Relationships and Sex Education

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Damian Hinds

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

This applies to all schools. In the consultation, I am very open to hearing from special schools, SENCOs—special educational needs co-ordinators—and others dealing with children who have particular needs and requirements in this area about what, if anything, we need to do, in particular about training or materials in that regard.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I, too, congratulate the Government on making progress on this important issue. There is cross-party agreement on its importance, and I hope that I played a small part with a private Member’s Bill that I promoted. In particular, I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on mental health, but I will express two other quick concerns.

First, will PSHE and RSE be made available as free teacher subject specialism training courses? The training will be key, and we need to see it as part of the free teacher subject specialism.

Secondly, on withdrawing children from sex education, I do not think that the Secretary of State’s compromise works. All children in all schools should receive PSHE and RSE, and children’s rights and safety are at the heart of this. Let us not forget that the guidelines on female genital mutilation for health workers in schools already include withdrawal from sex education as an indicator of risk. I therefore gently ask him to look at the issue again. Children absolutely have to be at the heart of this policy and I am worried that his compromise does not do that.

[Damian Hinds]

I am happy to add the hon. Lady to the list of people who have played a part in this. People of course cannot withdraw from relationships education or from the sex education aspects of the science curriculum, and there are some aspects in the health curriculum, on puberty in particular. On the question of support for schools, the training needs and so on, we will look at all that through the consultation. I want to hear from schools about what they think is most important.

Universal Basic Income

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Damian Hinds

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful for the clarification.

A universal basic income or similar systems that guarantee a minimum income to all have been debated and discussed at some length across the world. This debate has been stimulating and important, and discussing UBI and similar concepts, such as the negative income tax, which was a popular subject for academic debate before UBI, is an engaging activity. Any system that promises protection and, to quote the recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Compass,

“freedom of choice for individuals between work and leisure”

is bound to sound appealing. It is difficult to argue with a utopian system that enables individuals to choose whether to work or to engage in leisure activities, alongside all the other valuable things that people do, such as voluntary work and caring.

However, as the Compass report suggested, the big issue with UBI is not whether it is desirable but whether it feasible. Would it be affordable, and could it be introduced in a way that prevented losses among the poorest sections in society? The hon. Member for Inverclyde said we should not turn our back on laudable aims. I could not agree more, but laudable aims are not enough. When Jack Kennedy said he wanted to put a man on the moon, he knew that just willing it would not make it happen. It had to be technically feasible.

The Citizen’s Income Trust, which the hon. Gentleman cited, and the RSA claim to have developed cost-neutral models for a scheme, but less highlighted is the fact that they could do so only by collecting huge amounts of additional tax. I can confirm that that is not everybody’s definition of cost-neutral. As the JRF and Compass report found, the additional tax revenue required to deliver a sustainable UBI would be as much as £160 billion. Such a system is clearly unaffordable, even if we assume that the introduction of a UBI would not affect individual behaviour in the labour market and that nobody would give up paid work as a result of its introduction. That assumption, of course, goes against common sense. It goes against trials that have happened in other countries, which have been referred to, and the principles of this Government and all recent Governments that I know of.

[Caroline Lucas]

I have got the Compass figures in front of me. The report says that the net cost of the hybrid model that Compass proposes would be about £8 billion a year. That is a significant sum, to be sure, but it is not impossible if we are talking about a revolution in the way that work is organised. The problem with many of the contributions this afternoon is that it has been assumed that we go on as we are now and suddenly graft a citizens’ income on top of it. I think the way work is going to look in the future will be very different; therefore we need to look at bolder ideas.

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Lady has the relevant page in front of her; I do not, but I have it nearby. From memory, if she casts her eye about three lines further up above the £8.2 billion figure, she will find another figure for what the impact on income tax will be. That is where the total effect, which is so much greater, is laid out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What fiscal steps he is taking to support the development of solar power.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

We are continuing our support for solar, keeping the small-scale feed-in tariff scheme open beyond January 2016, setting tariffs on a path to help transition the industry to a sustainable, subsidy-free future.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary for that very short answer. Given that the EU’s VAT reform action plan will give Governments discretion in applying rates of VAT, including on solar power, will he confirm categorically to solar installers in my constituency that the UK has officially and permanently dropped the proposal to hike solar VAT to 20%?

[Damian Hinds]

The reduced rate of VAT remains in place on all 11 of the categories of energy saving materials. Following the decision by the European Court, we have consulted interested parties on the issue and, given the complexities involved, we are still considering the responses.

Finance Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Clause 45 ends the exemption from the climate change levy for renewably sourced electricity. The CCL renewables exemption was misaligned with today’s energy policy and represented an inefficient way of supporting renewable electricity generation. In the past 15 years the UK’s renewable energy policy has fundamentally changed. When the renewable electricity exemption was introduced in 2001, renewable generation made up just 2.5% of the UK’s electricity supply; it now makes up around 20%. Since the exemption was introduced, more effective policies have been put in place which support renewable electricity generation directly.

In contrast, the CCL exemption provided indirect support to renewable generators. Together, policies such as the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff will provide over £5 billion-worth of support to renewable generation in this financial year.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

How can the Minister possibly justify this measure when the Government’s own impact assessment says that as a result of this measure the UK will be producing over 1 million more tonnes of CO₂ every single year?

[Damian Hinds]

I can absolutely say how we justify this measure. As I have stated, there are now more effective and efficient direct methods of encouraging renewable generation than the CCL exemption. We have also seen a sharp decline in CCL revenue over the last Parliament. The forecasts from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility show that, without change, by 2020 virtually no CCL would have been paid on electricity at all. Removing the exemption helps maintain a price signal through the CCL for all business to use energy more efficiently. In addition, last year a third of its value went to renewable projects based overseas—projects which of course do not contribute to our climate change or international development commitments, making this a poor use of taxpayers’ money.

Clause 45 ends the existing exemption for renewable energy from the CCL. It applies to any renewable electricity generated after 31 July 2015, when it is supplied to businesses or the public sector under a renewable source contract. From 1 August we entered into a transitional period in which suppliers may claim a CCL exemption on any renewable electricity generated before that date. The Government are discussing the details of this transitional period with the affected suppliers, to determine an appropriate length for it. We intend to put the final transitional arrangements in place through legislation in the Finance Bill 2016.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister tell me what consultation he had with the solar industry in Britain before announcing the ongoing discussions that are now going to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It is a bigger rug than that. The climate change levy is only a relatively minor part of the support that was given to the industry, compared with the support given through the renewables obligation and through contracts for difference.

It is essential that we show that our measures to achieve climate change and renewables objectives provide good value for money, in order to retain long-term public support for them. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views and I urge them to give their support to the clause.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this clause, which I believe should simply have been deleted. Ministers have failed to provide a robust or even remotely convincing justification for removing the renewables exemption to the climate change levy. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. The Chancellor has complained that this is all very fine because the UK now has

“a long-term framework for investment in renewable energy in place”.—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 331.]

If only that were the case! The reality is becoming increasingly distant from the rhetoric, especially now, after yet another wave of destruction has been unleashed by the Treasury on sensible and popular climate and clean energy policies.

The most outrageous of those policies is the proposal to cut support for rooftop solar by up to 87%. That risks making it impossible for my constituents and many others to afford solar panels for their homes, schools or community centres. Solar power can become subsidy-free, but not if Government cuts to support are wildly disproportionate to the admittedly impressive cost reductions that the industry has managed to achieve. And then there are the 35,000 people who work in the solar industry and who are facing a very uncertain future.

Clause 45 of the Finance Bill is one of several such senseless attacks on sustainable energy and climate policies. It will have negative impacts on existing and potential renewable energy developments, some of which are already being reported to have become unfeasible and which have now been cancelled. It will also have negative impacts on the overall investment climate for everyone from small community groups to multinational businesses, all of which are looking to put their money into clean power. This is the very last thing we need, for our economy, for our jobs and for tackling climate change, and it flies in the face of public opinion. New polling this month found, yet again, overwhelming support for renewables, including onshore wind and solar, with even greater levels of support for community energy generation. Some 78% would support local projects, even within 2 miles of their home. For all those reasons and more it seems intelligent to have an incentive, so that when a business or public sector organisation purchases clean renewable power, rather than dirty polluting power, it pays less tax.

Ministers claim that the change is intended to prevent taxpayers’ money from supporting renewable electricity generated overseas, but in reality ditching the renewable energy exemption is a completely disproportionate measure, which turns a policy designed to encourage low-carbon electricity into little more than an electricity tax for businesses. If a third of benefits do go overseas, that should surely still mean that two thirds support home-grown renewable power generation and jobs here in the UK. If Ministers really want to cut out overseas generators, they should therefore modify the policy to fix the anomaly at that rate. Did anyone ever even consult industry about what level of cut to make? We have already seen by the Minister’s inability to answer my question a few moments ago that there simply was no consultation with the industry in advance. Ditching this exemption completely is, as Friends of the Earth has said, like making people pay an alcohol tax on apple juice. It harms British renewable energy businesses and undermines efforts to tackle climate change. No wonder it has received widespread condemnation, on both environmental and economic grounds.

This is all happening less than three months before the crucial climate talks in Paris. Yet at that time we will hear the spin machine in the Department of Energy and Climate Change going into overdrive, coming out with all kinds of lovely rhetoric which is completely at odds with what the Government are doing on the ground with this measure. It is yet another example of the huge gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of the policy. When it comes to avoiding dangerous climate change, the shift to clean renewable energy is key. Phasing out fossil fuels and phasing in a 100%-clean agenda has to be at the top of the agenda. Yet, once again, the UK is going in the wrong direction, with generous tax breaks and taxpayer-funded propaganda propping up the fossil fuel companies, while the knife is being stuck into our own home-grown renewable energy sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We are not in a position to be able to change the approach. My hon. Friend asks about the timing. The exemption would have cost around £40 million a month to maintain. Without our change, more than £150 million of support would have gone to overseas renewable generation in 2015-16, and that figure would have risen to £300 million by 2020-21. My hon. Friend asked why not follow the same timings as the exemptions for combined heat and power, but those are on a very different scale and the timing was in the context of the coming of the carbon price floor, which would support CHPs. As I said earlier, more efficient and effective schemes have come about to support renewables through the renewables obligation and contracts for difference.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) spoke about the particular impact of the measure in Scotland, but I can confirm that Scotland receives a high level of renewables support from the UK Government. In the first contracts for difference auctions, 11 out of the 25 contracts were awarded to Scottish projects, and 30% of the support provided by the renewables obligation is for schemes in Scotland. That support, as I have said, is much more significant than that offered by the CCL renewables exemption.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about the Government’s green credentials, a point that came up again in an intervention. I repeat that the Government take our environmental responsibilities extremely seriously and we are absolutely committed to meeting our climate change commitments, but as cost-effectively as possible. We are making good progress, with emissions down 30% since 1990, and we are on track for 30% of electricity supply to be from renewables by 2020. At the same time, we want to help consumers, keep energy bills down and keep British business competitive. It is vital that we take careful account of the costs of our policies so that we are not imposing unnecessary burdens on households and businesses, making household bills unaffordable or putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister has made the case that he wants to be able to reduce householders’ bills, so will he ring-fence the extra revenue generated by applying the climate change levy to renewables and put it into energy efficiency for some of the poorest households in this country?

[Damian Hinds]

I wish we were living in a world where money that was saved was suddenly free and available to be used to do things. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have a whole range of programmes to support our objectives to tackle climate change and we will continue to do that.

I stress again that new clause 2 is not necessary. The impact of ending the exemption from the climate change levy for renewable electricity has been published by the Government. Clause 45 will not impact the UK’s ability to meet its climate change goals, will not affect renewable generators’ long-term investment plans and will not increase household energy bills, but it will provide better value for money for UK taxpayers. I commend the clause to the House and urge the Opposition not to press new clause 2.

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

Finance Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Damian Hinds

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I can confirm that absolutely. We have not managed six in my household but we do have three, and I, like my hon. Friend, do not think there is an ideal number of children to have in a family. I do not think it is for Government to say what that should be. But what we do say is that in making decisions about starting a family and about growing their family, people in different circumstances, whether they are supporting themselves entirely through employment or with the help of benefits, should have to make the same sorts of decisions.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I must make progress. I must respond to several points that were raised in the debate.

This Bill takes the next steps towards Britain’s sustained economic security, putting us on the right path towards meeting our ambition to be the most prosperous major economy in the world within a generation. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, the Bill is not about everything that is in the Budget. The Finance Bill is limited in scope specifically to tax measures intended for general expenditure. The national living wage is not within its scope, but as the direct question came up of how the Government would bring it in, I confirm that we will be making regulations to introduce it for April 2016.

I want to respond to a number of other points. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) suggested that changes to inheritance tax were only to protect the rich. As a result of rising house prices, inheritance tax increasingly hits people with normal family homes and, without action, the number of estates facing an IHT bill was forecast to double from about 35,000 in 2014-15 to 63,000 in 2021. As he will know, there are provisions such that it is clawed back from the very largest estates so that the wealthiest people do not in fact benefit.

The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and others mentioned the so-called Mayfair loophole and the treatment of carried interest. Carried interest is treated as a capital gain in the UK, as in most other jurisdictions, because it is not exactly the same as a salary; it reflects the return to the manager in terms of some of the investment risk that they have undertaken. That is aligned to the tax treatment applied to other investors.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath spoke powerfully about the vital and sometimes dangerous work done by the emergency services in Scotland, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and asked about VAT treatment. The discontinuation of local funding for police and fire and rescue services in Scotland was a decision by the Scottish Government, not the UK Government. The Scottish Government were explicitly advised of the VAT consequences of that reorganisation. Because these bodies are no longer funded through local taxation, the rationale for providing exemption under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 does not apply.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), apart from his very engaging mini-debate with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), asked about take-up of the employment allowance in Northern Ireland. It has been taken up by 27,000 businesses—an 84% take-up rate, which is a wee bit below the UK average, but fairly close to it. Of course, we must continue to draw attention to its benefits.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green rightly talked about the vital role of childcare in enabling productivity gains. She mentioned particularly the importance of enabling mums to return to the workplace sooner if they so wish. I am sure that she will therefore welcome our increasing the facility for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talked about the productivity problem. I am sure he would not suggest that it is a new problem, but if he had, it would have been misleading, as it has been around for a long time. I make no apology for the fact that in 2010, facing the economic crisis that we did, the very top priority of the incoming Government was to keep people in work. The success of that approach has been reflected in the 2 million jobs created over the past five years.

The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for East Antrim asked about what would happen with vehicle excise duty in Northern Ireland. Devolved Administrations will of course continue to get funding for roads through the Barnett formula, and they could establish a specific fund for their roads if they chose.

We heard a number of other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) reminded us of the context of the deficit. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said that it was easy to come up with reasons for not doing things now but that now is the right time to get on with these important measures. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) talked about the importance of businesses in creating jobs, and welcomed the apprenticeships levy.

Fairness was at the fore of the debate a number of times. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) put it very well when he said that we believe in a low-tax economy in which everyone pays their fair share. He is correct that our plans include improved tax recovery. It is partly because of that that we can ensure that everyone, especially the low-paid, can keep more of what they earn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) noted.

Indeed, we have always believed that working people should be free to keep more of the money they earn. That is one of the most powerful incentives to aspiration. During the last Parliament, we increased the personal allowance from the £6,475 we inherited to £10,600. Clauses 5 and 6 will increase the personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18, and increase the higher rate threshold to £43,000 and to £43,600 respectively. As a result, nearly 600,000 more individuals will be taken out of income tax by 2016-17. These are important steps towards the Government’s ambition to increase the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. We will ensure that, when that is achieved, the personal allowance will be uprated in line with the national minimum wage so that no one working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will pay income tax.