sure that everyone pays a fair amount. Those on high incomes will pay more and those on low incomes will pay considerably less. Families, low earners and pensioners have to be a top priority.
In opposition, I was the shadow spokesman on further education and skills, and I believe that training and skills were one of the Labour Government’s greatest failings. Our society needs a well-trained work force who can adapt and take on board challenges, such as those facing small businesses, to make sure that they can get employment and worthwhile involvement in order to make something of their lives. One of Labour’s biggest failings during the recession was not properly investing in skills so that people who lost their jobs could reskill, upskill, retrain or find new jobs.
Mr Stewart Jackson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being extremely generous. Did he see the figures published today that show the shameful legacy of 13 years of Labour government, which is that one in four of our 18-year old boys is a NEET—not in education, employment or training? That is the record of the previous Government.
Mr Evennett
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a lamentable record that almost 1 million young people are classed as NEETs. That is a waste for them and their futures, and for their communities and our economy generally. Those young people have so much to contribute, but they cannot get on in life if they are not given opportunities because they are not trained and do not have the skills. If that is the case, they are unable to do something for themselves, or for their communities and our country generally.
Britain needs to grow stronger out of this recession. It will do so if it can invest in the skills that mean that people can adapt, develop and take advantage of the new jobs and opportunities that are coming along. This Budget will get rid of over-regulation and red tape, and I hope that it will allow businesses to expand and create the jobs that we need.
Regrettably, we are starting from a weak skills base, with 5 million people in this country classed as functionally illiterate and millions more struggling with basic numeracy and literacy skills. Those are really important reminders of Labour’s failure on skills, and they highlight the need for fresh thinking and new ideas. Those are not just figures: we are talking about real people, and we on this side of the House are just as passionate as Opposition Members about providing opportunities for young people to get jobs.
Some of Labour’s skills programmes are not working, with Train to Gain providing public subsidy for courses that some employers would pay for anyway. That does not represent getting value for taxpayers’ money, but the Budget shows that that is something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team are looking at. This Government want to help people, but they also want to make sure that they are getting good value for the taxpayer.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Before the election, in his constituency and mine, the Lib Dems made much of their opposition to cuts in the current year, saying that it would increase unemployment, hit those on low and middle incomes, and increase homelessness and business failures. They were right to say so. When they changed their tune after the election, they did so purely for opportunistic reasons, not because they are interested in representing the people in the sorts of communities that my hon. Friend and I represent.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that in 15 years of economic growth based on the success of the previous Conservative Government, the Government he defended at the election managed to produce social welfare dependency to the extent that more than 5 million people were on social welfare payments, with the corrosive social impact involved in that? Is that something that he defended and lauded to his constituents in Sefton Central?
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In Sefton, unemployment was running at half the level of what it was during the last Tory recession, as were home repossessions and business failures. That, to my mind, is a sign of economic success. Given that, as I said, this recession is the deepest since 1931 apart from the period after the war, that is a measure of the success of Labour’s policies in seeing off the worst effects of the global recession. That is an important difference between what Labour Members see as the way forward and what the coalition is trying to do.