Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, provision was made in the local government financial settlement and the spending review to allocate up to £3.5 billion for adult social care by the end of the Parliament. The directors of social services and the Local Government Association actually asked for £2.9 billion, so our provision went beyond that. We also need to bring together the treatment of our elderly members of society so that councils and the NHS can, between them, look after those people well. After all, those requiring health care and social care are often the very same people. I know that, as a former Minister in the Department of Health, the right hon. Gentleman will favour that. Part of the devolution deals that we are pursuing will do that. We are seeing it happening in Manchester, and I hope that he will follow that with interest.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Clark]

I am going to make some progress, as I have said.

This Budget announces a number of new devolution deals establishing combined authorities for the West of England, Greater Lincolnshire and East Anglia, and there are more to come soon. Far from erasing local diversity, the deals make the most of it—for example, by bringing together shire, unitary and district authorities to work together for the common interests of their area. The Budget announces further transfers of power to the Liverpool city region and to Greater Manchester. This shows that establishing a combined authority, with the accountability of a directly elected Mayor, is just the beginning: a democratic basis for the ongoing devolution of power.

Growth deals are another front for the advance of localism. Through the business-led local enterprise partnerships, we are devolving control over the £12 billion local growth fund. The Budget explains how we will allocate the latest tranches of the fund. It will be done on a truly competitive basis to encourage ambition, innovation and the productive use of taxpayers’ money. I am also delighted to see the announcement of new city deals in Wales and Scotland. Specifically, the conclusion of a deal with the Cardiff capital region and the opening of negotiations with Edinburgh and south-east Scotland are important steps forward.

From north to south and from east to west, devolution is transforming our nation. In 2010, the UK was one of the most centralised countries in the free world. There were no combined authorities, and only one big city mayor. Nearly 80% of local government expenditure was centrally controlled. By 2020, there will be combined authorities across the country, and at least eight big city mayors. Local authorities will keep 100% of the income that they collect. This Budget describes and accelerates a process of profound change involving the revival and rebalancing of our economy, the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and the redistribution of power from the few to the many. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. The truth is that this Chancellor has been in charge of the nation’s finances for six years and he now wants to wash his hands of the mess he is making of the economy.

I was talking about an ethical hole at the Government’s core. We still remember Conservative Members cheering last Wednesday. They thought it was okay to rob the benefits of the most vulnerable for the purpose of cutting taxes for the better-off. It is not only the cuts to the welfare budget that illustrate the Government’s willingness to attack the poor; it is also the cuts to local government. Furthermore, the way in which the cuts are being distributed across local government equally illustrates the ethical hole that I have described. Those councils that face the greatest social needs are now suffering the greatest grant reductions.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Secretary of State would not give way to answer questions on social care, and that is unfair because it is a key responsibility. He keeps trotting out the usual figure of £3.5 billion, but that is a false premise because the Local Government Association wanted £700 million to cover the two years that will not be covered by the better care fund. My local authority can bring in £1.6 million from the 2% social care precept but it is going to cost £2.7 million to pay for the national living wage in the care sector. That is the sort of gap that we are faced with.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor, who, as part of devolution, has forced an elected mayor on Greater Manchester? Does he think we should have devolution without forcing elected mayors on areas that do not want them and never voted for them?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

This discussion is going to have to continue, because the most important thing is to have the support of the local authority.

I am worried about empire building. The new mayor is not going to operate out of a garden shed, although if one of us is elected in East Anglia perhaps we will do so. He or she is going to want to build a large empire and have a large number of staff, including directors of this and that division and department. Before too long, there will be a lot of pressure to have an elected assembly, and the heads of highways, infrastructure and housing will then become elected. Before we know where we are, we could well have an elected assembly.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has shown the courtesy to stay for my speech, because he has obviously been here a long time. People in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and London feel an affinity with and an attachment to their city, so they are more likely to support the idea of having a mayor. I feel absolutely no affinity whatsoever with East Anglia, but I do feel an affinity with Norfolk. Does East Anglia include the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire that will be in the combined authority? Does it include Essex as well? No, it does not. What about Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, just north of my county boundary?

I think that a mayoral election would face the problem of a pitiful turnout of perhaps 12% or 15%, so there would be no mandate. I am also worried that the institutions of Norfolk county could be undermined: this could be the death knell of Norfolk County Council, Suffolk County Council and Cambridgeshire County Council.

I also think this could lead to conflict with MPs. If I open a factory or campaign on a big issue and the elected mayor comes along and says, “Hang on, I also have a mandate of all of 12%,” and starts ordering us around, that is not good for the constitutional relationship between MPs and their voters. I am bruised by my experience of campaigning against the incinerator proposed by Norfolk County Council, when the local enterprise partnership suddenly waded in behind the county council.

I ask my right hon. Friend: can we have devolution, but can we also look very carefully at the idea of an elected mayor? Let us have devolution first, perhaps with a Minister for East Anglia. Perhaps that could be his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). Let us then move very cautiously before we turn to the election of a mayor. If I do not have an assurance from my right hon. Friend, it will wreck what is an absolutely outstanding Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to get beyond the Budget headlines, which often lead to cheers from the Government Benches, and instead consider some of the details and try to get some answers.

I want to return to the point I raised in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, in an intervention on the Secretary of State and then in a point of order, because I still have not had an answer. The Government have said that local authorities will be compensated for the change to small business rates relief, which amounts to £1.7 billion in the next financial year—2017-18—and to similar amounts in years after. He said it was mentioned on page 84, line 15, of the Red Book, but that refers to the cost to the Government of the small business rates relief changes; it does not show how local authorities will be compensated for that loss by a section 31 grant. Will someone please show me where in the Red Book the section 31 grant is described as compensating local authorities?

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very pressing issue? In Greater Manchester, the business rates retention scheme could be put in place as early as 2017. Will the Government even have finished the consultation by then? Where are we? We need to know where we are.

[Mr Betts]

Local authorities are entitled to absolute certainty. We can welcome the help for small businesses but not at the cost of local authorities and their services. If the Minister cannot explain this today, I hope that the Secretary of State, to whom I have written, can at least give us a written answer that can be made available to everyone else through the Library.

The Secretary of State went on to say that after 2020, because no grant will be available, compensation will be provided by a reduction in devolved powers to local councils, so that they will not have as many things to spend their money on—money they now will not get through business rates relief. It is a bit disappointing that the Government’s way out is to reduce devolution. That does not seem to be consistent with their claim to be devolving more powers all the time.

More worryingly, on the change between the retail prices index and the consumer prices index, which comes into force in 2020, how on earth will the Government find a mechanism by which to compensate authorities for that change, given that it will vary year on year? How will they do it, when the only way to provide compensation will be by changing the devolved powers available to local authorities, which cannot be done on a yearly basis? Will the Minister please provide the mechanism and explain it to us?

There will be a fundamental problem here after 2020. If any future Government were to introduce the sorts of changes this Government have made to business rates, where would it leave local authorities? Their income would simply be cut, and there would be no means by which to compensate them because there would be no revenue support grant in existence. Local authorities’ devolved powers cannot be changed on a year-to-year basis. This does not just throw up the need in future to devolve receipt of business rates to local authorities; we also need seriously to consider devolving the right to set business rates and business rates assistance. If that is not done, this will be sham devolution, and it will raise the great risk of future Governments on a whim being able to change the system on which local authorities will rely for a good percentage of their income. This problem has to be thought through.

I turn now to the four-year settlement that the Secretary of State rightly offered to local councils for the rest of the Parliament. Where is that left by the £3.5 billion of efficiency savings the Chancellor announced in his Budget and the £4.4 billion of extra savings that presumably have to be found now that the PIP cuts are not being carried through? In total, it would seem to amount to an extra £7.9 billion that he will have to find. Can we have a categorical assurance from Ministers that this will not affect the four-year settlement offered to local councils? I hope that it will not once again be a case of giving local authorities certainty for the Parliament, only to come back within a few months and ask for more cuts, which would put them in an impossible position.

Moreover, are we going to see further cuts to the public health grant, which the Government have not preserved? In the last Parliament, the public health grant was initially—up to 2013—part of the health budget and ring-fenced accordingly, but it is now part of the local government budget, and already this financial year it has seen a one-off cut of £200 million. It is estimated that there will be £600 million more in real-terms cuts by 2020. Will the grant face any further cuts as a result of the Chancellor’s need to fill the £7.9 billion black hole?

Finally, the Government have announced £115 million of help to tackle rough sleeping. It is a blot on our society and it is right that extra help is being given to deal with it, but to tackle homelessness properly—apart from the prevention at one end—we need more social housing to offer to homeless people. What do the Government have to say about the Chartered Institute of Housing’s report stating that there will be 300,000 fewer social rented homes by the end of the Parliament than there were at the beginning? What about the evidence that St Mungo’s gave to the inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee the other day stating that, unless the Government changed the link to the local housing allowance, all its help and provision for homeless people will have been closed by the end of the Parliament? That is a situation that no one can tolerate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

As is now abundantly clear, the Budget was developed with short-term politics in mind rather than compassionate, long-term economics. On one level, we have to admire the sheer audacity of the Chancellor: the audacity of someone who genuinely thought that he could get away with rewarding Tory donors in the City with a cut in corporation tax while attempting to cut benefits for disabled people, get away with cuts affecting those who were least likely to vote Conservative while sticking to his mantra that “we are all in this together”, or get away with preaching about the northern powerhouse just as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills closes its Sheffield office and moves all 200 jobs to London. Today, all that he has got away with is shirking his duty to come to the House and account for his failure and the black hole in his Budget, and his reputation is now in tatters.

There was never any compassion in trying to cut the benefits of 370,000 of the most vulnerable disabled people in our society by £3,500 a year. As we know, this Government have always hit disabled people hard, through the bedroom tax and cuts in employment and support allowance, but I would have had much more sympathy with today’s U-turn had it been based on the warnings from charities such as Sense, which called last Wednesday’s Budget a

“bleak day for disabled people”.

A constituent of mine is disabled, and determined to carry on working. The personal independence payment helps him to do that. When he gets home, his joints are so stiff that his wife has to help him go to the toilet and have a bath, yet he is determined to go on working. He wants to keep working because he wants to keep his dignity; the Chancellor wanted to take it away. The Chancellor has performed a U-turn, not to help my constituent and help him to keep his dignity, but in an attempt to keep his own dignity. All that we need to know now is who he will pick on next in order to fill the £4.4 billion hole in his Budget. We can be sure of one thing: even after today, the most vulnerable in our society will continue to pay for the Government’s failures.

Let us take the announcement of business rates relief. On the face of it, the announcement was good news for small businesses in my constituency, but our local councils could find themselves cutting more services for those in need in order to make up the shortfall in their budgets. In my local area, we are proud to have more small and medium-sized businesses in the economy. In Kirklees, small business relief accounts for 11% of net rates income, as opposed to 4% in England as a whole. When 100% retention is introduced and the promised compensation for the loss of income ends, the council will be stuck once again, trying the balance the books to pay for a short-term victory for the Chancellor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) explained so clearly, despite the vague assurance that we heard today that councils would be compensated, the Red Book includes no explanation of where the money will come from and how long it will last.

The Chancellor was no less audacious in telling us great things about the northern powerhouse. If only we could believe him. Electrification of the trans-Pennine rail route would be a crucial development, but the project has been announced, cancelled, re-announced, delayed, and then re-announced once more, and we still have no clear commitment from the Chancellor as to when it will happen. There is nothing clever about announcing big investments and then running for cover when it comes to their implementation.

Indeed, work has only just started on 9% of the projects in the Chancellor’s infrastructure pipeline. A lack of infrastructure investment fuels poor productivity. Like so many of the Chancellor’s audacious predictions, productivity forecasts—as we now know—have been revised down for the next five years, and, once again, it is the north that suffers as low productivity strangles economic growth, holds back wages, and delays the much-promised recovery. The output of the Leeds city region is now 12% behind the national average.

I am afraid that I can feel no compassion for this Chancellor. He wanted the poorest fifth in our country to lose an average of £550 a year, while the richest fifth gained £250.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech, but could she touch on the subject of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign? Women up and down the country must have been very disappointed that the Budget contained no move towards them. Those women, born in the 1950s, are really suffering.

[Jo Cox]

I could not agree more. There was also nothing for long-term social care, nothing for the NHS and nothing for the next generation, despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric.

In fact, the Chancellor was playing politics with some of the neediest people in our society. Those who put politics before economics take a risk. The Chancellor had obviously started to believe some of his own press; I wonder whether he still believes it tonight. He got the economics very wrong, but he also got the politics wrong. He should now come back to the House with a package that addresses the real long-term needs of the country, not his own short-term aspirations. He should stop playing politics, and start planning for an economy that works for the benefit of all, not just his wealthy mates. If he cannot do that, he should have the courage to say so and take the consequences, rather than asking others to pay for his failures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The fact is that the north will succeed despite this Government, not because of them, but we could have a whip-round to buy the Chancellor a map to explain to him where the north actually begins and ends.

My local health economy is currently engaged in the success regime process, which is already being undermined by Ministers in the Department of Health. A necessary body of work—working out how we adapt the Cumbrian health economy to best meet the needs of such a challenging geography and a dispersed population with specific needs—is becoming fatally compromised by the refusal of Ministers to listen to those who have been tasked with undertaking the success regime. To secure the outcomes and achieve the improvements that the clinicians and other experts within this process want, the system requires more resource. This is simple and obvious, and the request is being made, but the response from the Government so far has been a resounding no. Without additional resources, the success regime will fail, yet this Budget offers no help for our effort to recruit more health professionals; to finish the redevelopment of West Cumberland hospital; and to finally achieve the ambitions of everyone in Millom for our local hospital services or of the public and patients concerned about future services at Keswick, Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington hospitals.

[Barbara Keeley]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that two more cuts to the NHS will hit and cause extra pressures? There will be £650 million of pressure from the pension contributions that have to be paid for NHS staff and a £1.1 billion cut in the maintenance and repairs bill for the NHS. All of that will have to be found.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A great many people wish to speak in this debate. Every time there is an intervention—and these have been too long—another minute goes by and somebody else drops off the end of the list. Just so long as hon. Members know that when they make interventions, the time available for the debate does not increase but merely prevents their colleagues from speaking. I am not saying for a moment that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has done anything wrong. She is perfectly entitled to intervene, but I merely point out the consequences.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

That is an important point. This is not simply about providing local councils with such powers, because our duty goes much further. We need to look further than simply at whether councils want this or not—whether 100, 200 or more councils want it. We need to look at what businesses and shop workers want.

On the question of imposition, in September, a survey of 10,000 shop workers showed that 91% of them do not want to work more on a Sunday. The current six-hour restriction is important to them because, as they say, Sunday evening is often their only guaranteed “family time”, especially if they have children at school in the week or partners who work weekdays. Not so many staff are required under the current regime—usually, there is a single shift—so most staff are able to work a Sunday rota with some Sundays off. We must look at the imposition on shop workers and businesses.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are making a very good introduction to this debate. I understand that some chief executives of larger stores, such as Sainsbury’s and John Lewis, are expressing their concerns to the Prime Minister about this issue. In relation to that survey, Sainsbury’s has quite rightly questioned whether there is an appetite among consumers or retail staff for Sunday working. As I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, Conservative Members should not assume the opt-out means anything, because most retail staff say it is impossible to use it because employers find ways to make them suffer if they try to opt out of Sunday working.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, that is true. We should not tar all large retailers with the same brush. I think Tesco has also expressed concern. Some of them have no doubt got a commercial interest—they may have more convenience stores on high streets than other large retailers—but they share the concern that the Government’s devolutionary approach is not so practical for larger businesses, given that there are issues in relation to distribution centres and dealing with waste recycling. This will make things more complicated for them. In essence, the Bill is about cutting down on red tape and about deregulation, but this would mean a move in the opposite direction for such businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) asked the Minister about zoning and whether London could be a single zone, but why stop at London? Why not designate England as a single zone, given that that is exactly what would happen because of the domino effect of the proposal?

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. The Trafford centre is a large shopping centre situated next to my constituency. It attracts an enormous amount of traffic, so if it extends its hours my constituency will never get a moment’s peace. Moreover, building work on the Government’s motorway project can take place only when the Trafford centre is not busy. [Interruption.] It is not my council. If the Trafford centre opens 24/7, the logistics will make things impossible for my constituents.

[Bill Esterson]

There are similar examples up and down the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me turn to some of the evidence we have been given in the lead-up to this debate. During the Olympics, convenience stores experienced a fall in Sunday trade of up to 7%. There was also a displacement of trade to different times of the week, but, instead of an increase in overall trade, there was a slight fall. The Government assumption that people will have more money to spend just because the shops are open longer does not bear scrutiny once we start to look at the evidence.

Meanwhile, the extra Sunday hours would increase costs in those large stores that stay open longer, and while there will be some displacement from convenience stores to larger retailers, as happened during the Olympics, there will be little or no overall increase in trade to pay for the increased cost in most shops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, forgive me.

This proposal will also do nothing to relieve the problems felt by the beleaguered high street. I also wish to say something to my hon. Friend the Minister about delegating this responsibility to local authorities in my part of the world. I sit at the apex of four different council areas and there would be a serious domino effect involving Surrey Heath, Rushmoor, Hart and Bracknell—if one went, the rest would feel obliged to follow suit. The changes that were made there during the Olympic games seriously damaged small shops. I have in my constituency the Association of Convenience Stores—some may call it the association of Conservative stores—which is run by small people who do a fantastic, hard-working job. The Oxford Economics survey found that increasing the opening hours of large stores will cost the convenience store sector 8,800 jobs and £870 million in sales. My council does not want this change, and nor does the Association of Convenience Stores.

I say to the Minister that we have a solution at hand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has proposed an alternative. The Minister is apparently talking about an alternative that is supposed to have been tabled today. Of course it has not been tabled, but it will be tabled in the other place. Why do we not do as we did in 1993, which is to have a Bill setting out the three options—possibly more—one of which is no change at all, and then let us debate it over a period of time, instead of trying to rush it through in a couple of hours?

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister’s last-ditch attempt at a compromise has already been described as scraping the barrel. I have to ask why we should believe last-ditch promises by this Government when the Prime Minister made a promise last April, and it is not being kept. My name is on amendment 1, and I agree with Government Members who have said that this should have been a conscience vote—a free vote.

The USDAW survey, which has been repeatedly mentioned—I congratulate USDAW on its sterling work—gives us a stark picture of existing Sunday working in both large and small stores. In fact, it tells us that 35% of staff in large stores and 55% in small stores want to work fewer hours, and less on Sundays. Chief executives from stores such as John Lewis and Sainsbury’s have expressed their concerns. They do not believe that there is an appetite among consumers and retail staff for this change.

I want to remind the House that there are carers in retail in the same way that there are in all occupations. The USDAW survey says that half the staff that it surveyed have caring responsibilities for children, older people, people with disabilities or family members who are ill. Arranging alternative care for Sundays is very difficult,

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will not, because we are very short of time.

The opt-out has been described as “laughable”. Only 13% of staff in large stores and 10% in small stores have used that right to opt out. It is my opinion that the vast majority of retail staff do not want to see these trading hours extended. I have had very many emails from staff in my constituency who tell me that.

Devolving Sunday trading will lead to longer opening hours. The stores and shops in my constituency have to compete with the Trafford centre. At Christmas, it was easy to see in shopping centres such as the Trafford centre that longer hours do not mean more business. People simply do their shopping at a different time, or they shop in large stores and small stores lose the business.

Moreover, staff would lose their precious family time, and probably not gain in pay, because their shifts would just be stretched over seven days. If shops open longer and longer hours, it will have an impact on life on Sundays. As I mentioned earlier, many hundreds of my constituents are greatly affected by traffic going to and from the Trafford centre, and that would become never ending if stores were open for longer and longer hours. They would never have peace—not even on a Saturday night. The Government would not be able to deliver their smart motorway project if staff could not work on the motorway overnight.

In conclusion, we have enough issues in Greater Manchester with the devolution of powers, we do not need the postcode lottery of zones and the opening hours that the Government are threatening. I will vote for the amendment and I commend it to the House. I do so for families, especially those who are carers, for people who live near shopping centres and suffer from congestion and traffic, such as my constituents, and for the small shops and all the staff who work in them who may lose their jobs. Those are the reasons why I will be voting for amendment 1.

[Victoria Borwick]

I rise to speak in favour of Sunday trading, because, in a place such as London—I stand as a London MP—we should have some freedom for people to trade and choose how they do business. A person does not have to go shopping, but if they want to, they should have the opportunity to do so.

Many of the arguments have been made already, so I will talk briefly about garden centres. Some Members have already mentioned pets. People with pets may have to make a trip to a garden centre to stock up. Garden centres have made representations to me, because those animals have to be fed. So I am running a campaign to allow people to trade the hours that they want.

I had a meeting this morning with my local church leaders, and I was struck when an American vicar said, “I am now a vicar over here, but where I come from, we have more churchgoing than even in this country. Notwithstanding that, people can still do business throughout the day on Sunday.”

I urge all hon. Members to consider those who want to work, and to allow these freedoms for those who want a different day to celebrate with their families. Let us not be selective as to who can spend their religious day with their family. Ours should be an inclusive party that encourages people to spend their particular day with their family. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to vote in favour of Sunday trading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend found his visit to Barclays in his constituency to be so helpful. I know that he, too, will welcome the fact that since 2014 financial education has been part of the national curriculum.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T7. The Conservative leader of Essex county council has told the Prime Minister that the 2% social care precept will cover only half the council’s increased costs. He has suggested bringing better care funding forward to 2017 and asked for a fairer redistribution of funds. Even Conservative councils cannot wait till 2019 for the funding that the Chancellor has allocated, so will he act now to avoid a further crisis in social care?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

In advance of the spending review, the Conservative leaders of the Local Government Association came to see me. One of their specific proposals was to introduce the social care precept to help address the shortfall there may otherwise have been. We have also put a lot more money into the better care fund to make sure that local authorities and the NHS working together are able to meet the challenges of social care over the next years.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend came to see me to fight on behalf of her constituents who see their lives disrupted when the channel tunnel is blocked and lorries queue up on the motorways and block local roads. She, together with other hon. Friends with constituencies in Kent, came to me with a proposal to relieve that congestion and the impact of Operation Stack. We are making a quarter of a billion pounds commitment to the county of Kent to help it deal with that traffic problem and provide a permanent solution.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have been telling the Chancellor, he is trying to push the issue of underfunding of social care on to local councils. A total of £4.6 billion has been taken out since 2010, and the gap is growing at £700 million a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, there is fourfold difference between the ability of different areas of the country to raise funding through the 2% council tax increase. How is he going to close this gap when there is no extra funding from the better care fund until 2017?

[Mr Osborne]

Overall funding for social care will be protected in real terms. The council tax premium can be levied, and the better care fund will have an additional £1.5 billion to make sure that it can help local government integrate with the national health service. Our objective is to achieve over the next five years the integration of health and social care services across the country. Places such as north-east Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Greater Manchester have made big progress in this area, and I hope that the hon. Lady’s local area also takes steps in that direction.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is rightly making a good speech about working families, but Ministers have made little mention of the impact that cuts to tax credits will have on working family carers. A carer in receipt of carers allowance who works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage and claims working tax credits will be badly hit by these cuts. Conservative Members talk about people working more hours, but those carers are already working for a minimum of 51 hours a week and they cannot work more. Does my hon. Friend believe that working carers must be protected from Government cuts, because Ministers do not even seem to recognise that issue?

[Owen Smith]

Yes, and if the Government are to provide us with any sort of detailed, worthwhile impact assessment, they should undertake precisely that sort of calculation. They should look at what net benefit to our economy and society is made by working mothers, carers, and those whose efforts are not being calibrated by the Government, because those people will lose out as a result of the changes to tax credits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I have considered the impacts. I think that reducing aggregate demand by taking money out of the pockets of working families—the people with the highest propensity to spend money locally in the economy—is a foolish thing to do. It is a false economy. We know that to be true economically, so why on earth would the Government want to do it?

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to add a little detail. Conservative Members seem to be raising the cases of people who do not benefit from working tax credit and are questioning it on that basis. Perhaps the example I quoted earlier will help. The carer on carer’s allowance will get £62 and is able to earn a maximum of £110, which is a disregard. That is what carers are on, and they will be hit very hard by the loss of working tax credit. These people are earning a maximum of only £172. The important point is that there are 689,000 such people—those wonderful carers committed to looking after family members. Only one Conservative Member seems to have recognised that issue, which is a massive one. It is not quite as massive as the 3 million families affected, but it is still important. Ministers need to reflect on and explain why they are doing this to 689,000 carers up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The Government are trying to encourage people to earn more in self-employment—that is the whole point of the policy. The idea is to create better incentives so that it is worth while people working more and longer hours if they have not had sufficient hours of work and not a sufficient income, and they keep more of the money they make by being in self-employment. That is true for them as well as for people in employment.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman has had one go and I am sorry he messed up his question.

[Barbara Keeley]

I have raised in this Chamber a number of times the issue of the almost 700,000 carers who are working but can work only 16 hours at the minimum wage. Many Conservative Members in this debate and in earlier debates have talked about people increasing their hours, but some sets of people cannot increase their hours—my Front-Bench colleague the hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has mentioned them and I mention them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to almost 700,000 working carers who cannot give themselves more hours, are not allowed to earn more than £110 a week and will be hit badly by this cut to working tax credits?

[John Redwood]

Yes, some people cannot increase their hours or, for good reason, do not want to increase them because they are already working long hours. I have already described the actions they or their employers can take, and that the Government can encourage. We want these people to have better opportunity and more skill, and to work with their employers to raise productivity to justify pay rises. The Government, with the full support of the Opposition, are using the force of the law to increase minimum wages, as part of the policy of driving wages upwards. But the only way we can succeed in getting wages in this country up to levels we would all find acceptable is through a productivity revolution. It has to come by working smarter and better, not necessarily by working longer hours or by working harder, with the right investment and the right back-up from employers, so that people can earn more and justify higher earnings.

Finance Bill

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I was not going to speak in this debate, but I have decided to join in because it is a vital matter. I worked with other Opposition Members in this debate during the first day of Committee, when I was the sole representative of the shadow Treasury team. It was an important debate then, but I think we have really moved it on today. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) spoke well on this subject in Committee, and I want now to touch on some of what they said.

New clause 7, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), is an important new clause that has enabled a hard-hitting and sensible debate on the VAT rate for tampons and sanitary products. As others have said, they are not luxury products, but, as we noted in Committee, some bizarre products are VAT exempt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax found out, alcoholic jellies, edible sugar flowers, exotic meats, such as crocodile and kangaroo, and the amazingly named millionaires’ shortbread are apparently all VAT exempt. I am sure everyone agrees that alcoholic jellies are a luxury product, while tampons and sanitary products, which are vital products for women, are not.

As I said, we had a good debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax all spoke well, and I support what they said, but what did the Minister say? I hope we can change how he feels about this matter. At the end of the debate, he said:

“We are supportive and we would like the rate to be as low as possible”,

which was very good and supportive, but he also said that

“without wider EU reform and greater flexibility…it will be a challenge.”

Importantly, however, he also said that

“were we able to progress further, I would be sympathetic”.––[Official Report, Finance Bill Public Bill Committee, 17 September 2015; c. 26.]

I think the Minister should be supportive, given that a number of his hon. Friends want him to be.

I wish to add my name to the list of those who have praised Dame Dawn Primarolo’s early campaign to reduce the VAT rate by 5% in 2000. Fifteen years ago, that was a brave thing to do in the House. Plenty of Members tonight have been willing to talk straightforwardly about this, but 15 years ago there were not as many women in the House and it would have been difficult to talk about. I am in her fan club and glad to thank her for the campaign she ran.

This VAT rate, which we have had since 2000, is unfair to women and families. It might be a challenge for the Minister to negotiate with the EU on this matter, but I hope that he and the Prime Minister are equal to it and can take it on. There have been many things they have been happy to challenge in their EU negotiations, and many of his hon. Friends have indicated that they also want him to take on this challenge. I am sure he is up to it, as he is well steeped in these matters, and it is clear from this debate that he has support from both sides. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause and give him a reason to take on this challenge.

[Wes Streeting]

This debate is in great contrast to that taking place in the House of Lords. Here we are debating a cut to inheritance tax, while the unelected House is championing the interests of working people by doing something that many more Government Members should have done: put their consciences in their feet and marched through the correct Lobby.

We know from evidence already debated that the changes to inheritance tax will effectively cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21. As the great Nye Bevan once said,

“the language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.

To Government Members who ask where our priorities lie, I say: they will always be in championing the interests of hard-working people and trying to improve the lot of the low-paid. For this reason, new clause 9 would delete the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax. That says exactly where our priorities are and where they should be. It is humiliating for the Chancellor and Prime Minister, having claimed at the recent Conservative party conference to be these great centrist modernisers, that it is in fact the House of Lords that has had to do what the elected House of Commons should have done last week, and still has the opportunity to do in debates taking place tomorrow and on Thursday.

The “Conservative modernisation project mark 2” is now dead in the water, but let us remind Tory Members of “modernisation project mark 1”. We remember the Prime Minister promising “the greenest Government ever” when he was running with the huskies and hugging hoodies, yet here we see clause 45 of the Finance Bill, which will remove the exemption from the climate change levy for electricity produced by renewable sources from 1 August this year—it will be backdated. Conservative Members need to decide whether they are going to be the “true blue” Conservatives that we have seen represented in the unlikely forum of a debate on tampons and sanitary products, or whether they are the party of the centre ground and the working man and woman.

Tax Credits

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to talk to the Prime Minister about why he said on “Question Time” during the election that he would not cut tax credits. That is a conversation for him to have with the Prime Minister.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) talks about the Conservative manifesto, but the manifesto cannot have outlined that 689,000 carers might be affected. Those who care 35 hours a week and then try to work 16 hours on the national minimum wage will be hit. What do Conservative Members have to say about that?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes her point incredibly well. It is those who are working so hard to support us in every sphere—in our public services and the economy—who will be hit the hardest by this move. I hope that the Government will change their mind today. I will make some more progress before I take further interventions.

The Chancellor says that he wants a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy—this may come as a surprise, but of course we all do—but what he says and what he does are two different things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

This morning on BBC Tees, I debated the issue of tax credits with a Conservative councillor who stood unsuccessfully at the general election. He used an expression that summed up the total lack of understanding among Government Members of how people can be in work but in need of some state support. He referred to people as being “exposed” to the process, as if it was some kind of risk. I understand that that expression might be used by a City person in relation to investments or by a chief executive about a project that his company plans to undertake. In both cases, I am sure that they would develop a plan to mitigate the risk of failure. The millions of people who will be affected by the tax credit cuts are not exposed to a risk that they have the power to mitigate. Rather, they are having cuts to their income imposed on them and there is little, if anything, that most of them can do about it.

[Barbara Keeley]

One group that will be hit is family carers who receive carer’s allowance and work 16 hours on the minimum wage to supplement their benefit of £62. There are 689,000 carers in that position. Carers UK says that all carers who claim carer’s allowance and working tax credit will lose out under the tax credit proposals. I know that my hon. Friend cares about these things, but it seems that Government Members do not.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She does tremendous work in respect of carers and I understand exactly what she is saying.

My hon. Friend will be interested in the case of my constituent Linda Harper, whose medical needs mean that she requires help and support in some areas of her life. Despite needing the unpaid care of her husband, who also has a job, Linda’s determination recently saw her battle against her condition to open her own craft store in the local town centre. Although the business does not yet turn a profit, she is succeeding in building a customer base and is contributing to the community by running classes, teaching others the skills of her craft and hosting social groups that add value to the lives of those who participate.

Linda represents the attitudes that the Conservative Government claim they want to promote. She is hard working, persevering and enterprising. Let us not forget that the Conservative manifesto at the general election promised to improve the lives of

“the millions who work hard, raise their families, care for those who need help, who do the right thing”.

Yet, when the Government’s changes come into effect, Linda estimates that she stands to lose £2,000 a year. Paying her mortgage and putting food on the table will become significantly harder and the viability of her businesses will be severely challenged.

The Government say that their demand for employers to pay people more and their tax cuts will help to restore the money that people lose from their tax credits. That is absolute nonsense. I put the following questions to the Minister. What will happen to public sector workers and self-employed people on low incomes? How can the employees of local authorities, health trusts and other public sector employers make up their income by increasing pay when the Government have said that they cannot give increases beyond 1%? How will a person who relies on tax credits and who earns less than £10,000 a year benefit from an increase in the tax threshold? How will a self-employed person with earnings of £6,000 a year give themselves a pay rise to fill the gap in their income caused by the loss of tax credits? How will a small business fulfil the Government’s promise of higher wages when it is already struggling to survive? The answers are simple: public sector workers will continue to see drastic cuts to their incomes and standard of living; self-employed individuals will be left to their own devices; and small businesses will pay people off because they cannot afford to keep them.

I am alarmed to hear that, despite the reservations of many Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have no intention of halting these cuts. Perhaps the 70 or so Conservative Members whose majorities are smaller than the number of people in their constituencies who claim tax credits will have more to say about that in future. Several million people hope so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Many of those who have spoken, and indeed the Chancellor himself, are quite right to say that we have to view all the measures put forward as a package—not just the effects of the tax credit changes, but the many other measures that have been spoken about. I would like to make three points: on timing, predictability and the concept of scarcity.

On timing, the measures will come in at different times. It is vital that their timing should be synchronised. It is not there at the moment and I therefore ask that the timing of the introduction of the various changes to tax credits be looked at. I fully agree that we need reductions in the tax credit bills, but it is the timing that will bring great problems to many families.

On predictability, families want to know what their income is going to be. They want a reasonable measure of forewarning, so they can talk and negotiate with their employers, and plan their future. If their income is going to be reduced, they need time to do that.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about timing. I raised a point earlier about carers. Carers who work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage will lose their tax credits. They cannot change that, they cannot plan for that and they cannot find any way out of that. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that in relation to the 689,000 carers?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Lady must have read my notes, because I was going to come to that and say precisely that this is the other major issue. Those on fixed incomes do not have the ability to go out and work the two or three extra hours a week to cover the cost of the changes to tax credits. Full-time carers are not the only example, but they are the most obvious. I entirely agree with her.

Scarcity might seem a rather arcane concept to introduce, but studies have shown that for those who find sudden scarcity imposed on them economically, the costs are very great. The inflation rate for people on lower rates of pay is considerably higher than for those on higher rates of pay. If they suddenly receive a lower income—perhaps a cut of 10% or more—their costs will actually rise, because they will be unable to make the decisions to buy in bulk or in advance that they were otherwise able to make.

Finally, I am not one of those who does not want to eliminate the deficit. I absolutely do. If we have a change in timing—as I urge the Government to consider, including in relation to carers—we will need to find extra sources of revenue and we will have to take that on the chin. In particular, I have written to the Treasury to ask it to consider various income tax and corporation tax reliefs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

In my constituency, there are around 8,000 families with children claiming tax credits, 5,000 working families, and almost 10,000 children. We know from the Library briefing that they will lose more than £100 a month, but some families will lose more. One of my constituents, a mother with a disabled child, has worked out that her family will lose £200 a month from the tax credit cuts. Instead of just sitting there, perhaps Government Members can tell me how, if they back these changes, such families will manage? I do not think that they will manage. Another constituent, a single mother, told me that she uses tax credits to pay for school uniform, food and travel expenses. Those are the things that will suffer.

Earlier, I mentioned the impact that these tax credit cuts will have on the incomes of many thousands of unpaid carers who juggle care and work, particularly those who claim carer’s allowance and working tax credits. Carers UK told me that all carers who are claiming carer’s allowance and working tax credits will lose under the current proposals, even taking into account the introduction of the so-called national living wage.

Tax credit cuts will make it more difficult for working carers to balance work and care and that will hit their standard of living. They do not deserve that. Last week the Minister for Community and Social Care told me that he did not think that carers’ invaluable contribution to society had ever been better recognised. Is that hit to the income and living standard of working carers what he means by recognition? I hope the Minister will tell us when he responds what consideration the Government will now give to protecting working carers on low incomes from these unfair, savage tax credit cuts. Those cuts will hit families with disabled children. They will hit carers and millions of working people. I urge Government Members, the few who have managed to stay for this debate, to rethink this deeply unfair policy change.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of your co-Chair, Mr Howarth, when he joins us later. I associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, and welcome the Clerks, the Hansard reporters and others who will assist us in the days ahead, although it will just be one day ahead for me.

I welcome the members of the Committee and in particular those who came into the House in May. On the Labour side, that is my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South, for Halifax, for Dewsbury, for Torfaen and for Cambridge, and we will be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. We should also mention the stalwart work of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe.

As has been said, this is the first ever Bill Committee for those new Members, and I remember when I served on my first Finance Bill Committee back in summer 2006. I checked back, and the Financial Secretary was on that same Committee. We know now that he has served on 11 Finance Bill Committees, so he certainly wins the prize. I am afraid I do not. I assure the Committee and him that we will scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, as is our duty. Members should be grateful that the Bill is much shorter than the Finance Bill in 2006, which had 21 sittings.

As an opening comment, the Bill sadly does little to help families and individuals on low and middle incomes, and I think that is a pity. Millions of those families have heard that they will be hit by the tax credit cuts that were voted through by Government Members earlier this week. Those savage cuts will come to be seen as the hallmark of the summer Budget of 2015, which was also a tax-raising Budget, but I will come back to that point.

In Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we heard about a working family who would be hit badly by the cuts, and there will be so many more, because 3 million families will lose more than £1,000 a year. In my constituency, more than 8,000 families with children receive tax credits, of whom 5,300 are working families. The Bill does not contain that measure on tax credits, but it comes from the same Budget, so I will keep those families in mind as we work through all the issues in the Bill.

[Roger Mullin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, along with my colleagues. I start by thanking everyone who has already been thanked, thus making sure that I miss no one out. I am slightly surprised that I am making this speech, because I did not know that this was how proceedings would begin, but on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say that we look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail. We are particularly unhappy about a number of matters, and we share the views already expressed by the Labour spokespersons.

We also want, through new clauses, to raise some matters that are of particular concern to Scotland and the people of Scotland, who are severely disadvantaged on a number of fronts by measures within the Bill. I hope we will contribute constructively and speedily. I had a wonderful experience when I attended the Sub-Committee of this Bill Committee on Monday; the thing I thought was particularly impressive was that it lasted one minute. I am sure this Committee will take a little longer, but we will do our best to contribute constructively and efficiently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Clauses 1 and 2 enact the promise that the Government made during the general election not to increase the rate of income tax or VAT in the next Parliament. Clause 1 states that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not increase above 20%, 40% and 45% for the duration of this Parliament.

We support the Government’s pledges on tax locks for this Parliament. In fact, it would be surprising if we did not, because we made them first. The Labour party made the same pledge on 25 March, and our 2015 manifesto contained a commitment not to increase the basic or higher rates of income tax, or to raise VAT or national insurance. We are glad the Conservative party adopted our pledge during the election.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, and as was discussed in the Budget debates, legislating for that pledge represents a U-turn. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in 2009 the current Chancellor said he was very critical of Chancellors passing laws to ensure they fulfil their promises. The current Chancellor stated then:

“No other Chancellor in the long history of the office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget…As one commentator observed this week, there are only two conclusions. Either the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is, so to speak, asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word, but hopes that they might believe in the statute book if not in him. Neither is much of a recommendation for the Chancellor of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 708.]

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On Tuesday the hon. Lady advised us on the Floor of the House that she would not seek to defend or reference remarks made on previous occasions by the new leader of her party. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think comments that somebody made when they were a Back-Bench MP are different. Once somebody has taken on a role, either in opposition or in government, what they say carries a certain weight. There is a freedom to the Back Benches that I and others here have experienced. Many Members of the Conservative party say things that their Front-Bench team would not agree with. That is my distinction, and I am sticking to it.

It appears that the Chancellor had a change of heart, and now feels the need to pass a law to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget. During the debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week we discussed the view that measures such as this are in fact gimmicks. We questioned why Ministers feel the need for this additional legislation when the promises that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made during the election should be good enough. To people outside Westminster, it could appear that Treasury Ministers have lost confidence in their ability to stick to their resolutions, or perhaps they fear that everyone else has lost confidence in their ability to keep their word. The Minister may want to tell us which he thinks it is.

Although Labour supports the pledge to make no increase to VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions during this Parliament, I still question whether introducing legislation to ensure those locks is the best course of action. Rather than gimmicks, we need long-term tax reform and sensible policies to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good deal.

We have some concerns about the durability of the income tax lock in clause 1. As it stands, it appears that rates could be raised by repealing the Bill in a future Budget. Can the Minister assure the Committee that it is not simply a gimmick? Will he outline how he intends to show that the lock will remain in place? In our deliberations, we should consider the impact of that tax change and the other changes to the tax system announced in the Budget. As many tax experts have pointed out, only then will we be able to see the real impact of Government measures on particular groups of people.

In Committee of the whole House, I raised the issue of the insurance premium tax. Although the clause protects workers against an income tax rate rise, I note that they will not be protected from the other tax increases in the Bill.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Roger; I hope to profit from your experience. I want to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertion that the tax lock is a gimmick. Is it not in the same spirit as the legislation that ensures that 0.7% of GDP is spent on international aid each year? That measure is ensuring, as we speak, that refugees from Syria are being rescued from terrible circumstances. Is this not in a similar spirit?

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think it is. In fact, if it is seen in the same way, someone needs to have a word with the Prime Minister. He constantly refers to the 0.7% commitment as a matter of huge pride and has quoted it a great deal in our debates about the refugee crisis over the past week or two. The difference with financial matters—this is probably why the current Chancellor was so critical of things in 2009—is that there are many opportunities to legislate. This is the third Finance Bill this year, so things could change. The 0.7% international aid commitment was a very long-term commitment. It came up a great deal in international discussions and still does, so there is a difference.

I was talking about the insurance premium tax and the fact that people are not protected from those sorts of tax increase. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

“The tax and welfare changes between them mean that poorer households have lost quite significantly and as a result of yesterday’s Budget, much more significantly than anything that has happened to richer households.”

He also said:

“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.”

Let us bear in mind that many of the households that benefit from this tax lock have been adversely impacted by other tax changes. In fact, the summer Budget did not cut the overall tax bill; it raised it.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady makes a lot about feeling it unnecessary that the Government have to promise to legislate not to change tax rates and about the importance of not affecting working households, particularly those at the bottom end. Is it not the case that when her party was in government, there was an understanding that people at the bottom end would be protected, yet at that time the 10p tax rate was removed, causing huge problems for working households? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a great deal of looking back, but let us look at what is happening this year and what will happen in the years following this Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts net taxes to rise by more than £47 billion over the next four years, with much of the money coming from increases in dividend tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle excise duty and cuts in pension tax relief. Of course, welfare cuts will also raise almost £35 billion. It is one thing saying that families will benefit from the tax lock, but all of those measures will hit many families and individuals in the UK hard.

The combination of changes needs to be seen in the context of the cut to tax credits that Government Members voted through this week, which are likely to leave millions of families worse off. I was asked the other day, “What else would you do?” It is our contention that the welfare reform we need is to things such as overpayments and the error and fraud in the welfare system, because things are not properly checked at the point of application. Error and fraud cost £3 billion a year. The cut to tax credits will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, which undermines the Government’s argument that this is a Budget for working people.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much in the last Parliament of a distinction between those who are in work and those who are not. By this attack on those who are in work, does he not find himself on the wrong side of his own dividing line?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely so. A great deal is said at the moment about working people, working families and who supports them. Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, has said:

“Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of universal credit, intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work.”

That is an important point. On tax credit cuts, he adds:

“This reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in the family to enter work.”

[Chris Philp]

Could the hon. Lady confirm whether it is the Labour party’s intention to reverse the tax credit proposals put forward earlier this week?

[Barbara Keeley]

We had the same question the other day. It is not helpful for us to keep repeating things.

As we saw during the election campaign, we have a different mix of changes that we want to introduce and different ways of moving the economy forward, and that will always be the case. I am sure we would not have made the cuts to tax credits. We introduced tax credits to help working people. We believe in them, because they help to bring children out of poverty. We would never have made such savage cuts. We believe that it is necessary to tackle the root causes of welfare spending—low pay and high housing costs—to bring down Government spending sustainably. Those things are not being tackled; rather, the infrastructure that supports families in work is being taken away. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the introduction of tax credits played an extremely powerful part in the improvement in child poverty figures, and that is what is at risk.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, as always. Under the moderate and reforming Labour leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), Labour Front-Bench Members for the whole of the previous Parliament were never able to say what they would actually do. They were very good at saying what they would not do and at opposing everything that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury sought to do to reduce spending and bring it back under control. We await—with bated breath, it has to be said—what the reforming instincts of the new Labour leader will bring forward, but can the shadow Minister say what she would do? She has spoken about her long-term plans for house building, and so on, but, in the shorter to medium term, what would the Labour party do today, or what would it have done recently, to balance the nation’s finances better?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a very easy question to answer. We heard earlier about the former shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, who put in a great deal of work this year on zero-based budgeting spending reviews. He came up with a list of savings that amounted to £12 billion. We talked about that a great deal during the election—

[Simon Hoare]

He got sacked!

[Barbara Keeley]

I think it would be better, Sir Roger, if we could move away from things to do with the Labour party and concentrate on the Bill. It is not helping progress.

[The Chair]

Order. It is for the Chairman to decide what is in order and what is not. Inevitably in any debate of this kind there is going to be a certain amount of party political skirmish, and both Chairmen understand that. However, now that I am on my feet, what is relevant is that this debate is about income tax. We could have a debate about every aspect of tax—we could not, actually, because it would be out of order. Perhaps we can now revert to income tax.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I think one of my hon. Friends wanted to intervene.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I quite take the point you just made, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly rich for Government Members to talk about the past when they were elected last time on a pledge to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the Parliament, which they have completely failed to achieve? Setting tax rates in stone will only further perpetuate their past failure.

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely. In talking more broadly, I have been trying to paint a picture of the impact of the set of policies in the Budget, not all of which are in the Bill.

We feel that the tax lock is a short-term measure. As I said earlier, we need to think about long-term reform to ensure an equitable and efficient tax system that provides good value for the taxpayer. There is also a need for long-term tax system planning. We welcome the consultations announced by the Government, but action is also needed on, for example, the alignment of national insurance contributions and income tax. That has been discussed many times, over and over again, but never acted upon, and I will be talking about that later in the debate.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

May I associate myself with hon. Members from both sides of the Committee in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger? I look forward to profiting from your experience. Does the hon. Lady—

[Barbara Keeley]

I had concluded my speech.

[The Chair]

Ah. I understood that the hon. Lady was giving way. As no one else wishes to speak, I call the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s speech. Let me be clear that if one looks at the measures set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech this summer, one will see that we are ensuring that working families will benefit from a strong and growing economy. By 2017-18, eight out of 10 working households will be better off as a result of the changes we are making to the personal allowance, the introduction of the national living wage and the welfare changes set out in the Budget.

The concern has been raised that the clause is somehow just presentational, but I return to the point I was making earlier about underlining our commitment. It is consistent with the approach we have taken to the tax system, and I think families up and down the country will welcome that. In particular, in the current context, with the official Opposition apparently moving in the direction of wanting to increase taxes, the fact that Parliament is making it clear what the current majority feels can only be helpful.

[Barbara Keeley]

As I have said already in this debate and the other day in the Committee of the whole House, this is a tax-raising Budget and the Government are raising taxes. I touched on some of those taxes and we have talked about the insurance premium tax. This is a tax-raising Budget and a tax-raising set of measures.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are committed to creating a low-tax economy and the clause marks clear progress towards that. We must remember that the Government inherited the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We heard criticism from the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said it should—[Interruption.] If the Scottish National party’s position is that the deficit should be larger, I strongly disagree. The deficit fell significantly over the course of the previous Parliament, but there is still further work to do. In that context, we must make some difficult decisions.

Public spending is taking the greater share of the strain when it comes to fiscal consolidation, and we believe that is the right approach. I do not know whether the Opposition parties share that belief, but I very much doubt it. The clause demonstrates our commitment on income tax, just as in the next clause demonstrates it on VAT—to ensure that over the course of this Parliament we do not increase those tax rates. I think the British public will welcome those measures—after all, they were set out before the last general election. I hope that the clause has the Committee’s support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

VAT lock

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Gauke]

I will say a word or two about the clause and then, if I may, I will respond to the new clauses that I assume will be set out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The clause states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the Parliament. It also locks certain provisions in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to prevent them from being used to change the scope of VAT by moving any goods or services out of the zero rate or reduced rate for the duration of the Parliament.

The Government believe in lower taxes and are committed to eliminating the deficit in a way that is fair to taxpayers. As part of our plan to move the UK to a lower tax economy, we made a manifesto commitment to rule out any increase in the main rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT for the duration of this Parliament, as I have mentioned. Clause 2, following on from clause 1 on income tax, implements that commitment for VAT. This initiative will provide certainty to taxpayers and ensure that working people will not have to pay any additional VAT on their purchases for the duration of this Parliament.

Let me set out the changes made by the clause in a little more detail. Currently, the standard rate of VAT is 20% and the reduced rate is 5%. Clause 2 states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise, locking the rates for the duration of this Parliament. As the zero rate clearly cannot be more than 0%, it is not covered by the legislation. Supplies that are subject to the reduced rate, such as domestic fuel and power, are listed in schedule 7A, and those that are zero-rated, such as books, children’s clothes and most food, are listed in schedule 8. The supplies listed can be varied by means of a Treasury order. However, the legislation will prevent the use of Treasury orders to expand the scope of VAT by removing supplies from the zero and reduced rates.

While the 20% standard rate of VAT is among the lowest in the EU, the UK also has the lowest reduced rate of VAT permitted by EU law and is one of only eight EU member states to have successfully negotiated to apply a zero rate of VAT. The Government will not increase the reduced or standard rates of VAT and will retain the zero rate of VAT, in keeping with our commitment to creating a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare country.

In summary, clause 2 provides the strongest possible backing for the Government’s commitment not to increase VAT for the duration of this Parliament. It delivers on our manifesto promise and is consistent with our policy to deliver a lower tax economy for hard-working taxpayers.

[Barbara Keeley]

Many of the points I raised about clause 1 on the principles of tax locks also apply to clause 2, which states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the VAT lock period. It also ensures that no goods and services can be removed from the zero and reduced rates of VAT for the duration of the VAT lock period.

The Labour party made a commitment not to raise VAT back in March and in our 2015 manifesto. Indeed, the Government’s tax lock was announced in response to our challenge about not repeating their broken promises on VAT. We are pleased the Government have agreed that VAT rates should not go up, because that will benefit people on lower and middle incomes. This legislation is perhaps a little more needed, given the Conservatives’ record on VAT. The Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only to raise it to 20% immediately after entering Downing Street. However, as with the income tax lock, we are concerned that there is nothing to prevent the Government from changing the VAT lock in future legislation.

How will the VAT lock stand up in the face of European Union intervention? The UK is subject to EU VAT law and European Court of Justice decisions on VAT will have an impact on VAT here. On 4 June this year, the European Court of Justice judged that the UK had failed to comply with the VAT directive by applying a reduced rate of VAT to the supply and installation of energy saving materials for housing, which the Court ruled will have to be charged at the standard UK VAT rate of 20%. Another recent example of EU involvement is the 2015 Court decision in the “Go Fair” case, in which the Court found that VAT should be chargeable on the supply of care workers provided by a temporary agency. Currently, UK agencies supplying nursing staff can benefit from a VAT exemption. Will the Minister indicate whether that will change as a result of the European ruling?

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady may know that courts are overruled by higher courts day in, day out in the court system. Should the initial legislation not be passed because it may be overruled at some point in the future?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am not in any sense challenging it; I am asking the Minister to tell us what he thinks the impact on the legislation will be of that Court’s decisions. Those cases seem to suggest that the lock on UK VAT is not as robust as the Chancellor claims, so it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what impact future EU Court rulings could have.

On the scope of the VAT lock, clause 2 prevents any increase in the standard and reduced rates, and prevents anything from being moved out of the scope of the reduced or zero rates, but there is no mention of exemptions. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the current exemptions from VAT will remain over the course of this Parliament.

SNP Members tabled a new clause that seeks a report on the impact of exempting women’s sanitary products from VAT. Labour supports the new clause. We welcome the opportunity to call again for those essential healthcare products to be made tax-free. Women do not choose to use sanitary products; they are essential. Although the reduction in the rate of VAT on sanitary products in the UK from 2000 was welcome, more needs to be done. This is not just a female issue, but a family and household issue. Women supporting families across the country should be able to purchase those necessary items VAT-free. We recognise the complexity of the EU rules on VAT and the challenges faced by national Governments that want to make such unilateral changes. I ask the Minister to take action at an EU level to support the exemption of women’s sanitary products from VAT in the UK.

[The Chair]

I assume that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath wishes to speak to his new clauses, but I may be incorrect. Before he does so, I ask hon. Members look at the amendment paper. I will reiterate what I said earlier for understanding. At the end of this morning’s amendment paper are new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Only new clauses 1 and 3 have been selected for debate with clause 2, because they relate to VAT. New clause 2 does not relate to VAT, so although it appears on the amendment paper ahead of new clause 3, we are not debating it now. The new clauses will not be moved now. They can be spoken to by any hon. Member who wishes to address the subjects. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman in whose name the new clause was tabled will wish to speak to it. Others may also wish to speak to it; that is entirely in order. The new clauses will not be moved now. They will be moved, as with all other new clauses, right at the end of the Bill, which may be, I suspect, several weeks hence. There is an arcane form of words in which new clauses, as distinct from amendments, are moved. That is a pleasure in store for us, but we will deal with that when we come to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Let me say that I share your ambition for the timing of the Adjournment, Sir Roger.

I have addressed some of the points about the tax lock already. As for the application of EU law and ECJ judgments, which by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South rightly raised, let me be clear: EU VAT law and Court decisions will have to apply to the UK, too. Legislation will have to be changed to reflect any changes or Court decisions, otherwise the UK would be breaking the law. I do not wish to evade that point in any way. None the less, that does not undermine the basis of the VAT tax lock, because the great bulk of VAT issues on rates and the boundaries between the zero rate, reduced rates and standard rate are unlikely to change. However, I acknowledge that point. VAT exemptions are set out in EU law and cannot be changed by the UK unilaterally. We are therefore not binding our hands on the exemptions because they are not determined by the UK alone. I hope that provides a little clarity.

[Barbara Keeley]

Before the Minister moves on, I want to clarify once more why Opposition Members believe that the tax lock is a gimmick. If things go really wrong, it will have to change and, having bound their hands, if the Government have to increase VAT or income tax, that will really destroy public confidence out there. That is the problem.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me respond to that quickly. I come back to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. We did not hear those arguments from the hon. Lady or her colleagues when we were legislating for the 0.7% expenditure on overseas aid; these points were made in the context of the tax lock. One cannot help feeling that when the Opposition’s heart is really in the legislation, they think it is the right thing to do, and when their heart is not in it, they call it a gimmick. Very similar arguments apply to both items of legislation.

New clause 1 would require the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, including analysis of the change in their financial position since 2012 as a consequence of their ineligibility for section 33 VAT refunds. As we heard, in 2012 Scotland’s eight locally governed police and fire authorities consolidated to become two national bodies. As a result, they were no longer reliant on local taxation for funding, which is one of the two criteria for eligibility for the section 33 VAT refund scheme. Following the restructuring, the new national bodies were therefore no longer were eligible for VAT refunds.

The new clause asks the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of those bodies, including an estimate of the change to their financial position since their restructuring if they had remained eligible for VAT refunds. However, it is important to remember that the Scottish Government were forewarned of that consequence well in advance of the decision they took. The Treasury was keen to ensure that the Scottish Government considered that consequence as part and parcel of their decision to restructure the services. Because the expected cost savings to the Scottish Government outweighed the loss of any VAT refunds, I perfectly understand why they went ahead with their restructuring programme.

As I have explained, as the Scottish Government restructured those services, they are no longer eligible for VAT refunds. That is plain and clear, and the eligibility is set out in legislation. There is no need to explain it further or for a report to be submitted to the House. If the Scottish Government are now reconsidering their position and wish to discuss how the services can become eligible once again for VAT refunds, the Treasury will happily engage with them to advise. In conclusion, there does not seem to be any justification for using Treasury resource to set out in a report something that is clearly set out in legislation. As things stand, the Scottish police and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are not eligible for VAT refunds. I therefore ask that new clause 1 not be moved.

New clause 3 would require the Treasury to write a report on a VAT exemption of women’s sanitary protection products, including a financial assessment and an assessment of the impact on the purchasing of these products, especially by those aged under 25. I am well aware of the ongoing campaign to zero-rate or exempt from VAT sanitary protection products, which has cross-party support. I very much sympathise with the aims of the new clause, but this is not simply a case of the Government taking action.

The new clause asks the Treasury to submit a report to the House on the impacts of exempting sanitary protection products from VAT. The plain facts of the matter are that the goods and supplies to which the UK Government can apply a VAT exemption are set out in EU law. Any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states, which is no easy task.

To put this into context, the UK applies a reduced rate of 5% to sanitary protection products—the lowest permissible rate of VAT under EU law. However, different countries have different priorities, setting their tax rates to meet the economic conditions prevalent in their own jurisdictions. Across the EU, the average rate of VAT applied to sanitary protection products is more than 17%. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made reference to the Republic of Ireland. My understanding is that it is not correct that these products are zero-rated or exempt there. The UK applies the lowest rate across the whole EU.

In discussions in the EU, some member states may consider other reviews to be of more concern to them at this time. It is not that there is any lack of sympathy for the cause. When the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown, reduced the rate, he did not zero-rate these products because of the constraints of EU law. Any change would require the overall consent of the EU institutions.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

Before I do so, I wish to correct something. I understand that the Republic of Ireland has a zero rate for sanitary products. I correct what I said: the hon. Member for Glasgow Central was correct, so I apologise. That zero rate was agreed before Ireland joined the European Union in the early 1970s. A zero rate on these products was not in place when the UK joined the EU, or the Common Market as it then was. I am sure we would all consider that regrettable, but that was the situation. Trying to extend zero rates across the board would be difficult.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a recognition of the difficulty—that certainly came out in the speeches we heard on this element of the Bill. What other Members and I would like to hear from the Minister is whether he supports doing something about it. Does he want to have a push on it? Party leaders seem to say that they do, but it would helpful if we could hear him say that he wants to do something about this issue.

[Mr Gauke]

There are a number of ways in which the European Union and the rules that apply within it could be improved. A strong case is made from all parts of the House that greater flexibility in this context would be helpful, but the point I would make is that we see little indication that other member states, which by and large have higher rates—the average rate is 17%—share that objective. If there is a general move, we would support that.

Other than when an accession country joins the EU and negotiates a zero rate, there is no particular indication that the Commission or member states as a whole are prepared to introduce new zero rates. Indeed, quite a lot of the advice coming from organisations such as the OECD and the general position that the Commission takes tend to be against that, so I do not want to underestimate the difficulties.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to ensure that we have rising living standards is to have strong economy, which ensures that we encourage businesses, attract investment to the UK and reward entrepreneurship. That is the Government’s approach, but whether it is that of the official Opposition remains to be seen.

As we are talking about income tax, it is worth pointing out that 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010 as a consequence of increases in the personal allowance. The Government are committed to continuing to make work pay and have pledged to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Government also believe that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are introducing a change so that the personal allowance will automatically increase to ensure that it does not fall below the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.

This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance has not been indexed on the basis of price inflation, instead ensuring that individuals who earn up to 30 hours on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax in the future. Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to ensure that it is always set at a level at least equivalent to 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The change will take effect once the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Individuals working 30 hours a week or fewer on the national minimum wage will therefore be taken out of income tax altogether.

Clause 4 sets out that, until the personal allowance reaches £12,500, the Chancellor will have a legal duty to consider the impact of any proposed increase to the personal allowance on an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The clause also sets out the requirement for the Chancellor to make a statement on the impact that this will have on those individuals when an increase to the personal allowance is made at a future fiscal event.

The changes to income tax thresholds in the Bill will mean that an individual can work at least 30 hours a week without paying income tax both in 2015-16 and next year. In 2010, an individual could work only 21 hours on the national minimum wage without paying income tax. In time, an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will be brought back into income tax.

On clause 5, it is worth pointing out how much the personal allowance has increased in recent years. In 2010-11, it was just £6,475; now, it is £10,600. Following on from that record, in this Parliament, we have committed to delivering a high wage, low tax, low welfare society. That includes reducing taxes for the lower paid, and that is why we have committed to increasing the personal allowance from its current level of £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. Clause 5 increases the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18.

In total, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17. That will increase to more than 660,000 by 2017-18. The changes represent a tax cut for 29 million taxpayers who will see their typical income tax bill reduced by £905 by 2016-17. Taxpayers who are over 65 will also benefit. From 2016-17 onwards, the tax system will be simplified so that all taxpayers will be entitled to the same personal allowance; the remaining age-related allowance of £10,660 will be merged with the higher personal allowance of £11,000.

The clauses allow us to support those in work by enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. We are helping the lowest paid by taking them out of income tax altogether and we are moving towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is a very long time since I did a Finance Bill––it was in my very first year as an MP. We have had a lot of guidance this morning, because apart from me going back to 2006, many Members have not done one before.

Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to a link to an annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the national minimum wage adult rate, when the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Clause 5 outlines future increases in the personal allowance that will work towards the Government’s stated aim of a personal allowance threshold of £12,500. The personal allowance is currently £10,600 and is set to rise to £11,000 in 2016-17, followed by a further increase to £11,200 in 2017-18.

Labour supports measures to improve the living standards of families across the UK. Every worker should be entitled to a fair wage and we welcome the increase in the personal allowance. We understand the reasoning behind changing the indexation for the income tax personal allowance. Linking the allowance to the annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the adult rate of the national minimum wage when the personal allowance reaches £12,500 should help to increase a worker’s take-home pay when they work full time on the national minimum wage.

Currently, a person working on the minimum wage for 48 weeks a year earns £9,360 and so is already below the personal allowance threshold. Indexing the personal allowance to the national minimum wage rather than inflation will help to protect the earnings of minimum wage workers as the minimum wage rises above inflation. If the indexation of the personal allowance were to remain aligned to the consumer prices index measure of inflation, many workers on the national minimum wage could find themselves dragged into the personal allowance as their wages increase, as has certainly been the case in the past.

It is welcome that the Government are moving towards a wage and tax system that acknowledges people’s right to make a decent living, but it must be noted that the change in indexation may also have unintended consequences, particularly in the long term. In future, if the national minimum wage fails to rise in line with inflation, families could be hit by stagnant wages and a personal allowance that fails to reflect a squeeze on living standards. I hope that is borne in mind and that any future Government faced with this problem will act to protect family incomes.

Although the measure means that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not have to pay any income tax, many people are excluded from the additional benefits that brings because they do not earn enough to qualify. In particular, it will make little difference to someone who works part time on the national minimum wage. There are 8.27 million part-time employees in the UK. People work part time for a wide variety of reasons. For example, they may have caring responsibilities or be unable to find any other suitable work. We know that the majority of low-paid part-time workers are women, and we must bear in mind that an increase in the personal allowance is unlikely to have any effect on that group. If the Government are serious about helping those on low pay to achieve a decent standard of living, we must also look towards other areas of income taxation.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that reform of national insurance contributions could help those on low incomes. Many people earning below the income tax personal allowance threshold still pay national insurance contributions. I question the Government’s priorities in increasing the income tax personal allowance, because I feel that there could be more targeted assistance for those on the lowest incomes through changes to national insurance contributions.

That is a symptom of a wider problem within our tax system. The lack of alignment between income tax and national insurance causes additional complications for employers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the public. We welcome the Chancellor’s asking the Office of Tax Simplification to look at the possibility of merging income tax and national insurance. As national insurance and income tax have become less distinct in their purpose and what they are used to fund, it is important that we review how we can address the lack of alignment between the two.

Although the personal allowance for income tax has consistently been raised to take more people out of tax, the tax people pay through national insurance has lagged behind. We must consider whether any future increases in the personal allowance could be targeted at national insurance, reducing distortions in our tax system and simultaneously helping those on low pay.

Although the use of the adult national minimum wage as a benchmark for the personal allowance is welcome, we must note that it will not be equivalent to the real living wage or even the apparent living wage announced by the Chancellor in the summer Budget. As the Bill stands, the national minimum wage appears to be the rate for those aged 21 and over. The personal allowance is therefore no guarantee of a living wage for people who work more than 30 hours a week. Will the Minister say whether the Government will seek to increase the personal allowance in future to the level of the new national living wage for the over-25s, once it is introduced?

There is great confusion about the Chancellor’s use of the term “living wage” in the Budget. Even if the new so-called living wage of £9 per hour were used in this calculation, it is unlikely to provide a real living wage for full-time workers. The current UK living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, is £7.85 an hour throughout the UK, with the exception of London, where it is £9.15 an hour. The current real living wage, however, takes into account the tax credits that many families will lose under the Budget. When the Chancellor’s living wage reaches £9 an hour in 2020, it is likely that that will not reflect a real living wage as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

From what the hon. Lady said, I take it that she welcomes the significant further increases in the personal allowance. We have come a long way from the days when it was just £6,475, and I am glad we have made that progress. I am pleased that she appears to accept the principle of linking the personal allowance to the national minimum wage. I hope she recognises that the reforms we are making are helping the country to move towards the low-tax economy we need.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, for which I am grateful. She stated her support for the introduction of the national living wage, but then raised concerns about the jobs that will be lost and the care sector. We have to remember that this country is successfully creating a lot of jobs. Large numbers of jobs have been created in the past year or so, so we believe that the time is right for us to introduce the national living wage. We are locking in a more generous floor for the lowest paid across the economy, which obviously applies to the social care sector. Clearly, the costs of social care will be taken into account as part of the local government settlement in the spending review later this year. I cannot add much more to that at the moment, but I hear the hon. Lady’s point.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is instructive to listen to care providers and the people around them—the national provider associations. Privately paying residents of care homes now subsidise the residents who are paid for through local authorities to a substantial extent. I was given a case of somebody who, at the end of their life, was moved to a much smaller, cheaper room. That can happen in people’s last months, as they are approaching death. Care home providers do not want to do that, but they are in an awful situation in which there is a great disparity between the cost of supporting people as they need more and more care and the money available. We have to recognise that that is happening. I want to emphasise how important this is. The Minister and his colleagues should listen to the people who are worried about this. Although more jobs are being created and people can transfer between jobs, we cannot live without care homes.

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate the point I made. The hon. Lady expresses her experience very articulately. The cost of social care will be taken into account as part of the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The point I am making is that as we increase the personal allowance, people who earn under that amount do not pay income tax. If we still had a personal allowance of £6,475, such a person would clearly be paying income tax. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have already made an awful lot of progress, I would entirely agree with him. That does not mean that we should stop.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised the issue of the national living wage, which we will introduce. It is based on the national minimum wage, which we believe should continue in its current form, applying recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to the Government. That has an important role to play.

The Government want to protect younger workers’ employment prospects as well as see as many people as possible benefiting from a higher wage. Given that younger workers tend to have less experience in the labour market than older workers, there is a risk that too high a wage rate might make them relatively less attractive to employers. That is why we will have both the national living wage and the national minimum wage.

[Barbara Keeley]

I talked at some length about national insurance and the fact that those with very low earnings may not reach the personal allowance but still pay national insurance contributions. Will the Minister comment on possible steps to remedy that drift? What are the Government’s plans?

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. In the coalition agreement in 2010, the coalition Government made it clear that our objective was to increase the personal allowance. Again, in my party’s manifesto for the 2015 general election, we made it clear that we wanted to increase the personal allowance, and of course we will. Our priority is to honour our manifesto commitments and that is what we will do.

It is worth pointing out that the income tax rate is higher than the rate of national insurance contributions. The increases in the personal allowance have been effective in sending a clear signal that we are making work pay and I think they have contributed to the strong recovery we see in jobs. That is to be welcomed, because it incentivises people to work.

[Barbara Keeley]

I understand that we want to ensure that people on the lowest incomes who may not work a lot of hours, and certainly those on the national minimum wage or zero-hours contracts, do not reach the personal allowance. However, the point remains that they are paying national insurance contributions and that is an alternative route to help people on very low pay.

[Mr Gauke]

That is an alternative route; it is hard to argue against that point. What I would say is that we had a manifesto commitment to increase the personal allowance to £12,500. Given that that was our manifesto commitment, it is right that we fulfil it—I am sure the hon. Lady does not disagree with that—and that is precisely what this measure will do. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Basic rate limit from 2016

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Gauke]

The clause sets the income tax basic rate limit for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The changes deliver the Government’s commitment to support and reward those in work. In the last debate I set out the Government’s record on cutting taxes. On top of that, we also want to support middle-income households and to reward individuals who want to work hard and progress. That is why we have committed to increasing the higher rate threshold—the point at which the higher rate of income tax is applied—to £50,000 by the end of the Parliament. The clause takes the first step in delivering that commitment.

Clause 6 increases the basic rate limit from £31,785 in 2015-16 to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. That is the income on which 20% tax is due. The income tax higher rate threshold, which is the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit, will therefore increase from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in 2016-17 and to £43,600 in 2017-18. Above that level, 40% tax is due. This is the first above-real-terms increase in the higher rate threshold since 2010, taking 130,000 people out of the higher rate of tax by 2016-17. By 2017-18, that will rise to more than 160,000 individuals. Since 2010, a typical higher rate taxpayer will have gained £818 by 2016-17 and £918 by 2017-18.

As in previous years, the national insurance upper earnings and upper profits limits will remain aligned with the higher rate threshold in 2016-17 and 2017-18. I noted on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week that a number of Labour MPs suggested that the link should be broken and that national insurance contributions should be charged at 12% above the higher rate threshold. Clause 6 allows the Government to support those in work, enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. That helps us to move towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.

[Barbara Keeley]

I note the Minister’s point about the comments of Back-Bench MPs, but as I said earlier, all parties in the House have Members who do not share the views of those on the Front Bench. That is the way it is, and I could certainly quote all kinds of thing that have been said by Conservative Members on matters dear to my heart.

Clause 6 sets the income tax basic rate limit for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 tax years. It will rise to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. We are in favour of tax cuts for those on middle incomes and we support the increases in both the personal allowance and the basic rate limit for 2016-17. However, as inflation, pay and living costs increase, we need to ensure that the basic rate limit for income tax reflects that change. That will prevent families and individuals from being dragged into a higher tax bracket and paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, despite them seeing no real-terms increase in their living standards or disposable income. Many people feel that is the situation they are in today.

We must also bear in mind how many people will benefit from the increase in the basic rate. In the most recent annual survey of hours and earnings, which used 2013 data, the median gross annual earnings for an individual was just over £22,000. The majority of basic rate taxpayers earn much less than the basic rate limit and are unlikely to benefit from the increase. It will only benefit people with earnings towards the top of the basic rate of tax and will disproportionally benefit people who earn much more than the average income of an individual in the United Kingdom.

As always, we must look at the package of measures outlined in the summer Budget to understand the true impact of the change for working people. Although the Government are altering the tax system to help to ensure that people are rewarded for work, this still does not help to tackle low-paid insecure work. On 2 September, the Office for National Statistics released its figures for zero-hours contracts, which we have already touched on today. Those figures showed that zero-hours work is on the rise, with the total number of contracts rising to 1.5 million and the number of people reporting zero-hours contracts as their main source of employment rising by almost 20% since last year.

At the same time, there are now more than 1.2 million people working part time because they could not find full-time work. That is 200,000 more people than when the Conservative party took office in 2010. John Philpott, director of the Jobs Economist, has raised concerns that the new national minimum wage will mean that employers could stop offering full-time permanent contracts to avoid paying the steep rise in the national living wage for the over-25s, which comes into force next April. He has stated:

“In an otherwise very lightly regulated UK labour market the forthcoming large hike in the minimum wage when the national living wage (NVL) is introduced next year might act as a further incentive to employers to increase their use of zero-hours contracts—which are already very prevalent in sectors where the NVL will bite hardest—in order to minimise the impact on total labour costs.”

We welcome the introduction of the higher limit for basic rate taxpayers. Although basic rate taxpayers will be protected from a rise in living costs, the Government’s freeze in working-age benefits will mean that benefit recipients will not receive the same assurances. In fact, taking into account inflation forecasts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the freeze in working-age benefits is equivalent to a 4.8% cut to working-age benefits over the four years. That will result in 13 million families losing £260 a year on average in benefits.

Although a basic rate rise will be welcomed by those who will benefit from the increase, we must bear in mind that many workers will not benefit from the rate rise. It will not help to solve the problem of insecure work nor will it make up for the other changes to welfare payments and tax credits that go to people who earn significantly less than the threshold.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady supports the measures that we are discussing, although I note that she is keen to dismiss the opinions of Back-Bench MPs—

[Barbara Keeley]

Not at all.

[Mr Gauke]

I retract that. The hon. Lady is not dismissing the opinions of Back Benchers; she just does not like them being quoted. I can understand why she holds that position, given the circumstances in which she finds herself.

The hon. Lady makes the point that the changes will not help individuals who do not pay income tax, or those who do not pay higher rate income tax. Under the circumstances, however, we believe that it is right to increase the higher rate threshold. This is the first above-inflation increase for some years. We have set out our intention to have a higher rate threshold of £50,000 by the end of the Parliament, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support that.

It is right that we support work. I sat in similar debates during the previous Parliament and listened while Front-Bench Labour spokespeople made the point that some nurses, policeman and others would benefit from bigger increases in the higher rate threshold, but that we were not increasing it fast enough. I hope that she will welcome the fact that we are making that progress and that the Labour party will continue to support such measures, which are all part of our move towards a low tax, low welfare and high wage economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Rate of corporation tax for financial years 2017-2020

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Such greatness to fall on one so young.

In the face of global competition, the UK cannot afford to stand still, which is why we will go further in this Parliament, cutting the rate to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. Those cuts will benefit more than 1 million businesses, saving them a further £6.6 billion by 2021, and will give the UK the lowest corporation tax rate in the G20, supporting investment, productivity and growth.

There is strong evidence of the economic benefits of lower corporation tax rates. Low rates increase the return that companies receive on investment, so encouraging the business investment that is vital to productivity growth. The University of Oxford estimates that the reduction in the corporate tax burden that we have delivered will increase business investment by £11 billion. The Treasury and HMRC have modelled the economic impact of the corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010, along with those announced at the summer Budget. The modelling suggests that the cuts could increase long-run GDP by more than 1%, or almost £20 billion in today’s prices.

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

As well as supporting businesses already operating in the UK, lower rates of corporation tax make the UK more attractive to international businesses. UK foreign direct investment stock has increased by almost 50% since 2010, reaching £1 trillion by the end of 2014. Last year, UK Trade & Investment reported almost 2,000 inward investment projects—the highest number ever—which have created almost 85,000 new jobs. The corporation tax cuts and other reforms, such as the introduction of the patent box, have completely changed perceptions of the UK tax regime. Five years ago, businesses were leaving the UK because of our tax regime; that regime has now become an asset that attracts firms to the UK, which is now regularly cited in surveys as having one of the most competitive regimes in the world.

In conclusion, cutting corporation tax has been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and it is working. The UK grew faster than any other G7 economy in 2014, and 2 million more people are in employment since 2010. Business investment is growing rapidly. Tax competition is dynamic. In the past few decades, we have seen countries throughout the world cut their corporation tax rates. We cannot afford to stand still while others rush ahead. The UK needs to be as competitive as possible.

There were those at the general election who advocated an increase in corporation tax to 21%. I am pleased that, months later, on Second Reading, those very same people were supportive of the measures in the clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who spoke for her party in that debate and supported the reduction in corporation tax to 19% and then 18%. A new 18% rate will send out the message around the world loud and clear that Britain is open for business. I hope that the Labour party will continue to support the policy, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am glad to see you back in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I put my head down for a moment and then you were not there.

As we have heard, clause 7 sets the main corporation tax rate at 19% for the financial years beginning on 1 April in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and at 18% for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020. Labour is in favour of support for businesses, which is what we need to discuss as we consider the clause. We want to help British businesses to invest in the UK and to enable long-term investment. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we have questions about the future direction of policy on support for businesses. It perhaps is not appropriate to discuss it at this point, but that is why later in our consideration of the Bill we would like to introduce a new clause asking for a public consultation on the reforms to the system of tax relief for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I suggest to the hon. Lady that businesses have been generous in passing on the fruits of their expansion and profitability, as evidenced by this week’s figures showing that wage growth is at a record recent level.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not see how that follows the flow of what I am talking about, but if I find a place to give a reply, I will do so.

In 2014-15, corporation tax made up 7% of the total tax take in the UK. We need to be clear that cutting corporation tax amounts to a transfer to the largest businesses that disproportionately benefits them. We are concerned that a more effective policy measure, such as the one suggested at the election, could have been used to help all businesses, rather than just the largest companies. We question the reasoning behind the Government’s policy decision. It appears that corporation tax has been used because it is relatively easy to alter. I am sure the Government recognise that a substantial amount of money is going to businesses. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to pay for the rate cut, which in 2020-21 will cost £2.5 billion? We have not seen a breakdown of exactly how that will be paid.

We have heard the point about firms being attracted to this country due to our tax regime. KPMG’s December 2014 survey of tax competitiveness revealed that only 8% of respondents saw favourable tax policies as the factor with the most impact on our recovery. Only 18% saw tax as having a high influence on where companies base themselves. That contradicts the point that the Minister just made. We believe that the focus of support for small and medium-sized businesses should be a priority and that policies to encourage businesses would have been better targeted elsewhere than this tax rate change.

Many small and medium businesses will have been disappointed that the Chancellor failed to mention business rates in his Budget speech. During the general election campaign, we outlined proposals to cut and then freeze business rates, so that smaller firms could have the support needed to invest, innovate and raise productivity. That would have helped more than 1.5 million small business properties. Small and medium-sized businesses are concerned about the pressures on business rates. Every time I visit such businesses in my constituency, that is almost the first thing they raise. Labour, along with small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country, will be waiting to see whether the Government will take action to reduce the business rates burden. There are reports that the valuation office now has to deal with 500 appeals a day. Will the Government give small and medium-sized businesses a gesture of support by providing them with an interim report on their business rates review?

Rates reform continually tops many small retailers’ and business groups’ lists of areas that need real reform, but the tax, over which there is a backlog of more than 250,000 complaints, failed to get a mention in the Chancellor’s speech. That caused a lot of disappointment. The British Retail Consortium has warned that the level of business rates could cause 80,000 shops to close by 2017, and business groups including the Confederation of British Industry say that the antiquated system of business rates is a major barrier to investment.

Let me return briefly to the point about the 80,000 shops. Very many MPs, including me, have in our constituencies the situation of empty shops on high streets and we all want to do something about that, but here is the big problem. John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, urged the Government to take action. He said:

“Bringing forward reforms to business rates is an immediate priority.”

We urge the Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the ongoing review of business rates does not result in small businesses paying disproportionately more. We call for greater attention to be given to business rates as a means to support small businesses.

It is quite common in these debates to hear questions backwards and forwards about the different priorities. During the general election campaign, Labour set out further ways to support small businesses, including elements that are often talked about here in debates. One was the tackling of late payments with a new requirement on larger businesses to set out the extent of late payment that they have been responsible for and the action that they have taken to compensate suppliers. We would have given business organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the right to take cases on behalf of their members, because they believe that that is very important.

We wanted to strive to reduce unnecessary regulation in the small business arena by establishing a small business administration, which the FSB has called for, to co-ordinate work across the Government to benefit smaller businesses and cut unnecessary regulation as it affects them. Our small business administration would have been given a remit to ensure that regulations or requirements on small business were proportionate and appropriate and avoided unnecessary burdens or compliance costs. They want to see regulation designed from the perspective of the smaller firm and they feel that it is not.

There is a need to deliver a longer-term road map for capital allowances and incentives for research and innovation such as the research and development tax credit, and not just for the headline rate of corporation tax. There is also a need to improve support for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises that want to grow rapidly.

We understand that the Government have started to take steps to address the issue of late payments and that a consultation on the proposed role of small business commissioner was undertaken. As we are talking about the different scale of businesses, may I ask whether Ministers can provide us with an update on the new role, because that consultation ended on 21 August?

What other action are the Government taking to offer the support needed for small and medium-sized businesses? Feedback from a cross-section of businesses, ranging from start-ups to FTSE 100 companies, that was gathered by PricewaterhouseCoopers stated a number of key messages about their view on how the UK tax system should be shaped in the future. They included the following. The UK needs to be clearer on tax; that is the issue of the road map to instil confidence. A longer-term approach to tax needs to be taken. We will talk about that later in terms of how some taxes and allowances have changed. Businesses feel that the tax system should be more focused. It is too complex, with many different reliefs and exemptions; reliefs should be better targeted at specific purposes. Also—I have already made this point—national insurance contributions should be aligned with income tax. That was the view of those businesses.

Labour wants certainty for businesses looking to invest.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentions certainty. Does she accept that other measures in the Budget, such as the national insurance contribution ceiling, will not only create certainty, but help the small businesses that she is mentioning?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed; that is why we made that pledge first. There is nothing else to say about that. We understood how important that was, and made the pledge first—on income tax, national insurance and VAT. The only difference between us on that is that we would not have spent the time of a Public Bill Committee or Committee of the whole House on gimmicks—on putting forward legislation to bring in what we pledged. We support action to help small and medium-sized businesses, and a system in which business reliefs are clear and focused. We want to ease the burden on smaller business of navigating the myriad reliefs that, we have to admit, exist today.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

We will not challenge the main substance of clause 7, but it has unintended consequences that reflect on later clauses that we will try to amend; I want to bring those up, and will ask the Minister to reflect on them and perhaps discuss them with the Chancellor.

The clause pre-announces the cut to the main rate five years in advance. Ordinarily, I would think that was quite a good thing to do, because it maximises revenue streams and still gets us the maximum impact of the incentive. That worked very well in Sweden, so we should congratulate the Minister on that principle. The first problem that emerges is that significant evidence shows that large amounts of corporate surpluses are staying in the bank or are being used for share buy-backs. There has been no great evidence over the past few years to show that cuts to corporation tax are leading directly to reinvestment in manufacturing plant and productive infrastructure. In fact, corporate balances have been going up significantly in the UK and, for the same reason, the United States.

My practical worry is that if we continue, over these five years, to cut corporation tax, that may incentivise profit-making in business, but the profits will not be reinvested into raising productivity in the British economy. That link has to be looked at. The issue could be dealt with by adding extra incentives for investment, so that the corporate surpluses are recycled. One of my criticisms of the Bill overall is that those incentives do not exist. I ask the Minister to look at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I begin by welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for the reduction in corporation tax—although, if I may say so, she could have sounded a little more enthusiastic about the measure. I would be grateful to know whether the shadow Chancellor agrees with the reduction in the corporation tax rate first to 19% and then to 18%. He is on record suggesting that the rate should be considerably higher, but I appreciate that he made those comments when he was a Back Bencher, so perhaps we should not dwell on them for too long.

A few issues were raised, some of which relate to this clause. I will try to address as many as possible. First, on the issue of the UK’s reputation and the base erosion and profit shifting process, which was instigated by the UK Government and others, the UK believes in a tax system that is competitive and fair, and which properly reflects where economic activity takes place. We want a simple, competitive and fair tax system, which is why we instigated the BEPS initiative to ensure that companies are not able to make use of an outdated international tax system that does not properly reflect where economic activity takes place. Within that system it is perfectly reasonable to have low and competitive rates, and that is exactly what we have delivered.

As I set out earlier, we are seeing signs of increased business investment. The analysis undertaken by the Treasury and HMRC shows that much of the tax loss as a consequence of the reductions is recovered by increases in economic activity. A dynamic behavioural analysis shows that this is helping. Real business investment is growing as a proportion of GDP; business investment grew by 8% in 2014, and the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that it will grow strongly over the next few years. It is also worth pointing out that the likes of the OECD make the case that corporation tax is perhaps one of the most economically damaging taxes and one of the most inefficient of our taxes. That is why it has been a priority for the Government to reduce it. We believe that if the UK is to prosper and to win the global race, it is important that we have that competitive tax system.

Our case as a country would be aided if there was consensus that we should have low rates of corporation tax, and that is why I genuinely welcome the fact that the Opposition parties apparently will not divide the Committee on that issue. I hope that that consensus can be maintained, because those who go around advocating very high rates for corporation tax do not aid those of us who are trying to advocate that businesses should invest in the UK when they have a number of international choices.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly give way to the hon. Lady, who can confirm her party’s and, indeed, the shadow Chancellor’s support for this measure.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think it would be my place to confirm the shadow Chancellor’s support for the measure. If this is going to come up again in the debate, I should explain that we have a robust system of policy development and that decisions in the short to medium term are taken by the shadow Cabinet, which I think has met only once since we had the change of leadership at the weekend; then we have a substantial policy forum set up, which works nationally with our annual conference to take forward new developments and changes in policy direction and decisions. It is not sensible in this very short time into a new administration to ask a junior shadow Treasury Minister to make that point.

To bring the Minister back to my questions, I spent quite a lot of time talking about corporation tax versus business rates. We made our pledge on business rates and we are very concerned about small and medium-sized businesses, and about the high street. Can he answer my questions?

[Mr Gauke]

I will, although I do not want to hurry away from corporation tax, given that it is the essence of clause 7. I note that the hon. Lady said that although she is able to make a statement about party policy as the Labour party Front Bencher in this Committee, neither the leader of her party nor the shadow Chancellor are in a position to do so. If that is the way the Labour party operates, that is one for that party, curious though it might be to the rest of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Another point about corporation tax that can be lost in the debate is that, ultimately, the burden of all taxes falls on people. There is a lively debate on corporation tax about how much should it fall upon shareholders, in which case we are often talking about pension funds that pay pensions to ordinary people. Sometimes it could fall upon employees as a consequence of the fact that there is a reduction in investment as a consequence of corporation tax, which in turn means that productivity does not improve, and as productivity tends to drive salaries and wages, employees often suffer; or it could indeed be consumers who suffer from higher prices as a consequence of corporation tax.

Let us be clear that all taxes that we debate in this Committee are ultimately paid by people. They might not be writing the cheque or transferring the funds from their account, but ultimately all taxes are paid by people, and if one has an economically inefficient tax, the price that people pay for the benefit to the public finances becomes all the greater.

[Barbara Keeley]

I find the comment from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the prior experience of Members of this House rather patronising. I started my career in IBM, which is one of the biggest companies in the world. In fact, I worked at the large systems end of IBM with some of the largest organisations in the country, so I will not be patronised about my business experience. I have also been self-employed, which an awful lot of Members have not been.

I return to the point that this was a straightforward switch. I do not have many large corporations in my constituency in Salford, but I do have a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. Our straight switch from corporation tax was to support those small and medium-sized businesses. That was the essence of my contribution.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, he was saying that those who advocate corporation tax rises might not understand business. As she is not advocating corporation tax rises, I do not think she should take those remarks personally.

The coalition Government introduced a number of measures on business rates at autumn statements and in Budgets—for example, introducing a discount and extending the small business rate relief. We have announced a review of business rates, which will report by the end of the year. We set out details in the Budget of how we are paying for the rate cut, as part of a set of tax-reforming measures.

The Government have taken strong steps to deal with avoidance both domestically and internationally. I will not detain the Committee on that, but I am happy to do so if necessary.

On tax simplification and helping small and medium-sized enterprises, it is worth pointing out that the Office of Tax Simplification was set up in 2010 and has made more than 400 recommendations, of which half have already been implemented. The OTS will be established on a statutory basis with an expanded role and capacity.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the late payments consultation. As we heard, that consultation was completed last month and the House will be updated on its results once responses have been reviewed. I am grateful for the Committee’s support for the measures, and I hope clause 7 will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Annual investment allowance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

We recognise the importance of long-term investment in driving productivity growth and the clause will facilitate that investment. The increase in the permanent level of the annual investment allowance will give businesses a stable and generous incentive to make that investment and grow.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think businesses might say, “About time,” given the history of the allowance. As the Minister said, the clause increases the maximum amount of the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £200,000 for expenditure incurred on or after January 2016. In fact, that is a cut to the existing temporary level of £500,000.

The allowance ensures the immediate deduction of expenditure on most plant and machinery from taxable profits. The history of the allowance’s levels is entertaining. It was set at £50,000 between 2008 and 2010 and then it increased to £100,000. It was cut to £25,000 in 2012 but then increased to £250,000—supposedly temporarily—in 2013. In the 2014 Budget, as we just heard, it was raised again to £500,000 and, as was announced in the Budget, it is now being cut to £200,000 in 2016. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“These changes and instability create costs and uncertainty and distort behaviour.”

In 2010, the Chancellor cut the main capital allowance rate and reduced the annual investment allowance to just a quarter of its previous level, from £100,000 down to £25,000. The Government then increased it, but on a temporary basis. Such unpredictability and complexity makes it difficult for businesses to plan the long-term investments that the allowances are intended to support—that is their whole purpose.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

That said, taking into account fluctuations over the years and the fact that it was a two-year stimulus, does the hon. Lady agree that the key part to the provision is that it is permanent, thus allowing businesses to plan in the way she advocates should be the way forward?

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but, looking at what people say about this, it seems that they do not have confidence that the allowance is permanent because of the way it has chopped and changed. That the Government acted in 2010 to reduce it to a quarter of its earlier value—it was £100,000—is part of the problem. One can see from what I just read out that it jumped around.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, both the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have called for the annual investment allowance to be retained at £500,000. Crucially, the IFS also states that

“restricting the AIA to investment in plant and machinery only creates distortions through differential treatment of assets.”

The IFS has estimated that setting the annual investment allowance at £200,000 from January next year will cost £0.8 billion.

Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor reached the figure of £200,000? As I say, the allowance has jumped about: it was cut to just £25,000 and is now going to be £200,000. There were calls from some small and medium-sized businesses to set a level over £500,000. The IFS says that over the past few years there has been

“an absurd degree of inconsistency”

in the setting of the allowance. As highlighted earlier, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Paying for Tomorrow” campaign put forward a strong argument for a need for a long-term view on tax, with a simple, focused approach to tax reliefs. The history of the allowance is anything but that.

The inconsistency has a damaging effect on businesses’ confidence to plan for the future. The move to make the annual investment allowance a permanent rate is welcome, and we support the move to encourage investment and productivity, but we question whether the measure goes far enough. As I said, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have called for the allowance to be set above the current level of £500,000. As with business rates, they feel that the Chancellor has not listened to them. There are calls for him to look again at how he helps businesses to continue to spend and grow.

Other reliefs should also be considered. Consultations are out on business rates—although the Minister did not seem keen to tell me more about that one—enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. We encourage the Government to focus more than they have on the needs of small businesses. I have many questions about how the annual investment allowance has been handled by the Government to date, but of course we welcome some degree of permanence, as guaranteed in the summer Budget—if it is to be permanent. However, the overall system of tax reliefs for businesses must be considered if we are to have a competitive and fair system for businesses to invest and grow. I hope that the Minister will adopt Labour’s new clause and launch a public consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses. I hope also that Members will support the new clause when we vote on it later.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)]

Much of what I say will be in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. The Scottish National party also considers the allowance a vital investment tool, particularly for small businesses. The fact that it can be claimed during a year of investment rather than over a number of years is particularly beneficial for encouraging investment and therefore productivity, which we are also keen to see.

To reiterate what the hon. Lady said, yes, the allowance was increased to £500,000, and we are pleased that it will not fall off a cliff edge to £25,000 in January 2016; rather, it will just be decreased to £200,000. It is, however, a pity that it is a decrease of £300,000. My question for the Minister is, if it is good at £500,000, why not keep it there to encourage productivity? In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that we do not export enough, train enough, save enough or invest enough. The key question stands: why not make the allowance permanent at £500,000?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank hon. Members for their questions. First, let me make it clear that £200,000 is the highest permanent level there has been for the allowance. If I recall correctly, it was £100,000 during the Labour party’s last year in office. We made some temporary increases in the AIA to support the recovery, and those increases were warmly welcomed by businesses, which believed that they allowed them to bring forward and realise their investment plans. We recognise the importance of providing certainty to businesses in the current economic climate, and we are committing to keeping the level of £200,000 for the entire Parliament. We believe that that will help to provide an environment of long-term support for businesses to invest.

The level of the allowance must be viewed in the context of cuts to corporation tax. We must remember that although the previous Government had an annual investment allowance of £100,000, the rate of corporation tax was 28%. The allowance of £200,000 when we have a corporation tax rate of 20%, falling to 18%, is significantly more generous.

On business reaction, let me read two quotations following the Budget announcement on 8 July. John Allan, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:

“The Annual Investment Allowance has been an important incentive for people investing in the future growth and productivity of our small businesses. We have long called for the Allowance to be set permanently and at a reasonable level. Small firms will therefore welcome the move by the Chancellor to do just that by setting the Allowance permanently at £200,000.”

John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said on the same day:

“The Chancellor has confirmed that Britain is open for business. Firms across the UK will cheer not just the new permanent Annual Investment Allowance, further Corporation Tax reductions, and lower National Insurance for small businesses, but also commitments to childcare and higher education that help them employ Britain’s best.”

We must bear that in mind.

[Barbara Keeley]

The quotes give part of the message, and it is not surprising that those whom the Minister has quoted from business support permanence. As two Opposition Members have said, however, businesses have called for the allowance to be retained at £500,000. It is not surprising that they wanted permanence, but they also wanted a higher level.

[Mr Gauke]

The reaction to the announcement was that businesses were pleased. That is what we got from the Federation of Small Businesses and the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. Would they have liked it to be higher? Of course they would, but the claim that the measure has disappointed business is certainly not supported by those two quotations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if he will bear with me, I will set out the rationale for the measure. We think there is a particular issue about family homes and the fact that more and more homes are caught by inheritance tax. That is why we have introduced these measures. When it comes to complexity, if one looks at the inheritance tax regimes of Germany, Italy or France, they all consist of a number of different bands or rates, depending upon the relationship between individuals. Germany also allows for an exemption in certain circumstances when the family home is left to children or stepchildren. Several countries, such as Australia, Sweden and Canada, do not have inheritance tax, but still charge capital gains tax on death, and those regimes have their own complexities. Complexity is inevitable because of the complexity of relationships and so on.

What we are considering today is in addition to the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, which will remain at £325,000 until April 2021. That means that individuals will have an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £500,000 by the end of this Parliament. In addition, a surviving spouse or civil partner will be able to claim up to £1 million.

From 6 April 2017, a surviving spouse or civil partner who dies will be able to benefit from the transferrable element of the new allowance even if their spouse or civil partner died several years ago. To ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax, the largest estates will not be able to benefit from this new allowance. They will have it gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million. We do not want to discourage downsizing, and I can confirm that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill of 2016 to ensure that those who downsized or ceased to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 are not penalised.

The Government have tabled six amendments to clause 9. Amendments 1 to 3 clarify that homes placed in some types of trust for the benefit of a surviving spouse during their lifetime, and where the home passes to a direct descendant on the spouse’s death, will benefit from the new main residence nil-rate band. Amendments 4 and 5 will ensure that the main residence nil-rate band will apply when an individual leaves their home to the current or surviving spouse or civil partner of anyone already defined as a direct descendant. Finally, amendment 6 is a minor change to the definition of a foster parent to include other similar terms, such as kinship carers in Scotland.

The Opposition’s amendment 7 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer, three months after the passing of the Bill, to publish a report reviewing the impact of clause 9 on different regions of the UK and house prices. I recognise the importance of evaluating the impact of policy changes, but a formal report is not necessary in this case. HMRC already publishes annual statistics on the number of tax-paying estates and the amount of tax due in each region. I have also explained the steps taken to reduce any potential impact on house prices. The OBR has confirmed that it expects this measure to have only a small impact on the housing market. The Government will keep the impact of the policy under review in the normal way and at the appropriate time, but a report more than a year before it takes effect is not a sensible way forward.

The changes made by clause 9 will mean that around 93% of estates will be able to pass on all their assets without paying any inheritance tax. The number of estates facing an inheritance tax charge in 2020-21 will be almost halved in comparison with previous forecasts, and thousands more will pay less tax. This measure will also provide peace of mind to thousands of families who worry about the prospect of paying inheritance tax. Inheritance tax will, however, continue to make an important contribution to the public finances. The number of tax-paying estates will continue to be higher at the end of the decade than at any time between the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986 and 2014-15. Indeed, more estates will continue to make a contribution than at any time between 1979-80, when capital transfer tax was in operation, and the end of the last Parliament.

There are those who disagree with making it easier for hard-working individuals to pass on their family home to their children and grandchildren. They say that rewarding hard work and aspiration is not a priority, but they are out of touch with the British people. The Government listen to the British people and deliver on their promises.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am afraid I am not at all convinced, but perhaps that is no surprise. Clauses 9 and 10 bring into force the nil-rate band for inheritance tax, allowing parents to pass on a house to direct descendants, as defined by the Government’s amendments, worth up to £1 million free of inheritance tax. This legislation is extremely technical, running to more than 400 lines and representing six of the clauses we are considering today.

We have been clear that we believe that the focus of tax cuts should be on helping working people on middle and low incomes and on tackling tax avoidance. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy, so we should be clear about the part of society we are talking about. The priority for the Government, we believe, should be helping the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own. That is why Labour voted against the Government’s inheritance tax proposals in the July Budget debate.

The Treasury estimates that the changes to inheritance tax will cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21—nearly £1 billion. We must think of priorities and the context of what we are talking about. This is a week when tax credits have been cut, so that two parents working full time on the minimum wage and raising two children will lose £2,200 from tax credits and be £660 worse off, even with the increase in the minimum wage that we talked about earlier.

I would like the Minister to clarify why exempting wealthy property owners from inheritance tax has been one of his Government’s policy priorities. That is the question that we keep coming back to. When this was proposed in the general election campaign, the IFS commented that

“The vast majority of estates (over 90%) are not liable to IHT at the moment and therefore would not benefit…With around 50,000 estates forecast to pay IHT over the next few years this gives an average (mean) gain per IHT paying estate of around £20,000. The maximum reduction in IHT on a couple’s estate is £140,000 which will go to married couples with estates worth between £1 million and £2 million. Since the children of those with very large estates are disproportionately towards the top of the income distribution the gains from this (and in fact any) IHT cut will also go disproportionately to those towards the top of the income distribution.”

The IFS has said:

“Inheritance tax is not very effective at achieving wealth redistribution. Were the threshold raised to £1 million it would also be much less effective in terms of raising money.”

We have to think about that.

[Mr Gauke]

Given what the hon. Lady is saying, could she explain why Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling cut inheritance tax in 2007, when they introduced the nil-rate band?

[Barbara Keeley]

I was not in anything like my current role at the time; I am afraid that I cannot explain the thinking of the former Chancellor.

To bring us back to policy priorities, there is much to be said about the technical detail of this legislation. Inheritance tax is already a complex tax to navigate, and the Bill creates a new level of complexity. The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has set out 10 tenets for a better tax system, one of which states that

“the tax rules should…be simple, understandable and clear in their objectives.”

This tax has never been that. The institute says of the clause:

“The measure is excessively complex; it would be simpler to just increase the nil rate band to £500,000.”

Why has the Minister chosen to implement the policy in its current form? There seems to be a simpler way of administering the tax.

Chris Williams of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:

“The proposals add further complexity to an already complex system. The government has recognised that the problem of downsizing”—

to which the Minister referred—

“must be addressed but proposes only to allow for downsizing that takes place on or after 8 July 2015. Other problem areas include the need to define a main residence consistently throughout the tax system, and to recognise the diverse patterns of the modern family when attempting to restrict the benefit to children and descendants.”

I will come on to that, because there is an important point about what a modern family consists of.

The Mirrlees review, led by the IFS and funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council, noted that inheritance tax was a

“somewhat half-hearted tax, with many loopholes and opportunities for avoidance through careful organization of affairs.”

That is well known. It went on to say:

“This leads to charges of unfairness and makes a principled defence of the current inheritance tax difficult.”

I grant it that the Minister tried. With such a generous increase in the nil-rate band and such low estimated returns to the Exchequer, the question now is whether we should start revising this to a quarter-hearted, rather than half-hearted, tax. Is this policy a priority at a time when families and first-time buyers are struggling to get a home of their own? The average house price outside London is just over £183,000. The current nil-rate band is £325,000. That would be enough to cover the average value and include a buffer. Why has the Chancellor decided to introduce that additional residence nil rate band?

[Simon Hoare]

Why does the hon. Lady’s narrative automatically presume that because an estate is asset-rich, descendants are cash-rich? She referred to people trying to get on the property ladder—to pay the deposit, stamp duty, and so on. Take the widow who has stayed for years in the family home, which she bought reasonably cheaply in a part of London where property values have risen. It is the disposal of that asset on her death, and her descendants’ inheritance of it, as free of tax as possible, that allows those descendants, who may be in low or middle-paid jobs, to get on the property ladder. Why do the hon. Lady and the Labour party automatically exclude them from their thinking?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will come on to a very good reason why. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s points. I ask the Minister why—I hope he does not lose this question—given the average house price outside London, the Chancellor has decided to introduce this additional band. There are wider questions, which I said I would come to, about the scope of who will benefit from the nil rate band.

The new tax exemption applies to lineal descendants. We welcome the clarification of who will benefit outlined in the Government amendment, and the apparent extension of the nil rate band to a lineal descendant’s spouse or civil partner in the event of the lineal descendant’s death. However, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has pointed out that it could be seen as discriminatory to allow the relief only to lineal descendants; many godparents, aunts and uncles are as close to, and their lives are as intertwined with those of, godchildren, nieces and nephews as are those children’s parents. That is the kind of family structure that we have these days.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had representations from constituents who feel that the lineal descendancy clause is absolutely discriminatory, particularly against childless couples. There seems to be no logic to it, and I would welcome hearing the Minister’s case for it.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend puts that in an excellent way. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on why the policy will apply only to lineal descendants? It has the potential to raise house prices by making property an even more attractive investment for the wealthiest, which would make it even more difficult for ordinary working people to get on to the property ladder.

Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said that it is

“rather odd to give this special treatment to housing given that owner-occupied housing is already extremely tax privileged”.

He said:

“This will only increase the bias we have towards putting your money in a house, to inflating potentially the value of housing, without dealing with the lack of housing, which is driving up the value of private residences.”

Many of the policy’s features are similar to those analysed in a Treasury document that was leaked to, and published by, The Guardian. According to the estimates in the document, based on Budget 2014 forecasts, the policy would reduce the proportion of estates liable for inheritance tax from 8% in 2015-16 to just over 6% by the end of the Parliament, rather than increasing it to slightly more than 10%, as the current policy would have done. The document contains the argument that

“there are not strong economic arguments for introducing an inheritance tax exemption specifically related to main residences”.

A number of problems with the policy are set out in the document, such as the fact that it would encourage investment in owner-occupied housing rather than other more productive investments and that it would discourage downsizing late in life when that might otherwise be appropriate. Although the Government have made some provisions to prevent the downsizing problem, industry experts have said that the changes could lead to more people choosing to upsize later in life, which would have consequences for the availability of housing stock for other buyers.

I want to talk about the balance of the Government’s tax cuts, including changes to inheritance tax. Those changes will cost £24.6 billion over the Parliament, and they will be financed by five main sources, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Tax increases will raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament; we have talked about things such as insurance premium tax. Welfare cuts, including cuts to tax credit and many freezes, will raise nearly £35 billion. Other spending decisions will cut £8.1 billion. Cuts to departmental spending and to the BBC have been proposed. Various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that will raise a further £14.2 billion.

The Budget decisions, interestingly, imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase indicated by the OBR pre-measures forecast. Inheritance tax raised an estimated £3.8 billion in 2014-15, but house price inflation had been expected to drive the tax take up to £6.4 billion by 2019-20. Instead of the Exchequer receiving more revenue from inheritance tax, however, the policy is expected to cost it £940 million a year by 2020-21, when the additional family home allowance—like the existing allowance, it will be transferable between spouses—reaches £175,000 per person.

When they talk about borrowing, Conservative Members should bear in mind that if the Government had kept the existing allowance, they would have more than halved expected additional borrowing over the lifetime of the Parliament. In contrast, their position appears to mean more borrowing, when one of the Government’s specified aims is to do the opposite. It seems strange that in the debates we have had so far the Conservative party seems to be convinced that it is okay to increase taxes such as insurance premium tax and to make increases that hit very large numbers of people the main way to raise finances, while implementing changes to inheritance tax that will cost the Exchequer considerable sums of money.

Surely, keeping inheritance tax as it was would be better than increasing the insurance premium tax and making hefty welfare cuts. Those are the decisions that are weighed against each other. The Government are cutting a tax for the wealthier families in the country, while cutting tax credits for millions of those who are in need. That is what we are going to see over the coming years. We could say that this is a rather warped interpretation of Robin Hood: taking money from the poorest to pay for a tax cut for the richest.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset, this tax cut comes at the same time as the Government have decided to abandon a manifesto pledge to implement a £72,000 cap on care costs. In a written statement to the House of Lords on 25 July 2015, the cap on costs was described as an expensive new commitment. The cap—a pledge made by the Conservative party—was designed to prevent older people and younger people with disabilities from having to sell their homes when they went into care.

Here is the answer for the hon. Gentleman: why is it okay for people with care needs to have to sell their homes and have nothing to pass on, while the very wealthiest—the top 10%—are allowed to keep house values of £1 million? The Government have decided to abandon a cap, for which they had made legislation, on the grounds that it is too expensive, while they are opting to go with the introduction of the nil rate band for inheritance tax on properties, which will cost £1 billion by 2020. That £1 billion a year could have been an incredible investment in social care; instead, we are going the opposite way. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. People who have to pay their own care costs will be under a huge burden and will have to give up their homes.

[Simon Hoare]

I would simply say to the hon. Lady that it is just about how an individual uses the asset. If someone needs to use their asset to pay for their care, that is what they must do. Greedy children will be hanging at the gate preventing them from putting up the “For sale” sign or whatever, but we just have to get used to using our residential assets better, as needs require.

[Barbara Keeley]

We were committed to a better way of funding social care, and in future we will be committed to even better ways.

I want to finish by questioning the Government’s priorities. It is a question not only of priorities, but of the unintended impacts of the policy. We talked about downsizing and the effect on the housing market. The clause may have a significant impact, which is why we tabled amendment 7, which would require a report on the effect of the inheritance tax changes on different UK regions and on housing prices. The Minister seemed to signal that he will not look at or accept our amendment, but it is very reasonable, asking only for a report. If he will not accept our proposal now, we will bring it back on Report.

[Roger Mullin]

I do not think I need to go over the nine pages of the clause in detail, for which the Committee will be grateful. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South did a good job of going through the minutiae and detail, for which she has our thanks. I will not repeat her.

I have one or two simple observations. I have paid particular attention to the Minister’s words in a number of his remarks. It is an extraordinary priority that the Government are putting in place these measures when they are also making some of the most vicious cuts in welfare that people have experienced in our lifetime. It was very telling when the Minister indicated that one criterion for the decision on inheritance tax—I think that I quote him fairly—was that it will give “peace of mind” to those who are no doubt relatively wealthy, with considerable assets. I did not hear the Government say that the peace of mind of the poor was a criterion when they brought in their tax credit cuts and other welfare reforms.

It is also interesting to reflect that the Minister talked earlier about the need to do things because of the trying circumstances that the economy is in. If we have to take account of those circumstances, why is this measure a priority? It contributes nothing. My party is wholly opposed to the Government’s proposal.

[Mr Gauke]

I am disappointed that the Opposition parties will not support this measure, but let me try to respond to some of the points raised. Rising house prices mean that inheritance tax is hitting more families than previously. More estates are paying it than at any time since the system was introduced, and the numbers were forecast to double. This measure will simply return the number of estates paying IHT to the levels of 2014-15, which, at the end of the decade, will still be more than in any year between 1997 and 2010—that is any year of the last Labour Governments, including 2007, when the then Labour Chancellor stood up and announced a significant reform to take more estates out of inheritance tax. Receipts in cash terms will continue to be higher under this Government than at any time since the introduction of IHT.

It is worth pointing out that the taper for estates worth more than £2 million ensures that the largest estates do not benefit. This measure is being paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy elsewhere in the tax system—for example, changes to the rules relating to non-doms—and by reducing the generosity of pension tax relief for those with incomes over £150,000 in particular.

The question of lineal descendants was raised. The Government have sought to focus on the passing of homes to the next generation in the immediate family, which ensures that parents know that they can pass on the family home they worked hard for without the worry of inheritance tax. The extension of that to homes left to others would carry an additional cost to the Exchequer, which would need to be financed by raising other taxes or reducing public expenditure. We sought to strike the appropriate balance, with a policy that allows the family home to pass on to the next generation, but which is also affordable. In terms of the impact on downsizing and the housing market, the OBR agreed that there will be only a small effect.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South touched on the cap delay. The Government remain fully committed to introducing a cap on social care costs and helping people to cope with the potentially high costs of social care, but a time of consolidation is not the right moment to implement such expensive new commitments. The decision to delay implementation has not been taken lightly: it follows concerns about timing expressed by stakeholders across the sector, including the Local Government Association and the National Audit Office.

We listened to those concerns and, by delaying implementation of the funding reforms until 2020-21, we will allow local authorities time to focus on delivering the important reforms to care and support introduced on 1 April, laying the groundwork to implement the funding reforms as successfully as possible in 2020. We will also use that time to work with the financial sector to explore what more can be done to support people to plan and prepare for later life and the risk of needing social care. I regret that the measure does not have cross-party support, but I hope that the Committee as a whole will support it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 9, line 18, leave out

“under the disposition the property becomes”

and insert

“the property becomes, on D’s death,”

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

‘(3B) Where, immediately before D’s death, the property was settled property in which D was beneficially entitled to in an interest in possession, B inherits the property if B becomes beneficially entitled to it on D’s death.”

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 9, line 27, leave out “a person’s death,” and insert

“the death of a person (“D”),”

Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 9, line 29, leave out

“a lineal descendant of the person”

and insert “—

(a) a lineal descendant of D,

(b) a person who, at the time of D’s death, is the spouse or civil partner of a lineal descendant of D, or

(c) a person who—

(i) at the time of the death of a lineal descendant of D who died no later than D, was the spouse or civil partner of the lineal descendant, and

(ii) has not, in the period beginning with the lineal descendant’s death and ending with D’s death, become anyone’s spouse or civil partner.”

Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 10, line 44, after first “parent” insert “(however styled)”—(Mr Gauke.)

[Barbara Keeley]

On a point of order, Mr Howarth. I need to check something with you. Sir Roger said this morning that if we are not sure of our process, we should ask. I understand that if we vote on the amendment and the clauses now we will not return to them on Report, but we want to return to them on Report.

[The Chair]

You can come back to issues on Report, but it depends on the number of amendments and new clauses at the time, and the judgment that is made. I cannot give the hon. Lady any absolute assurance.

[Barbara Keeley]

I understand that. We are choosing to return to this issue on Report, so we will not press our amendment.

[The Chair]

In my opinion, all the issues in the clause have been fully debated, so I do not propose to have a clause stand part debate.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Rate bands for tax years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

As I said earlier, we will return to inheritance tax on Report if we can. Clauses 11 to 14 address tax avoidance measures that have previously been allowed in the inheritance tax system and a number of anomalies that have created unintended consequences and loopholes in the inheritance tax regime.

The clauses illustrate the complexity of inheritance tax legislation. That complexity is compounded by the need to continually update and rectify the regime with additional legislation, making the legislation even more difficult to understand and apply. Although we welcome the moves in the Bill that seek to close loopholes, this raises a bigger question about the efficacy of inheritance tax legislation. In the light of that, will the Minister say whether the Government have any further plans to adopt a programme of reform to simplify this tax and make it easier to navigate?

We welcome the fact that clauses 11 to 14 address areas of the legislation that give an unfair advantage to some beneficiaries over others, because that will help to ensure that inheritance tax is applied in a fair manner. Previously, it has been relatively easy for people to avoid paying the correct amount of inheritance tax by placing property into a number of trusts or by increasing the value of property in a trust immediately after an initial amount of property was settled. The clauses and schedule aggregate the value of property in trusts that are not related, for the purpose of determining the rate at which inheritance tax is charged, when the value of property in those trusts is increased on the same day. The schedule also simplifies some of the rules for calculating the rate of tax for the purposes of the 10-year anniversary and exit charges.

The provisions are welcome as measures to prevent avoidance techniques through the use of multiple trusts settled on the same day. We also welcome the adoption of a system that aggregates property over multiple trusts, rather than splitting the nil rate band to take into account multiple trusts. That would have been an extremely complex system to administer, and aggregating property held in multiple trusts is a much simpler way to resolve the problem. The simplification of rules on exit charges and the 10-year anniversary charge is welcome, but I would like to know whether the Minister is considering any further changes.

We have had a good debate on inheritance tax today, but wider issues with it remain. In particular, it is still extremely complex. Although the Government have introduced many of the measures outlined in previous consultations to make inheritance tax policy more cohesive —for example, multiple trusts, the 10-year anniversary charge declarations, interest in possession and the implementation of an IT strategy to transfer inheritance tax administration online—the tax still lacks simplicity. Each of those issues has added another set of complexities to inheritance tax.

In 2010, the Office of Tax Simplification’s report identified 89 inheritance tax reliefs. It noted the need for a top-down review of inheritance tax in 2011, stating:

“We consider that a more appropriate approach to the inheritance tax reliefs is to consider the scope and operation of inheritance tax with reference to the original and desired policy rationale, and thus to consider individual reliefs in context. In addition, any review of inheritance tax needs to include a review of the taxation of trusts, which are often used to pass family assets between generations.”

Does the Minister have any further plans to enact new measures to simplify the rules and administration of inheritance tax?

At the heart of the clauses, an issue of tax avoidance is addressed. We should encourage planning for the future. Planning what happens to their finances after their death is something that most people should consider. For some people, that has been entwined with navigating the inheritance tax rules to minimise their contribution. People should pay no more and no less than their fair share. Will the Minister provide any details on the measures the Government are taking to ensure that everyone who is eligible pays their share of inheritance tax?

The Minister has taken us through the clauses and how they operate. The correction of the anomaly in clause 12 means that trustees will now have clear guidance about the timeline to submit an application for exemptions. That should make it easier for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to administer the exemption.

Clause 13 corrects an anomaly whereby types of interest in possession escaped all inheritance tax charges because the property was neither part of the beneficiary’s estate nor included within a relevant property trust. That was an unintended effect of the 2006 legislation. Labour welcomes corrections of that type. We welcome the change, which will ensure that an interest in possession in settled property is treated the same, regardless of the date at which the settlement was created.

Clause 14 provides that where property is left in trust in which no interest in possession subsists and an appointment of that property is made within three months of the date of death, the appointment can be read back into the will. I do not think any of us is an expert in this, but I understand that that corrects an anomaly known as the Frankland trap. Labour welcomes the removal of the anomaly, as the tax will now be applied fairly. It will protect families who could unfairly suffer if they were unaware of the trap.

In view of what we said earlier about our overall views on inheritance tax and clauses 9 and 10, we think that it is right that the tax is applied in the fairest way possible and that anomalies are removed.

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. Many people would agree that we should take action where there is aggressive tax planning. The changes will ensure that there is no longer an advantage in creating multiple trusts. It is right that we take action. At the same time, existing trusts will benefit from the simplification aspects, such as the removal of the need to include non-relevant property in the calculation.

The main point made by the hon. Lady relates to a programme of reform to simplify IHT legislation. We will of course continue to simplify the tax system wherever possible. I should use the traditional response of a Treasury Minister in these circumstances, which is to say that all taxes are kept under review, and we will continue to look at inheritance tax. More generally, it is worth pointing out that we have established the Office of Tax Simplification. We are putting it on a statutory footing and strengthening its role and capacity. It has already achieved a great deal in the period it has existed, and I hope that will continue to be the case over the next few years. I am grateful for the support for the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Inheritance tax: interest

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 15 makes minor changes to the rules for interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments that will ensure that the interest is calculated correctly when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available.

The Government announced in the 2013 autumn statement that HMRC will provide a new online service for people to submit inheritance tax returns and settle the affairs of those who have died. The introduction of the new service requires various legislative changes to facilitate the new online processes, including aligning the treatment of interest for inheritance tax with that for other taxes. Rules that apply standard rates of interest across all taxes should also apply to inheritance tax. The new online service now provides the opportunity to make the necessary IT changes to apply the rules. To ensure that the standardised interest rules apply correctly, some minor changes are required to make consequential amendments to related provisions and to correct an error in the rules.

It might be helpful if I explain briefly to the Committee why the changes are being made. There are specific rules for charging interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments and the estate includes shares in certain companies or financial institutions that deal in shares and securities on the stock exchange, which are known as market makers. The current inheritance tax rules were amended in regulations in 2012 to reflect a change in the definition of a market maker, using a power in the Finance Act 1986. The equivalent standardised interest rules also need to be amended in a similar way, but the power in the 1986 Act may be used only to amend the current inheritance tax interest rules, not the standardised ones. Clause 15 amends the relevant provisions in the 1986 Act to extend the power to the standardised rules to enable the definition of a market maker to be updated. That will enable the standardised interest rules to apply correctly to payments of tax instalments on shares in such companies and financial institutions.

The interest rules also need to be amended so that the period from which interest is charged is six months from the end of the month in which the death occurs. The changes made by the clause will come into effect on a date specified in regulations, which will be at the same time as the new online service for taxpaying estates becomes available, currently expected to be in April 2016. The changes are expected to affect only a very small number of estates that include shares in companies that are market makers and where the tax due is paid by instalments. The impacts on the Exchequer and on individuals and businesses are therefore expected to be negligible.

The changes are small but necessary. Clause 15 will enable the new interest rules for instalment payments to be applied correctly and consistently when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available for taxpaying estates. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Barbara Keeley]

Labour welcomes any move to make the payment of tax simpler and more efficient. Many people already benefit from paying certain taxes online—I must say I am not one of them; I find it quite difficult, despite my IT background—and clause 15 will allow inheritance tax to follow that road map. In particular, relevant provisions relating to the late payment of interest will be updated and applied consistently when the new online service becomes available.

The only question remaining is when the new online service becomes available. The Government have reported that the service will become available. I wonder whether the Minister’s officials can get a note to him fast enough for him to answer. Can the Minister provide an update on the service’s progress or, indeed, tell us when he expects the service to be functioning? He has not answered many of my questions today—he has brushed his way past an awful lot of the questions he has been asked—so perhaps he can answer this last one if he has the answer in his notes.

[Mr Gauke]

As it so happens, let me say the following. The IHT online service will be implemented in phases, with increased functionality at each stage. Selected customers who have no inheritance tax to pay and are applying for probate in England and Wales will be invited to test the new online service during this month and next. It will become available to the public in November, and later phases will extend it to taxpaying customers, as well as agents and people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Details of the timing of future releases will be given in due course.

I hope that, finally, at the end of a long day, I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South with respect to one of her questions. I know that this is the end of her contribution to the Finance Bill Committee this year, so I thank her for her questions and constructive engagement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also commend her for managing to brush past the various quotations from her leader and shadow Chancellor that were thrown at her, which she was happily able to ignore.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)

Draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential amendments) Order 2015

Barbara Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 General Committees

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair, Mr Bailey. The order makes a number of consequential amendments to specific references to tax rates in existing legislation, which the Minister talked us through, so that Scottish rates can be used when it is appropriate to do so.

Labour believes that Scotland should have more autonomy over its taxation decisions. In the general election, we promised to make the Scottish Parliament

“the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world.”

Although the order will simply adapt legislation to take account of any changes to income tax, the Scottish Parliament may undertake no tax changes in the future without this complication. A number of concerns remain about how the changes will be implemented.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the Smith commission made it clear that in many ways, the most difficult work lies ahead, and that the details of how taxes and benefits are devolved will be crucial. We must also consider the practical implications of tax devolution for businesses such as insurers and pension funds. Concerns have been raised about how to identify who is liable to pay the Scottish rate of income tax. What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that Scottish taxpayers will be identified without significant additional costs?

Concerns have been raised by the pensions industry about how to implement pension relief at source in light of the change, which follows the implementation of a range of other pension measures introduced in 2014. The purpose of those measures was to provide customers with greater pension freedom, but there is clearly already a significant amount of strain on the pensions industry, causing difficulties for many pensioners. Last year, Scottish Widows admitted that it had reached breaking point because of the reforms, which have had a significant negative impact on its ability to provide its customers with a quality service.

Pension providers have stated that they will struggle to implement the new round of reforms. Many pension scheme providers have pointed out that the new arrangements will have significant administrative implications. The National Association of Pension Funds has said that the higher operational costs are likely to be passed on to scheme members. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with the NAPF that those changes will lead to higher costs. If he does, can he give the Committee a figure of what the costs might amount to for scheme providers and individual members who will end up having the costs passed on to them? That raises the question of who will bear the impact of higher operational costs. Will those additional costs be borne solely by scheme members in Scotland or by members across the UK?

As the Minister mentioned, because of the pressures and strains on the industry, HMRC has given it more time to implement the changes. Between April 2016 and April 2018, relief will be given at main UK rates, with an adjustment being applied later. Given the delay, does the Minister think the planning for the arrangements has been adequate? Have the cost and administrative implications for pension scheme providers and their members in Scotland been sufficiently taken into account? What steps is he taking to ensure that the reforms do not impact negatively on the service that customers receive from their pension providers?

The future implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax remains unclear. The explanatory memorandum states that after April 2018 Scottish taxpayers will

“as far as possible…receive the correct amount of relief into their pension pot.”

Will the Minister clarify to the Committee what is meant by “as far as possible”? It implies that the implementation of the changes may not be completed even within the grace period given to pension providers. It raises concern that, even by 2018, there will still be cases in which individuals are not receiving the correct amount into their pension scheme. Will the Minister explain to the Committee what will happen in those cases?

It is clear that there are lessons to be learned from the implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax. The Scotland Bill outlines devolution plans that include the devolution of far more substantial income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament. Will the lessons learned from the introduction of this tax change inform the Government’s approach to the management of the reforms that are yet to come? HMRC has published draft guidance on how it will interpret the definition of “Scottish taxpayer”, but concerns have been raised about the helpfulness of that guidance for more complex cases. At the moment it is unclear whether that guidance will be amended to take account of the feedback. Will the Minister provide further information on that?

Overall, there is still very little guidance for taxpayers about this important matter. Employers and taxpayers need to be in possession of clear guidance, and they need to be given enough time to plan for changes that they may need to implement. Will the Minister tell us what plans have been made to ensure that information is provided to taxpayers and employers in a timely manner?

We must bear in mind the wider changes that may result from this tax change. The Association of British Insurers has warned in its response to the Smith commission:

“Over an extended period any adjustment to the value of tax relief would affect the…value of an individual’s pension fund and their income in retirement. As a result, employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income (lower or higher) than colleagues in other parts of the UK, even if they are making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”

Clearly, that seems totally wrong.

What assessment have the Government made of the impact on financial services currently based on the UK income tax regime if the Scottish income tax regime were to differ? The UK Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of pension tax relief in the UK. The review will consider potential reforms to how pensions are taxed, which could have a significant impact on pension policyholders. Does the Minister anticipate that the UK Government’s review and any changes arising from it will have an impact on the operation of pension tax relief in Scotland?

Although Labour does not intend to oppose the order and we support the move to devolve further tax powers to the Scottish Parliament as outlined in the Scotland Bill, we have concerns about the practical applications of the changes. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and any assurances he can give about the issues I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Let us not detain the Committee too long on that ancient history. However, it is great pleasure to respond once again to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

The Scottish rate of income will apply to Scottish residents. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman sets out, where somebody is not a Scottish resident, the UK rate of income tax will apply. I hope that provides clarity.

I should point out that there is no definitive list of Scottish residents, but HMRC has been and will continue checking its address data against third-party information, for example the Scottish electoral register, to check accuracy. HMRC expects to contact Scottish taxpayers later in 2015, well in advance of the introduction of the Scottish rate in April 2016.

Work on making changes ready for the Scottish rate of income tax is well advanced. It is on schedule and will support further devolution. While it is clearly vital that the public have all the information necessary to understand the Scottish rate of income tax before it comes into force, all the customer research that HMRC has commissioned shows that the timing of information is equally important. If guidance or information highlighting the changes is provided too early, it will not be at the forefront of busy people’s minds.

UK employers and pension providers are amending payroll software to take into account the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax from next April. Technical guidance on Scottish taxpayer status was published for consultation in June and will be published in its final form, along with a raft of more general support and guidance, later this year. HMRC will write to those whose records show that they are a Scottish taxpayer later this year and tell employers and pension providers which of their employees or pensioners are Scottish taxpayers. I reassure the Committee that progress towards the introduction of the SRIT appears to be well in hand.

[Barbara Keeley]

We have talked in other debates about such things as insurance premium tax. There are considerable pressures and strains on the pension industry, and one of the serious concerns we came across was the higher cost to pension scheme providers. As I said earlier, Scottish Widows said that its systems were at breaking point. This change comes on top of others, and we are even changing insurance premium tax. I do not know whether he was going to respond to that point, but will he do so? Given that even insurance premium tax is being put up, there is concern that pension scheme providers will be suffering from extra administrative cost. What might that cost be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

If the SNP is suggesting that it has a plan to reduce taxes and reduce spending accordingly, I look forward to hearing it. In the absence of that, let me make the point that what is set out in the Scotland Bill—I appreciate that we are not debating the Scotland Bill today—will give the Scottish Government a huge amount of flexibility. I am sure the people of Scotland are looking forward to hearing, at some point, what the Scottish Government intend to do with it. I note that we hear no further information at the moment on that point.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister has not really answered all my questions, so I would like to make some key points again. Given that much more is to be done in future years—there is to be more devolution—the issues I have raised and the questions I have asked are important. If the Minister does not have the details of the higher costs that will hit pension scheme providers, he needs to write to me about them.

I really do take on board the point about the potential impact on individuals. The ABI believes that, because of all the difficulties and the time it is taking,

“employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income”

from others

“making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”

I feel strongly that that is not acceptable. There is much more work to be done. We cannot have individuals losing out on their pension funds because the pension schemes are on their knees trying to cope with the changes that are being thrown at them. It is clearly not acceptable that individuals will be affected in that way. If the Minister is not able to assess that and tell us what he thinks the impact will be, perhaps he could write to me. He will have the note with all my questions.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, we do not have the specific numbers for the costs of administration by pension providers, but I reassure the hon. Lady that individuals will not lose out. HMRC will ensure that all pensioners pay the correct tax—that is what the system is designed to do. There is an interim arrangement, so to speak, but there is also a reconciliation process, and the correct tax will be paid. I hope that the Committee will take note of those points and support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.