Amendment of the Law

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

We will come in a moment to my own and my party’s distinctive approach to spending and taxation, which offers a very sensible middle way between the two extremes on offer.

Let me deal with the shadow Chancellor’s various critiques of Government policy, including whether we have made the numbers add up, inequality and living standards, and the balanced recovery. I will start with his accusation that we have failed to balance the books. The shadow Chancellor is a very clever man, but there is a great deal of intellectual confusion about what Labour is accusing us of. The Government started with the objective of trying to deal with the structural deficit—in jargon, the cyclically adjusted current deficit—within four to five years. We are now spanning that over seven years.

What is the problem? If the Government had pressed ahead dogmatically with the timetable, we would have been accused of being inflexible and causing undue economic harm, and there would have been righteous indignation from Labour. In the event, however, the Chancellor was flexible and responded to changing circumstances, not least the effect on the UK economy of rising world commodity prices and the slowdown in Europe.

The Chancellor is a learned man. He is familiar with Keynes’s “General Theory”—I am sure he had read it several times from cover to cover—and he understands that, in periods of economic slowdown, counter-cyclical stabilisers should be used, which is what we did, alongside the use of monetary policy, to stabilise the economy. It is greatly to his credit that he did that, and that accounts for the fact that we are taking longer than was planned to deal with the deficit. None the less, having done that, the deficit is clearly now being reduced. We have got to the single point that debt as a share of the economy is starting to decline. There is a strong recovery—the strongest in the G7—and we have extraordinary employment figures, with the largest number of people in employment in history.

On the shadow Chancellor’s reference to the balanced recovery, I want to focus on one important development, namely what is happening with business investment, which is what drives sustainable recovery. Let me cite for the shadow Chancellor an interesting contrast. Between 2000 and 2007, 3% of the contribution to British growth came from business investment. That was a period when the British economy was being driven by consumption, household borrowing and a boom in house prices. There was very little business investment. Since the crisis—since this Government have been in office—30% of growth has been driven by business investment.

It is possible to break that figure down even further as to where that investment came from. In the period of Labour Government running up to the financial crisis, the contribution made to investment by property—overwhelmingly commercial property speculation—was 80%, and 4% of that investment was in the form of plant and equipment, which is why we had rapid de-industrialisation of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). Under this Government, the share of property investment has fallen to 30%, and 50% of all business investment is now plant and equipment—real factories making things and a revival of manufacturing industry.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is it not the truth that the deficit today is where it would have been under the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), and that until this moment not a single Government Member has admitted that the Chancellor was talking nonsense in 2010 when he claimed that he would wipe it out by the end of this Parliament?

[Vince Cable]

The Chancellor was not talking nonsense. It was perfectly sensible to aim to remove the structural deficit as quickly as possible. The fact that we have taken longer over it is a reflection of common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have been in this place 18 years and I can think of few events that make it clearer why people have lost faith in our politics than yesterday’s Budget—little effort to address the main issues, just shameless grandstanding by a man more concerned with fitting his policies to scriptwriters’ gags than addressing the needs of our communities. Just days before the end of this Parliament he delivered a Budget which he knows cannot get proper parliamentary scrutiny and where the measures actually implemented will be largely dependent on the support and agreement of the Opposition. It is a political ploy and people can see straight through it. It may have improved on the chaos of the man who gave us the pasty tax, the granny tax and the omnishambles, but I doubt whether history will judge yesterday’s little show as a particularly competent moment.

There are measures that deserve support. Who could object to a penny off a pint? That is not exactly original, like much else to do with this Chancellor, although I believe there is currently a vacancy for a baron of Bexley. Anything that helps jobs in the whisky industry is welcome. If there was ever any likelihood of an increase in petrol duty, thank goodness somebody has persuaded him to drop it. However, yesterday’s Budget certainly will not go into the history books as a great radical or reforming Budget.

I welcome the decision to allow Greater Manchester and Cambridgeshire to retain their business rates. I welcome it because it is Labour policy, but of course I would like to see the same opportunity given to Birmingham. Voters in Birmingham must be asking what the Government have against them. Why is our police service subject to the largest cuts in the country? Why are our council services being decimated? Why is there no extra support for our small businesses? Just what has this Chancellor got against our city?

I support the plan to raise the starting point at which people pay higher-rate tax, but I wonder why the Chancellor did that and left the cut-off for losing child benefit unchanged. That is not a very family-friendly policy, because under his plans the number of households losing child benefit is now set to double. While the increase in the personal allowance is welcome, it does nothing for the 4.6 million people who do not earn enough to pay tax in the first place, and, as we have heard, any gains will be wiped out overnight if he makes it back to the Treasury and promptly raises VAT, just like he did last time.

I was bothered by the fact that the Chancellor completely ignored the NHS. In my constituency, a walk-in centre at Katie road has been under threat ever since this Government came to power, and nothing he did yesterday makes it any more secure. The Bournbrook Varsity practice, which caters for a large number of our student population, is set to lose substantial funds through the abolition of the minimum practice guarantee and other cuts that will lead to redundancies and a loss of services. Our wonderful Queen Elizabeth hospital is set to lose about 11% of its budget as a result of punitive measures that attack its success as a regional specialist centre. Labour has a plan to grow the NHS. Under this Chancellor, we are already experiencing NHS cuts, and most people feel that there is more to come. Yesterday’s Budget largely confirmed these fears.

My constituency has an unemployment rate of 4.4%. It is now in the top 17% of constituencies for unemployment —110th out of 650. Try telling my constituents that the sun is shining. What they experience is insecure employment, zero-hours contracts, and people working all hours to make ends meet and still having to resort to food banks to feed their kids. Try telling them about the Chancellor’s economic plan. What we need is action to support start-ups, with Government money to match initiatives like Entrepreneurial Spark, a cut in business rates and taxes for small and micro businesses, an improvement in the minimum wage that amounts to more than 70p over a Parliament, and action to enforce the minimum wage so that unscrupulous employers cannot exploit those desperate for work.

As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said, instead of a headlong rush to offload Lloyds bank, perhaps the Chancellor should encourage it to show a greater sense of social responsibility and more respect for local business people in places like Bournville, where its high-handed closure programme shows contempt for the local community and taxpayers. It is a joke for the Business Secretary to come here and say that he will protect the last bank in the village. It is the last bank in the village, there is a massive public stake in it, and he cannot lift a hand to do anything about it.

Where are the measures in this Budget that people in my constituency really care about? They are absent. The Chancellor says that the sun is shining as he strives to paint a rosy picture in the face of the misery endured by so many. It is a Budget where he simply ignored his broken promises and inaccurate predictions—a Budget where the threat of more suffering is ever present. It is less “Here Comes the Sun” and more like here comes the “Sun King”: a man who has lost touch with reality, with vanity crowding out the ability to speak or hear the truth; who is not interested in the lives of real people; and who is armed with an economic soundbite rather than a plan. His assurances are as reliable as those of the party chairman, and his integrity is as intact as that of the former party treasurer. We deserve better, and the country needs a lot, lot more.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Tax Avoidance

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point about the debate we have been having this week about the HSBC affair. As I said in answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), we know that data with evidence of tax avoidance and tax evasion were handed over to the Government in May 2010. That raises serious questions about due diligence and the appointment of Lord Green, the man in charge of the bank at the time, as a Minister in this Government only eight months after the data were handed over. Nobody on the Government Benches has answered the point about why that happened, and I hope that the Minister might try to answer some of those questions today.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

When David Hartnett said that the whole nation knows we had our disc from the Swiss, is it conceivable that he meant that everybody but the Prime Minister? Or is it the case that rather than sunlight being the best disinfectant, the stench from Downing street would knock over a horse?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I agree and I shall come on to that a little later in my speech. We have had an ever-moving, ever-changing story about what the Government or members of the Government knew or did not know and the questions that they asked or did not ask about HSBC. That goes to my central issue of trust: trust is being undermined in our tax system, which absolutely depends on it.

The Government have tried to trumpet their record in recent days, but I am afraid that it is not the great source of pride that they have been trying to pretend it is. We know that the tax gap—that is, the difference between how much tax should be collected and how much is collected—rose from £31 billion in 2009-10 to £33 billion in 2011-12 and now to £34 billion in 2012-13, which is the information available for the latest year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it well. We want a strong NHS, but a strong NHS requires a strong economy, and that requires the Government’s policies to continue.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the long-term economic plan—[Hon. Members: “Hurray!”] I would wait for the second part of the question. In the long-term economic plan, is missing a target by 50% evidence of success or failure?

[Mr Gauke]

We have turned the British economy around, and we grew faster in 2014 than any major western economy. Employment is increasing and unemployment is falling, including by 40% since 2010 in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That is a success.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

We are going to put the top rate of tax back to 50% for people earning over £150,000, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted to win his seat, he would support it.

Instead this Chancellor is taking an increasingly unbalanced and extreme approach. Let us look at what he has failed to put in the charter. He has not included asking those with broader shoulders to make a greater contribution, as I just said. He has not said that we need to strengthen the underlying growth of our economy and improve living standards. Instead, he has made up for all that loss of tax revenue by imposing even bigger spending cuts in the autumn statement than he was planning.

Let me outline the facts to the House. More than 61% of planned departmental spending cuts are still to come in the next Parliament under this Chancellor. There is a further cut for unprotected Departments of 26.3% over the next four years, which is a third bigger than in the previous Parliament. There will be the biggest fall in day-to-day spending on public services in any four-year period since the second world war. That is what is in the Chancellor’s prospectus for his manifesto. We are talking about cuts that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called “colossal” and that the OBR says will take spending on public services back to the level of the 1930s as a percentage of GDP. That is the Chancellor’s extreme and unbalanced plan, and that is what we are opposing.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If Government Members are so dismissive of Labour’s plans, why will they not let the OBR independently audit our plans instead of using civil servants fraudulently to manufacture fictitious dossiers about Labour’s plans? Is it that they are scared?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr McCabe, you need to rephrase the presentation by civil servants from “fraudulent”. [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not need any help.

[Steve McCabe]

I will happily withdraw the term “fraudulent”, but I do think the Government are misusing civil servants.

[Ed Balls]

On the issue of the dossier, to which my hon. Friend just referred, the Conservative peer and former head of the Conservative party think-tank, Lord Finkelstein, described the figures in the Chancellor’s document as “ridiculous”. Mr d’Ancona, the commentator from the Evening Standard, said:

“Indeed, if the Tories are to win…they cannot afford schoolboy errors of the sort that wrecked their dossier this week”.

I will not say that they are fraudulent, but there was a whole series of untruths in that document, which the Chancellor should withdraw so that we can have a proper debate. He could go further than that and agree with the proposal from Labour, the Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and not have the Chancellor—or supposedly the Treasury—costing Opposition policies based on political assumptions and special advisers. Why not ask the OBR to do that audit? He could have done that at any time in the past 18 months. Many have called for that to happen. [Hon. Members: “Why not?”] I will tell Members why not. It is because he has made £7 billion of unfunded and uncosted commitments to cut taxes, and he cannot say where the money will come from. Rather than having an honest debate, he wants to spread smears about Labour’s plans, which he knows will not stand up to independent scrutiny. That is the reason. He could have joined the cross-party consensus, and we could have been voting today in this new fiscal charter to allow the OBR to play that role. That is what should have happened. It is what we called for and what many others supported last year, but this Chancellor has ducked it because he does not have the courage to have an honest debate. That is the reality.

The Chancellor claims that his policy is working. There is nothing competent about borrowing £200 billion more than was planned. Our plan would cut the deficit every year and balance the books. His extreme plan will take public spending back to the level of the 1930s. This Chancellor should stop spending his time playing silly political games, which time and again backfire as they have backfired on him today. He should sort out the economy and spend a bit more time making his sums add up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. In the current modern economy we need to encourage success. As Abraham Lincoln always said, no one is given a hand up by others being pushed down.

[Steve McCabe]

In the interests of coming clean, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Chancellor should come clean about VAT this time?

[Paul Uppal]

Everyone who is watching the debate today knows exactly where both parties stand on this. Come the May general election, most people will make a judgment on who has been clean about where we are on the country’s finances and where the future of its finances lie. That is the important thing.

We are starting to see the fruits of the UK’s low corporate tax economy. I read before Christmas that Ferrari is considering moving its headquarters to the UK to escape Italy’s high corporate taxes. Who would ever have envisaged the prancing horse fleeing Italy? That is a strong sign for the UK economy. I would rather companies locate to the UK, essentially importing tax, than threaten to leave, as we saw under the last Labour Government. Just to be clear, competitive taxes do not mean allowing or turning a blind eye to tax avoidance. The Government are tackling that with a target to raise at least £5 billion a year in the next Parliament from tax avoidance and evasion, with all the money used to help to reduce the deficit.

Focusing on corporation tax in this speech starkly illustrates the broader political chasm in the Chamber today and the short-sightedness of the Labour party. The top 100 companies in the UK employ nearly 10% of the UK’s work force and generate nearly a sixth of the tax take. By creating financial stability we have managed to achieve growth while still reining in Government spending, which the Leader of the Opposition said was impossible, then thought was possible, because it was happening in front of him, and apparently now thinks is impossible because we are months away from a general election.

Please do not take my word for it. Writing in The Times today, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says:

“If Labour is spending more—and if it doesn’t raise taxes—it will be borrowing more and, perhaps more important, presiding over a greater burden of debt.

The effect of this might be relatively modest in the short term, but borrowing as much as their rule would allow beyond 2020 would mean national debt about £170 billion higher (in today’s terms) by the end of the 2020s than would be achieved through a balanced budget.”

I would like to highlight one more important matter, and that is the impact that small businesses have on reducing the deficit and lowering the national debt. A competitive tax system does not just help large firms; it allows smaller companies to survive and grow. I am proud that more than a third of the country’s 1.2 million employers—around 450,000 firms—will no longer pay national insurance. This makes a huge difference to them, allowing them to take on more staff, lowering the unemployment rate and lowering welfare payments. I am proud that this has happened under this Government, and that exactly the same would happen again under a future Conservative Government.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of having been in the House for 17 years, that I have from time to time observed quite a lot of things that do not constitute normal practice. Let me also say to him, for the avoidance of doubt, that government is seamless in procedural terms, and any Minister can move the motion on the Order Paper.

Is it commonplace for the Minister who has direct responsibility to be absent at the material moment? It is not, although, in fairness, it having happened now under this Government, I should point out that it did happen on one occasion under the last. It is an irregular state of affairs, but the Minister who should be here will, as I have said, be immensely grateful to the Minister for Pensions, both for his presence and for his quickness of mind and fleetness of foot in taking to the Dispatch Box. I think that we will leave it there for now.

It must be said that this sort of thing is to be deprecated—very strongly deprecated—but it does not happen very often, and I hope that it will not happen again. No doubt words can be had. It is everyone’s responsibility to keep an eye on the Annunciator. The Minister has a duty to be present at the appointed moment, and the appointed moment can be a movable feast. It is the responsibility of the Minister and the Whips to make sure that the Minister is present. He or she was not present, but the Minister for Pensions has helped out.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify something. If the Minister eventually manages to turn up, will it be seemly for him to take part in the debate, having not been here at the beginning?

[Mr Speaker]

The point about being here at the start relates to statements. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not feel too sore about that.

[Steve McCabe]

Not at all.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather adroit piece of time-wasting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point, and we could provide information on the basis of local authorities figures. What I can tell him is that in the Gloucester local authority area—I am not sure whether it is coterminous with his seat—more than 99% of those who pay SDLT will pay less as a consequence of these changes.

It is striking to note the diversity of commentators who have been positive. Estate agents, professional bodies and others have all shown support. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has called it a “long overdue” reform. The director-general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders said:

“This fundamental reform has been a long time coming...the vast majority of mortgaged transactions will benefit from lower tax as a result of this move.”

The Building Societies Association has welcomed the announcement. It said:

“It will help individuals and families buy their own home, and smooth out the crazy tax jumps buyers have suffered around the top of each band.”

This is a principled reform that exemplifies the Government’s commitment to a fairer and more efficient tax system.

The previous SDLT regime created distortions in the housing market, imposed perverse incentives and made it harder to get on and move up the property ladder, or indeed move down the property ladder for those wishing to downsize. This major and, as some have argued, overdue reform demonstrates that even in the past six months of this Parliament, we are a Government who are continuing to make radical change for the benefit of the British people.

We realise that this is a big change, even for those who will benefit at such a significant moment in their lives. We have ensured that the changes have been properly explained. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has produced full guidance on the Government website, including a calculator that compares the old and the new systems. As of 9 am this morning, that calculator had been used almost 500,000 times, with no significant delays reported, showing the level of interest in this reform among the public. Critically, HMRC’s specialist call centre was manned until midnight last night when the changes took effect, and is open now. HMRC specialists responded to around 250 inquiries by telephone and all but 3% were resolved immediately, and the remaining handful are being followed up.

[Steve McCabe]

Will the Minister confirm that, under the Labour party’s mansion tax proposals, it would take more than five years for a person in a £2 million property to pay the same amount of tax that they will pay on a single transaction under these proposals? Is that a recognition that people in those properties are simply not paying enough tax?

[Mr Gauke]

The point I would make, as the hon. Gentleman draws me into that issue, is that it is better to collect this tax at the point at which people are entering into transactions, the revenue is available, and there are not the same cash-flow difficulties and problems with the asset-rich cash poor. This is a much better policy than a mansion tax, which would create very significant difficulties—a point that was repeatedly made by a number of Opposition Members who represent London seats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I find it interesting that Government Members are happy to plead global circumstances to explain their failures in Government yet conveniently forget that we had a global financial crisis in 2008. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman made that point in a slightly petty way.

[Steve McCabe]

If we are supposed to have recovered from the recession, why is house building now at its lowest level since the 1920s? To me, that sounds like a failure rather than a success.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government said in their autumn statement that everything was on course. If the finances are in such a good state, why will they not adopt an ambitious programme of house building? Until we have action on the supply side, we will not be able to get to grips with this lop-sided housing market.

We need to get more homes built, and we also need to deal with the underlying causes of the crisis. For example, we know that too much land is being held as a speculative investment even though local people need homes, and that the trickle of new developments that are being built are snapped up long before people from the area can benefit from them. We also know that our country’s capacity to build homes has shrunk drastically. Fifty years ago, the public and private sectors between them built more than 300,000 homes a year; now we rely on a small number of volume house builders and, as a result, we build far fewer homes.

A number of measures are needed to deal with the underlying causes of the housing crisis and to get the number of homes built that this country needs. We have proposed new powers for local authorities, as well as a help to build scheme to run alongside the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, which we support. We particularly want to see an increase in the role of small and medium-sized construction firms, because the resulting diversity in the market would help to get more homes built and deal with the underlying causes of the crisis. As I have said, we need to see supply-side measures in conjunction with the proposals on stamp duty and the Help to Buy scheme. That would help us to get to grips with the crisis and arrive at a position where the dream of home ownership was not so far out of the reach of our constituents across the country.

I also want to mention our proposal for a tax on high-value properties—the so-called mansion tax. We believe that that is a necessary measure to get an annual sum of money into our national health service, which is in crisis and in desperate need of further, stable funding. It is interesting that the Chancellor has accepted, in his stamp duty proposals, the principle that very high-value properties in this country are under-taxed. Earlier in this Parliament, he introduced the annual tax on envelope dwellings—the ATED—which is described as a kind of mansion tax for high-value properties held by companies in a corporate envelope. Now, the Government are characterising the new stamp duty changes as their version of a mansion tax. I wonder why, as they creep towards an actual mansion tax, they will not make that final leap and simply adopt our proposal, thereby guaranteeing an annual sum for our national health service.

The Prime Minister is reported to have remarked some time ago that the Government could never introduce a mansion tax because the Conservative party’s donors would not accept it. I wonder whether that is the only thing holding the Government back. The truth is that they should go further and adopt our proposal. There is a difference between what they are doing today and our proposal. Stamp duty is a transaction tax, but our tax on high-value properties would be an annual charge that would provide a stable source of revenue for the national health service.

One of the Government’s regular criticisms of our proposal is that it would hit those who were asset rich but income poor. However, we have already set out how that could be dealt with through a system of deferral for anyone with an income of less than £42,000 a year—in other words, a basic rate taxpayer. That would be a perfectly sensible and adequate way of helping those people. We could then fairly and progressively introduce a tax that would help to get the national health service’s finances back on track.

Finance Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I fear that on previous form the Government will not listen today and accept our new clause. Nothing that has been said in previous debates gives me any confidence that they understand the message that they have sent to my hon. Friend’s constituents, mine and those of Members across the House that a tax cut for the wealthiest is prioritised, while ordinary working people at the lower end of the income scale are worse off.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that people will think the Government have something to hide, as they are unwilling both to let us see what a 50p rate would raise and to audit party manifestos? Rather than “We’re all in it together,” does it not sound like they are all at it together?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. What do the Government have to hide? The data that we seek would not be difficult for HMRC to provide. It has already conducted one analysis and it is not unfeasible for it to conduct a further analysis, this time based on more comprehensive data, which would clear up some of the issues once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right.

The Government always tell us how proud they are of their record on tax avoidance, but how much effort did they put into thinking of ways in which they could protect revenue from the 50p rate? The Government have introduced the general anti-abuse rule, the so-called GAAR, which may have helped. They could have thought about a targeted anti-avoidance rule, a so-called TAAR. They could also have looked to HMRC to do more. I understand that no specific resources are allocated within HMRC to protect revenue from the 50p rate. A range of measures could have been taken to protect revenue. Before rushing to abolish the rate, the Government could and should have looked at protecting that revenue first. They were quick enough to publish an analysis saying that on their evidence it was not raising much money because of behavioural change, but their instinct was not to say, “Let’s look at how we might see off that behavioural change.” They did not commission a report or publish anything on that; they jumped straight to cutting it at the earliest opportunity: more evidence that this is an ideological and political choice made because they wanted to prioritise the tax cuts for the richest, while ordinary working people are worse off.

[Steve McCabe]

Far from trying to curb tax avoidance, is not the problem that the Govt constantly open up fresh opportunities, such as the shares for rights, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called another billion-pound lollipop on the table?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will debate later the issues in relation to tax avoidance and shares for rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

We will be able to answer that question in due course, because these are still early days, but there are encouraging signs that more revenue is coming in from the rich. We will know the results of the latest experiment later, but we know fully the results of the 1980s tax cuts. They were clear enough to convince not only all sensible Conservative MPs at the time, who were happy to vote for the tax cuts and kept them throughout their period in office, but, more importantly, the long-running Chancellor of the Exchequer who took office in 1997 and held it for a decade before becoming Prime Minister. He is not an easy man to convince to be nice to the rich. I think that he decided to run with that tax rate because he was entirely convinced that he would get more money out of the rich at 40% than he would at 83% or 60%.

[Steve McCabe]

Does not the evidence show that any increase in the tax paid by the rich is the result of their share of income rising at the same time as everyone else’s living standards are falling?

[Mr Redwood]

The main reason they pay more tax, of course, is that they generate and declare more income here, which is surely what we want them to do. If the Labour party is with me so far in wanting decent public services, and if it is with me in accepting that the money for those services has to come from the better-off, because by definition we do not want to tax the poor, then surely it is with me in wanting to have more rich people here to venture, save, put their money at risk and to make more money with their money so that there is more of it to tax. This country is now very dependent on income tax from the top group of earners, who produce 30% of income tax, and on the capital gains tax, stamp duty and other taxes that apply mainly to rich people with big assets. That is sustaining public services. It is very important that Members of this House, who might not like those people—clearly the Labour party dislikes them intensely—recognise that they are very useful members of society and that their revenue is crucial to being able to redistribute money across the country. If Labour Members wish to have more equality, they must think about the optimising rate. Surely it is best to try to find the rate that maximises revenue, rather than a penal rate that satisfies people’s sense of jealousy—or whatever it is—about those who have or make a lot of money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I certainly pay tribute to the local council and local businesses who have worked with the excellent Member of Parliament, my colleague—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend has done remarkable work in bringing down the number of people claiming JSA by 60% since this Government came to office, and of course we will go on supporting businesses locally with important infrastructure, with the employment allowance and with awards. As I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware, Dennis Eagle, one of the companies in his constituency, has just been awarded a grant under our advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, so we are backing manufacturing in the midlands, and backing his constituents all the way.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Sixty percent is a very interesting statistic. Does the Chancellor accept that the number of young people unemployed for more than 12 months has risen by 60% since he became Chancellor?

[Mr Osborne]

Youth unemployment is down 100,000 over the last year, and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency the claimant count is down by 30%. I would have thought he would be welcoming that.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The answer lies in what I have already said; the Labour Government did a huge amount to support all families up and down this country, particularly families with children. Even the Chancellor seems to agree that £3.85 a week is not going to bribe anybody down the aisle or persuade anyone to stay in a marriage if they decide they are going to leave it. The question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) does not seem to acknowledge the fundamental issues with the Government’s proposal.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty with this proposal is shown in the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Robert Joyce, the senior research economist there, says:

“The policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the income tax system”.

So the argument that has been made by the Government is false, in the sense that it gives an impression about this policy which is not actually true. He goes on to say that

“it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we need shorter interventions rather than speeches—I would sooner save your voice for later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I will come to the specifics later. However, my hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that because we serve on the Public Accounts Committee together—will know that many of his constituents in Redcar on low wages have benefited from our personal allowance changes. Indeed, many of them have been taken out of tax altogether, as have people across the north-east of England. He will know, too, as will the Opposition spokesperson, that unemployment has significantly fallen in the north-east and there are now more jobs available than in 2010. [Interruption.] We will not take any lectures from Labour, which doubled youth unemployment between 1997 and 2010.

I would have hoped that Labour Members supported these proposals, particularly this clause, because they are progressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has produced a very helpful chart demonstrating how the provision will disproportionately benefit those in the lower half of the income distribution—a point astutely made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). This is not a provision for the middle classes, as Labour critics sometimes suggest. The truth is that the failure of our income tax system to have regard for marriage in recent years has been very odd, as the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in June 2010:

“I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries—I remember often being lectured when I was on the other side of the House about how we should follow European examples—recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not. I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system…We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]

[Steve McCabe]

The difference is that the tax provisions on Christmas parties and parking bicycles are extended to all. This provision is for a very narrow segment of married people and those in civil partnerships; it is hardly an example of a general principle of marriage.

[Mr Jackson]

I do not think we all attend Christmas parties or cycle. [Interruption.] The more serious point, which I will elucidate further if the hon. Gentleman will generously allow me, is that there is demonstrable evidence that the institution of marriage has a positive net impact on society, cumulatively, particularly on children. There is nothing ignoble about using the tax system in a mature democracy to support behaviour that is good for society overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

Absolutely. It sends out a very poor message to those people for Labour to say that marriage is very nice, but we will not recognise it in the tax and benefit system.

Frankly, it is those who oppose this measure—we have heard them again today—as some sort of 1950s throwback who are being judgmental about how certain people choose to live in their relationships. Disgracefully, they are seeking to pit working mothers and dads against stay-at-home mothers and dads, who are no less, and often more, hard-working. That certainly applies to the increasing number of stay-at-home dads who have made a conscious decision to give up a career because they think that is how they can best bring up their children. The state should respect that.

My support for a transferable married couple’s tax allowance has never been based on a moral stance on types of relationship. My concern, as one might expect from someone who formerly had responsibility in government for children, has always been based on what is best for children. That is why I favour the allowance for families with young children.

Quite simply, if a 15-year-old is living at home with both parents, there is a 97% likelihood that their parents will be married. There is a one in 10 chance that married parents will split up by the time their child reaches five, but a one in three chance that unmarried, cohabiting parents will split up by that time. As the Centre for Social Justice has shown, those who do not grow up in two-parent, married families are 75% more likely to fail at school and 70% more likely to be involved with drugs or to have alcohol problems. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which I have already quoted, has identified poorer outcomes for children from separating families. Importantly, a stable home can raise a child’s chances of escaping the poverty trap by 82%. Let us not forget that family breakdown, the prevention of which is the thrust behind this measure, is costing us £46 billion. That is about £1,460 for every taxpayer in this country every year. Marriage accounts for 54% of births but only 20% of break-ups among families with children under the age of five.

I am therefore surprised that nowhere in any of the contributions from Labour Members in support of the amendment did they touch on the outcome for children. That is the most important target at which the measure is aimed. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said.

Clause 11 alone will not solve all the problems I have set out. I am not naive enough to suggest that £210, or whatever the result is, will represent the difference between staying married and getting divorced or between getting married and cohabiting. However, it does send out the clear and strong message that we value couples who take the decision to bring up their children within marriage. There is a need to address the lack of a level playing field in bringing up children between couples who are not married and those who are. There are 2.2 million households in which one partner is in full-time work and the other is not earning. Those households include 1.2 million children and 700,000 of them include a youngest child who is under the age of five. Those are the families we should start with. Those are the families who deserve our support and recognition most of all. This clause, at last, goes some way towards rectifying that.

[Steve McCabe]

I support the amendment and oppose clause 11. I fear that the clause shows all that is wrong with the modern Tory party. It is based on an illusion—the idea that the Tory party has some special affection for marriage that is shown in its policy actions. Conservative Members have been keen to say that Labour was wrong not introduce such a measure during our 13 years in government, but of course we were not wrong. Had we done so, we would have got into exactly the same mess the Government are in today. We would have been perpetrating a con on the electorate by pretending a level of support for married couples and families with children that our policy simply could not deliver. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but we have heard that he suffers from that delusion. He thinks that he is helping people with children, but in fact he is helping a narrow band of those people.

As we have heard, the policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the tax system. It is a policy for a few married couples and some in civil partnerships—perhaps as few as 3.4 million of the UK’s 12.4 million couples who are married or in civil partnerships. In some ways it is a classic coalition policy, because it does not really satisfy anyone. Those in the Tory party who favour traditional marriage never intended that the tax relief should go to those in civil partnerships—that was not what they were arguing for at the outset. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it was.”] No, it wasn’t. If Conservative Members want to tell me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is a keen advocate of civil partnerships, I guess that they have missed his speeches and blogs in recent years.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to look at his party’s manifesto, but if he looks at ours, he will see that it made a clear promise to the electorate that we are keeping today.

[Steve McCabe]

I am happy to say that I have looked at the Conservatives’ manifesto, and it did not spell out the narrow band of people whom they intended to benefit. It created the pretence that they would help all married couples. The hon. Gentleman has persistently said during the debate that everywhere else offers the system that we are discussing, but I looked it up while he was talking, and New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Greece and Hungary do not have it, so his “everywhere else” may be wrong.

[Alison Seabeck]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Minister for Women voted against same-sex marriage, and therefore takes a slightly ambiguous position on the matter?

[Steve McCabe]

I am afraid that is true. I know that some people will not be comfortable with having to be reminded of that, but it happens to be the case.

To return to the point that the Government’s position is slightly misleading, we know that the Prime Minister himself has been confused about it. Like his hon. Friends, he thought that he was introducing a policy for all married couples paying the basic rate of tax. I can imagine that, in this day and age, it is pretty hard for the poor Prime Minister to keep up with the all the shifts and machinations in his Government, but surely there is something wrong with a policy that deludes even the Prime Minister into thinking he is giving a tax break to all married couples paying the basic rate, which he is not. Thank goodness we have had the opportunity to set the record straight in this debate; otherwise the poor man might have gone around the country perpetrating that calumny. People might have begun to doubt his work on other things, as well—his whole judgment might have come into question. Thank goodness we have had the chance to challenge that idea.

We certainly need to review the policy, because were it to be extended to the nearly 9 million married couples who pay the basic rate of tax, as the Prime Minister implied, it would cost considerably more than the Chancellor’s projections. For that reason alone our amendment, which asks for a review, is crucial. We need to know exactly what the policy will cost and what it would cost were it to meet the Prime Minister’s aspirations.

As we have heard, the policy will give £200 back to 3.4 million couples, but other Government policies will have made the average family £974 a year worse off by the time of the election. Some 85% of the tax allowance will go to men. Perhaps that harks back to the good old days of Tory marriage—I do not know—but in this day and age I do not think the policy will be broadly accepted by women up and down the country. As we have heard, it will not be available to married couples whose income falls below the personal allowance. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has something stuck in her throat. If she wants to intervene, I—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

rose—

[Steve McCabe]

Hang on, you have to wait until you are invited.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not having two Members on their feet. Let us see if I can help—Mr McCabe, are you giving way?

[Steve McCabe]

I think I will give the hon. Lady her chance.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. This point has been made before, but we cannot have such a recognition in the tax system for people who do not pay tax. However, the Government have taken many other measures for them, including ensuring that Labour’s fuel duty escalator did not operate. If it had, fuel would be 90p a gallon more, or £450 a year for the average household.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady is right, and Government Members have attempted to make that point before. She is absolutely right that the VAT rise put enormous pressure on both petrol costs and all sorts of other family incomes.

At its best, the Government’s measure will reward about 3.4 million of the country’s couples who are married or in civil partnerships with £4 a week. That is the figure from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but if the Government have better figures and want to challenge the IFS, that will be welcome. I would be interested to know not only the cost of the tax relief but the administrative costs of a £4 a week benefit for 3.4 million couples. It does not strike me as the best way to reduce the overall costs of tax collection or harmonise the system.

As was acknowledged earlier, the transfer of allowances reintroduces an element of joint taxation, a measure that the Tory party sought to abolish when it moved to individual taxation as long ago as 1990. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about all the countries that recognise marriage, but the move to individual taxation is a much bigger trend in tax systems across the world. It seems to me that it is the Tory party that is moving in the wrong direction, because as we have heard in this debate, Conservative Members want to move to a fully transferrable tax system. They want to go back to the days of old, and that is exactly what they are going to do. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has something to say. Would he like me to give way to him?

[Tim Loughton]

No.

[Steve McCabe]

Oh, he just wants to mutter in the corner. Well, nothing new there.

[Tim Loughton]

Okay, I will intervene.

[Steve McCabe]

Oh, he has changed his mind. He wants to mutter more loudly now.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman tantalises me too much. Will he undertake that, in the highly unlikely and disastrous event that there is a Labour-led Government after the next election, he wants this tax allowance to be abolished in their first Finance Bill, so that 3.4 million married couples—or 4 million or however many—will no longer benefit from it because of Labour’s warped priorities?

[Steve McCabe]

I have never thought of myself as someone who tempts the hon. Gentleman, but I can give a commitment that a Labour Government would move to a fair tax policy. That is what this is all about, which Conservative Members fail to recognise.

[Tim Loughton]

Is that a yes or a no?

[Steve McCabe]

As I said, I am in favour of fair tax. I say it again, so that the hon. Gentleman understands. That is the problem with his party’s policy—it is unfair. If the policy is for only some civil partnerships and married couples, we could target it better. He and I share common ground on one group—people with children—whom we might want to help through the tax system. However, how on earth have we got into a situation in which only 1.4 million couples with children benefit from a proposal? That is an example of a policy that completely fails to do what he would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The measure sends out a clear marker from the Government that marriage works. That is why it is important. I absolutely agree that it will not be an incentive, but I hope it will be an encouragement. I hope it is a start that will be built upon.

On old age, 90% of all care beds in hospitals and care homes are occupied by unmarried men and women. Couples who separate and who have never been married are less likely to support each other in old age and, apparently, their children are less likely to support their elderly parents.

On the positive side, the commitment that marriage requires in terms of the emotional, economic and social investment in the relationship in turn generates security, health and longevity. As we have heard, even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. The health gain from marriage could be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking, leading some researchers to suggest that, if marriage were a drug, it would be hailed as a miracle cure. I could continue, but the evidence is legion.

None of that is to suggest that all married families enjoy better outcomes than any single-parent family or cohabiting couple. Clearly, there are dysfunctional married families and successful single parents and cohabiting couples. However, the weight of evidence is firmly in favour of stable, publicly committed married families being the most beneficial structure.

[Steve McCabe]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. I am not exactly sure what the source of the evidence she quotes is, but does the evidence draw any distinction between the impact on married couples of whom both partners work and the impact on married couples of whom only one partner works? Has that distinction influenced this tax policy?

[Fiona Bruce]

This tax policy increases the opportunity for choice. Many mothers and fathers want to stay at home and do not want to go have to go out to work. I appreciate that the financial implications of the policy are small but, none the less, the policy says, “We value you and your role in society if you want to stay at home.”

If we are serious about finding effective solutions to community breakdown and to the poverty that blights parts of Britain characterised by family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness and addictions, supporting marriage is one way to do so. The public support that, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] I apologise. She is in the Chamber, but in a different place. I endeavoured to intervene on her because, according to a YouGov poll, 85% of people support giving financial recognition to married couples through the tax system, and 83% of the public think that tackling family breakdown is important. Even more starkly, according to the Centre for Social Justice, half of lone mothers think it is important that children grow up with a father.

Yes, the proposal will cost the Exchequer—I believe the shadow Minister said it will cost some £550 million—but that is dwarfed by the cost of family breakdown which, in 2012, had risen to some £44 billion. It is estimated by the Relationships Foundation to have an equivalent cost to the UK taxpayer of £1,470 a year each. Of course, that figure is still rising—currently £46 billion and increasing.

Support for marriage, therefore, simply cannot be dismissed as giving money to those who are already comfortable. As we have heard, this proposal will disproportionately benefit those on the lower half of the income scale, but it is much more than that. It is a matter of social justice. Supporting marriage is progressive. It is the right thing to do, not only for individuals but for the beneficial public consequences it promotes. If arrangements have beneficial public consequences, such as good environmental conduct or saving for one’s pension, it is established practice that such public benefits are recognised by the tax system. So it should be with marriage.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Osborne]

I will take a couple of interventions in a while. I have only 15 minutes for my opening remarks because we want lots of contributions later in the debate.

It was not fair that benefits were unlimited. We have introduced a cap. It was not fair that those looking for work faced marginal tax rates as high as 96%, sapping the incentives to find a job. We are addressing that through universal credit. It was not fair that benefits were rising much faster than wages; not fair that people who could never afford a place with a spare room subsidised the spare rooms of others; not fair that people who did not speak English could receive out-of-work benefits without even trying to learn it; and not fair that the long-term unemployed were cycled and recycled through the new deal. That was not fair, but it was the welfare system we inherited. It was unfair to those trapped in poverty and to the millions of people who paid for it. It was a perverse distortion of what William Beveridge had conceived. In the face of opposition to each and every measure we have introduced, we are removing those distortions, restoring the work incentives and creating a fair welfare state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

This is a huge system that will apply to millions and millions of people. Let me tell the House what we are going to do. I know that this will come as a complete shock to the Labour party, but we are going to take our time, get it right, and make sure that we do not put everyone on to a new credit with which the system cannot cope, which is exactly what the Labour party did with tax credits. All of us who were Members of Parliament at that time remember people coming to our surgeries who had been treated shockingly by a Labour Administration who had not got their administration right.

As I was saying, we will set the cash limit for the welfare cap at £119 billion. If inflation is higher than forecast, the Government cannot wash their hands of that either. Public services such as the police and transport have to absorb higher inflation, so why should welfare budgets be different? [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; there is a private conversation going on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has done more to reform the welfare state than any of that lot.

The charter makes clear what will happen if the welfare cap is breached. The Chancellor must come to Parliament, account for the failure of public expenditure control, and set out the action that will be taken to address the breach. Then the House of Commons—the ultimate guardian of the people’s money—

[Steve McCabe]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray]

I do, and I think that is the assessment that many economists, academics and politicians have been making over the past few weeks. The Governor of the Bank of England made the very same assessment, and the Scottish Affairs Committee deserves great credit for the amount of work they are putting in on the issue.

Let me go back to the central message of the Governor’s speech. He said that currency union requires fiscal, economic and political union to avoid financial crisis. It is precisely that fiscal, economic and political union that the SNP seeks to dismantle with its obsession with independence. When the First Minister met the Governor of the Bank of England a few weeks ago, there was one person in that room who would control Scotland’s fiscal, monetary and spending policies in a currency union after independence, and it was not the First Minister.

A key test that the Governor set for any currency union is that a centralised fiscal authority would need to control about 25% of that fiscal union’s GDP. That is about 50% of the spending in Scotland. The SNP immediately responded by saying that they would have 100% control over taxes and spending in an independent Scotland, so by default, it is the SNP that has ruled out a currency union by completely ignoring the central warning of the Governor’s full analysis.

We do not have to look too far back into history to see that the Governor was correct. The euro created sovereign debt crises, financial fragmentation and large divergences in economic performance. That clearly illustrates the risks and challenges of creating and maintaining a formal currency union across different states with differing economies.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

People in my constituency have said that they should be entitled to a say on the terms on which an independent Scotland might continue to use the pound, for the very reason that they fear that, if the conditions are not sufficiently strict, they could end up with a Greek euro situation, with workers in one country paying to prop up the financial circumstances in another. Does my hon. Friend agree that people in Selly Oak, and indeed, in England, have a point on that?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. A currency union is a question not only for Scotland, but for the rest of the United Kingdom, because the stabilisers that require a currency union would be stabilisers that England or the rest of the United Kingdom would have to use, as well as Scotland. It is a question for the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is a very valuable intervention from my hon. Friend, who is from an English constituency. [Interruption.] I can hear SNP Members chuntering, “Scaremongering”. Well, I hope that they go back and tell their constituents that the SNP disregards what they are saying as scaremongering rather than as raising legitimate issues about the currency and jobs.