Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I was also going to say that it was a pleasure to be in the company of so many Members who had participated in Finance Bill Committees during this Parliament, but one by one they have disappeared from the Chamber—even the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been one of the most assiduous Committee members—which is a shame as I was looking forward to hearing the usually very robust views they express, when we are upstairs in Committee at least. Presumably they have something else on their mind today.

The period we are in, which spans one VAT increase to possibly another, is a very interesting one. One of the things that the Government are trying to say—interestingly, some of the other parties are trying to say the same—is that there is no difference between the policies of the Government and the Opposition and that we would all have to make the same decisions. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly stated that there is a huge difference between the forward plans of the Government and those of the Opposition. Our policies involve a different attitude towards spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit over a period. That is what we said back in 2010; we were clear that we would be following a different pathway. We were not deficit deniers, as was sometimes suggested, but we were clear that we had a different view on how this could best be handled and that there would therefore be fairness in our measures. That remains the case because, prior to the Budget, the IFS said that, given our forward plans and taxation proposals, in contrast to the £55 billion of spending cuts the Conservatives would have to find, the Labour Opposition would be looking to make only £4 billion of spending cuts. More recently the IFS has said that in order to carry out our plans we would not need to make any further spending cuts in the forthcoming Government. So that is a very big difference in our policies. From that point of view, we are in a position to say not just that we would not increase VAT, but that we have a different and much fairer road to go down.

It is right for us to ask what the Government—whether the coalition or the Conservative party; it is not always clear—would be doing. Not only have they said that they need to find those spending cuts to carry out their deficit reduction proposals, but they have also suggested further tax reductions through the continued raising of the tax threshold. At no time since that announcement was made by the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference has there been any clarity as to where that money would be coming from. So not only are they clearly tied to making substantial departmental spending cuts, but they have not shown us how they are going to close this financial gap. That is why people are saying, “We think it’s going to be VAT.” It is hard to tell where else it might come from. Of course, if it is coming from somewhere else, we would expect that to be said. So the Prime Minister stands up and says, “Oh no, we won’t be increasing VAT,” but the other half of that statement has not been made. We do not know how he is going to square this circle.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

As we saw in 2010, what the Prime Minister says this side of an election is not necessarily the same as what then happens in future Conservative Budgets. Has my hon. Friend also pondered the quandary that they might stick to their pledge not to increase VAT this time, but they have not ruled out extending the scope of VAT to currently exempt items?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is clearly another way the Conservatives might seek to close this gap they have opened up for themselves.



We need to know a lot more about this going forward, and so do the electorate. As hon. Members have said, VAT is a regressive tax. Even though those who have bigger spending power sometimes spend more and so may, in cash terms, spend more in VAT. It is a regressive tax, as are all these indirect taxes. Our position on this is clearly different: we do not believe it is right that people on low incomes should be taxed, in effect, to give other people tax cuts.

We have said a great deal about the 50p issue, which we will discuss later this afternoon, but one of my big concerns for some considerable time has been that low-paid workers already under the tax threshold were being offered nothing from the Government, who constantly talk about raising the tax threshold further. They have no plans to help those people any more. Those people face a real risk that if VAT is increased, they will end up paying the price of a reduction in income tax from which they will not benefit by one penny.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Last Thursday when I was going home on the train I read in the Evening Standard an article pointing out that our debates on this Budget, the previous Budget and the ones before that are not just a reprise of each other, but a reprise of the 1930s. The argument that the way to cure the country’s economic problems is to cut, cut, cut, took place in the 1930s and was proved wrong, yet here we are again. If MPs from that time were in the Chamber today as ghosts, they would think that they were still alive and taking part in the debate.

That has not all happened by accident, and the Government are following an ideological path. They told us that the public sector is a drag on the economy and that if we did not cut it back the private sector would never spring into growth. In fact, the public sector is a huge customer of the private sector, both institutionally, from the construction works it undertakes right down to the stationery it buys, and individually, because a public sector worker is a private sector consumer. Individual workers contribute to their local economies by buying and furnishing their homes, buying new bikes and cars and spending on all sorts of other consumer durables. Cutting all that directly affects the private sector, which is exactly what we have seen for the past three years.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not an absolute truth that in 2010 all the economic indicators, including consumer confidence, were heading in the right direction, yet almost immediately at the point that the Government turned off the taps and brought in their austerity Budget, consumer confidence plummeted?

[Sheila Gilmore]

As a result of the stimulus provided by the previous Government, all those measurements were turning in the right direction at that time—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister who is laughing ought to look, as I did last weekend, at the OBR report on the June 2010 pre-Budget report. He might not be laughing quite so hard then. The Government fail to analyse the problem correctly, so it is not surprising that they do not arrive at the right decision.

On jobs, it is not surprising that the Chancellor did not want to dwell on unemployment and this week’s increase. All we hear about is the increased number in employment. For once, I will not dwell on the statistics—others have done so, and I mentioned them in an intervention, but I want to highlight what the jobs situation means in the real world.

Last Saturday, I was out knocking on doors in my constituency. Within half an hour, I had met two people who were good examples of what the jobs situation means for them. One man had a 15-hour a week job in a local supermarket. No doubt these flexible short-term jobs are quite useful for the employer in meeting peak demand, and, of course, a person working 15 hours for the minimum wage will be below the national insurance threshold, which is another advantage for the employer. He had asked for more hours because he will be hit by the bedroom tax, but he was told that extra hours were not available.

Even if the hours were available, whom would they be taken from? My constituent might be given more hours, but unless there is a need for extra hours to be done in that job, another employee will get fewer hours, or another person would not get a job. Counting low-hour part-time jobs—we should remember that some so-called full-time jobs involve low hours—and saying, “Aren’t they wonderful?” is to forget that we are talking about real people. What effect does that have on them? The man is working and wants to work. More work in future would be good for his well-being, but he remains in poverty, like so many others.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Andrew Gwynne and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I want to talk about council tax benefit. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is one of the few Government Members to have raised concerns. Another Government Member who raised concerns served with me on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, where we discussed this issue extensively. He, too, expressed considerable doubts about the council tax benefit proposal, especially as another Government Department, the DWP, has a project for universalising benefits under one umbrella—which might not be as easy as it thinks. Why keep council tax out of that?

That is a very good question. One of the main reasons that the Government give for making such a huge change in welfare law in this country is to incentivise work and to make sure there are not the kind of perverse incentives that they think arise as a result of things such as different tapers on different benefits. There are, indeed, different tapers at present for tax benefits and housing benefit, but if we create a situation whereby everything apart from council tax goes into universal credit, we will immediately recreate an anomaly. That will have a work disincentive unless it is very carefully worked out. We must question why two major Departments do not seem to be talking to each other about that.

The 10% reduction is a substantial reduction in the money available to local authorities to provide assistance to people on low incomes who need help. It should not simply be seen as something quite minor. I thought, particularly having worked on the Welfare Reform Bill, that this was primarily about saving money, but having read a lot of the comments in the consultation about this Bill, I realise that it is part and parcel of the Government’s view of local authorities: that they are not trying hard enough to get people into work. The Housing Minister said to the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government that the 10% reduction would encourage local authorities to make sure that business parks got off the ground and that people got into jobs—because of course, if people had jobs they would not then need council tax benefit. Actually, that is not true.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really interesting point about the perverse incentives that the Bill will introduce. Does she accept that in fact it will really clobber hard-working families who are struggling to make ends meet on low-paid work, and who rely on council tax relief to ensure that they can afford to work? In areas such as mine, it is those low-paid jobs that people will give up.