Finance (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right. He has been a pioneer in this area for a long time. The previous Government abolished the recognition, and they had 13 years to try to do something about recognising families in the tax system. Despite the easy words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in practice. That is the record on which they should be judged.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

If the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is correct about his party being pro-marriage and wanting to prevent divorce, how does he account for the decline of divorce between 2003 and 2009? The divorce rate only started to go up again after 2010.

[Tim Loughton]

Very simply, because the number of marriages went down. The change in the divorce rate is a simple statistical manifestation of the number of marriages.

The Liberal Democrats, who are heroically represented here today by the lone star hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), have perhaps been more honest about the married couple’s tax allowance, which they have never supported. Their leader has some bizarre reasons for not supporting it, but they have been absolutely honest. If they had not been involved in some sort of deal, of which we are completely oblivious, they might have been here to vote against the measure, and of course we are very disappointed that they are not here.

The measure will benefit 4 million couples, including 15,000 in civil partnerships and hopefully a good many who adopt the new status that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned earlier. My hon. Friends and I welcome the last-minute inclusion of the transferable married couple’s tax allowance in this Finance Bill. The allowance was promised in our manifesto, and it will initially be worth up to £210, but I contrast that with the up to £10,000-worth of subsidies rightly being made available for child care assistance—albeit that that will be available also for higher rate taxpayers whose household earnings may be as high as £300,000—which is still very far from a level playing field. That is why some of us, when the economy has recovered to the extent that it needs to recover after the car crash of 13 years under Labour, ultimately want to see a fully transferable married couple’s tax allowance—the full £10,500-worth, not just 10%. The married couple’s tax allowance is linked to the personal allowance in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I suspect that if I were to stray into a long debate on what happened in the US versus what happened here, I would see—yes, I do see—Mr Bone’s eye upon me to ensure that I did not yield to that particular temptation. However, I say to my hon. Friend that that could usefully form the subject of another debate at some point, but he makes an interesting point about the will to take on the banks. I want to choose my language carefully because I want to avoid getting into that whole thing of our being seen as aggressively pursuing the banks. I recognise that there are some in the banking sector who understand how badly they got it wrong and who want to see change, but the scale of the problem has not been universally accepted, and nor has the degree of culture change that is required. The Minister has heard Opposition Members talk about that issue many times when discussing other legislation.

Returning to the initial imposition of the levy, the Chancellor also wanted to generate more than £2 billion in annual revenues. One problem was that, as was pointed out earlier, the more the banks changed their behaviour and remodelled their balance sheets, the less money the levy generated. Was the Chancellor unable or unwilling to decide whether he wanted behavioural change or a targeted revenue sum? Was it possible to do both? Some evidence suggests that it was not, because it has not brought in the amount of revenue that he intended.

Not content with devising a levy the dual aims of which are somewhat contradictory, the Chancellor also proceeded to cut corporation tax annually, arguably handing the banks a tax break. In order to ensure that the banks do not benefit from the tax break, the Chancellor has had to increase the levy every time he cut corporation tax. We have consistently raised doubts about the levy’s ability to raise sufficient funds, especially in the context of the cuts to corporation tax. During consideration on Report of the 2011 Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said:

“The sector will have a tax cut of £100 million in 2011-12, £200 million in 2012-13, £300 million in 2013-14, and £400 million in 2014-15. That is a £1 billion corporation tax cut over this Parliament.”

He continued:

“The Treasury ought to supplement its very modest bank levy plan with the bank bonus tax because it is only fair that those who played such a central role in the global economic downturn make a greater contribution to help to secure the economic recovery by supporting jobs and growth.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1383.]

I would have thought that that sentiment—that those involved in making some of the decisions that caused the problems have a responsibility to do what they can to secure economic recovery and a change in culture—would be shared by everyone in all parts of the House. A combination of two factors—contradictory objectives and corporation tax cuts—means that the levy has increased on no fewer than seven occasions. It is important for me to lay this out so that the House understands the time scale for what happened with the levy, because it adds weight to our call for a report to consider that in more detail.

Back in February 2011, it was confirmed that the rate would be higher than originally proposed. That was change number one. In March 2011, at the Budget, the levy was increased to offset the effect of the 1% cut in corporation tax and by the autumn statement in November 2011—autumn was already beginning to be stretched as far as we thought possible, although of course, autumn is now in December as far as the Government are concerned—the rates were increased to ensure that tax would raise at least £2.5 billion a year. I think that was a tacit admission that the initial rate was perhaps somewhat timid. In March 2012, at the next Budget, the levy was increased again to offset the 1% cut in corporation tax.

In the next autumn statement, when the autumn had been stretched as far as possible into the first week in December, the levy was increased again to offset the 1% reduction in corporation tax. At the March 2013 Budget, the levy was increased again—guess why: to offset the 1% reduction in corporation tax. In December 2013, again at the autumn statement, in what appeared almost to be a desperate attempt to get somewhere near the £2.5 billion target, the Chancellor increased the levy again and broadened the tax base in an apparent attempt to mitigate the impact of the very behavioural change that the tax is supposed to encourage.

[Jenny Chapman]

Has my hon. Friend done the calculation? I am doing it as she speaks and it sounds as though the Government have raised about £3 billion less than they wanted to from the combined measures.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I stress that we have proposed today that this report should be undertaken and brought to the House so that hon. Members can be fully informed about what has happened, what has been successful, what has not worked and how we can best look to the future. My hon. Friend might well be interested to know that I was about to say that, following the Chancellor’s latest projections for the bank levy, a contributor to the Tax Journal stated that the continued difficulty in raising the expected yield

“should become a lesson in the problems of saddling a new tax aimed at managing behaviour with a fixed revenue target”.

It seems to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Chancellor has not fully learned the lessons, because he is now consulting on wholesale changes to the levy that would lead to the introduction of a band-based system under which the tax of individual banks would be capped at an upper limit of £375 million. As I said earlier, although the Government claim that that will be cost neutral, there is speculation already that it might lead to a tax cut for the banks that pay the larger share of the levy. That issue was raised in a report in The Daily Telegraph that said:

“Last year, Barclays paid £504 million in levy charges, while HSBC paid £544 million, the most of any bank. Under the draft proposals, Barclays’ bill would have been £129 million lower and HSBC’s would have been £169 million less.”

We are struggling to understand whether that is really what the Government intend. Why do they intend to do things in that way? If we do not see the figures or the working and if we do not understand the overall impact of what the Government are trying to do, the only conclusion we can draw is that this is essentially a secret tax cut for some of the big banks that has been hidden away in the Budget. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and why it is not sensible to publish the report that we have reasonably requested. Confidence in the banking system and financial services has not been fully restored, and people in the real world will want to know why it is a priority to give such a tax cut to some of the biggest banks, at a time when working people are worse off and banks are still paying massive bonuses—indeed, in some instances, bigger bonuses than in previous years.