Finance (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Deputy Speaker for his clarification. The link is clear. It is to do with the allocation of resources and the agreement that has been made. It also goes fundamentally to the heart of the Liberal Democrats and how they intend to vote on the matter. We believe they are likely to abstain on the measure, although we have not had that confirmed. We hope and assume that although they will abstain on the Government’s motion in relation to implementing the marriage tax allowance, they will support our call for a review. If the measure goes through, they would have as much of an interest as we would in ensuring that it is properly reviewed and monitored in the months to come, and that the Government take seriously the proposals for possible alternatives that benefit a larger number of families throughout the country.
The Opposition believe that the money allocated to the marriage tax allowance could be put to much better use elsewhere. That is why we have pressed the Chancellor to scrap it, and to use the money to give tax help to many more working people instead, including more married couples and more families.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am interested that the Opposition want to give tax cuts to hard-working people, yet they voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, which provided a tax cut for 25 million people.
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 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?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Let us consider the following words:
“I believe in marriage, I believe marriage should be recognised in the tax system. I see this as yes, a start of something I would like to extend further”.
They are not mine; I plagiarised them from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is no longer in her place, was trying to suggest that the Prime Minister did not support this policy, because it was certainly in our manifesto and he is the person who said that from the Front Bench.
I am not married. Do I feel disadvantaged, as a consequence, that I will not benefit from this transferable tax allowance? No, I certainly do not. I will have a warm heart voting for clause 11 to stand part of the Bill, because I believe that marriage is an important institution at the heart of a strong society, as the Government are indicating, and it has been clear for some time that we wanted to bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. We have been hearing about how, “You can only spend the money once”, but the Opposition have managed to spend their version of the bankers’ bonus tax about 11 times. So it is a bit extraordinary to hear some of these comments. As has been said, this is about choices. The choices this Government made in this Budget were to reduce income inequality to its lowest level in 28 years, whether through council tax cuts, or through freezing or cutting fuel duty, as we have done in previous Budgets. This Government are certainly helping families of all models in this Budget.
We debated child care yesterday, and it is right that we start supporting marriage. Some are saying, “Oh, 4 million married couples. You are not helping people.” But of course we are helping 8 million people as a result of this measure, and that is to be welcomed. My hon. Friends will note that the Labour party is committed to reversing this tax transfer. It will come in before the election, so Labour is automatically saying to 8 million people, “We will be putting up your taxes because of our dogma.”
I appreciate that the Front Benchers still need to speak in this debate, Mr Caton. What I want to put across strongly is that there is no arbitrary disadvantage, marriage is a good thing and we should support it. We do the same for people who save, by increasing the individual savings account limit. We do it for people who put into pensions, whom we support with tax relief. We do it for businesses that invest in their businesses, helping to create jobs. That is what we are doing and although only a token amount of money is involved here, it will be very welcome.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech in favour of marriage, but does she not accept that the Government proposal does not recognise two thirds of marriages? Where both partners in the marriage are working to provide for their family, that marriage is not recognised as valid in terms of this policy.
Dr Coffey
They certainly do. This measure is a start. We do not have tons of money, and the fact that resources are scarce has been well pointed out. Nevertheless, we are doing things that reduce the income inequality for families across the country, using the long-term economic plan. It has meant that gilt rates have been able to stay relatively low, which means that mortgage rates have stayed low and that is probably doing more for people than anything else, along with our fuel duty freezes and indeed cuts in previous Budgets. Those kinds of things are helping families, be they married or not.
I appreciate that time is short and others are waiting to speak, Mr Caton. I just wish firmly to say that although I am a singleton—I thought I had met Mr Right 20 years ago, but it did not work out—I hope that every married couple benefiting from this will recognise that at least they can go and have a nice wedding anniversary with a little bit more cash from the Government.
Sheila Gilmore
We hear so much in this House about how little money there is and how hard it is, yet certain members of the Government support this measure. It appears that not all do—the Lib Dem part of the coalition may or may not support it; it said it did not previously. We are talking about only a small amount of money, but let us see what it is equivalent to. Many people in this country have been outraged by the Government’s bedroom tax. Even if that makes the savings the Government claim it will, which I doubt, it will save less than the amount this measure will pay out. That is the problem: the Government say that the issue that has to be addressed all the time is saving money, but clearly when it comes to some things saving money is not quite so important. There are priorities, and the Government have chosen to make this policy one of them.
I believe we should be giving particular help to families with children, and not just to couples because they happen to be married. Apart from in respect of the very poorest, I have not noticed any great appetite to do away with the couple penalty that probably does apply in terms of people in the benefits system. But if two people choose to marry, we have an independent taxation system here and they can choose to work or not work, so I do not see where any great penalty is being applied to marriage. For those who have children the situation may be different.
If the Government wanted specifically to help parents who are staying at home with children, perhaps that is what they should have done. This measure does not do that; it helps couples where one person is not working, but it has no relationship with the needs of any children they may be raising. If our main aim is to help people with children and make sure that children are brought up in stable relationships, I cannot see what this measure has to do with that. The reason many relationships break down, whether or not they are marriages, has to do with financial insecurity and the difficulties that causes. Those struggling through a cost of living crisis and those who have lost out because of many of this Government’s policies particularly include the low paid. We can all pick and mix our experts—some hon. Members have cited views of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—but if we really want to help low-paid people, we must examine things such as the proposed tapering for universal credit. We need to examine the structure in place for working people who will be in receipt of universal credit—the replacement for tax credits. Under the current structure there is a serious lack of support for second earners in the family who want to start building up their earnings. We could be looking at such things, including child care help for low-paid families.
Very briefly, let me tackle something that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). He did not take my intervention, so I will deal with it now, and, as he raised the matter, it must be relevant to this debate. One statement that Government Members are always keen to make is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived, but it is not true. In 1946 unemployment was 2%, and in 1951 it was 1.3%. In 1951, at the beginning of the Tory Government, unemployment was 1.3%, and in 1964 it was 1.7%, so it went up under a Tory Government. Between 1979 and 1997, which was again a Conservative Government, unemployment went up from 5.2% at the beginning to 7.4% at the end, but for 13 of those 18 years, unemployment was above 10%. Therefore, the statement is not true, and it also completely distorts the appalling unemployment record of the Government between 1979 and 1997. I will now sit down and allow others to speak.
Finance (No.2) Bill
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but that help for families will not arrive until 2015 and beyond, after the next election. Many families could do with some support over the next 18 months, not just beyond 2015. There are also serious concerns about whether parents will actually be better off when the Government’s policy is introduced. I will say more about that later.
I shall turn now to the second part of new clause 1, which focuses on the impact of the tax and benefit changes introduced in this Parliament. Just last week, the Opposition published an analysis of figures produced by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, along with analysis by the House of Commons Library, which showed that working families with children, and one-earner families in particular, had been the hardest hit by the changes introduced since 2010. Those changes, which were voted through by Government Members, mean that on average, households will be a staggering £974 a year worse off by the next general election. It is worth listing what those tax and benefit changes will mean for families with children. The constituents of Government Members will no doubt be paying close attention to their household budgets when it comes to casting their vote in May 2015.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady tell us whether that analysis includes fuel duty? Does she agree that if this Government had kept the Labour fuel duty escalator going, petrol would cost 90p a gallon more today, the equivalent of £450 a year for the average family?
Catherine McKinnell
On average, by the time of the next general election, a family in which both parents are working will be £2,073 a year worse off. A family in which one parent works will be a staggering £3,720 a year worse off, and a family in which no parents work will be £2,114 a year worse off. A lone parent in work will be £1,335 a year worse off, and a lone parent who is not working will be £1,901 a year worse off. These changes are in addition to the impact of wages falling in real terms, which has left working people an average of £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. Households have faced 24 Tory tax rises over the same period. However, while millions of families have seen their real household incomes go down since 2010, millionaires have been given a huge tax cut by this Government. The top 1% of earners—85% of whom just happen to be men, by the way—have been given a £3 billion tax cut worth an average of £100,000 for those earning more than £1 million a year.
Catherine McKinnell
A family’s child care requirements are a family’s child care requirements. If somebody has to go to work and they need child care, they need to invest in child care for however many hours they need it for. The Government’s child care proposal does nothing to address the supply side issues, which is why Labour proposes to increase the number of free hours available for three to four-year-olds to help increase the supply of child care, which we have seen diminish under this Government.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
We have had this debate before in Westminster Hall. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the number of childminders fell under the previous Government? I realise that the point about quality has been made before; nevertheless, there were fewer childminders at the end of that Labour Government than at the start.
Catherine McKinnell
There are 3,000 fewer childminder places under this Government so I caution Government Members about trumpeting their success in this area, because it is far from a success for mums and dads who are struggling with soaring costs.
Catherine McKinnell
I think we risk going down the road of debating the quality of child care and issues to do with Ofsted registration, but I would question some of the hon. Lady’s assertions about the requirements for regulation and the absolutely fundamental importance of ensuring the quality of all child care places, including those with childminders.
Let me return to the issue of child care costs, which is what our new clause 1 seeks to get the Government to address. Gavin Kelly, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, has pointed out in relation to the Government’s recent increase in the cap from £6,000 to £10,000 for tax free child care:
“About 80 per cent. of the gains from this will flow upwards to those in the top half of the income distribution. It’s also the case that it’s low- and middle- income parents who find the costs of childcare the biggest obstacle to taking on more work—so targeting support at them would make sense.”
I should be interested to hear the Minister explain how effective the scheme will be in supporting the very parents who need help the most. I should also be grateful if she could clarify the Treasury sums on tax-free child care because, welcome though any extra support is for families struggling with child care costs, it is curious that the Government have managed to tweak their sums so that an almost doubling of Government support per child has not cost even a penny extra.
I am sure that the IFS would also be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question, as it has queried the matter. It said:
“Surprisingly, today’s announcements come with no new money. Extending the new Tax Free Childcare scheme to all children under 12 within its first year will cost money compared with a world where it was limited to children under 5, but the Treasury can make this announcement without altering its public spending plans because it has significantly revised down its estimate of how many families are likely to be eligible for the scheme (from 2.5 million to 1.9 million).”
It is not clear what has led to this dramatic change, so we cannot judge whether the new estimates are any more plausible than the initial ones, but the fact that the change is so large suggests that the Treasury would benefit from being more open about the way it costs new policies. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on these figures and how her Department arrived at them.
Ultimately, the simple truth is that, even if people spend enough to receive the full support, this help will not come until after the general election. That means no help with child care in five years from the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. Instead, Ministers have presided over soaring costs and cuts to tax credits for thousands of families, meaning that, even when this help comes, most families will still be worse off than in 2010.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I recognise the hon. Lady’s genuine concern about working parents and her ambition that the Government get on with increasing child care, but she must recognise that the number of hours of child care has increased under this Government. She should be gracious enough to accept that.
Catherine McKinnell
It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentions that, because I will quote directly on this issue a little further on in my submission.
We know that the Government are good at con tricks, giving with one hand but taking much, much more with the other. For example, they made a U-turn last month when they decided to support 85% of child care costs for all universal credit claimants. That was a welcome reversal after the coalition decided in 2011 to cut the support for child care through the working tax credit from 80% to 70%—a decision that led to an average loss of £570 a year for low-paid working parents. It is just another example of this Government taking with one hand and giving with the other.
As Alan Milburn, chairman of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has said, low-income families will still lose out, despite this increase in support for those most in need. He told The Independent on Sunday:
“The Government has taken half a step forward. The announcement that 85% of childcare costs will be met under universal credit from 2016 will help work pay for low-income families. This is very welcome. The sting in the tail is that this £200 million expansion in childcare support will come from within the universal credit programme…That risks robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Perhaps the Minister could also give a bit more detail on how she intends to pay for the increase in support. While she is at it, perhaps she could provide some clarity on when low-income families eligible for universal credit can expect to receive this support with their child care costs.
Under the original plans of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, most would have expected to receive the increased support when the tax free child care is introduced in 2015, but clearly that is not going to happen. Will the Minister clarify when the Government expect to introduce this support and whether it will be in the near future? Ultimately, as Opposition Members have made absolutely clear, parents facing a cost of living crisis will see through any child care con, because it does not make up for how much the families are now paying for child care under this coalition Government.
I come now to the first part of new clause 1 and the Opposition’s proposals for improving child care support, which we know will make a real difference to working parents. New clause 1 proposes that the Chancellor should undertake a review of the ways in which child care could be made more affordable before April 2015. We have done much of the work for him with our clear suggestions for supporting families on this pressing issue. We want to extend free child care for three to four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents, which can be fully funded by increasing the bank levy. As with the 15-hour early-years entitlement, the new 25 hours would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child each year. Perhaps most important, Labour’s plans will not demand that working parents spend £10,000 on child care in order to get the maximum promised help.
We also know that for school-age children, child care can become a logistical nightmare, with many parents increasingly struggling to find before and after-school child care, while the Government stick their fingers in their ears and hum. On the Government’s own record, 62% of parents of school-age children say that they need some form of before and after-school or holiday care in order to combine family life with work, but of those nearly three in 10 are unable to find it. To give parents of primary-age children peace of mind, the Opposition would set in law the guarantee that they could access wraparound child care from 8 am to 6 pm through their local school if they wanted it. This primary child care guarantee will benefit parents of primary-age children most, because those parents most need support. Of course, these plans will be in addition to all the support that parents will already receive, and they will not be contingent on spending thousands of pounds on child care in order to qualify.
At Prime Minister’s questions recently, following a Budget empty of any measures to address the problem now, I asked the Prime Minister to explain why his Government had failed to take the action to help parents with child care costs before the next general election. He answered:
“We are helping families with child care, not least by giving 15 hours…That is happening before the election; it has happened under this Government in this Parliament—15 hours of free nursery care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds…Opposition Members say it is not enough; it is more than Labour ever provided.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 344.]
That was not only a very complacent response but, unintentionally I am sure, misleading, and goes to show just how out of touch this Government are on this issue of child care.
The previous Labour Government introduced 12.5 hours of free nursery education for three to four-year-olds a decade ago, back in 2004, with the clear intention that that would be extended to 15 hours by 2010. Far from this being a coalition policy, the plan was inherited by the coalition from the previous Labour Government. As I set out, the future Labour Government will continue to build on this legacy, extend it to 25 hours a week for working parents, funded by an increase in the bank levy, and guarantee wraparound child care.
This was the Chancellor’s final opportunity to introduce policies that will really benefit parents before the general election, to give much needed support to working parents now, not in 18 months’ time. Parents have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than their pay. They are already spending more on child care than on their mortgage. They have already seen the number of nursery places fall by thousands. They have already seen hundreds of Sure Start centres close, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary. Of course, most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, already see child care costs as one of the biggest barriers to their going back to work or increasing their working hours. A review of the issue is both due and urgent, and I commend new clause 1 to the Committee.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I will not give way, because I want to make progress. The increase in the personal allowance will mean that a typical basic rate taxpayer will pay more than £800 less income tax per year than in 2010-11. That is real action to support the millions of people on low and middle incomes. It helps them to keep more of what they earn and rewards those who want to work hard. This Government and this Bill also recognise that people who rely on their savings income have been hit particularly hard by low returns in recent years. It is for that reason that we are cutting tax on savings for the lowest earners. From April 2015, the 10p starting rate of tax on savings will be abolished and a 0% rate will be extended to the first £5,000 of savings income above the personal allowance. That will benefit 1.5 million people with low earnings from some savings, and more than 1 million people will no longer pay any tax on their savings income at all.
It is no exaggeration to say that this Government have achieved sweeping reforms on pensions. Under the excellent leadership of my Liberal Democrat colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), our simplifications and reforms of the pensions sector will be one of this Government’s most enduring legacies. Automatic enrolment will see nearly 6 million people enrolled in workplace pension schemes by the end of this Parliament. The single-tier pension will provide millions of individuals with a firm foundation to support their saving, and it will particularly benefit those groups that, under the current system, have tended to build up low amounts of savings. I am talking about women with broken work records, the low paid and the self-employed. The triple lock has helped to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, and the recent Budget announcements provide us with the final thread of this coalition’s web of pension reforms.
From April 2015 we will allow individuals much greater choice about how they access their defined contribution pension savings. Individuals will be able to access their defined contribution as they wish, subject to their marginal tax rate, and no one will be forced to take out an annuity if they do not want to. We are well aware that this is the biggest shake-up of pensions in almost a century—since Lloyd George was the Liberal Minister in the Treasury. As such, we recognise that it is absolutely crucial that we get it right. We are consulting on the detail before making further announcements later this year.
In the meantime, the Finance Bill will make some initial changes to deliver greater flexibility with immediate effect. We are reducing the minimum income requirement for accessing pension savings flexibly from £20,000 to £12,000. We are increasing the annual withdrawal limit for individuals in a capped drawdown arrangement from 120% to 150% of an equivalent annuity. We are increasing the total pension wealth that can be taken as a lump sum from £18,000 to £30,000, and we are increasing the size of a pension pot that can be taken as a lump sum—regardless of other pension wealth—from £2,000 to £10,000. Taken together, these changes mean that more than 400,000 people will be able to access their pension more flexibly in the financial year 2014-15.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very liberal with his praise for various coalition colleagues. This has been a tremendous Second Reading so far in that we are liberating pensioners to make the best decisions for them. That, combined with the single-tier pension, means that we are putting people back in charge of their future.
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution on these matters and for those specific comments. She is right that these are very liberal reforms. They are something of which we as a coalition can be proud. We have swept away the morass of means-testing of pensioners that built up under the previous Government and have ensured that every pensioner has a firm foundation from the state. They have a better basic state pension paid at the level of the single-tier pension. There is much greater flexibility for people to choose how to use additional savings in defined contribution schemes; after all, it is their money. I would go even further and say that this Government and this Finance Bill are about not only freeing up pensioners but providing additional freedom both for working people to keep more of the money that they have earned for themselves and for businesses that wish to invest.
Charlie Elphicke
The Labour Government were delusional. I recall them saying for a long time that they had abolished boom and bust. It is great shame that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister, is seen so rarely in these parts these days; it would be interesting to hear his take.
Charlie Elphicke
Since he was bundled out of Downing street, he has been in the attic of Portcullis House but has been in the Chamber very rarely indeed. That is a shame.
One might think that the Labour party, having had four years to reflect, might not only accept full responsibility but try to develop its own economic plan. Saying how dreadful everything is but having no plan to take things forward is no plan to take to the country in a general election.
As I listened to the comments of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a question struck me: what does the Labour party have to say to the person who worries about their job, wants their business to succeed and would like their kids to do well? The party is adopting policies that are so anti-business and so unimaginative about any kind of job creation—other than spending the same money 10 times over and claiming that as a new pledge. It has so little to say to the country and about the future; all it can do is sink into a sea of negativity.
Amendment of the Law
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
It was very interesting because we scoured the Chancellor’s speech and all the documents for one mention of the cost of living and living standards, and there were none at all—none! Conservative Members say that we are not talking about what is in the Budget, but they are not talking about what is undermining the living standards of people up and down our country.
Last year, the hon. Lady said:
“If we do not believe that the poorest are best served by our policies, we might as well give up and go and do something else.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1023.]
I am afraid we are going to ensure that she has to give up and do something else.
It has been hard to understand what has been going on, but it is starting to make sense given all the Chancellor’s rebranding of recent weeks and months: the new less foppish hairstyle, the 5:2 diet, the new estuary accent, even photo opportunities down a coal mine—all part of his leadership business; the new working-class hero, not Gideon but George these days.
This weekend the Education Secretary took a further step in the Osborne rebranding. He said that it is “ridiculous”, and “preposterous” that Downing street is governed by a tight clutch of Etonians, and that that has got to change—we say “Hear, hear” to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, we all know what he was really trying to say through the pages of the Financial Times. He was saying, “Boris is a toff because he went to Eton, but George is a pleb because he only went to St Paul’s.” The Tory party is having a class war with itself. An Etonian elite has grabbed hold of the commanding heights of the economy, opposing the masses of Tories who went to lesser public schools. Old boys from Harrow and St Pauls, throw off your chains. What are they going to call themselves? The Bullingdon Bolsheviks? The Trust Fund Trots? Posh boys of the world unite?
In all seriousness, does the Chancellor really think that he can stand up for the interests of the energy companies, the hedge funds, Tory donors, deliver a massive tax cut to people earning more than £150,000, and then claim to be on the side of hard-working families—the party of the workers—just because he did not go to Eton? Posing as the posh boy proletarian will not wash when his own Budget ad campaign refers to working people as “them”, and when he will be remembered only as the Chancellor who cut taxes for millionaires while everyone else was worse off.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so I will conclude my remarks.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I do not think this clownish class warfare is fooling anybody, but does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that 472 of his constituents will no longer pay income tax as a result of yesterday’s Budget?
Ed Balls
The problem is that they are all worse off because VAT went up to 20%. Is the hon. Lady worried that in her constituency there has been a 600% rise in long-term youth unemployment since 2010, which she is doing nothing about? As for the idea that class war will not wash, if I were the Chancellor I would try to find a different way to take on Boris, as I do not think this way will work.
There is a cost of living crisis, we do not have a balanced recovery, and all this complacent Chancellor does is play party politics in the Tory party. What a mess—a right old Eton mess! Surely we can do better than this. This was the Chancellor’s last chance, his final opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis and make decisions that will directly affect people before next year, and he has blown it. Working people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010, and the country now knows, especially after today’s patronising “them and us” advert for the Conservative party, that it will take a Labour Budget to put things right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
1. What fiscal measures he plans to introduce to support young people into work.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is at ECOFIN and I have been asked to reply.
Youth unemployment is falling and the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance is 120,000 lower than in May 2010. No young person should be left behind in the recovery. That is why we have delivered 1.6 million apprenticeship starts so far this Parliament. We will abolish national insurance contributions for under-21s, which will help to support jobs for almost 1.5 million young people, and we are supporting up to half a million young people into education and employment through the Youth Contract.
Dr Coffey
I welcome the announcement in the autumn statement on the employers’ national insurance holiday for under-21s, which will be a big boost for many businesses in coastal towns such as those in Suffolk Coastal, and for pubs across the country, which regularly employ young people. Has my right hon. Friend estimated what impact the measure will have on youth unemployment?
Danny Alexander
We think the policy will have a significant impact. That is also the view of business organisations, which have warmly welcomed it. With the abolition of employer NICs for under-21s, it will become more than £500 cheaper to employ an under 21-year-old earning £12,000 a year, and more than £1,000 cheaper to employ an under 21-year-old earning £16,000 a year. Of course, employment is driven by a range of factors, but the wide welcome the measure has had suggests it will have a significant impact on employment.
Danny Alexander
I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman is doing to encourage employers in his constituency to offer work experience. The evidence of this Government’s work experience programme is that work experience is more effective than the future jobs fund and a great deal cheaper to deliver, so it is more cost-effective. He is on the right track in what he is doing in his constituency; his Front Benchers are on the wrong track.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
T7. A few weeks ago, I joined my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in presenting to the Chancellor a Boost Bingo petition with over 300,000 signatures, calling for a cut in bingo duty. [Hon. Members: “House!”] Will the Minister give to those who, day in, day out, enjoy bingo—including those who like to shout “House!”—comfort from this House that their concerns are being addressed in the forthcoming Budget?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
At this point in the year, all I can say to my hon. Friend is, “Let me take that as a further Budget submission.”
Holiday Pricing
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm whether the previous rule used to be about 10 days or 10 sessions? I think he will find that a session is actually half a day.
John Hemming
My hon. Friend may be right, but that has been changed anyway.
There is also the issue of the new regulations, which we discussed with the Backbench Business Committee. A group called Parents Want a Say was established following the introduction of the new regulations, and it has a website. A number of e-petitions relate to the issue of school holidays. E-petition 49640 is entitled “Reverse the changes to school term time family holiday rules”.
E-petition 53002 states that it is
“calling on the government to help British families manage the ‘Parent Trap’ of inflated holiday prices in summer by suspending or reducing the rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) for the annual school summer-holiday period of July and August.”
E-petition 45247 states:
“Relax the strict rules on term time holidays for school children.
Give parents the right to take their child on holiday in term time if the holiday would benefit the child.
Respect the rights of the child and bring term time holiday regulations in line with UNCRC (specifically article 3,4,5 and 31).
Standardise the criteria for term time holiday approval to prevent inconsistencies.”
E-petition 46455 states:
“Family time is so much more essential in the current working world, but so many people cannot afford holidays in school holidays. A break at home is not the same as getting away from it all where there isn't any house work or DIY to get done, instead focus is on family. Its time to stop the holiday companies cashing in on school holidays and let parents have some guilt free family time! Enforce action that caps the percentage increase on holiday prices in school holidays.”
There are also e-petitions 55426, 51533, 42884 and 23709, which I am not going to read out. This debate is a very good example of how effective an e-petition can be in getting an issue of considerable concern to many constituents across the country raised and debated in Parliament. It looks to me like an example of the success of the e-petition system.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I also thank my colleague on the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), for securing it. When the e-petition came to us, we recognised its importance, not only because it reached 100,000 signatures, but because of the number of constituents who talked to us about the issue. His comprehensive speech—I hope I do not repeat any of it—highlighted how this is about individual cases. A big national policy that is supposed to apply to every single case will simply not work. I want to use a couple of examples from my own constituency to highlight how a more sensible policy would look at each individual case—each individual child and each individual parent—and give schools far greater discretion to allow people out of school and for how long.
We all agree that education is crucial and that the more time a child misses from its education, the worse it is for that child. Nobody is arguing for taking children out of school indiscriminately just because it is a little cheaper to go on holiday. We are talking about the people who are least able to afford to go on holiday, who have already got the greatest pressures on them.
A constituent of mine, Tim Farmer from Dronfield, has written to me. He and his partner share child care. One of them starts work at 6 am and the other finishes work at 11 am. They cannot afford to take their children on holiday during term time, and not spending time together means that the family is put under pressure. Heaped on top of that, they work absolutely punishing hours and never get the chance to spend time together as a family. That puts additional pressures on family life, and we are seeing, especially at a time of austerity, more and more families breaking up. We must look at the costs of not doing anything about it.
I have a distressing case in which the school’s response illustrates how a national policy does not really work in individual cases. The case involves a man who is separated from his wife. His seven-year-old daughter goes to a school in the constituency; he lives 120 miles away and visits on alternate weekends. The girl has just been diagnosed with a brain tumour, and they do not know what will happen to the child. He has asked the school whether he can take the girl on holiday for a week. The school has cited Government legislation to say there will be no unauthorised absences. It sounds quite threatening, but the school has no option, because of the rules. The school wrote:
“As from 1st September 2013 any holidays during term time will not be authorised, unless there are exceptional circumstances, for which there are set strict criteria. This is Government policy and parents who take their children on holiday without permission will incur unauthorised absences for their child. These remain on the child’s record and will be monitored for further action by the Education Welfare Service. Parents could be issued with a fixed penalty notice and/or court action.”
That is quite threatening language, but it is national policy. If a child with a brain tumour does not fall under the category of a special case, I do not know what does.
Tim Farmer’s children have got 99% to 100% attendance at school. He wants the best for them, but he also says that going on holiday with the family provides a cultural experience, a broadening of horizon and a stability for the children that helps them. Education is much wider than what people get at school.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Has a teacher or head teacher approached the hon. Lady on this topic, and, in this particular case, has she had a chance to speak to the teacher at the school, because head teachers do have discretion?
Natascha Engel
Absolutely, and the case is ongoing. I was citing it as an example of using a massive hammer to crack a nut. Everything is with good intentions. We all want the best education for our children. We all know that the less time a child spends at school, the worse its outcomes will be, and there are lots of different reasons for that. There are children from chaotic families and children who truant, but we are talking about looking at an individual child and the family’s circumstances and seeing whether it would be possible, not to have a week a year taken out of school time, but to have a week occasionally to make sure that that family can spend some quality time together. I am so glad that we are having this debate, and I am looking forward to hearing about other individual cases from constituencies, because they will highlight the fact that we do need to revisit the matter.
Obviously, we cannot force holiday companies not to raise their prices during school holiday times, but we do need to have a far more sensible and pragmatic approach. We need to give schools greater discretion to allow families to have holidays together.
Lorely Burt
I should be delighted to do that. There is a large element of the Asian diaspora based in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
Maintained school and academy heads could previously authorise 10 days’ leave, but there is no jurisdiction over the private school sector. Academies normally work for 190 days a year, and private sector schools work, on average, 165 days. There is a measure of irony about that. The children with the wealthiest parents get most choice about when they can go on holiday.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I hope to mention the issue of the 10 days in my speech, but the hon. Lady will recognise that the regulation makes allowance for “special” as opposed to “exceptional” circumstances, as set out in the previous regulations. What does she consider “special” circumstances?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. I had not planned to do so at 4.30 pm, but have been motivated by some of the speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who was right to take up the debate, which is important, as recognised by so many parents signing the e-petition. It deserves time in Parliament.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), in the closing paragraph of her speech she said that she wanted head teachers to have discretion, but she also wanted guidance from the Department on what constitutes “exceptional”. That is part of the issue, although a little bit of history might explain some of the situation.
The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) is still in his place, and he might be aware that section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced the power for education authorities to issue penalty charge notices in cases of unauthorised absence. To avoid confusion, I was mistaken in what I said earlier about 10 days, because the power is automatically triggered when there are 10 sessions—in effect, five days—of unauthorised absence. That is what triggers the penalty charge notice. That was the case before the more recent statutory instrument was introduced last year.
That takes us back to the idea of what is “special” and what is “exceptional”. The 2006 regulations refer to 10 days of leave—up to 10 days—to be granted by the head teachers in their consideration of what constitutes “special circumstances”. The 2013 regulations removed all the references to when people could be away, saying that the head teacher is the person who can grant leave of absence in “exceptional circumstances”. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, the difference between “special” and “exceptional” is largely one of semantics. I am not sure that it is right for the Department for Education to define one word or the other, but as has been said consistently, it is appropriate for the head teacher to define whether people may take their child out of school.
Andy Sawford
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Notwithstanding the principle, part of the problem with making the change through a statutory instrument is that there was not the debate that there would have been otherwise—for example, if there was primary legislation with a proper consultation, or even informal debate in the Chamber—on the meaning of the terms. That would have been critical for head teachers and Members in understanding the statutory instrument and its effect.
Dr Coffey
I do not profess to be an expert on parliamentary procedure or on why certain bits of legislation are introduced under the negative or the affirmative resolution procedures. That tends to be defined in the original Act—in this case, I do not know who was responsible for the very original Act and whether it was 1944 or 2006. The original Act is when the process for the introduction of future secondary legislation is decided, but the hon. Gentleman is aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley pointed out, that any Member of the House or of the other place may trigger a stay on any regulation on negative resolution by signing an early-day motion. That is a mechanism available to us all. I recognise that MPs therefore have to be even more on the ball about checking what statutory instruments are up for affirmative or negative resolution. That information, however, is made available to every Member of the House in the vote bundle.
On “exceptional” or “special”, I do not have children, so I do not pretend that I have to face the issue. I have, however, had six parents contacting me, four of whom cited cost. In one of those situations, incidentally, teachers had given activities for the children to do while away from school. Another case involved getting time for the children with the other parent. The sixth person who contacted me did so about parental choice: it is for parents to decide when their children go on holidays, not schools, because teachers could make up the time, with the children given special projects. I am not sure that that is necessarily acceptable behaviour. I fully understand the issue about cost, but I have no idea why “special” versus “exceptional” makes a difference for the head teacher in assessing such a decision.
In my time, I have been involved in children’s education as a school governor in two different schools. I will not say which school, because it would be unfair on the head teacher, but in one we discussed the issue in lengthy detail. Parents had almost come to see it as a right to request the time off, and the head teacher would be given a hard time by the parents unless up to 10 days of leave were given. We felt that that was wrong, because it put pressure on the head teacher, as well as on the classroom teacher, who had to cope with the child missing 10 days of schooling.
There is no doubt of the strong link between a school’s attendance records and attainment at the school. That cannot, of course, be proved for every single child, but it is fair to say that, in the schools in my constituency where attendance rates are significantly below the average, I see a significant difference in the attainment of the children. We need to stand up for that consistently: it is not necessarily simply about the individual child—although that child’s education is important—but about all the children in the classes. We need to remember that.
I had not planned to speak and I do not wish to extend the debate unduly, but the regulations introduced last year still leave the head teacher with appropriate discretion. In cases of children with military parents, or those whose parents wish them to attend a funeral, the situation remains the same. There is no automatic right for parents to remove a child in such a case, unless they wish to go down the unauthorised absence route, but by changing the focus and putting in regulation that circumstances must be exceptional, the right expectations are set for parents. It is not therefore a right to take a child out of school for up to 10 days of holiday, as referred to in regulation. What is allowed is exactly what is said: if there is no other opportunity for a particular situation to happen, head teachers may use their discretion. Frankly, if MPs hear of cases in which that is not being applied, we should take them up on behalf of the parent.
John Hemming
Does my hon. Friend agree, as she probably does, that a funeral would be a valid use of exceptional circumstances? Perhaps we should be concerned about Ofsted possibly putting pressure on head teachers to reduce the numbers to such a low level that they cannot even take into account exceptional circumstances.
[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]
Dr Coffey
I am not aware that Ofsted is applying that particular pressure. I agree on one aspect, however. I would be surprised and disappointed were a head teacher to refuse a request in the case of a funeral. As a slight aside, however, I was disappointed when a Whip initially refused me permission to be away to attend a funeral—when I made my representation directly, he changed his mind.
We need consistently to support our teachers, who want to give children the best education possible. We should remove unnecessary pressures on head teachers. I welcome any talks there might be on seasonal pricing, but I encourage us to stand firm and ensure that we put education first.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I just want to make the Minister aware that not everyone present wants Parliament, the Education Committee or Ministers to determine schools’ term dates. We really should leave such decisions to be made locally. Schools currently manage to cope quite well. Different parts of the country already have different holiday dates for different traditions—for example, places such as Leicestershire and Wigan. We should allow local authorities to work with schools to recognise what is best for their areas.
Jenny Willott
I must confess that as an MP representing a Welsh constituency, I benefited significantly last week when Parliament was in recess because it was half term in England. When I went home to Cardiff, all the places I took my small children were mercifully empty because half term in Wales is this week. There is already a difference between some areas, and it is possible to enable that on a broader basis in order to extend the peak period, which would hopefully bring down prices across the sector.
To conclude, the Government are not convinced that higher prices in school holiday periods are the result of market abuse by the holiday industry. Rather, they reflect market forces in a very competitive sector, and are made worse by the fact that there is international competition as well. I recognise the fact that family holidays can be incredibly valuable, but they should not be at the expense of a child’s education. School attendance throughout the school year remains critical—we know that pupils who stay at school for longer do much better in their final exams.
Fairness and Inequality
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman has made this point on numerous occasions. He is absolutely correct to say that the level of debt has increased under this Government, but for a party that says the level of debt should have increased at an even faster pace, it is hardly reasonable to argue that this Government have therefore failed. It should also be pointed out that we have an NHS that is, rightly, much more expensive and costly than it was in 1948, so that is a false analogy.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Dare I say it, but the comment by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) shows that until we balance our books and are in surplus we will never start to pay down debt. His motion contradicts his desire to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.
Guto Bebb
I fully accept and endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important, when we debate public spending and the level of so-called cuts, to bear in mind that we are running a state that is not meeting its obligations. Even in this financial year, we are borrowing £110 billion. We are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. It would be an irresponsible Government who would damage the opportunity for people to have more equality through a willingness to borrow more without any plan to reduce the country’s level of debt.
Banking
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It has been widely trailed today that a future Labour Government, if elected, would try to force banks to sell off branches. That will cause great concern, particularly in rural areas, because it is their branches that would be most likely to be disposed of. How would his proposals help create competition for our high street businesses?
Chris Leslie
This is not about shutting branches; it is about making a more competitive sector. Time after time, we have tabled amendments to financial services Bills calling for more competition in the banking sector. The Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, called for action to diversify the banking sector, but the Treasury’s approach to divestments of branches from NatWest and Lloyds was not exactly a raging success. It would have been better if the Government had taken our advice and gone for a competition review of the retail sector and not just the business banking sector. They often say “We are looking at competition”, but it is usually only in business banking. They need a more comprehensive approach; the customer needs better service and competition to bring down fees and charges.
There is still no obligation on banks to provide a basic bank account for all customers, even though we know it helps people on low incomes to save money and plan their budgets. The jury is out on whether the seven-day current account switching service will be enough or whether steps should be taken towards full portability of bank accounts for customers. The Government could introduce a fiduciary duty of care, explicitly putting the best interests of customers first and foremost in the financial services sector.
Today, banks are an essential utility; they are supposed to be there to help customers, not to hinder the economy or act like untouchable vested interests. We need to clean up the behaviour of the banks and end the culture of excessive risk and reward. Those are the traits of the old economy; the new economy that we need demands a more modern banking sector—more competitive and diverse, accountable to its customers, supporting long-term investment at home and delivering the sustained growth that we need. That will be the task of the next Labour Government.
Sajid Javid
What I do accept is that badly structured and badly designed bonuses will lead to bad behaviour. I am sure that the hon. Lady herself accepts that if an arbitrary cap is imposed on bonuses and it leads to an increase in fixed pay but no overall fall in overall pay, the bad behaviour will actually worsen.
We are putting our house in order. We are learning from the huge mistakes of the last Government, and are ensuring that we create a country in which the public can trust that their money is secure and our banking sector can flourish.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is making great progress in the debate. Will he also mention the fact that taxpayers are now benefiting from the fines that have been levied on the industry, and that the Chancellor has extended the arrangement to ensure that military charities and others benefit?
Sajid Javid
I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to that. It was the right thing to do, and it demonstrates that we can take some of the money that is coming from the banking sector and use it for good causes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
We have made a commitment to one-for-one replacement. Housing starts, under the planning system, cannot be started instantly, which is surely a lesson that the hon. Gentleman should have learned during his many years in this House. The commitment is there and every one of those homes sold will be replaced by a newly built home.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of the current level of the national deficit.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast public sector net borrowing on an underlying basis to be £111 billion, or 7.3 per cent. of GDP in 2013-14, down from 11 per cent. of GDP in 2009-10, the highest deficit in our peacetime history. By 2018-19 the OBR forecasts that the UK will be running a small surplus.
Autumn Statement
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other MPs local to my constituency. I know how important the second Mersey crossing is—he and I have joined forces over many years to try to deliver it—but I would draw a distinction: the A14 was an existing road that wanted upgrading, but of course it is controversial to put tolls on an existing road, whereas the bridge is a new bridge, and there is a long-established principle, from the Humber to the Severn estuary, that new bridges have tolls. Local people will have strong views on the level of the tolls, however, and I am happy to discuss that with my honourable neighbour.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his statement today. It shows how this Government are full of energy in driving forward British business and finding solutions. I want to give particular thanks for the A14 situation. Is it not important that we continue to dismiss the scaremongering and show that Britain is open for business?
Mr Osborne
Britain is very much open for business. We are now the destination for a huge amount of investment from around the world, and we have some very important ports, one of which in particular depends on the A14. That is an important strategic link. We have listened to representations from local people concerned about the prospect of tolling an existing road, albeit an improved one, and we will ensure that the road is improved, not just for local people, but for the whole country, but without imposing a road toll.