Charter for Budget Responsibility
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
There is a saying in literature that normal is as narrow as the street that you live in. The Chancellor lives in a little gated community—a cul-de-sac with perhaps a problem neighbour next door. The constraint on his economic plans is the backdrop to the decision tonight on whether to have this charter. Yet he cannot cite anyone supporting the charter other than those who are sitting behind him. Our friends in the CBI are not supporting his charter. The City of London is not supporting his charter. The Governor of the Bank of England was not prepared, in the Treasury Committee, to support his charter. Indeed, all the economic experts who came before the Treasury Committee when we looked at this in some depth in July did not at any stage choose to support his charter.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). He has clearly not read the columns of his former colleague Martin Wolf, who agrees with the arguments made by Labour Members. If anybody wanted to know whether this was a political gimmick, they only needed to look at the 90 minutes provided on the Order Paper for this debate—a pitiful 90 minutes to discuss something that is meant to be an important economic policy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, we took evidence on this—
Helen Goodman
No, I will show the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy the Chancellor showed me.
We took evidence on this matter in the Treasury Committee in July. We found nobody who was prepared to endorse the Chancellor’s proposals. Even the Governor of the Bank of England, when pressed by the Chair of the Select Committee, said that he was
“declining to opine on specific legislation”.
He stated that
“the UK Government have had the announced intention in Budgets in place for a sustained fiscal consolidation. That is one of the headwinds against the economy”.
It was not just left-wing economists who criticised the Chancellor. The head of the Thatcherite Institute of Economic Affairs, Professor Philip Booth, said that the fact that
“these very damaging things have been done to child tax credit systems…is my biggest concern.”
He continued:
“I think in the handbook of possible fiscal rules the Government is choosing a very, very, very bad one.”
One of the most pernicious things about the rule that the Chancellor has chosen is that it treats capital and current spending the same. He is ignoring the fact that investing in housing, science, broadband, transport and the university system is a way of strengthening economic productivity and increasing growth in the British economy. Nobody thinks that it is right to max out the credit card to pay the weekly grocery bill—of course not—but families up and down this country take out mortgages to buy their homes. There is a precise parallel here.
Opposition Members are not deficit deniers. We want to bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio, as the shadow Chancellor said. In that task, the Chancellor has failed spectacularly. The debt has gone up by £500 billion under his stewardship. To get the debt-to-GDP ratio down, we must do two things. We must run the public finances in a sensible way. That means making sensible savings, for example by tackling fraud in the housing benefit system and not going ahead with the ludicrous cuts to inheritance tax, which will benefit the richest in our country. At the same time, we must get sustainable growth into the economy. That means investment.
Mike Wood
I am not sure that even needs dignifying with a response. We fought the election on having a balanced budget by 2019-20, as announced in the Budget, and a system with a fiscal mandate that puts us in line with many of the most successful economies around the world.
Finance Bill (Third sitting)
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is advocating reversal of the changes made in the previous Parliament to pensions for councillors. I would argue that there is a degree of consistency with those changes. Councillors do not perform a job in the normal sense of most people in employment, so we argued in the previous Parliament that for them to have the same pension provision as most employees would not be appropriate. It is right to have a special regime that is not the same as that applied to people in employment with regard to travel expenses, and that is why we have brought in this measure.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Following on from the intervention by the hon. Member for Ilford North, I spent 11 years as a district councillor and several of those in cabinet. There always seemed an anomaly to me. I never joined the local government pension scheme and I always thought it was rather incorrect for councillors to be allowed to do so, because it equated their position with that of local government staff, rather than elected volunteers. The Government are to be congratulated. There were many in local government—possibly the silent majority—who welcomed that decision and had been rather embarrassed by being allowed to be members of that pension fund.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not my purpose to reopen the debate on pensions and local councillors, however tempting that might be, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.
The clause will support councillors in the vital constitutional role they perform by exempting travel expenses paid by their local authorities from liability to income tax, and I hope it will stand part of the Bill.
Finance Bill (First sitting)
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley
Clauses 1 and 2 enact the promise that the Government made during the general election not to increase the rate of income tax or VAT in the next Parliament. Clause 1 states that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not increase above 20%, 40% and 45% for the duration of this Parliament.
We support the Government’s pledges on tax locks for this Parliament. In fact, it would be surprising if we did not, because we made them first. The Labour party made the same pledge on 25 March, and our 2015 manifesto contained a commitment not to increase the basic or higher rates of income tax, or to raise VAT or national insurance. We are glad the Conservative party adopted our pledge during the election.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, and as was discussed in the Budget debates, legislating for that pledge represents a U-turn. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in 2009 the current Chancellor said he was very critical of Chancellors passing laws to ensure they fulfil their promises. The current Chancellor stated then:
“No other Chancellor in the long history of the office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget…As one commentator observed this week, there are only two conclusions. Either the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is, so to speak, asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word, but hopes that they might believe in the statute book if not in him. Neither is much of a recommendation for the Chancellor of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 708.]
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On Tuesday the hon. Lady advised us on the Floor of the House that she would not seek to defend or reference remarks made on previous occasions by the new leader of her party. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Barbara Keeley
I think comments that somebody made when they were a Back-Bench MP are different. Once somebody has taken on a role, either in opposition or in government, what they say carries a certain weight. There is a freedom to the Back Benches that I and others here have experienced. Many Members of the Conservative party say things that their Front-Bench team would not agree with. That is my distinction, and I am sticking to it.
It appears that the Chancellor had a change of heart, and now feels the need to pass a law to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget. During the debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week we discussed the view that measures such as this are in fact gimmicks. We questioned why Ministers feel the need for this additional legislation when the promises that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made during the election should be good enough. To people outside Westminster, it could appear that Treasury Ministers have lost confidence in their ability to stick to their resolutions, or perhaps they fear that everyone else has lost confidence in their ability to keep their word. The Minister may want to tell us which he thinks it is.
Although Labour supports the pledge to make no increase to VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions during this Parliament, I still question whether introducing legislation to ensure those locks is the best course of action. Rather than gimmicks, we need long-term tax reform and sensible policies to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good deal.
We have some concerns about the durability of the income tax lock in clause 1. As it stands, it appears that rates could be raised by repealing the Bill in a future Budget. Can the Minister assure the Committee that it is not simply a gimmick? Will he outline how he intends to show that the lock will remain in place? In our deliberations, we should consider the impact of that tax change and the other changes to the tax system announced in the Budget. As many tax experts have pointed out, only then will we be able to see the real impact of Government measures on particular groups of people.
In Committee of the whole House, I raised the issue of the insurance premium tax. Although the clause protects workers against an income tax rate rise, I note that they will not be protected from the other tax increases in the Bill.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, as always. Under the moderate and reforming Labour leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), Labour Front-Bench Members for the whole of the previous Parliament were never able to say what they would actually do. They were very good at saying what they would not do and at opposing everything that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury sought to do to reduce spending and bring it back under control. We await—with bated breath, it has to be said—what the reforming instincts of the new Labour leader will bring forward, but can the shadow Minister say what she would do? She has spoken about her long-term plans for house building, and so on, but, in the shorter to medium term, what would the Labour party do today, or what would it have done recently, to balance the nation’s finances better?
Barbara Keeley
That is a very easy question to answer. We heard earlier about the former shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, who put in a great deal of work this year on zero-based budgeting spending reviews. He came up with a list of savings that amounted to £12 billion. We talked about that a great deal during the election—
Barbara Keeley
I think it would be better, Sir Roger, if we could move away from things to do with the Labour party and concentrate on the Bill. It is not helping progress.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman might wish to have cognisance of the note that his colleague passed to him.
Roger Mullin
That is one of the most helpful interventions of my entire parliamentary career. I hope I do not require any similar interventions in the future—[Laughter.] I am so glad that I can bring some levity—it was not deliberate. Where was I?
Finance Bill (Second sitting)
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my view that those who usually call for higher rates of corporation tax have never themselves ever been involved in the running of a business.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Another point about corporation tax that can be lost in the debate is that, ultimately, the burden of all taxes falls on people. There is a lively debate on corporation tax about how much should it fall upon shareholders, in which case we are often talking about pension funds that pay pensions to ordinary people. Sometimes it could fall upon employees as a consequence of the fact that there is a reduction in investment as a consequence of corporation tax, which in turn means that productivity does not improve, and as productivity tends to drive salaries and wages, employees often suffer; or it could indeed be consumers who suffer from higher prices as a consequence of corporation tax.
Let us be clear that all taxes that we debate in this Committee are ultimately paid by people. They might not be writing the cheque or transferring the funds from their account, but ultimately all taxes are paid by people, and if one has an economically inefficient tax, the price that people pay for the benefit to the public finances becomes all the greater.
Barbara Keeley
I was not in anything like my current role at the time; I am afraid that I cannot explain the thinking of the former Chancellor.
To bring us back to policy priorities, there is much to be said about the technical detail of this legislation. Inheritance tax is already a complex tax to navigate, and the Bill creates a new level of complexity. The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has set out 10 tenets for a better tax system, one of which states that
“the tax rules should…be simple, understandable and clear in their objectives.”
This tax has never been that. The institute says of the clause:
“The measure is excessively complex; it would be simpler to just increase the nil rate band to £500,000.”
Why has the Minister chosen to implement the policy in its current form? There seems to be a simpler way of administering the tax.
Chris Williams of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:
“The proposals add further complexity to an already complex system. The government has recognised that the problem of downsizing”—
to which the Minister referred—
“must be addressed but proposes only to allow for downsizing that takes place on or after 8 July 2015. Other problem areas include the need to define a main residence consistently throughout the tax system, and to recognise the diverse patterns of the modern family when attempting to restrict the benefit to children and descendants.”
I will come on to that, because there is an important point about what a modern family consists of.
The Mirrlees review, led by the IFS and funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council, noted that inheritance tax was a
“somewhat half-hearted tax, with many loopholes and opportunities for avoidance through careful organization of affairs.”
That is well known. It went on to say:
“This leads to charges of unfairness and makes a principled defence of the current inheritance tax difficult.”
I grant it that the Minister tried. With such a generous increase in the nil-rate band and such low estimated returns to the Exchequer, the question now is whether we should start revising this to a quarter-hearted, rather than half-hearted, tax. Is this policy a priority at a time when families and first-time buyers are struggling to get a home of their own? The average house price outside London is just over £183,000. The current nil-rate band is £325,000. That would be enough to cover the average value and include a buffer. Why has the Chancellor decided to introduce that additional residence nil rate band?
Simon Hoare
Why does the hon. Lady’s narrative automatically presume that because an estate is asset-rich, descendants are cash-rich? She referred to people trying to get on the property ladder—to pay the deposit, stamp duty, and so on. Take the widow who has stayed for years in the family home, which she bought reasonably cheaply in a part of London where property values have risen. It is the disposal of that asset on her death, and her descendants’ inheritance of it, as free of tax as possible, that allows those descendants, who may be in low or middle-paid jobs, to get on the property ladder. Why do the hon. Lady and the Labour party automatically exclude them from their thinking?
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to a very good reason why. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s points. I ask the Minister why—I hope he does not lose this question—given the average house price outside London, the Chancellor has decided to introduce this additional band. There are wider questions, which I said I would come to, about the scope of who will benefit from the nil rate band.
The new tax exemption applies to lineal descendants. We welcome the clarification of who will benefit outlined in the Government amendment, and the apparent extension of the nil rate band to a lineal descendant’s spouse or civil partner in the event of the lineal descendant’s death. However, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has pointed out that it could be seen as discriminatory to allow the relief only to lineal descendants; many godparents, aunts and uncles are as close to, and their lives are as intertwined with those of, godchildren, nieces and nephews as are those children’s parents. That is the kind of family structure that we have these days.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend puts that in an excellent way. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on why the policy will apply only to lineal descendants? It has the potential to raise house prices by making property an even more attractive investment for the wealthiest, which would make it even more difficult for ordinary working people to get on to the property ladder.
Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said that it is
“rather odd to give this special treatment to housing given that owner-occupied housing is already extremely tax privileged”.
He said:
“This will only increase the bias we have towards putting your money in a house, to inflating potentially the value of housing, without dealing with the lack of housing, which is driving up the value of private residences.”
Many of the policy’s features are similar to those analysed in a Treasury document that was leaked to, and published by, The Guardian. According to the estimates in the document, based on Budget 2014 forecasts, the policy would reduce the proportion of estates liable for inheritance tax from 8% in 2015-16 to just over 6% by the end of the Parliament, rather than increasing it to slightly more than 10%, as the current policy would have done. The document contains the argument that
“there are not strong economic arguments for introducing an inheritance tax exemption specifically related to main residences”.
A number of problems with the policy are set out in the document, such as the fact that it would encourage investment in owner-occupied housing rather than other more productive investments and that it would discourage downsizing late in life when that might otherwise be appropriate. Although the Government have made some provisions to prevent the downsizing problem, industry experts have said that the changes could lead to more people choosing to upsize later in life, which would have consequences for the availability of housing stock for other buyers.
I want to talk about the balance of the Government’s tax cuts, including changes to inheritance tax. Those changes will cost £24.6 billion over the Parliament, and they will be financed by five main sources, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Tax increases will raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament; we have talked about things such as insurance premium tax. Welfare cuts, including cuts to tax credit and many freezes, will raise nearly £35 billion. Other spending decisions will cut £8.1 billion. Cuts to departmental spending and to the BBC have been proposed. Various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that will raise a further £14.2 billion.
The Budget decisions, interestingly, imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase indicated by the OBR pre-measures forecast. Inheritance tax raised an estimated £3.8 billion in 2014-15, but house price inflation had been expected to drive the tax take up to £6.4 billion by 2019-20. Instead of the Exchequer receiving more revenue from inheritance tax, however, the policy is expected to cost it £940 million a year by 2020-21, when the additional family home allowance—like the existing allowance, it will be transferable between spouses—reaches £175,000 per person.
When they talk about borrowing, Conservative Members should bear in mind that if the Government had kept the existing allowance, they would have more than halved expected additional borrowing over the lifetime of the Parliament. In contrast, their position appears to mean more borrowing, when one of the Government’s specified aims is to do the opposite. It seems strange that in the debates we have had so far the Conservative party seems to be convinced that it is okay to increase taxes such as insurance premium tax and to make increases that hit very large numbers of people the main way to raise finances, while implementing changes to inheritance tax that will cost the Exchequer considerable sums of money.
Surely, keeping inheritance tax as it was would be better than increasing the insurance premium tax and making hefty welfare cuts. Those are the decisions that are weighed against each other. The Government are cutting a tax for the wealthier families in the country, while cutting tax credits for millions of those who are in need. That is what we are going to see over the coming years. We could say that this is a rather warped interpretation of Robin Hood: taking money from the poorest to pay for a tax cut for the richest.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset, this tax cut comes at the same time as the Government have decided to abandon a manifesto pledge to implement a £72,000 cap on care costs. In a written statement to the House of Lords on 25 July 2015, the cap on costs was described as an expensive new commitment. The cap—a pledge made by the Conservative party—was designed to prevent older people and younger people with disabilities from having to sell their homes when they went into care.
Here is the answer for the hon. Gentleman: why is it okay for people with care needs to have to sell their homes and have nothing to pass on, while the very wealthiest—the top 10%—are allowed to keep house values of £1 million? The Government have decided to abandon a cap, for which they had made legislation, on the grounds that it is too expensive, while they are opting to go with the introduction of the nil rate band for inheritance tax on properties, which will cost £1 billion by 2020. That £1 billion a year could have been an incredible investment in social care; instead, we are going the opposite way. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. People who have to pay their own care costs will be under a huge burden and will have to give up their homes.
Simon Hoare
I would simply say to the hon. Lady that it is just about how an individual uses the asset. If someone needs to use their asset to pay for their care, that is what they must do. Greedy children will be hanging at the gate preventing them from putting up the “For sale” sign or whatever, but we just have to get used to using our residential assets better, as needs require.
Barbara Keeley
We were committed to a better way of funding social care, and in future we will be committed to even better ways.
I want to finish by questioning the Government’s priorities. It is a question not only of priorities, but of the unintended impacts of the policy. We talked about downsizing and the effect on the housing market. The clause may have a significant impact, which is why we tabled amendment 7, which would require a report on the effect of the inheritance tax changes on different UK regions and on housing prices. The Minister seemed to signal that he will not look at or accept our amendment, but it is very reasonable, asking only for a report. If he will not accept our proposal now, we will bring it back on Report.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin
That gives me a welcome opportunity to state that every Labour Government in history has left office with more people out of work than when they came into office. This is the party of working people and we created many jobs during the last Parliament, which no one expected, and we continue to back businesses and their growth through this Bill.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend may be ruing her invitation to Members to intervene. In a constituency such as mine, where the main focus of economic activity is on micro and small businesses, one of the first questions that a potential employer asks is how much it will cost to take on an additional person. That is the engine that will grow the economy, and the Bill is extremely welcome.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, because in North Dorset and around the country it is the small and micro businesses that are the engines of job creation. That is why the employment allowance is so important—it will mean that a small business taking on its first employee will not have to pay employers national insurance at all under this Government. Indeed, if every small business took on just one extra employee, we would have full employment. That is why the Government back small businesses.
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to my party’s manifesto commitments in a very short while. I do not think it is helpful, and I am not going to respond, to any interventions or points made by Government Members that refer to things the current Leader of the Opposition said before he was Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] That is a different situation. What I have just said is that when the Prime Minister was elected in 2010, he raised VAT when he had said that he would not do so.
Beyond the broken pledge on VAT, which is a serious matter—[Interruption.] Government Members can sit giggling, but these are very serious matters that hit the country hard. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister appeared to rule out cuts to tax credits when appearing in front of a special “Question Time” audience during the recent election campaign. Yet, we are due to vote later today on that measure, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits will leave some 8 million families on average over £1,000 a year worse off. That is a shocking broken pledge.
Simon Hoare
Unlike the hon. Lady, not all Government Members are obsessed with the new leader of the Labour party. Surely she has to accept that on broken promises, the greatest albatross around her party’s neck is the previous Prime Minister, Mr Brown, who promised the end of boom and bust? That was signally incorrect and is the biggest albatross from which the Labour party can never be freed.
Barbara Keeley
Government Members should stop going back in time. I have just referred to the fact that the Prime Minister promised before the 2010 election not to raise VAT. [Interruption.] Look at your record. You’re in government. You’re defending your Bills.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the fact is that successive Governments have failed to ensure that the rich pay their taxes properly. We have a tax gap of £120 billion a year. The fact that fewer people might fiddle their finances is not an argument for reducing the top rate of tax. We ought to have a proper regime for enforcing tax payment by those who get away with it: the corporates and the billionaires who manage to avoid and evade tax on a massive scale. If we collected only a third of what is fiddled every year, we would have another £40 billion a year to spend. I think that we have failed on that because all Governments have opted for a light touch on the rich. That is the truth.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman obviously has the inside track on the voice of the City—he has referenced lunches he has had in the square mile—so could he illume the House on what the City’s view is on the new policies of his right hon. Friends who now occupy the Opposition Front Bench?
Kelvin Hopkins
I must say that I have not had lunch in the City recently. Indeed, my contacts with City people have not been of the highest order since 1998. I once had lunch with the Governor of the Bank of England, shortly after being elected, and very enjoyable it was too. That was when “steady Eddie” was in charge—he was a splendid Governor and I am sorry that he is no longer with us.
I believe that there are ways of ensuring that we collect the taxes that are due from the rich. Personally, I believe that I should pay more income tax, along with everyone else on my kind of salary—I earn £74,000 a year. Indeed, the majority of the population have said that they would be happy to pay a little more tax in order to help our health service, which is still seriously underfunded.
I believe that national insurance contributions set at a modest level are an important part of our tax and revenue-colleting system. It gives us all a sense of collectivity, which I think is right. We call that the contributory principle. It means that we have a sense of duty in paying taxes as well as a sense of entitlement in receiving what they pay for. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who is no longer in her place, on the upper earnings limits.
VAT is a regressive tax. It was noticeable that Gordon Brown, when Prime Minister, cut VAT from 17.5% to 15%, which boosted demand at the moment that was needed and, together with a substantial depreciation of sterling, helped to keep the economy relatively stronger than some other economies. We have since survived, but I think that we are now making a mistake in allowing sterling to appreciate. It has moderated a bit in recent weeks, but it is still far too high, and manufacturing is suffering as a result.
I understand that the Opposition are going to acquiesce in what the Government are proposing today, but I agree entirely with the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. I look forward to my party coming into government next time around with our new leader committed to ensuring that the rich, the corporates and those who have been getting away with it for years pay their taxes so that we can build a decent society on the revenues that they should provide.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill. A number of colleagues have spoken of the need for certainty, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has spoken about the need for signals. This Bill is not a gimmick, but a very good piece of proposed legislation. It sends a very clear signal to the country, employees, employers and the investment world that such is the Government’s confidence in their wider economic policies that they will not have to increase national insurance contributions or other taxes.
The Bill also sends a very clear message to both the employer and a potential employee. In rural constituencies such as mine in North Dorset, which is predominantly made up of agricultural micro and small businesses, the decision to recruit is often made on a knife edge. It is drilled down to almost the last shilling to work out whether or not it is financially viable.
The certainty provided by the Bill sends two clarion calls from this Government. The first is that the sensible employer can have the confidence to invest in their business and grow it. Secondly, it tells the new employee that returning to work or entering it for the first time pays. Those things are mother’s milk to Conservative Members, but they are an utterly alien substance to the Labour party.
I felt sorry for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She tried to defend abstention while desperately trying to show that, when the great purge comes in some Labour reshuffle or other, she will be able to say, “I decided to oppose it and please the purists on my side.”
We will get on with taking the difficult and sensible decisions of governing the country, to make sure that the economy continues to grow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
There has been a growth in the number of jobs in low and medium-skill sectors, and we should all welcome that. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I meant high and medium-skill sectors. The Government’s focus on the productivity plan is all about making sure that as we move into the next phase we are boosting those highest-value-added sectors.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
22. May I point out to the Minister that jobs in the agricultural, food production and dairy sector are of vital importance to my constituents in North Dorset? Will he ensure that the Treasury team do as much as they possibly can to support those vital sectors?
Damian Hinds
Indeed. The food sector, from farming through to retail and catering, is hugely important, contributing £103 billion to the economy and employing one in eight people. In fact, food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. We will absolutely continue to keep its importance, in Dorset and more widely, at the front of the plan.
Finance Bill
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
That has never been the case. If a Member is not here for the Minister’s opening speech and the opening speech of the Opposition, whichever Opposition that might be, they do not have a right to be called in the debate. But I have just ruled that there is nothing to stop a Member making an intervention in the speech of another Member, should there be some very pressing and important point that that Member wishes to make.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the ruling entirely, but will you clarify one thing? Is the speech of the principal spokesman from the Scottish National party to be deemed as an opening speech to which Members should be listening, or do the opening speeches principally come from the Treasury team and the Official Opposition?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Normally, speeches from the Treasury Front Bench and the Official Opposition Front Bench count as the opening speeches. But I have to say that that is a very narrow way of looking at the issue. If a Member wishes to take part in a debate—[Interruption.] Order. If a Member wishes to take part in a debate, it would be courteous and proper to be here for the whole of the debate. I am making no criticism of the right hon. Member for Gordon, who was here for much of yesterday’s debate and for much of today’s debate. I am just not allowing him to make a speech; it is not that I am not allowing him to say anything.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cunningham
I am sure you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when we were on the Trade and Industry Committee, we discovered that the Americans were using their defence budget for research and development. The private sector benefited from that because it did not carry that overhead of research and development, which can be at least 50% of any company’s budget and even more than wages. I agree with my hon. Friend, therefore, that the Government should be looking at that.
The Chancellor’s boast—if you want to put it like that—about the living wage is, when we actually analyse it, a con. The living wage as proposed by the Living Wage Foundation is 60p an hour higher than the Chancellor’s proposed amount, and much more inside London—although I do not have the exact figure for London. His proposals have even been criticised by the Living Wage Foundation. The cost of living varies between regions, and for those on low pay, each penny matters. We can only assume that he is rebranding the national minimum wage to muddy the waters. It is political smoke and mirrors to avoid comparisons with the recommendations of that independent charity and to avoid criticism of his low-pay economy. Once again, he has also ignored young people by excluding under-25s from the proposals.
The massive cuts to tax credits will utterly undermine any positive outcomes from the increase to the minimum wage and leave 13 million families worse off, according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis, which has also shown that the poorest will be negatively impacted far more than the well-off. Once again, the low-paid suffer. Much is paid in tax credits because of the Chancellor’s low-pay economy, but slashing tax credits will not make the problem of low pay go away.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to hear a lot more of Mr Cunningham.
Simon Hoare
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you have now put me off my stride.
Given that we have had tax credits for so long and that low pay is becoming endemic, tax credits have clearly not incentivised employers to increase pay. Why then is the hon. Gentleman opposed to their reduction to encourage employers to do just that?
Mr Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinions. I do not think tax credits are endemic. Most people I have ever come across prefer to work for a decent wage. They do not want a subsidised wage, but the employer is never going to pay that decent wage on the basis of the Government’s proposals. If they really believe that, they are deluding themselves, because quite frankly employers do not like spending money.
The Chancellor has announced plans to scrap maintenance grants and replace them with repayable loans. These grants are offered only to the poorest students, so that will saddle more debt on those who already get the least help and support, while well-off students remain unaffected. This, along with the under-25s not receiving the new minimum wage and the under-21s not receiving housing benefit even if they have no parental support, shows that the Chancellor is not interested in helping young people to succeed and get on in life.
The Budget shows, once again, the Chancellor’s contempt for the west midlands. He mentioned the northern powerhouse three times in his Budget speech and the north more generally seven times, yet he mentioned the midlands only once, with no distinction made between east and west and no mention of the vital infrastructure investments required to ensure a balanced economy across the UK. Once again, the west midlands has been overlooked in favour of the Chancellor’s pet projects. This is a Chancellor who cares more about press headlines than pressing need. A future west midlands combined authority would represent the second biggest economic area after London, yet the Chancellor ignores it at every turn.
The rise in the minimum wage is welcome, but the fall in tax credits will leave millions worse off. The Chancellor’s changes to inheritance tax also benefit the wealthy few at the top of society, not those at the bottom. He has made scant proposals to remedy the housing crisis. The number of homes and the cost of rent and mortgages have been ignored. Rent has become a very big issue in this country.
This is a Budget that ultimately fails young people. Once again, the Chancellor has failed to give the west midlands either the time or support it deserves. All his changes are an attempt to paper over the cracks of a low-pay economy that only works for the few.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who made an excellent speech underlining the cruel regressivity of this awful Budget. She particularly mentioned the impact on child poverty, families and women, and the inter- generational poverty that will scar families for life. It is also a pleasure to follow excellent speeches by colleagues from the Swansea Bay city region, my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and a number of maiden speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black).
This was a Sheriff of Nottingham Budget, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. In fact, The Economist has commented that taking from the very poorest through tax credit changes and giving to the very wealthy through inheritance tax changes is “indefensible”. That is not some sort of left-wing ragbag but a keenly focused magazine that says it as it is.
We have the Sheriff of Nottingham, the Chancellor, living within his castle walls and feeding his fat noble friends with inheritance tax reductions, while the ordinary people just outside are being hoaxed. With one hand they are being given higher tax thresholds, but with the other they are being pick-pocketed, with something like £16 billion of stealth taxes on things like insurance for housing and cars, and with the vehicle excise duty changes. Even the withdrawal of climate change subsidies will come back and hit them through energy prices, and the withdrawal of BBC funding will hit them through the licence fee.
The Sheriff of Nottingham is also trying to persuade the ordinary people around the castle walls that the poorest people in the forest will not be painfully abused by the tax credit cuts. Instead he is trumpeting the minimum wage increase, which of course will not compensate families on tax credits. In 2012 the Chancellor gave a speech describing the “strivers” and the “skivers” and asking whether it was fair for a shift worker to get up in the morning to go to work and see the closed blinds of his neighbours who live off benefits. Of course, skivers are not eligible for working tax credits and child tax credits, because they are only given to people in work. They are based on the American earned income tax credit, as an incentive to work. Their withdrawal will undermine not only the individuals who are paid the money but business start-ups. The change is thoroughly regressive and counterintuitive to economic growth.
The Budget was more about politics than economics. On the minimum wage, the Chancellor has taken the Labour party’s clothes and hoped that people will not notice what he is doing to working families, and the Opposition cannot support him in that. Of course, the cost of tax credits has grown to something like £30 billion, but that is because productivity in the British economy has been so woefully poor that wages have gone down, leading to tax credits going up. In fact, 800,000 fewer people are earning more than £20,000 than was the case in 2010, which is an appalling failure. That is why this Government have borrowed more in five years than Labour did in 13. The Government should have focused on productivity growth in the Budget, rather than on fiddling around with tax and spend so that the Chancellor can position himself against the flamboyant part-time Mayor of London as the next Tory leader.
There is also the appalling situation whereby the third-born in each family will have their tax credits taken away. I wonder if that will be extended to education and health. When the third child, Johnny, has a broken arm and goes to the NHS, will he be told, “Sorry, we can’t treat that, you’re the third-born. Oh, don’t worry, your oldest sister has just died—so it’s alright now”? What is the change about? Is it an incentive for poorer people in society not to breed? Is some sort of positive eugenics returning to the Tories? It really is appalling.
Geraint Davies
No, I will not. There is a time limit, and it is not really worth the air.
The overall welfare budget is £220 billion, only £2 billion of which is spent on people on the dole. A great amount of it is spent on pensioners, who are protected because they are more likely to vote. The political calculation is that poorer people are less likely to vote, and certainly less likely to vote Tory. This is a cynical Budget.
Oxford University has suggested that the number of people going to food banks will increase by 1 million to 2 million. I pointed that out to the Prime Minister, and he said, “Oh well. It doesn’t really matter. We won the election.” When I pointed it out to the Work and Pensions Secretary, he said, “Oh well. What can you do? Lots of people in Canada and Germany use food banks.” The Chancellor said, “Well, you know, we’ve got 1% of the people and 3% of the wealth of the world, and we spend 7% on welfare,” as if we should be ashamed and not proud that we, as a developed country, invest in the most vulnerable people to help them into work.
What sort of future is the Chancellor suggesting? Is he suggesting that we cut our welfare down to the levels of developing countries and provide taps and buckets at the ends of streets? What are the values of this Tory Government? The answer is that their values are squeezing the poor because they will not vote Conservative, and squeezing the state with a fraudulent proposition as a backcloth—that minimum wages can replace tax credits that are focused on poor families. The reality is that, under the last Labour Government, the economy grew by 40% in the 10 years to 2008. The banking crisis caused a problem, but by 2010 there was growth in the economy. Since then, debt as a share of the economy has grown from 55% to 80%, basically because a low-wage, low-productivity, austerity-driven Budget does not work.
The Government have driven down wages at the same time as they are putting up tax thresholds, which is obviously not a way of generating significant tax revenues. Therefore, the business model is bust. We need investment in productivity, skills and infrastructure. Why are we seeing another situation? Why has the train infrastructure in the north of England been removed or delayed? Why are the poorest given loans rather than grants to go to university?
The Budget is not the way forward for a high-skilled, high R and D, high-productivity and high-wage economy to pay its way. It is flawed economically and it is a political stunt. The sooner we get a Labour Government the better.
Tax Credits (Working Families)
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) on her excellent maiden speech, which I am sure will be the first of many?
A lot of my constituents are low-paid workers. Many are paid the minimum wage and some receive even less. They work very long hours and some have two or three jobs to bring in enough money to feed their families and pay the bills. Even then, some of them cannot afford to put food on the table seven days a week and have to endure the humiliation of going to food banks with their families.
These low-paid workers are not shirkers or skivers, lazy or feckless; nor, as a matter of interest, are they the people who caused the financial and banking crisis in 2008. If the curtains on their houses are drawn at 7 or 8 in the morning, it is not because they are skiving or being lazy, but because they only got home from work after midnight. These are the people in my constituency who rely on working tax credits to top up their poverty pay, and it is they who suffer if tax credit support is reduced or abolished.
I agree with the Prime Minister that employers should pay the living wage, but many of them do not and will not unless they are forced to do so. If the Government are serious and want to save money on tax credits, they must turn the statutory minimum wage into a statutory living wage. Indeed, the Prime Minister should understand that argument, because Steve Hilton, who was his adviser until recently, has advocated exactly that. I hope very much indeed that that is what the Government will do. I suspect that they will offer incentives to employers to pay the living wage, but by doing so they would just be subsidising employers—they would not save money.
In a different world we would have unions that were strong enough to bid up their members’ wages, but they are not strong enough. Conservative Members smile and laugh whenever unions are mentioned. Unions have a traditional role of negotiating better terms and conditions for their members. The Conservative party hates trade unions. Indeed, it has made it absolutely plain that it will bring in even more draconian restrictions on them, so trade unions will not be able to do their traditional job of bidding up wages. Therefore, it is down to the Government—if they are serious—to turn the minimum wage into a living wage. Is that what Treasury Ministers intend to do?
Mr Godsiff
No, I will not take interventions.
The Government could set an example by insisting that the contractors they use pay the living wage, not the minimum wage. That would be positive. Treasury Ministers could set an even better example. When Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is the Treasury’s responsibility, put out its cleaning contract to ISS and was offered a contract price based on either the minimum wage or the living wage, why did it choose the minimum wage? It could have set an example by choosing the living wage, but it chose the lowest common denominator. Low pay is a national scandal. It is not the fault of hard-working, low-paid families in my constituency or anywhere else in the country. It is the Government’s responsibility to address this issue.
Greece
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers was taken yesterday by the European Central Bank, and it was a decision not to expand the amount of liquidity assistance provided; it did not cancel the existing liquidity assistance. We are not in the eurozone, of course, so we are not part of the European Central Bank, but there have been close discussions and the European Central Bank is keeping the Bank of England directly informed about the decisions it is making.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember the back story to the Don Pacifico incident. What advice will he, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office be providing to British citizens residing in Greece or visiting Greece during the holiday season about their physical safety and security, because, whatever the result of the referendum, there could be periods of intense unrest across the country?
Mr Osborne
I will not attempt to say the Latin phrase that Palmerston used at the time of the Don Pacifico affair, but I will say that we of course stand ready to help British holidaymakers. The best thing that they can do is ensure that they are well prepared, and the best thing that we can do is ensure that the advice they need is provided. Greece is clearly one of the most popular holiday destinations; at the moment 150,000 British citizens go there every week in July. That is why we have changed the travel advice and said clearly that people should take with them the euros they need for their holiday, or at least not assume that getting cash out of an ATM will be straightforward. They need to think through those issues, which is why we are providing that advice.