Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You see! Why can’t people just stand up? It is not difficult. Schoolchildren do it. Just stand up when you want to speak! I can now see a significant number of people wishing to speak. I cannot impose a time limit at this stage in the proceedings, but we have less than half an hour left in this debate, so I appeal for brevity: perhaps three or four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

Opposition Members are opposing this change wholesale. If they wish to remove £4.4 billion-worth of public spending savings, which is what new clause 1 proposes, they have to be able to tell their constituents how they will afford that. Do they propose to put up taxes on hard-working people? Do they propose to cut spending on health, education or defence, or do they intend to carry on borrowing? The signals from both Labour and the SNP are that they want to carry on borrowing. Every pound we borrow in this generation is a pound future generations have to repay. That is why I urge all Members to grasp this opportunity to reform welfare and reform tax credits as part of a comprehensive package which helps those on the lowest wages. If we fail to do so, those Members on the Opposition Benches should justify to their children and grandchildren why we have saddled them with such high debts.

[Sammy Wilson]

We will be supporting the new clause—not because we are opposed to all welfare reform. Our voting record in this House and the fact that against the odds we have tried to drive through sensible welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland indicates that we do not take the blanket view that welfare reform is bad, full stop. Some of it is necessary, but some of it is wrong-headed, and this change is wrong-headed for a number of reasons.

First, I do not believe that the proposals will achieve what the Government want. We hear time and again—we have heard it today—that the Government want to make work pay and that those who go out every day to employment must have a reward for that and there must be an incentive. All the indications and assessments are that these proposals, because of their timing and their scale, will not make work pay. In fact, the OBR has said they will be a disincentive to work, because the rewards are being taken away from people but the mitigation will not be added quickly enough. Therefore, the objectives that the Government are setting out to achieve will not be achieved.

The second point is that in most cases we are not dealing with people who have a large buffer either of savings or additional income which can help them overcome the timing difficulty. We are talking about people on low wages and probably every penny that they earn goes on their living expenses. We have heard again today that as the tax credits come off, there will be tax cuts, additional childcare support and reductions in rent, and that all those things will mitigate the changes—and that on top of that there will be an increase in the national living wage. However, the tax credit cuts are coming in immediately, whereas the other things will be brought in over a period of time.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way of bringing down the entirety of the welfare bill is to build more homes, so that we do not spend £60 billion in a Parliament on housing benefit?

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree, although that is not a short-term answer either. That is a long-term answer and it is certainly not going to deal with the issue facing us today.

The tax reductions will not affect all the people who are on low wages because they will not all hit the threshold. The childcare changes will affect only a fifth of the people whose tax credits will be cut. The national living wage increases will not apply, for example, to people under 25. So there is a whole swathe of the population who will not benefit from the other changes. Many of them will have families as well, of course. The Chancellor has said that the principal way in which the issue will be addressed is an increase in the national living wage, yet a whole swathe of the population will not be affected by that. For that reason, many people will be worse off. Even when all the changes are added together—the tax credits being removed, the tax thresholds being increased, the childcare element, the housing element, which does not apply to people in the private rented sector of course, and the national living wage—it is estimated that people will still find themselves on average a third worse off. This will affect many of our constituents.

Conservative Members should be very thankful that those in the House of Lords swapped their red Benches for red flags last night. That has probably done the Conservative party a favour. Many of the people who will be affected by these changes are the natural supporters of the Conservative party; they are the strivers of society, the people who want to do better, who want to improve themselves, and who probably look to some of the Government’s other policies. They will be hit hardest. I suspect that the Government have got off the hook, therefore.

The Government’s measures should be overturned by the House tonight and the Government should have a complete rethink. If they are serious about having a rethink, they should be supporting the amendments, to enable a radical rethink rather than a tinkering with the policy, which will be detrimental.

This question is rightly asked: what is the alternative? There are many alternatives. The changes represent less than 1% of total Government spending. Surely to goodness across Departments two thirds of 1% in savings can be found to finance dropping the changes. Over the life of this Parliament we can then work towards a sensible rebalancing, where employers pay proper wages and the state has to pay less in subsidies.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

We all share a belief in the welfare state, and in a civilised country like ours it is right that we offer help to the most needy, but the amendments are myopic and ill thought out because they forget about sustainability and fairness. Our welfare system is immensely unfair in its discrepancies. The clauses that would be amended—clauses 9 and 10—together freeze the main rates of most working age benefits, child benefit and certain elements of working tax credit and child tax credit for four years, starting from 2016-17, with important exemptions to protect the vulnerable, such as pensioners and those who are disabled, reflecting compassion and proportion.

Why are we doing that? Because since 2008 wages have risen by 12%, but for most working age out-of-work benefits the rise has been 21%. How can it possibly be fair or justifiable that the amount that people receive on benefits is increasing at a faster rate, and is more, than people receive in work? The freezes contained in clauses 9 and 10 go to the heart of reversing that damaging trend.

I want to make three key points about clauses 9 and 10. They support the original concept of welfare, as designed and intended by its father, Beveridge. In 1942, when the Beveridge report was published, he enshrined the key principles of what welfare should stand for—to help those who found themselves in occasional exceptional need. It was to help people cope with unexpected and temporary afflictions of sickness and unemployment.

Finance Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is certainly a silver-tongued fox, and I look forward to staring at him from these Benches in the months to come. He raises some important issues. Hopefully, I will address them during my speech.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I wish to make a little progress before I take any further interventions.

Let me cite an example to show the absurdity of the current proposals. Although I appreciate and agree that VED needs to be reformed as it is unsustainable in its present form, the current proposals create the obvious absurdity of a Mitsubishi Outlander plug-in hybrid owing as much VED as a BMW 5 series saloon from year 2. On top of that, many vehicles that harness the latest technological developments tend to be rather expensive and may be hit by the supplementary rates as well as by the higher flat rate. For instance, the Volvo V60 plug-in hybrid estate—a hybrid suitable for families—would have to pay a first-year rate of £320 and a supplementary rate of £450 for five years thereafter despite being at the forefront of low-emission technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I would go wider. Our whole tax system is incredibly and unnecessarily complicated. Why do we not begin to think about moving towards an alignment, say, of income tax and national insurance in the longer term? There are many areas where the over-complication serves nobody’s interests well. It does not serve the Exchequer or the wider public, so I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. I return to the point I was trying to make before his two excellent interventions.

In Committee some Members implied that no other country in the world was doing anything to close the loophole. My recent research shows that that is not the case. For example, the Netherlands has already tackled the issue more thoroughly than we have in the UK. France has moved—perhaps not as far as some in France would have liked at the time—further than the UK to address the problem, and in other countries, such as Sweden and even the United States, it is a growing element of the political debate.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is that not the most important point? Provided the tax change does not impact upon the ability of the financial market to do its job, it is right to bring tax rates into line and to close the loophole. If closing the loophole were somehow to distort the financial market or make the financial market work less efficiently, I could understand the argument from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), but that is not the case. It does not seem to have had that impact in other countries, so why should it do so here?

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I point out that, as I am sure he fully understands, this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom; it has international resonance. It has particular resonance with people who are relatively poor and suffering under austerity. As I said in Committee, my constituency manager—we all know how well paid our constituency managers are—will pay an effective rate of tax that is higher than that paid by the vast majority of highly paid fund managers. That cannot be described as fair, as I think people in this country and elsewhere recognise.

In his speech, the Chancellor spoke of his desire to take further action to prevent the wealthiest in society from avoiding their obligations to contribute fairly to society. We only wish that he would do more. We are not asking for them to do more than others; we are asking for them merely to contribute in the same way as others in our society. I hope that many hon. Members will feel able to support our new clause.

[Sammy Wilson]

I think that there is merit in what is proposed in new clause 3, at a time when the tax system is under scrutiny and people feel under pressure. We must look at both the economic and political consequences of tax proposals, because no tax regime can be viewed in isolation from the political context in which it is set. At a time when many people in lower-income groups feel that they are bearing a disproportionate burden, despite paying less tax, loopholes that become apparent should be closed where possible. I would be worried if it was shown that closing such loopholes would have a detrimental impact on the efficient working of the capital markets, but if that is not the case, then I think there is an important reason for closing them.

With regard to the Opposition’s amendment on vehicle excise duty, I must say that I was very surprised by the stance taken by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). The one thing that is quite clear in the amendment is that although it might be very green, it is not very fair, with regard to the burden of taxation. It is more likely to impose a higher tax burden on those on lower incomes, who tend to have older cars with higher emissions, so it would be highly regressive.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The average car currently emits 128 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, which is actually in the lower band. It is also important to note that these provisions would come into effect from April 2017, so they would not be retrospectively applied—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I fully appreciate that it is the hon. Lady’s first time at the Dispatch Box, but—I am not reprimanding her, but merely giving a little hint for future reference—turning her back on the Chair is not acceptable. Even though she wants the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is sitting behind her, to hear what she is saying, she still must face the Chair at all times. [Interruption.] No, she need not apologise, because it is her first time at the Dispatch Box, but she will always get it right in future.

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept that the provisions would not be retrospective. Nevertheless, older cars tend to more polluting and would therefore, under the new clause, carry the higher rates of duty.

The second argument that has been made is about the sale of low-emission cars, whereby it is said that the duty that will be imposed, which is a small percentage of the cost of a new car, will distort the market or dissuade people from purchasing one. When people are purchasing a new car, whether it is a hybrid car or a low-polluting car, the last thing on their minds when deciding to lay out £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000 will be whether they will pay a couple of hundred pounds in vehicle excise duty. It is argued that this will hurt the car market and the emerging market for more energy-efficient cars, but the price elasticity of such cars, or their running cost, is unlikely to impact on the demand for them.

I think the Government have got the balance right on this one. Yes, we do have to consider the detrimental impact of emissions that come from cars, and there should be a tax on that, but we must also recognise that a vehicle is very important for most families across the United Kingdom. As lower-income families tend to have older cars, a regime that ramps up tax payments according to the car’s age and emissions would be unfair. The proposal in the Bill is therefore acceptable.

I have a question that the Minister did not give a clear answer to, and I hope he will do so when he sums up. On the road fund that is being proposed as a result of the money that is collected, given that infrastructure developments are devolved issues in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it will be important to know how exactly that fund will be allocated. Will there be separate accounting for the tax that is collected in each of the areas? Will it be done on the basis of Barnett consequentials or will some other regime be put in place? It is important that we know that, because if this is to be one of the ways in which infrastructure developments are to be financed in future, there needs to be certainty for devolved Administrations as to what money is likely to be coming their way and how it will be calculated.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I want to make a brief contribution on new clause 3. The Minister, elegantly as he does, fobbed us off by saying, “We’re having a consultation and so on, but meanwhile we’ll press on regardless.” However, there is still a major issue regarding a potential tax loophole that has not been closed.

I accept that fund managers are remunerated on two different and distinct levels: they are paid for the work they do as investment managers and also receive a reward for hazarding their own capital. I also accept that there is a gain in having fund managers hazard some of their own capital, perhaps more so than they do at the moment. Unfortunately, though, if we charge very different marginal rates on the income component and on the hazarding their own money component, we will create the capacity for a loophole in paying the lower tax on the capital gain and less on the income.

It does not matter what short-term changes the Minister makes to try to prevent existing ways in which hedge funds allow the personal investment component of the investment to be organised, because people will just think up new ones. We have to close the loophole at source. The obvious way to do that would be to go back to a previous situation in which income tax and capital gains tax were charged at the same marginal rate.

Unfortunately, for the past several decades we have proceeded down a road of constantly cutting taxes on capital. I think there was a case in the 1990s for cutting marginal rates of tax on capital, because it was a difficult economic period and we had to encourage investment, but the Government have transformed that into an ideological demand that we always go on cutting taxes. Indeed, one of the core philosophies of the Finance Bill is to cut corporation tax even more, despite the fact that, on both a UK and a global level, we have pyramided up corporate surpluses, which are not being used. The current problem is not to find more loose capital, but to find fiscal incentives to make the owners of capital invest it.

The inherent philosophical problem with which the Government present us in the Bill is the imbalance created when marginal rates of taxation on capital are pushed lower and lower while significant taxes on labour are not reduced effectively and significantly. Our new clause 3 is specifically designed to force the Government to respond to the philosophical principle that the loophole should not be created in the first place. I do not think that the Minister has answered that effectively, which is why we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he explain why he believes that we are more likely to have a successful review of inheritance tax when we move into a surplus, when the pressure on public finance is less, than when we are in deficit? Does he not think that the best time for a review of inheritance tax—that is, the giving up of tax revenue—is when we have a deficit problem?

[Rob Marris]

No; I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We want to achieve economic stability—something that has been sadly lacking over the past seven years and that will probably continue to elude us for the rest of this Parliament—at which point we can pause for breath. This is part of the Labour Opposition’s overall approach: we believe that our Government finances need something called zero-based budgeting. This will be a major undertaking, in which we start by looking at what society needs rather than looking at what it has been spending its money on and simply topping that up, salami-slicing it away or whatever. We need to step back from that, but we can do so only at a time when we have a budget surplus and are not running a current—I stress the word “current”—deficit. That is the right time to look at this question.

I want briefly to talk about new clause 1, which has been tabled by Scottish National party Members, and to which I imagine they will speak later. It seems slightly odd that they wish to evade the consequences of devolution. As I understand it, a decision was taken in Scotland to amalgamate eight police forces and, I think, a similar number of fire and rescue services to create a single police force and a single fire and rescue service. My understanding is that, because they were new organisations, they became liable to VAT, which their predecessor organisations had not been. I quite understand the sentiment behind new clause 1, but it seems a little strange that, having used the powers of devolution which were quite properly passed by this House, the people of Scotland—refracted through their Parliament—should wish to change the rules on VAT. That said, we are heading towards a position of full fiscal devolution—[Hon. Members: “Are we?”] Well, I am not saying that we have got there yet, but we are heading towards it. That is the trajectory, and we would therefore not oppose new clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the contradiction in saying that the Government should be looking for ways to encourage high-intensity energy users to use more renewables, which are three times more expensive than producing electricity from gas, while lamenting the decline in energy-intensive industries in the UK?

[Rob Marris]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is that we have high energy prices because we have not invested in new technology to bring them down. For example, if we had cracked the holy grail of carbon capture and storage on a commercial basis—it is already cracked on a scientific basis—this country would be quids in, because of all the coal we have.

Tax Credits

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First, let me say that I do not think many people disagree with the analysis that has been made about tax credits. The question is: will the Government’s approach and the timing of their reduction solve the problem and avoid the difficulties that have been identified?

Let me deal with the three arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), the first of which was that Government credibility is at stake. In a democracy, it is not just the credibility of the Government that is important, but the fairness of the policies they are undertaking. They might argue that they are dealing with the deficit and taking tough action, and that those are good things, but those affected must also feel that they are being treated fairly. I do not believe there is fairness in this policy, because it does affect those people at the lower wage end of the economy. As has been said, we are talking about the strivers in society—the people who want to make a contribution and yet find themselves undermined.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the issue of those who are going to be hit hardest. Some 300,000 more children will be put into poverty, as has been confirmed by the children’s charities. Does he share their concerns?

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In Northern Ireland, 33,000 of those who will be affected have two or more children, and the impact is likely to be about £2,500 per year on them. The issue of fairness is therefore important.

The second point that the hon. Member for Spelthorne made was that this was the right time. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) argued that the economy is buoyant, but that is not true in all sectors, or in all regions. There are many places where the labour market will not push up wages and where there is not the competition for employers to say, “We will have to hold on to workers by pushing up their wages to the national living wage or beyond.” It is not the right time in many parts or in many sectors of the economy. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has said—as has the Adam Smith Institute, which is hardly a hotbed of left-wing subversives who want to wreck the Government’s policy—the policy will price thousands of workers out of the labour market.

Finally, the safety nets that exist are not there for everybody. For example, the national living wage will not apply to a large group of people in society—to those who are under the age of 25. The new approach to housing benefit will not help those who are in the private rented sector, so they will face housing costs. The childcare costs will not apply right across the board. We will find similar things if we go through many of the other safety nets that the Government say they have put in place. For all the reasons that I have mentioned, this is an unfair change in policy.

Some Members have asked, “What is the alternative?” May I just say that I served as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, and we had to find 5% cuts in the middle of a financial year, and then 3% cuts every year for four years? There is enough room in a budget of £400 billion to find the changes that are required to fund the phasing in of these kinds of changes. We do not have time to discuss that today, but suggestions have already been made. If this is a policy that the Government want to pursue, the real challenge is to find ways of introducing it humanely, fairly and effectively.

Finance Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are some cases where renewables are being sited in areas where there is opposition, but those are a minority. I assure him that if he thinks there is going to be much popular objection to renewables, he should just wait until his constituents and others see the impact of fracking. That is when he is going to see an awful lot more opposition to the energy choices that this Government are making.

The fact is that the renewable energy industry is a fantastic advantage to our economy. It does some brilliant things, and it does so despite Government policy, not because of it. It is now absolutely at risk of not being able to get away from the subsidies. It does not need subsidies for much longer and has always understood that there will be digression. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is suggesting that this industry is surviving only because of subsidies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The subsidies are coming down. There is digression, but it has to happen in a planned way. It is not justifiable, or even reasonable, to expect an industry to not know what kind of economic situation it is working in from one year to the next. This Government keep changing the goalposts on an almost monthly basis. The renewable energy industry and the solar industry know that digression will happen and that subsidies will be withdrawn, but it must be to a predetermined timetable. When that timetable keeps changing, it is incredibly difficult for business to adapt.

Compare that with what is happening to the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry will have subsidies for decades to come. It is already 50 years old, and yet Hinkley Point C could not even begin to be built were it not for the fact that it has massive subsidies, which are hugely bigger than anything that the renewable energy industry could ever dream of. I will not hear suggestions that the renewable energy industry is somehow greedy when it comes to subsidies; absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I am sorry for stopping her in mid-stream, especially as she was getting so passionate about the subject. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that renewable electricity and power are coming down in cost because the industry is becoming more efficient, and at the same time wish to have tax breaks and subsidies maintained. Either the industry is becoming more efficient, its costs are converging and the tax breaks are not needed or, as many of us suspect, it will always be a lame duck and will always impose higher costs on electricity consumers.

[Caroline Lucas]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had done a little bit more homework before making that point, because it is simply not the case. The point about the subsidies to the solar industry is that it has always been deemed that they would come down over time. The objection here is that they are suddenly being forced to reduce overnight at a time when the industry had been told that there was going to be a very different economic situation. Of course the costs of solar are coming down; they have been coming down in a remarkable way, and all credit to the solar industry for achieving that. But they are coming down in spite of the Government—in spite of their chopping and changing, their uncertainty and their lack of vision—and not as a result of something that they have done.

In conclusion, if the Government go ahead with applying this climate change levy to the renewable energy industry, they will strangle an industry that has so much potential for getting climate emissions down, creating jobs and bringing on a stronger and more resilient economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

There have been several very fine speeches in this debate so far. In particular I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) who made some very telling arguments, but I also pay tribute to two Conservative Members: the hon. Members for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). They made very important contributions which I hope the Government will reflect on, and I hope the Minister will show that in his concluding remarks to this debate. I also, however, hope the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole will forgive me if I do not take up his kind offer to visit his bedroom. [Interruption.] I may say I can quite believe that—this is getting rather off-piste.

I want to take up some of the points made by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), in particular about the purpose of taxes in this area and about innovation, a word that the Minister mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman also discussed some of the effects this would have on business and I want to talk about that, too. I will come to those matters a little later, and, if I remember, I will also revisit the classic analysis by the famed Professor Porter of Harvard—the Porter hypothesis on environmental regulation and taxes and their impact on innovation.

In my maiden speech I referenced that great son of Kirkcaldy, Adam Smith. The father of economics said there were four requirements for effective taxation: equity, certainty, convenience and economy. This Government proposal fails to meet at least two of those; it fails on the ground of equity and completely fails on the ground of certainty, particularly certainty for businesses. I grant, however, that it meets one of Adam Smith’s criterion: that of convenience. It is perhaps too easy a convenience for the Government to raise further taxes.

However, perhaps the greatest criticism of the Government proposals is that they are fundamentally changing the nature and purpose of taxation, particularly environmental taxation. Indeed, in many respects this is an abandonment of environmental taxation as a principle.

Environmental taxation is aimed at changing behaviour, but this has, by eliminating the climate change levy for renewable energy, simply become just another tax for raising money. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has stated:

“Put simply, green taxes should ideally be easy to avoid (by a change in behaviour) but hard to evade.”

By removing the exemption for renewable sources of electricity, the incentive for sustainable and environmental choices by business is diminished considerably. Thus the removal of the CCL exemption for renewables serves to tax good behaviour and change what was an environmental tax into just another revenue-raising tax. It confirms, if confirmation was needed, this Government’s attack on the renewables sector.

There is also a Scottish dimension to this, as those speaking from the Front Benches have said. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation says, this measure potentially affects Scotland more than it affects most of the rest of the UK because of the high degree of development of renewable energy in Scotland. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that 11,000 people are currently employed in the renewable energy sector in Scotland, with another 5,000 in the pipeline. Those jobs are put at hazard by these proposals.

The Scottish Government have set some of the most ambitious environmental objectives and targets in the world, unlike the UK Government. Scotland has become a leading figure in research into, and encouragement of, good environmental practice and behaviour. Removing the climate change levy from renewables is not only anti-environmental but anti those areas such as Scotland that want to practise good environmental behaviour.

It is therefore appropriate to ask the Minister some questions, which I hope he will address in his summing up. Given the importance of the renewables sector to Scotland, have the Government undertaken an impact assessment of the proposed changes in relation to the Scottish economy in general and to the renewables sector in particular? Given the Prime Minister’s famed Respect agenda, which he is fond of quoting in Scotland, I assume that the Government have respected the different objectives being pursued in Scotland. Will the Minister tell me whether he has been engaged in—or will engage in—discussions with the Scottish Government on the impact of this change on the Scottish economy and the Scottish environmental strategy?

These Government proposals have given a new meaning to the term “stealth tax”. At a stroke they are changing a green tax into a simple revenue-raising measure. They are not using taxation to encourage good behaviour, despite the wealth of evidence that taxation can have a positive effect in changing behaviour for the better. I mentioned the Porter hypothesis earlier. Professor Porter hypothesised that, in this area of the environment, good regulation and appropriate taxation encouraged innovation by encouraging businesses to invest in new and better ways of delivering energy.

Another aspect deserving of comment is the fact that this change is being introduced with just 28 days’ notice. If ever a measure went completely against the good practice that Adam Smith called for of providing certainty in a marketplace, this one certainly does. It will create uncertainty for every business connected with the renewable energy sector, and it flies in the face of every form of good practice.

[Sammy Wilson]

Much has been made of the sudden nature of the change in taxation, and the impact that that will have on the renewables industry. Would the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that many tax changes are made in a Budget and that they sometimes come into effect within a day or perhaps a month without having a disruptive effect? Is he not over-egging the destructive effect of this sudden change?

[Roger Mullin]

In relation to business investment, it would be normal practice to undertake considerable consultations. If big changes are proposed to the taxation affecting businesses, there would normally be a process of easing those changes in, to allow the businesses time to do the appropriate planning. There is no possibility of businesses in the renewables sector being able suddenly to change their financial plans for the next five or 10 years following the ridiculously fast introduction of this measure by the Government.

Finance Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The UK has been instrumental in bringing in country-by-country reporting to tax authorities as part of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which will be of great assistance to tax authorities. We want to ensure that developing countries can benefit from that co-operation between tax authorities and from greater use of data. The publication of country-by-country reporting is best approached multilaterally.

But we should all acknowledge the progress that has been made. For example, much more information is now available to tax authorities, enabling them to assess large companies’ tax strategies. One proposal in the Budget earlier this month was to make UK-based multinational companies publish their tax strategies. Such information would help to incentivise behaviour away from aggressive tax avoidance, which Members in all parts of the House wish to address.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that the target of £5 billion is really small beer when one considers the amount of tax that many multinational companies, including those that operate here in the UK, avoid paying by moving their profits around?

[Mr Gauke]

No, I do not accept that. Indeed, if one looks at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tax gap publication, which identifies where the tax gap falls, one sees that, in terms of avoidance and acting contrary to the intention of Parliament, we should not overstate the element that is corporation tax avoidance by large multinationals. It is important that we address it, but one should not believe that it amounts to a huge pot. We have taken a number of steps in this area, some of which are operational. For example, we have supported HMRC to expand its large business service. Again, further progress on that was announced in the Budget. We have introduced the diverted profits tax, which came into force earlier this year. That is a very significant measure to address aggressive tax avoidance. We want to take further steps. Indeed, the base erosion and profit shifting project, which the OECD is running, means that we can hopefully take further steps in future. But those areas are best dealt with on a multilateral basis, and the UK has been very engaged in ensuring that there is progress in that area. I hope that there will be further progress on that front later this year.

Once again, this Government have introduced a Bill that makes it clear that avoidance and evasion by corporates and wealthy individuals will not be tolerated. But fixing the public finances also means that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax. The vast majority of people pay their tax on time and in full, but a small minority of taxpayers refuse to pay what they owe despite having the money to do so. The Finance Bill introduces direct recovery of debts, giving HMRC the power to recover tax and tax credit debts directly from debtors who have debts of over £1,000 and more than £5,000 in the bank.

The UK must remain competitive as a global financial centre, but it is only fair that the contribution banks make reflect the risk they pose to the UK economy. The Finance Bill introduces a new supplementary tax of 8% on banking sector profit, while gradually reducing the full bank levy rate over the Parliament. That will ensure that banks contribute a further £2 billion to the short-term task of deficit reduction, while ensuring the lowest tax rate of banks’ profit in the G7 nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

That is an unlikely alliance, but what I say to both the hon. Lady and the SMMT is that there is still an incentive in the first year and the evidence suggests that that is most important in influencing behaviour. There are incentives within the system.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; an even more unlikely alliance might be about to be formed with the hon. Lady.

[Sammy Wilson]

I can assure the Minister that there is not likely to be an alliance between me and the hon. Lady or her party. The revenues will apply to a roads fund for England, but what arrangements does the Minister intend to put in place for the tax that is collected in places such as Northern Ireland and for that money then to be diverted to infrastructure projects for roads in that part of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the good point that the hon. Gentleman is making. There will be a need for discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we reach a sensible conclusion to reflect the various requirements across all the United Kingdom. I hope he appreciates that we understand the point he is making.

Through backing businesses and supporting infra- structure investment, this Bill will take important steps to boost our productivity, creating growth and prosperity for all.

Before I conclude this speech I would like to comment briefly on the Government’s tax policy making process. At the start of the last Parliament, the coalition set out its ambition to improve the tax policy making process, through high levels of consultation and legislative scrutiny. That approach was welcomed by tax professionals, and I am delighted to inform the House there have been real achievements. More than 150 formal and informal consultations on tax changes took place over the past five years, and our commitment to publish the majority of Finance Bill clauses in draft was met. I can confirm that this new approach will continue into this Parliament. Indeed, since the recent Budget, we have already published more than 10 consultations on tax policy proposals for future Finance Bills. I should also add that we are establishing the Office of Tax Simplification on a permanent footing as from today, and I am delighted that we are able to do that.

The Finance Bill before us today, at the start of the new Parliament, sets out the priorities and direction of this Government. Our direction is simple: towards stability and prosperity. The Bill rewards work and supports aspiration through lower taxes for working people; helps fix the public finances by tackling avoidance, evasion and imbalances in the tax system; and takes important steps in improving the UK’s productivity. I am delighted to commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is quality that counts, rather than quantity, and Labour Members will show their true quality, as opposed to those sitting to my left—literally to my left, that is—on the SNP Benches. We will of course support the measures that will bring in what is effectively the new national minimum wage, but it is important to expose the fact that it is not, in fact, a living wage. The living wage is calculated on the assumption that there will be full take-up of tax credits, which is exactly what the Chancellor has cut. Given the cut to tax credits, the real living wage will be significantly higher than anything the Chancellor has set out. The effect of his decision is that in 2016 he will be offering the people of this country the 2011 living wage. That is an important point to get on the record. That is why the IFS has said that compensating ordinary working people for the loss of their tax credits with the changes on wages is arithmetically impossible.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that while many under-25s will lose their tax credits, they will not be covered by the national living wage? On the one hand they will have money taken from them, and on the other hand the compensatory element will not be available to them, so work is certainly not going to pay for that group.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Taken alongside the changes to student maintenance grants and other measures, the Budget will leave young people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, worse off. It will have a real impact on their life chances. As those measures are brought forward, it is important that we keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire on the impact they are having on young people.

Changes to the national minimum wage are normally made by statutory instrument, but given the change in the name—the Chancellor’s rebadging exercise—they might need to be done by primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how the Government will go about making those changes. If primary legislation is needed, I am rather surprised that the changes are not set out in the Bill. It would be good to have the Government’s further comments on that.

The Bill contains nothing more on productivity, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. Solving the productivity puzzle is absolutely imperative if we are to experience much stronger economic growth and get the deficit down more fairly. The Conservatives’ record on productivity is one of failure, given the difference between productivity in our country and in our competitors’ economies. I am afraid that the Budget simply offered more of the same.

Despite the Chancellor’s boasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised productivity down next year, the year after, the year after that, and the year after that. His belated productivity plan was simply a patchwork of existing schemes, rather than a substantial reform to boost skills, business growth and wages. The Bill should also have included legislation on big infrastructure decisions, which the Government appear to have ducked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

My hon. Friend answered his own remarks with his last four words. It has been a failure, and now the Government are also failing on productivity.

As I was saying, the potential contraction of £10 billion in lending is made worse because it is now paralleled by a further planned drop in public sector capital expenditure, as my estimable colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), revealed earlier today in questions to the Chancellor.

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about challenger banks and building societies, but rather than over-egg the pudding perhaps he could explain the mechanism by which £126 million of additional tax taken from those institutions will be multiplied up to a reduction of £10 billion in lending.

[Roger Mullin]

It is quite a complicated matter, I am told, and I would be willing to come back to it. I am sure that in one of our many discussions we could discuss precisely why that is, but I was not aware of the precise figure of £126 million that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The contraction in lending, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East, suggests a loss of almost £5 billion over the next five years in public sector investment. Potentially, that adds up to a cumulative drop of £15 billion in private and public sector investment, and that can only be a major barrier to any chance of improvements in productivity.

Other factors with a direct impact on productivity are worthy of comment too. The ability to innovate is directly related to research and development. I therefore scoured the Finance Bill to see what was planned to boost the investment in company R&D. What did I find? Less than nothing. For example, the only change to R&D expenditure credits is the removal of universities’ ability to claim them. That in itself would not be such an issue if more would be done in other ways to significantly boost R&D expenditure, but that is not the case. Indeed, the Budget speech, and the accompanying Red Book, seemed keener to demonstrate adroitness with smoke and mirrors, rather than clarity and commitment to boosting research and development.

I turn now to the impact of the Finance Bill on Scotland in particular. The Chancellor may be many things, but he is far from stupid. In putting in place an income tax lock, which I admit to thinking is a very clever political trick, he has wisely not included in the lock the setting of bands. He recognises the importance of being able to adjust bands to suit economic conditions. He might find it odd that I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. I am sure he therefore appreciates why the SNP has called for the devolution of all aspects of income tax to the Scottish Parliament.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Would he acknowledge that the Red Book anticipates that receipts from PAYE over the period will increase by nearly 36%? That is faster than the growth in the economy and must be because of movements within bands.

[Roger Mullin]

I fully accept that: it is a very good point.

The Chancellor recognises the importance of the bands in terms of tax. Scotland needs full control of all aspects of income tax, so I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will learn from the Chancellor in that regard.

Of huge concern to Scotland, and to anyone with a concern for the future of our planet, is the continuing attack by the Government on the renewable energy sector. It would appear that the Chancellor has a bad addiction to carbon. He cannot get enough of it. How else can we explain the fact that the Finance Bill will remove the exemption for electricity from renewable sources? Combined with the Government’s insane attack on wind generation, we can see an attack on renewable energy, an attack on Scotland's economy, and an attack on all those working to take better care of our environment.

[Sammy Wilson]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that carbon dioxide is not bad as such? It makes plants grow and allows increased productivity in agriculture. It is a good thing for the agricultural economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As a party that believes in low taxation, we welcome a number of measures in the Bill, including those to take more people out of taxation and allow them to hold on to the money they earn. The changes to tax thresholds, the reduction in corporation tax and the tax allowances to encourage businesses to invest in capital or research and development will contribute to the health of the economy and help to close the productivity gap that concerns Members across the House. We will not be voting for the reasoned amendment because we believe there are positive measures in the Bill and because we disagree with some aspects of the amendment anyway.

We do, however, have a few concerns—we discussed some of them yesterday in the welfare reform debate—including about the impact of removing tax credits from people in low-paid jobs and the Government’s misplaced faith in their being compensated by the rise in the national living wage. Rather than making work pay, the measure will act as a disincentive to work for many people, especially young people, to whom the national living wage will not apply and for whom the reduction in tax credits will result in lower incomes. The Government cannot ignore that aspect of their policies.

The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) was optimistic that the gap would be filled by businesses volunteering to pay the national living wage to those not officially covered by it. I sometimes hear Government Members talking about the pressures on small businesses. We cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we talk about businesses being under pressure and requiring help, including with taxation and business rates, but on the other hand, we say, “By the way, they will volunteer to pay higher wages to those not officially covered by the national living wage.” We cannot gloss over the impact of these changes. I believe the Government are being optimistic about the impact. If it backfires—if many people find themselves less well off in work and work therefore becomes less attractive—one of the key policy objectives of the Budget will not be achieved.

That point is particularly pertinent to places such as Northern Ireland, where, because of low productivity in industry, the preponderance of small businesses and other structural factors, a high proportion of people are employed in low-wage businesses and rely on tax credits to bring them up to a reasonable standard of living.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While we are not political friends, we are at least friendly. He started by saying he was in favour of people keeping more of their tax, but then bemoaned the loss of tax credits. Will the loss of tax credits not enable a lack of redistribution by acting as a cover for the rich to keep more of their money and as further camouflage for inequality, especially with inheritance tax being cut for the very wealthy while the poor are losing out? When we say we want people to keep more of what they earn, we have to be sure what we mean. Quite often it is a cover for growing inequality and an opportunity for the rich to keep even more for themselves.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, some of the measures in the Bill will take people out of tax altogether, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome, and some will take people out of the higher tax brackets, especially people on middle incomes, which I am sure he would welcome too. When I referred to people being able to hold on to their income, I was thinking specifically about some of the measures in the Bill. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have at least recognised the need to find a mechanism to lift those on low incomes out of tax altogether. Administratively, that is a good thing too. Why tax people and then give it back to them in benefits?

The second issue I want to raise is about infrastructure, and the Minister’s answer to me on that was a bit woolly. I do not know how much will be available in the road fund arising from the tax changes to vehicle licence duty applying to cars sold and driven in Northern Ireland, but it is important—and this seems to be an afterthought—that in those parts of the UK not covered by the road fund, which is available as a result of directing vehicle licence duty to infrastructure projects, there be a speedy resolution with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the funding is available to them to develop the road infrastructure in their own areas.

I am also disappointed that the thorny issue of the extension of the hub airport, whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or wherever, is not being addressed in the infrastructure measures in the Bill. Regional connectivity is important for places such as Northern Ireland. That matter cannot be kicked into the long grass. If Britain is to remain competitive and not lose out more and more to Holland, Germany and France, where they are developing hub airports, it is important that we develop our own infrastructure. In Northern Ireland, we are increasingly worried about slots being lost at Heathrow because of the pressure on the runways there. The first places to look at are the flights coming in from other areas of the UK, but that connectivity is vital to the promotion of industry in Northern Ireland and has been part of the secret of our success with inward investment.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem has been the preponderance of economic development in the south-east of the UK resulting in massive differentials in prosperity across the regions and nations of the UK? Is that not at the heart of trying to get our nation out of recession and into greater prosperity?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is exactly right, but if we do not have the proper infrastructure to do that, we will be disadvantaged. A continual theme in this Parliament has been the question of how to ensure that growth is spread across the UK and not concentrated in the south-east of England. One way is to ensure that our infrastructure enables the prosperity generated in the south-east of England to be spread across other parts of the UK.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is underlining our friendliness. To build on the point from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), I wish to say that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is absolutely right about the problem of connectivity with the south-east of England, where the airports are being built. It is not by accident. In the 40 years after world war two, there were bilateral air agreements specifying that planes had to fly into London airports, and we have paid for that. He is right about the Netherlands. The London docks lost out to Rotterdam, and it looks like it will happen again with the air infrastructure. As the chief executive of Schiphol said, it would be a good idea—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Sammy Wilson.

[Sammy Wilson]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge the hon. Gentleman, as it is his birthday today. Therefore, long interventions can perhaps be tolerated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I would like to make it absolutely clear that there is no precedent for long interventions on an hon. Member’s birthday. However, we are about to rise for the summer recess and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made his intervention in such a charming way, and he’s made it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way, and I hope it will be a short intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

It will be a very short intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is well enough versed in the procedure of this House to know that this is a debate on a Finance Bill and could potentially go until any hour, if he wanted to extend his interventions or speeches.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is a very worrying intervention for those of us who wish to get to the airport and go back to our constituencies, and I hope it will not be followed up on later in the debate.

Another issue I want to raise is corporation tax. I welcome the reduction in the rate of corporation tax and also the allowances. This has an impact on Northern Ireland, because as the rate set centrally is reduced, the cost of devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland is reduced as well. That probably reduces Northern Ireland’s competitiveness vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom. However, as the real target of the reduction in corporation tax is our competitiveness vis-à-vis the Irish Republic, a reduction in the cost of devolution—which can affect either what money we have available in the block grant or, indeed, how far we can reduce the level of corporation tax—is welcome.

We recognise the importance of corporation tax in attracting inward investment. Even though there might be lots of capital allowances and so on, the importance of the headline rate has been shown in the Irish Republic. This is something that we in Northern Ireland wish to implement as soon as possible, although given the way that some of the parties in Northern Ireland, including the Social Democratic and Labour party, have behaved in recent times in respect of the Stormont House agreement, the prospect of devolving corporation tax, with the advantages that it might bring, is being pushed further and further down the line. I hope we will not find ourselves hitting even more problems.

The other thing I wish to raise is the whole issue of taxes on energy. The reasoned amendment talks about the removal of the exemption from the climate change levy on the onshore wind. I accept the argument that the Government have given. Given that many of the companies involved are owned abroad, the tax concession given to them was not benefitting people here in the United Kingdom. We also need to bear in mind not only that there is huge opposition to many of the renewable sources, on the grounds of aesthetics and environmental impact, but that people are becoming increasingly aware of the cost of switching from cheap fossil fuels to expensive renewable energy, in terms of fuel poverty and the impact on industry.

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the Member from the Green party gets appalled when we talk like this, but why do we even have a renewables obligation? Why is there an obligation on electricity distributors to purchase from renewable sources? If we were simply depending on market decisions, that would not be done.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment. Let me just finish the argument.

The renewables obligation is an obligation because the energy is more expensive. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s own estimation is that, by 2020, the cost of paying for expensive renewable energy, more and more of which is coming on to the grid, will be about £190 per household. At the same time, we in this House complain about fuel poverty, when one of the contributors to fuel poverty is the fact that we are orientating ourselves towards more expensive electricity generation. Only last week there were complaints about Tata Steel closing down its plant.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

I will give way in a moment.

High-energy users are increasingly finding that the United Kingdom is a place where energy is expensive—it costs jobs, it dips into people’s pockets and it causes fuel poverty. This is an issue that the Government are quite rightly addressing.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Wilson, have you given way or have you finished your speech? None of us is sure what has happened.

[Sammy Wilson]

I have given way. [Hon. Members: “Who to?”] I have given way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Oh right, the birthday boy!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Wilson was very worried about the amount of time we are taking—we can go to any hour—and I think Mr MacNeil is trying to see whether we can get to that hour. However, as he knows, as much as I appreciate that it is his birthday, he blew out all his candles on his first intervention. We now want shorter interventions.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong when he talks about there being no price on carbon. We are talking about the climate change levy. That is one of the costs of carbon. There is also the cost of the European trading scheme, in which carbon is traded and carbon allowances are given, so of course there is already a cost.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not sure whether or not it is parliamentary to say that the hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish, but he is talking rubbish. The point is that far greater subsidies go to nuclear power and fossil fuel than ever go to renewables. There is currently a small amount of subsidy going to renewables to bring them to grid parity. They will be there in a year or so. Solar is already there, and it is one of the most affordable sources of energy. I think he should speak about what he knows and not about what he does not know about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Perhaps the hon. Lady takes a different view of what is small and what is large from what I do, but the £13.6 billion of subsidies that go to renewables do not simply come from the Government. They come from households, who pay for it in their electricity bills. That is why I support the Government’s attempts to remove some of the subsidies that consumers have to pay; £13.6 billion, or £190 per household, is hardly to be regarded as a small sum. My only worry is that environmental levies such as the climate change levy and the EU carbon trading scheme will rise from £5.6 billion this year to £16.1 billion by the end of this Parliament, which will add to energy costs and have an impact on industry and on household bills.

[Alex Salmond]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on a sunny day in East Antrim, one gets a magnificent view of some of our magnificent onshore wind farms on the west coast of Scotland, and will he concede that the contract for difference on wind energy on shore is lower than that for new nuclear energy?

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman compares nuclear energy with renewable energy, but of course we have the option of gas, oil and coal. Before the hon. Member from the Green party becomes apoplectic about the impact of those energy sources, let me point out that some of the drivers in Europe who want to push us towards renewables, especially the Germans, are building coal-fired power stations because they are concerned about their industry and their economy. I welcome those aspects of the Finance Bill, and that is one reason why I will not support the reasoned amendment. I think that the Government are right and we have to redress the balance. We have to ask what is important for the UK economy and for UK consumers.

Finally, I turn to the employment allowance, which is important in drawing people into work and encouraging employers to take on new workers. The uptake in Northern Ireland has been very poor. I do not know whether that is because employers have not had sufficient information or because the scheme has not been widely publicised, but when we are trying to find ways of encouraging further employment, the Government should take that on board.

As I said, we will not support the reasoned amendment. We have concerns about many aspects of the Bill, but we believe that parts of it will be good for the economy generally and in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right, and he does a brilliant job representing his constituents, bringing in investment, and supporting working people in Pendle. Working parents now have the added help of 30 hours of free childcare, which his Labour opponent in Pendle—and indeed Opposition Members here—have still failed to welcome.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Northern Ireland Assembly faces a £600 million overspend on its budget this financial year as a result of the blocking of welfare reform changes. What steps does the Chancellor intend to take to deal with this fiscal anarchy that is causing disruption in schools and hospitals and for all those who depend on public spending, and drives a coach and horses through spending limits?

[Mr Osborne]

We are well aware of the difficult situation with the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive, and of the objections in some quarters of the Assembly to what are, I think, sensible welfare reforms that will help people in Northern Ireland into work. We are working with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to resolve that impasse, but it is clearly not sustainable to allow a devolved Administration to ignore the controls placed on them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party support that position, and we are working with him, and others, to resolve the issue.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this vital debate. I commend the three Members who have given their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) spoke of her constituency and how we can deal with what life gives us. I commend her for that. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) did not walk too far in the House, but he walked the length and breadth of his constituency, and we appreciate that. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) has just left the Chamber. I am unashamedly a Unionist and I do not agree with the ultimate goal of the Scottish National party, but I tell the House this: I agree very much with many of the issues that she raised, as my speech will reflect. I commend her for her contribution. While she speaks for her constituents, I know that I speak for mine.

There are several issues that I feel must be addressed, as I have already been inundated with phone calls from constituents concerned in particular by the announcement on tax credits. That is a massive issue for me; the mailbag has been enormous. Those who have phoned or written have been worried. There are some pleasing announcements in the Budget—I recognise that—including on defence spending. I am on the Select Committee on Defence and I am pleased that we will be spending 2% of GDP, but is that enough? The Chairman of the Defence Committee has said we should have 3%, and I agree with him.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the 2% on defence spending has been reached only as a result of including expenditure on internal security—it is not pure defence spending—which is a disappointment and, indeed, a manipulation of the figures?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We made the decision in the Defence Committee just today that we will look at this issue. We will thoroughly investigate whether the 2% figure amounts to real money. As I said earlier, the Chairman of the Defence Committee wants 3%, and I want it too.

Another of my concerns is about the national living wage. I also fear for the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises across the Province and particularly in my Strangford constituency. I have grown increasingly concerned about the large number of people using food banks, to which other hon. Members have referred. Some people in secure employment simply do not earn enough to live, so it obviously goes without saying that wages have to increase. We must help to safeguard the most vulnerable in our society.

The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland claimed that 99.9%—its figures—of employment in the Province comes from small and medium-sized businesses, so naturally this change in wages poses a huge threat to some employers. I am concerned about that. What is the Chancellor going to do about the minimum wage? We welcome it, but what is he going to do to help small and medium-sized businesses to remain profitable and successful. Will some businesses be forced to employ people in the lower-age bracket, and will it demean and detract from what is being put forward?

As for child tax credits, it seems that we are given something on the one hand, but a great deal is taken away on the other hand. It is great to hear that tax-free personal allowances will increase next year. I hope that it will put a little bit of extra money into our constituents’ pockets, but whether it will really help the poorest in our society is debatable.

I find it rather distressing that the Government are virtually saying that by 2017 they will support people if they have two children or fewer, but if they happen to have more than two children, they are on their own. One cannot help but draw comparisons between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Democratic Republic of China. I am reminded of a quote from the American poet, Maya Angelou, who said:

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Clearly, this Government are in danger of adversely affecting the people they are supposed to be standing up for. This change in tax credits and benefits will greatly affect many of my constituents.

The anti-child poverty charity, Barnardo’s in Northern Ireland, has claimed that 160,000 families across the Province could be left struggling if plans to cut tax credits go ahead. Barnardo’s also warned, as it launched a campaign, that the Westminster Government should keep the “lifeline” benefit. Lifeline benefit is rightly named, because that is exactly what it is. With low wages and high living costs stretching budgets across Northern Ireland, tax credits are an everyday lifeline for families. It would be remiss of me not to remind the Government of the impact on families of the reduction or removal of child tax credits and working tax credits. Let me assure the Chancellor and the Minister that people feel extremely aggrieved. Large families feel totally alienated, and people feel they are being punished for having more than two children.

In the last Parliament, the Democratic Unionist party worked alongside the Conservative Government to deliver the marriage allowance. What a breakthrough that was: we encouraged marriage, we encouraged the family. Yet now, one year later, it seems that the Government intend to punish those with more than two children. I find that quite incredible. Last year, the family was the cornerstone of our society, and we agreed that family brought communities closer together; now it seems that the Government have done a U-turn. The Government cannot claim to support the family unit, and then attach terms and conditions to it. We cannot say that we support families so long as they do not go over the two-child criterion—this is simply ludicrous. I have already had many calls from concerned parents, from families and from many of my constituents who are struggling. This reduction in child tax credits is going to make it even more impossible for them just to get by. Unfortunately, this is evidence that the Budget was certainly not designed to help working people in our society.

Another issue that concerns me—this, too, was raised by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South—is the change in housing benefit for those aged between 18 and 21, which will force young adults to live at home with their parents until they are 21. They will have to either “earn or learn”. In principle, that seems a good idea, given that a significant number of 18 to 21-year-olds are either working or still in education, but the fact is that a great many of them are not. All that this measure will do is increase the pressure on social workers, and that concerns me greatly.

The Budget has made some welcome changes, but a great many others will cause the worst off in society to struggle even more. It has been estimated that, in the years leading up to 2019, a 10th of the population in the United Kingdom will lose about £800 a year as a result of the tax and benefit changes. That is equivalent to nearly 7% of their net income. As I have said, I fear that the pluses in the Budget do not outweigh the disadvantages, especially for the most vulnerable and the worst off in society.

It is good to see the economy recovering and growing, but those at the bottom are struggling to see that that is happening. I fear that if the Chancellor and the Government press ahead with their £9 billion saving, reducing tax credits, housing benefit and other benefits and pushing 160,000 more families in Northern Ireland—including families in my constituency—towards child poverty, they will undo all the economic good that has been done. They may well lose sight of it altogether as, once again, the purse strings tighten around those who can least afford to absorb the changes.

Those are my concerns about the Budget, and they reflect the concerns of my constituents. I shall vote against the Budget this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the people who have made their maiden speech today. I particularly commend the very mature speech from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and I agree with her view that Labour Members and our colleagues from Scotland must form a shared opposition against the Conservatives.

It is well known that British education is among the best in the world. We also know that the more we pay for it, the better it is. And didn’t that show last week, when we saw our Chancellor, the Old Etonian, in action? We are used to the Tories fiddling the figures, but now they are using a new tactic. As well as fiddling the figures, they are misleading by message. Let me give the House some examples. The first, and most blatant, is the renaming of the national minimum wage as the new living wage. That is clearly a farce. It might have seemed to Conservative Members like a real wheeze, a rabbit being pulled out of the hat, but it is nothing other than subterfuge.

The concept of the living wage—the real living wage—has been around for decades. Back in the 1990s, when the national minimum wage was introduced at a level of £3.60 an hour, I led the Unison delegation to the Low Pay Commission, where we proposed a living wage of £4.85 an hour. We made the case that that was the level at which working people would not need wage support from the state. It is on that basis that the proper living wage has been developed over the last two decades.

The farce is that the rip-off Chancellor wants to con our people by pretending that this new living wage is a genuine substitute not only for the national minimum wage but for the present and very worthy living wage. Added to his attack on young people who will be excluded, and building in the appalling attack on in-work benefits, we now have a new basic wage that is nothing but a con. He has not spelt out what he intends to do to support public sector bodies to pay the so-called new living wage. For example, councils have already said that they will have a £1 billion funding gap in paying their in-house workforce and at least a £500 million funding gap in paying the wages of workers contracted in from private sector service companies providing things such as care for the elderly.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is that not the flaw in the argument that we move the burden of wages from the taxpayer to the employer? First, there is no guarantee that the timing will be correct, secondly, there is no guarantee that employers can make the payment and, thirdly, there is no guarantee that many employers will even bother making the payment.

[Mr Anderson]

It is absolutely clear that that is the case and that this was nothing other than a political ruse to try to mislead the country and to wrong-foot the Labour party to pave the way for the Chancellor to move from No. 11 to No. 10 Downing Street. It is nothing other than that.

The Government now call this the new living wage, but we have been here before. We were there in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Conservatives tried to pretend that the community charge was not really the poll tax. We have been with them over the past five years as they have tried to pretend that the spare room subsidy was not a bedroom tax. Just as those two ideas have never stuck, the new living wage will not stick. People know that it is nothing more than half of a new minimum wage that blocks out young people in this country.

I want to move on to something else the Chancellor said last week:

“The left will never understand this, but we on the Conservative Benches know that the wish to pass something on to your children is about the most basic, human and natural aspiration there is.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 330.]

Well, he is half right. The left never will believe that providing for the grown-up children of dead millionaires with a bung from taxpayers while poor families and children go hungry is a basic, human or natural aspiration. What is basic is that far too many families face the reality of sending kids to school hungry, and worrying about where the next meal will come from and whether they can afford to clothe and feed their children. Too many families are worrying about whether to keep the house warm or not, and now they are being hit even harder in the struggle to pay their rent. The hit is £60 a week in this city and £120 a week for the rest of us across the nation. When the landlord says, “I want your rent off you,” the tenant has to say, “I’m sorry, I can’t pay the rent this week and, by the way, next week I will pay you £120 a week less than I am now.” I really do not know where those people will end up. That is basic, that is life at the sharp end and that is what is happening in the real world. That is what happens when the children of dead millionaires are prioritised over the children of poor working people. It is an utter disgrace.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The position is that we have to make difficult decisions to address the public finances. Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will announce the first Budget of the Conservative Government. I will not discuss what may or may not be in that Budget, and I do not think that Members would expect me to do so one day beforehand, but I can reassure the House that we will have four days of debate on the Budget to discuss the measures that it contains. None the less, I reiterate that we must address a deficit that remains too large. I am afraid that, once again, as we saw throughout the previous Parliament, Labour is failing to address the issue.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister accept that, although tough decisions must be made—we all have to realise that they must be made—he should consider whether they are self-defeating. Given the multiplier impact of money in the hands of the poorest people in our economy, they are self-defeating. Secondly, does he recognise that such decisions will have a bigger impact on some parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, which have a high number of people who are low paid, and they are the very parts that he wants to see growing?

[Mr Gauke]

We want to see growth in every part of the United Kingdom. Again, we have a Budget tomorrow. The record of the Chancellor shows a determination to ensure that there is growth in every part of the United Kingdom. I also make this point: it is a fundamental point of principle that taxpayers’ money must be spent wisely to make Government more efficient, effective and accountable. As a consequence, we need to target our spending so that we continue to support those who need supporting while helping millions of people achieve their fullest potential, which we refuse to believe is a life on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that according to the figures released two weeks ago, child poverty in Scotland is up by 20,000. That is the reality of what his Government have done to people in my country.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman made a point about quantitative easing. Does he accept that one of the problems identified was the lack of bank lending to industry, and that banks needed liquidity to increase lending to businesses?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because we need a debate about that in the House. The real reason behind quantitative easing was exactly that—to produce an increase in bank lending—but if we look at what has happened over the past five or six years, we can see that there has hardly been a significant increase in bank lending. The money has gone into the financial markets and benefited the banks and the bankers, but we as a country have not seen the benefits that we should have had. That is the reality of what has happened. The previous Government had the choice between investing in the real economy and sticking cash into the back pockets of the bankers, which is what they achieved.

Why do the Government not invest in growing the economy and supporting low-paid workers, rather than punishing them for the Government’s failure to deliver sustainable economic growth?

Productivity

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Normally, I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid his facts on that are wrong. Under the previous Labour Government, we had a period of sustained productivity growth. [Hon. Members: “Public sector!”] Did I hear something, Madam Deputy Speaker? When it comes to private sector productivity, we had a sustained period of growth. We can talk about public sector productivity, but I am focusing on the wider economic, private sector productivity, which is ultimately the way in which we create wealth and prosperity in this country.

I am very proud of what the previous Labour Government did. Between 1997 and the period just before the global financial crisis, productivity grew by an average of 2.2%. In fact, it reached 4.2% in 2003. At the time, the UK’s productivity was second only to that of the United States. The CBI has emphasised that improvements in labour productivity accounted for almost three quarters of UK economic growth during that decade. Over that period, real wages rose faster in the UK than in other advanced economies, and rising productivity and GDP growth meant that the previous Labour Government were able to take significant steps in tackling poverty and improving public services. That was not by accident, but by design.

We achieved sustainable growth in productivity because of relentless efforts to focus on competition, innovation, investment, skills and enterprise, including a 10-year framework for science and innovation, incentives for investment in business research and development, the expansion of higher education and adult and vocational training. That was the record of the previous Labour Government.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that employers also have a big role to play? The appetite for low-paid, unskilled employees has added to the problem. Employers must value workers much more, invest in them and be prepared to pay them wages that mean it is worth while investing in them.

[Chris Leslie]

There is indeed a problem in the shift away from the added-value, higher-skilled economy that we must have to maintain our place in, and indeed win, that famous global race. If we think that we can do it simply by chasing lower-wage, lower-skilled markets, we will never ultimately succeed relative to other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson]

I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall address that point further in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that it is in vogue for the Scottish nationalists to blame everything on the Westminster Parliament, but does the hon. Lady accept that most of the supply-side measures that could be introduced to improve productivity are already in the hands of the Government in Scotland?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is, quite frankly, wrong. I shall also cover that point later in my speech.

The sad fact is that the recent growth in UK GDP has been driven not by increased productivity and not by a focus on increased investment levels or high-value sectors. Instead, it has been delivered with zero-hours contracts, often paying the minimum wage and with low employee engagement. That is not the way to power a modern 21st-century advanced economy. We see the results of this poor performance in our manufacturing sector. Previously, manufacturing accounted for some 30% of total GDP—a position shared with many of our European neighbours. However, a lack of investment and a focus on the City of London have resulted in a manufacturing percentage of GDP that is now barely into double figures.

With only a limited set of powers, the Scottish Government have set out an ambitious strategy to increase Scotland’s productivity and, as a result, Scotland’s economy has seen sustained growth over recent years, with record numbers of people in employment. Female participation in the labour market has increased, and Scotland’s female employment has reached a record high. Including more women in the workforce is a powerful driver to increased productivity and encourages a balanced and inclusive economy. The Scottish Government’s plans to expand the provision of free childcare will encourage more parents into work, too. It is worthy of note that between 2007—the year of the SNP’s election to Holyrood—and 2013, the largest relative rise in productivity of any region or nation in the UK was in Scotland.

This debate must fundamentally be about ambition, which is something that the SNP has for Scotland in droves, but our ambition is for much more than simply a return to pre-recession levels of economic performance. Allow me to highlight some key areas that the Scottish Government’s economic strategy—a real long-term economic plan—promotes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very constrained for time—in fact, we have run out of it—but we will hear from Mr Sammy Wilson.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Yesterday, as a consequence of the refusal by Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour party to implement welfare reform, the Northern Ireland Assembly gave authority to the Departments to breach spending limits and increase spending by 6% over the block grant. What steps will the Chancellor take to ensure that Assemblies and Parliaments across the United Kingdom do not recklessly breach spending limits?