Health and Social Care Levy

Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Kevin Hollinrake

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). I absolutely agree with him that the Government’s proposal is probably the least worst option.

When it comes to this debate, I feel saddest for the many constituents who have come up to me in recent years and said, “When it comes to the big issues—the issues of national interest—why is it that you lot can’t work together and come up with a solution?” Clearly, this issue is of huge national interest and has been debated in this House many times over recent decades. I have been involved in debates dozens of times in the six years I have been here. I blame colleagues from either side of the House—from both the Labour and Conservative parties. Whether it is the “death tax” or the “dementia tax”, people have come forward with proposals only to be rubbished by the other side for political purposes.

The reality is that this issue is one of many challenges that we are going to face over the next few decades. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, if we do not change our tax system, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be 400% of GDP by 2060, because of pension, healthcare and social care costs. We must sort out this issue on a cross-party basis so that we have a long-term solution.

The reality is that we have had cross-party consensus. As I have said several times in the past couple of days, I have taken part in two Select Committee inquiries on the issue, the most recent a joint inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. There were 24 Members on those two Select Committees, 12 of whom were from the Opposition Benches, and we strongly recommended a solution based on national insurance. We can of course argue about some of the detail of the national insurance proposal, which has been changed in some positive ways over recent days, but simply to dismiss it out of hand for political purposes is irresponsible. I understand that the shadow Minister for social care, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), has also proposed a solution based on national insurance. It does not make sense simply to say for political purposes that the proposal is wrong—

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The shadow Minister on the Front Bench can shake her head, but that is the reality behind the proposal. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), said clearly that he still supported a solution based on national insurance.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that this solution is the least worst option, but we can develop better solutions down the line. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that the German solution is better. In Germany, they came together across party lines, based on the national interest, to solve this issue. It was very similar in respect of employer and employee. The key benefit of the German solution is that when a person comes to be defined as in need of care, instead of the local authority allocating care, they can choose to take a monthly cash payment, so they can pay a relative, a neighbour or whoever to care for them. A person can be cared for by the people who know them the best, who understand them the best and love them the most, which must be better than some of the stories that we hear about care providers who give a pretty poor service, with a 15-minute package now and then.

This must be a better solution, but I have one concern. I understand why the scheme has been brought forward like this, using national insurance. It is because it is quick and easy, and we need the money today, but the concern is about hypothecation, which many Members have mentioned. This was a social care levy, but already some of it is going to the health service. That is our understanding at the start. Hypothecated taxes simply do not work, and we see that time and again. It would be better to develop this into a proper social insurance system with not-for-profit providers, so that it does not go into the private sector, but instead the money could be paid in on a proper hypothecated basis to deal with the long-term problem of social care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

It is customary when closing a debate to say that we have had a good debate, and indeed we have, but what has been most striking is how inadequate a basis it has been for a change of this magnitude to the tax system of our country. I intend to come back to that point.

We have heard a number of extremely sharp and insightful contributions, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who talked very powerfully about how what has been set out does nothing to improve the working conditions facing social care workers, many of whom will now themselves be facing a tax rise. I would just like to say that it is wonderful to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East back in her place in this House.

We have heard contributions from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who asked very important questions of Ministers. We did not get answers to those questions, and I hope the Chief Secretary will address the really important points that were raised. I will touch on those a little later.

We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). They covered a range of different points, but they were all clear that this does not represent a proper plan for the NHS or for social care. It is, instead, a broken promise. Two and a half million working households will be hit by the Tory double whammy of cuts to universal credit and an increase in national insurance.

Understandably, I have focused on contributions from Labour Members, and I am sad that, except for a few Conservative Members—notably the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)—many of those who bravely stated their reservations over the weekend to the Sunday newspapers have been strangely silent this evening. I hoped we might have heard from whichever Tory MP said that putting up national insurance would be “morally and economically wrong”, and that:

“It kicks in at a low level…If you get all your income from investments and property you don’t pay a penny, but if you work your guts out for minimum wage you get clobbered.”

I could not agree more.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That point about rental income has been made on a number of occasions. If someone holds their properties in a limited company and they take their profits through dividends, those dividends are taxed to include the social care levy. Will the hon. Lady put the record straight and accept that that is the case?

[Bridget Phillipson]

It is ludicrous that a landlord will be paying not a single penny more, but their tenants—many of them perhaps working in the NHS or social care—are about to be clobbered by a tax rise. Some 95% of what is to be raised from this measure will come from working people and businesses. What the hon. Gentleman says is simply not right. I understand that one former Cabinet Minister used perhaps more colourful language this afternoon, and I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating exactly what they said. Safe to say, however, that he or she is not a fan of this Tory tax hike.

It is usual for major fiscal events in the House to be timetabled in advance. Indeed, this week the Chancellor put us all on notice of a comprehensive spending review and an autumn Budget at the end of next month. It is also usual for major fiscal events to be accompanied by independent and thorough scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is usual for those forecasts to be published alongside the Government’s plans, so that all Members of the House can understand, in detail, what they are voting for and how it will affect the public finances, the livelihoods of our constituents and the success of the economy.

The OBR’s typically thorough work back in March produced a report with more than 130 charts and tables, but the flimsy document produced by the Government yesterday had just three. I recall when some Government Members were sticklers for the rights of this House, and sticklers for procedure and proper time to debate and consider changes that will have a huge impact on our society and the shape of our economy. It seems that those days are long gone. The change we are being asked to vote through tonight is not being introduced in this extraordinary form because that is right for the country. The House knows that. It is because it is the right approach for the Prime Minister: announcement on Tuesday, vote on Wednesday, and perhaps a reshuffle later this week—Back-Bench rebellion averted. That is no way to run a country.

Let us be clear about what is happening. This House is being asked to approve, with almost no notice, an extra £11.4 billion of taxation on workers and businesses, and an extra £600 million of dividend taxes—95% of the new revenue is to come from taxing jobs and earnings. When this Government need income, they do not turn first to those with assets, stocks and shares and property, or to those with the broadest shoulders who can afford a little more. No, they turn to working people: to those who work hard to earn their income, and their employers. They break a solemn promise that every Government Member made to the people of this country. That is a choice, and it is not a choice that the Labour party would make.

Two other major questions emerge from the contributions today. Where is the Government’s actual plan? We need a real plan for social care, not a few numbered paragraphs and a handful of case studies. Labour’s priority would be to give older and disabled people the chance to live the life they choose, shifting the focus of support towards prevention and early help. Let us not forget in this place that around half of the social care budget supports working-age adults with disabilities. They are far too often overlooked in discussions about social care, and the Government’s announcement does nothing for them.

Alongside a strong and skilled social care workforce, Labour would deliver a new deal for care workers to create a well-motivated and properly rewarded workforce, with clear support for unpaid carers—the very people who got us through the last 18 months, whom we clapped and claimed to care about. There is absolutely no sign of that plan here today or in the documents published yesterday. The document that the Government published yesterday is strikingly poor on the practicalities of delivery, not just for social care but for our NHS too.

Our national health service was chronically overstretched long before the pandemic hit. We entered the pandemic with over 100,000 vacancies. By March this year, there were 5 million people on waiting lists for NHS treatment—waiting longer for cancer care, longer for vital surgery, longer for mental health support. What we have been given today is not a plan; it is the promise—another promise—of a plan to follow. The Minister could not even tell us what the impact would be on waiting times. He could not tell us what it meant for local authorities on the frontline. He could not give us details of how public sector bodies are expected to meet the cost. It is not a plan; it is just a tax rise.

Much of today’s debate has focused on whether it is the right sort of tax rise. Sometimes it is easy to focus on the fiscal aspects and forget the economic aspects. Our recovery is still fragile. Businesses are under enormous pressure. We all know it; many are yet to fully reopen, and many are not yet operating at full capacity. Yet the Chancellor has been putting up council tax, he is slashing universal credit, he is freezing income tax thresholds—he is sucking demand out of our economy at the worst possible time.

The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), set out powerfully what these measures mean for working people, but this is a series of hammer blows for firms, too. Small businesses, struggling to get back on track after a terrible 18 months, have been clear, in the words of the Federation of Small Businesses, that this is “precisely the wrong moment” to be putting up the cost of taking on and retaining staff. The FSB estimates that these changes could mean an extra 50,000 people out of work.

This is the wrong process to agree the wrong tax at the wrong time. It will not deliver what is promised for our health and social care sectors. The Health Secretary cannot even tell us whether it will clear the NHS backlog in this Parliament. It will not give social care the resources it needs in the next three years. There is not a plan for reform of social care. This tax rise will not create more and better-paid jobs in the wider economy, it is not fair across the regions, it will not end people having to sell their homes to fund their care, and it will not help our economic recovery. The Prime Minister cannot even guarantee that it is the last unfair tax rise of this Parliament. Tonight, we are not voting for a plan to fix social care. There isn’t one. We are voting on the third Tory tax rise on working people, and we will oppose it.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Kevin Hollinrake

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), at end add

“; but any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community which entered into force on 1 February 2020, and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”

It is 1,629 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. In that time, our country has managed two general elections, and we are now on to our third Conservative Prime Minister. It is just 23 days until the United Kingdom’s transition period following its exit from the European Union comes to an end, yet this afternoon, we still have little clarity on the Bill that the Government tell us they will present tomorrow to set the legal framework for future taxation in Northern Ireland, for value added tax, for aviation fuel duty, for insurance-premium tax and for state aid rules.

With less than four weeks to go, the single sheet of A4 in front of us is almost all the detail that the Government have shared with Parliament about their new tax plans for next month. The only other information we have is that, just over two hours ago, the Government confirmed that they would withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and that the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill would reflect the same approach. The Minister recently tabled a written ministerial statement to that effect, although he offered little more this afternoon by way of further clarity.

The clock has been ticking ever more loudly. People in this country might reasonably have assumed that by this late date, it would already be clear what the Government’s plans for Britain’s future were. They might have assumed that by this late date, there would be a clear agreement on our future relationship with the European Union.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point about the late stage of these negotiations. Who is she blaming for that—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union negotiators?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Time is ticking. We want to get a deal. We are frustrated that at this point, we still do not have a clear understanding about our future relationship. If the hon. Member shares those concerns, I suggest that he raises them with his own Prime Minister.

People in this country—especially those who live near our 300-mile border with the European Union, or those who live in or near our port towns and port cities —could be forgiven for expecting that trading relationships and rules on the movement of goods would long since have been finalised. Such reasonable assumptions would not have been partisan. After all, we have the Prime Minister’s own word for it: to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”.

One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine days is a very long time in which Ministers have chosen not to address the issues that leaving the European Union raises. It is 1,421 days since the Government announced that we would be leaving the single market. It is 1,350 days since the Government notified the EU of the United Kingdom’s decision to trigger article 50. It is 1,240 days since the Brexit talks began and 886 days since the Chequers plan was announced to the current Prime Minister by the previous Prime Minister. It is a little over 500 days since the Prime Minister took office. It is 320 days since the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 became law. They have had ample time.

Finance Bill

Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Kevin Hollinrake

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

Yes, I support the point the right hon. Gentleman makes, and I will come on to say more in my contribution both about how those companies need to contribute more and how it is essential that we see international consensus on this issue. The measure the Government have put forward today is necessarily time-limited, and we will need to see a much more sustainable, long-term solution with a broader international base.

It is not right that British bookstores and other businesses face a higher tax rate than Amazon. Unfortunately, this measure does not go far enough to address this fundamental unfairness, nor does it really get to the heart of the tax avoidance strategies some of these tech companies have used in recent years. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out, this measure is not aimed at stopping profits arising in the UK being shifted by multinationals out of the UK to tax havens. However, for far too long the companies that make the modern economy work have got away with complex ways of moving and hiding the money we pay them.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I agree with many of the points the hon. Member makes, and certainly about making sure that we have a fair and level playing field for small businesses. I am certainly a supporter of new clause 33 in principle, which is trying to see these multinationals disclose profits on a country-by-country basis. However, to be fair, does she accept that the Government have gone further than previous Governments, with measures such as the diverted profits tax and now the digital services tax?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We welcome all measures and will support any proposals to tackle tax avoidance, whether it is in terms of tech giants or more broadly, but we still face a big gap in this country, and we are urging the Government to do much more. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that it is vital that we see greater action, because we have seen this unfairness, particularly during the pandemic. He, like me, will have many wonderful local businesses in his constituency that pay their taxes and are trying to come through this crisis, and they want to ensure that there is a level playing field between the bricks-and-mortar businesses and online businesses. I am sure that we all want to get behind that endeavour.

For too long, companies have moved and hidden the money we pay them. Research by TaxWatch UK estimates that we are losing £1.3 billion in corporation tax from five of the biggest firms each year. In comparison, the Government’s own estimate is that the digital services tax is only set to produce £280 million this financial year. The modest nature of this measure becomes clear when we consider what some of the tech giants might actually have to pay under the tax. I will highlight again for the benefit of the House, as I did in Committee, research by TaxWatch UK which predicts that Facebook would face an increased tax bill of £39 million, despite estimated UK revenues of almost £2.3 billion. Google would pay slightly more—around £168 million—based on estimated UK tax revenues of £9.3 billion. Many businesses, such as Amazon, that blend their activities will be unaffected by the measure.

The Government will be aware of our concerns that streaming services are not included at all, which we discussed in Committee. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said then that

“it would not be appropriate to implement a temporary tax on a broader basis.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2020; c. 126.]

He will doubtless be aware that taxes introduced on a temporary basis have ended up becoming permanent fixtures, including income tax, introduced to fund war with Napoleon. With little evidence that the Government are working to secure international agreement on a replacement for this tax, temporary could end up being for a very long time. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs employs many extremely capable people, and I am sure that it is not beyond their wit to develop a way of taxing streaming services too.

New clause 33, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and has many cross-party supporters, would require those liable for the digital services tax to publish a country-by-country tax report. My right hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly and incredibly effectively on this issue, and I wish it were possible for us to hear from her directly today. Sadly, the way in which we now conduct our proceedings makes it impossible for her to contribute, which is a real shame, given the expertise and insight she brings, but I am aware that the cross-party support of the new clause will allow other speakers to raise the points that she might have sought to make.

For years, the Opposition have urged the Government to commit to country-by-country reporting on a public basis. Their reticence to do so, and the way in which they have held up progress at an international level, has been a source of deep frustration to those of us who want to see far greater transparency around the taxation of multinational companies. This new clause would not only be of practical use, so that we can see whether those liable to the digital services tax are paying an appropriate amount. It would also help to address the concerns I have outlined that the measure as it stands does little to address the tax avoidance practices by digital multinational companies. It would end the secrecy around such practices and pave the way for public country-by-country reporting at a wider level. The Government have been fond in recent months of saying that they wish to be a world leader—well, here is the opportunity to become a world leader in tax transparency, and I urge the Minister to listen to the arguments being made and take urgent action to address them.

The pressure on our public finances and vital frontline services means that we should be doing far more to ensure that those tech companies that have benefited from the lockdown are contributing more. We need a level playing field between our high streets and the tech giants. We need to build a society where everyone—individuals and businesses alike—pays their fair share. A digital services tax must be part of that, but the Government simply are not going far enough. A bolder approach on a digital services tax would not only help to address this unfairness; it would help to deliver a sustainable recovery from the economic crisis we are facing.

Labour has called for a back-to-work Budget—one that focuses on retaining jobs, sustaining jobs and creating jobs; a full Budget that invests in our young people, who are facing the worst employment prospects for a generation, and helps to secure a future that they can look to with hope. An effective digital services tax would go some way to supporting that goal. As I have indicated, this measure is expected to generate a fairly limited amount when compared with the extent of the tax avoidance practices we have seen from some of these companies in recent years and the profits they have made in recent months. Therein lies the principal reason for our amendments: we need to understand as soon as possible how effectively the measure is working and what more can be done to ensure that such companies are paying an appropriate amount of tax.

The Government’s unwillingness to conduct a review earlier than 2025 means that the opportunity for Parliament to properly scrutinise the measure will be hugely limited. I know that the Minister hopes that a multilateral approach will be in place by then; we on the Opposition Benches hope that that will be the case, too. A comprehensive multilateral agreement, based on a lasting international settlement, is the only long-term solution, but until that happens, the Opposition will continue to push for a more ambitious approach, to which our European neighbours are looking as well. The times that we are living through demand such an approach.