Finance Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

I am concerned that if the Government do not respond to the industry’s plight, by the end of the year we might lose it—or most of it—and the revenue from it; there might be a net loss to the Exchequer, because the differentials I want extended for one more period would be far less than the loss; green fuel will lose out; a good recycling product will lose out; and we will regret it. I ask the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Transport not to let this happen. If it cannot be implemented in this Finance Bill, as I would like, something might need to be done quite soon in this financial year. They will accept, I hope, that it would not be good for part of this valuable industry to be lost. We need green jobs, and the Government are promoting them, but they must continue to do so for the road industry.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this important issue. Notwithstanding the fact that few Opposition Members are present, I hope that Government Members will recognise the quality of the contributions, if not their weight in numbers. Neither should anyone believe that the fact that there are relatively few Labour Members in the Chamber suggests a lack of interest or concern about this issue, which matters to every one of our constituents.

Two weeks ago, on 20 June, an article in The Daily Telegraph reported the Prime Minister as warning motorists that there was

“no bottomless pit of money”

to fund a fuel duty cut. We were led to believe that this was dampening speculation that the Treasury would be able to afford the £1.5 billion needed to cancel the extra duty for one year. On 24 June, the Transport Secretary, also in an interview in The Daily Telegraph interestingly, indicated that she was not prepared to lobby the Treasury to delay or abandon the 3p increase in fuel duty due this August. She was also reported as saying that her focus was instead on “challenging” petrol firms to cut the cost of fuel at the pumps to reflect the falling cost of oil globally.

We have no problem with that. Many people are concerned that prices at the pump do not change as the oil price drops, although we know that it is difficult for small independent petrol retailers who have to buy at a particular price and might not have the same volume going through as some of the large supermarkets. We have to understand that. However, the Transport Secretary’s comments chimed perfectly with the words of the Economic Secretary in a recent Westminster Hall debate:

“Calls for the August increase to be scrapped raise an important question, because we would need to consider how to replace the £1.5 billion it would cost. That money would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 143WH.]

Every time the issue was raised, then, Ministers made it absolutely clear that if they were to do it, they would have to come up with a way of paying for it—stating the obvious, perhaps, but I shall return to that point later, if I have the opportunity.

It might be a cliché to talk about a week being a long time in politics, but a week after the 20 June article, the shadow Chancellor, in an article for The Sun—that newspaper, like FairFuelUK, had campaigned on the issue—called for the August duty increase to be dropped, and made it clear that he wanted it to be dropped at least until next January. Government Members seemed to suggest that this was opportunistic and done on the spur of the moment or for purely political reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have consistently made it clear that action needs to be taken, especially given that times are tough, with higher VAT generally and prices rising faster than wages.

Everyone knows from their constituents—I am sure that Government Members receive the same representations as Labour Members—that filling up the car is now a big drag on family budgets. Indeed, a nurse in my constituency who was not on a high salary told me that filling up her car to get to work cost her so much that it was like having another mortgage.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady is making heavy weather over who should take the credit and whose idea it was. Is it not great news, first, that prices at the pump are falling, and have been falling in recent weeks, and secondly that the Chancellor has been able to freeze fuel duty?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I welcome the fact that it will make a difference for constituents, but once again, unfortunately, the way it was done did not suggest a Government who were organised or knew that they were going to make the announcement at that particular time. That is important in the context of how it will be paid for, but I shall come to that.

At the time, we expressed concern that the Chancellor’s Budget plan would mean a 3p hike in fuel duty in just five weeks. Previously, we had called for the Government to cut VAT, which would have knocked 3p a litre off fuel prices, as well as helping hard-pressed household budgets in other ways. We called for the August rise to be dropped because we believed that increasing the fuel duty at this time would have sent the wrong signal to retailers, who would have had to pass every penny on to drivers and put prices up just when they should have been cutting them.

We also made the point that with Britain now in a double-dip recession, the last thing our economy needed was another tax rise adding to the squeeze on household budgets and to the difficulties faced by many small businesses. The Government’s priority should have been to boost the economy, rather than to clobber families, businesses and pensioners just when they were feeling the squeeze the most. That is why we called on the Chancellor to stop the August fuel duty rise, at least until next January. We said that we would put that issue to a vote in Parliament, and that is why we tabled new clause 11.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One question that has never been answered is why the fuel duty decision was not taken in the Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government rushed into this without thinking about the consequences?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a good point. The way in which the decision was announced, and the aftermath of that announcement, does perhaps suggest that the Government were rushed into this. Also, many Government Back Benchers agreed that the fuel duty increase should be dropped. A number of them made that clear in a good Westminster Hall debate, and others publicly signed up to support the FairFuelUK campaign.

We tried to be helpful. We suspected that Ministers might say—as, indeed, they did—that they could not afford to stop the increase, even though they had found the money to give a tax cut to millionaires. As has been suggested, if there is money available, it ought to go to those whose household budgets are being squeezed the most. It is still astonishing to me that the Government seem intent on punishing families—especially those with children—while at the same time giving a massive tax cut to millionaires. [Interruption.] Government Back Benchers can shake their heads and look at the ceiling, but real people are being affected by this Government’s Budget, and those who are benefiting are the best off.

We suggested some ways of raising the necessary funds. We said that the Government could perhaps consider closing the tax loopholes that the Prime Minister had been condemning, and stopping hundreds of millions of pounds being lost through offshore tax havens. We also suggested that they might want to reverse the pension tax relief boost that they have given to people who are already well off—namely, those earning more than £150,000—and that they might want to use the £500 million underspent in the Olympics budget.

We were not being opportunistic. We understand that difficult decisions have to be made if we are to get the deficit down, and as a responsible Opposition we looked at the figures. We also recognised that, at difficult times in the past, Labour had put up fuel duty. On many occasions, however, we also delayed or cancelled planned fuel duty rises in the light of the circumstances at the time—including at the height of the global financial crisis —because it was the right thing to do to give assistance to the people who needed it most and to ensure that we balanced and grew the economy.

We know—and more and more commentators are agreeing with us—that raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast have backfired. Britain has been pushed into a double-dip recession, more people are out of work, and the result is a bigger benefits bill and £150 billion of extra borrowing. That is why we need a fairer and more balanced plan for our economy that will get people back to work, and why we are calling again for the Government to change course and put their efforts into tackling youth unemployment, as well as using the skills of people who have been made redundant, and who have something to give back, to support young people into the jobs market.

We agree with the Government that stopping August’s 3p rise in fuel duty is the right thing to do for British businesses and families. I do not know whether the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have ever had to worry about the cost of filling up their cars in the way that the nurse in my constituency does. She works night shifts, and she does not know whether she will have enough money left at the end of the month to fill up her car so that she can get to work. In response to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), we are glad that the Government have at last started listening to those who face those difficulties, and we will therefore be supporting the Government tonight on this issue. As I said earlier, however, the manner in which the announcement was made raises a number of questions. It looked as though the issue had brought about the quickest U-turn in politics. The new benchmark for “a long time” in politics is no longer a week but overnight, with changes being made 24 hours after the initial announcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has given way. I wonder whether she could bring her speech to a close, so that we might hear from someone who really does have some authority on this subject and who has so ably led the campaign to bring about this change.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, did a lot of work on the campaign. However, given the earlier suggestions that there was a lack of interest in this subject on the Opposition Benches because of the lack of numbers here tonight, I felt it important to lay out our case fully. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, and I will bring my remarks to a conclusion.

I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. Now that the Treasury has had a week or so in which to do the number crunching—if it had not already done so—what areas of departmental underspend have now been identified to ensure that the decision to delay the August 2012 increase in fuel duty will be met in a fiscally neutral way? Will the Minister also tell us which Departments have, through budget exchange, already surrendered an underspend in advance of the end of this financial year, and which Departments are expected to have greater than originally forecast savings in departmental spending in 2012-13?

I do not have time to comment on the points that have been raised about biofuels. Perhaps I shall be able to do so in another debate. In conclusion, however, I should like to refer Members to new clause 9. We shall not be pressing it to a vote this evening, but it calls for a review of the relationship between fuel duty, other taxes charged on road fuels, and the cost of road fuel. It was made clear in the recent Westminster Hall debate that such a review might reflect the views not only of the Opposition but of many Government Members —I see some of them nodding—and I hope that the Government will be good enough to listen to that proposal, and to come forward with a plan to establish such a review.

[Robert Halfon]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak, and I support the Government’s new clause. I hugely welcome the support of my colleagues, particularly that of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who did so much work with FairFuelUK and attended the Westminster Hall debate to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) referred.

The case for cheaper petrol is economic, social and moral. It is economic because the AA says that keeping 3p off fuel prices will pump £1.8 million into our economy every single day. That supports high street demand at a time when it is collapsing in Europe. It is social, because fuel duty is a tax on everything, and we should be honest about who is paying it. We talk about “motorists”, but they are not a special interest lobby group. As FairFuelUK and many hon. Members have shown, motorists are everyone: mums driving to school, children on the bus, pensioners hit by inflation. That is why this is an issue of social justice. The economy is important, but it is only half the argument.

The case is moral, too, because as I have set out in other debates, fuel duty is regressive. The Office for National Statistics said last year that it hits the poorest twice as hard as the richest. Fuel prices are now, in essence, a poverty trap, adding to our dole queues. The average motorist in my Harlow constituency pays £1,700 a year to fill up the family car—that is a huge amount and clearly unsustainable.

Opposition Members have spoken of a U-turn, but I would say that it is an L-turn, showing that the Government have listened, and I believe that the Government deserve huge credit for doing so. When I spoke to my constituents at the weekend, no one said that this was a U-turn or wondered when it was first mentioned or by what Minister when and why. Rather, they said thank you to the Government for listening to motorists.

The Chancellor, the Economic Secretary and her predecessor, who is now the Transport Secretary, have done more to cut fuel taxes in two years than the Opposition did in a decade. The 2011 Budget saw Labour’s rise cancelled and fuel duty cut by 1p, while in last year’s autumn statement Labour’s January rise was scrapped after the campaign by FairFuelUK and MPs. Then, last week, the Government delayed Labour’s August rise. This is a radical tax-cutting agenda, targeted in a way that helps the poor. It shows that the Government are on the side of the little guy, supporting aspiration and hard work.

I listened to the “Today” programme interview with the shadow Chancellor, and I say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that this is not a decision made in a day. I and many others have been to see Treasury Ministers over many weeks and have led delegations to see relevant Ministers. I knew that the Government were considering this issue for a long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. If those discussions were going on for that length of time, would he not have expected the Government to say how it was going to be paid for?

[Robert Halfon]

In the Westminster Hall debate, which the hon. Lady mentioned, the Economic Secretary did not give a view either way on the issue and said that the Government were looking at it. Ministers then came to the House for Treasury questions. What better way of informing us that they were going to stop the August rise?

Returning to the “Today” interview with the shadow Chancellor, he said that Labour had “acted” on petrol prices, but a House of Commons Library note says:

“From 2000 the Labour Government increased road fuel duties...In its 2009 Budget the Labour Government announced that in future years fuel duties should rise by 1p a litre above inflation.”

In the next Budget, they

“proposed that the escalator should apply at least until 2014/15”,

and that

“the increase set for 2010/11 would be phased in over the coming tax year in 3 stages...fuel prices continued to rise strongly, driven by this increase in duty rates”.

That is the record we inherited, and which we are now having to unwind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 7, leave out subsections (3) to (6).

Amendment 23, page 2, line 36, leave out clause 4.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The amendment deals with an unfair situation that I mentioned earlier. People who are already earning considerable amounts, millionaires and others receiving the highest levels of pay, will benefit from the Government’s proposal to reduce their tax rate to 45%. We had a good debate on the subject on Second Reading, but were not able to discuss it in Committee. At that time we wanted the Government to reconsider, and not just because millionaires were set to receive something equivalent to a £40,000 per annum tax cut.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend may be interested to learn something that I myself learnt from a television programme that had no direct connection with economics. It was part of a series about London streets. A banker who was talking about his home in Portland road said that prices there had risen considerably since the taxpayer had bailed out the banks, and that far from suffering from the current financial situation, people seemed to be benefiting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I must inform the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that only one Member should be standing on the Floor of the House at any one time. Welcome to the Opposition Benches, Mr Halfon.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I was not sure whether the fuel duty debate or the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) had exercised the power of persuasion that led the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) to cross the Floor and spend some time on the Opposition Benches, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall now return to the subject of the amendments, which are fairly simple and straightforward.

Amendments 1 and 2 would remove the cut in the top tax rate for people earning more than £150,000 a year, and amendment 23 would prevent the abolition of the age-related allowance that would increase the tax on millions of older people—the so-called granny tax. As we said in the earlier debate, the amendments are based on the straightforward principle that when times are tough and there is less money around, we must ensure that the burden of deficit reduction is fairly shared. That theme of fairness will be a feature of the contributions of Labour Members this evening.

As I said at the outset, however, the Government have chosen to cut taxes for the richest 1% of the population, and that tax cut is worth £40,000 to those who earn more than £1 million a year. At the same time, they are raising the taxes of 4.4 million pensioners by, in some instances, hundreds of pounds a year. Most of those pensioners are living on less than the average taxpayer.

[Mr Reid]

Did not the Budget also raise the personal allowance for income tax by a record amount, thus cutting the tax for many people and taking many out of it altogether?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many people will be about £511 a year worse off. Many, particularly those on the lowest incomes, will not benefit from the rise in the income tax threshold, and a large proportion will be part-time workers who cannot work for the extra hours that they have been told will enable them to continue to qualify for tax credits.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Lady not welcome the fact that 2 million will be taken out of tax altogether, and that most basic rate taxpayers will be better off to the tune of, I believe, £220?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The problem is that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with another. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, many people will be £511 a year worse off. That may not seem a lot of money to one of the millionaires who will benefit from that £40,000, but it will make a big difference to a low-paid worker who is struggling to make ends meet and is feeling the pinch because of rising prices for food and other commodities.

[Julie Hilling]

Not only have the Government cut the rate of tax at the top—admittedly there is a welcome relief for people near the bottom, although of course those at the very bottom will not benefit at all—but the squeezed middle are being hammered in all directions. Because the threshold at which people will start to pay the higher rate has fallen, more people will be dragged into it, and people are also being affected by the tax credit and child benefit measures.

[Cathy Jamieson]

That is absolutely true. As I said earlier, that is exactly what happens to those who cannot work for the extra hours that would increase their working time to the 24 hours that would entitle them to maintain their working tax credit. These are people who want to work and pay their way—they want to do the right thing—but for some reason the Government have chosen to clobber them the hardest at the same time as giving millionaires a tax break. That makes no sense to me, although Government Members may say that it is a point of principle.

A commentator—I think that it was Fraser Nelson of The Spectator—recently suggested that the best definition of “Osbornism”, if there can be such a definition, had been provided by Groucho Marx:

“These are my principles. And if you don’t like them—well, I have others.”

I hope that the Government have received the message loud and clear from the Opposition and from the British public. We do not like the principles that are at the heart of the Government’s economic policy. We do not like, or accept, the principle of asking millions to pay more so that millionaires can pay less. That is why we are giving the Government the opportunity to put their well-practised U-turning skills to good use once again.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Should they not go further than that? Should we not deal with the amendment to existing legislation allowing the use of foreign countries as tax havens to avoid paying the debts of the developing countries, which can cost £4 billion a year?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. We will have an opportunity to discuss that subject in more detail tomorrow.

The Government once made much of their commitment to fiscal responsibility. Deficit reduction was to be their defining mission. Today, however, that task has been made even harder by the failure of their own economic plans, which involve £150 billion of extra borrowing. Their pledge to clear the deficit by the end of this Parliament has been blown to pieces, yet they still find the money for a tax giveaway to the top 1%.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that in his intervention.

[Nigel Mills]

Am I right in thinking that the impact of amendment 1 would be to take away the 45p rate and leave the highest rate at 40p, thus in effect giving a double tax cut? Can the hon. Lady explain the technicalities of how her amendment works?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am a relative newcomer to this place, and I sometimes find its procedures and conventions bemusing. I have learned from my time in the parliamentary process, however, to take advice from the Clerks and others who know about drafting legislation, and that is what we did in respect of these amendments.

The Minister will no doubt protest that the higher rate was not raising any money, but the Government’s attempts at justification have not withstood the scrutiny that has been undertaken. The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, says that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ estimates of the reduced tax avoidance that would result from the reduced rate are “highly uncertain”. They are based only on the first year’s yield from the new top rate, which was always expected to be artificially depressed by people’s ability to bring forward their income. No real basis is therefore offered for estimating the revenue-raising potential of the 50p rate. It is for that reason that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it is

“too soon to form a robust judgement.”

The claims that new funds would flood into the Treasury as a result of people relaxing or reversing their efforts to avoid paying the top rate have been shown to be notoriously speculative. Again, as the IFS explained,

“you’re first giving out £3bn to well off people who are paying 50p tax...you’re banking on a very, very uncertain amount of people changing their behaviour and paying more tax as a result of the fact that you’re taxing them less...there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of risk with this estimate.”

A written answer provided by the Exchequer Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chief Secretary, on 19 June shows that in 2010-11 more than 73% of people earning over £250,000 were paying more than the top rate, as were more than 80% of people earning between £500,000 and £10 million, implying that many tens of thousands of people were paying the 50p tax rate of last year and are now in line for a very large tax cut if this measure comes into effect.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like to answer that point.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I read the impact statement and the detailed IFS discussion of the so-called ‘uncertainty’. Its premise was that the avoidance would end because people would pay themselves out, regardless of how they had parked and deferred the revenue, and would therefore pay the tax at 50p. The problem is that people who have a personal service company—as so many Labour MPs and Labour supporters, including Ken Livingstone, seem to have—can defer for a very long time. They can pay themselves a beneficial loan and almost avoid tax altogether. That has also been a scandal in recent days. It is therefore not true to say people cannot continue deferring.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will answer that point in more detail later. I am a little disappointed, however, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to make a different point. He seems to be suggesting that only people with a connection to Labour had been avoiding or evading tax, which is, of course, absolutely not the case. I hope Members across the House will ensure that at every stage those who are due to pay their taxes should pay them and should do so willingly and properly.

[Sheila Gilmore]

What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that in Committee a Conservative MP, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), said that in his opinion the actions of a certain Ken Livingstone were in fact very sensible?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I do not wish to return to the lengthy debate that took place in Committee, but we did at various times have discussions about people doing things that were perfectly legal—and which, if they were so advised, might make perfect sense—but the question then arises as to whether they are morally or ethically the right things to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, I do not want to focus on such issues at this time. I am sure that Government Front Benchers will want to take responsibility for their own actions.

I now want to address some points that Ministers may make about the Bill’s measures to reduce tax avoidance. The IFS has again been very busy and has made some extremely helpful and interesting points. It says this Budget compared poorly with Labour Budgets, which cut tax avoidance by more than £12 billion between 2002 and 2009—an average of more than £1.3 billion each year. This Budget, however, is estimated to have cut tax avoidance by just £800 million. Closing loopholes to prevent avoidance should be something that every Budget does, and we should not be required to compensate the very rich for the inconvenience.

The Government’s last line of defence will no doubt be that cutting tax for those who already have the most will unlock investment and kick-start economic growth, but that is pure ideology, with no evidence to back it up. The OBR documents accompanying the Budget show a continued pattern of the promised recovery of business investment being postponed. An 8% increase was promised for 2011, but the amount actually fell by 2%. A further 10% increase had been projected for this year, but the forecast is now less than 1%. The role of such investment in driving growth for future years has been significantly written down.

As for growth, again the OBR is clear. It states in box 3.1 on page 46 of its latest economic and fiscal outlook, which is headed “The economic effects of policy measures”, that the only policy with a measurable effect is the cut in corporation tax. It says that that will lead to an increase in GDP of

“0.1 per cent by the end of the forecast period.”

Beyond that, it says in the policy costings document:

“We have made no other material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result of Budget 2012 policy announcements.”

Therefore, according to the best evidence and the advice of independent experts, this is a tax change that will have no discernible impact on our economic prospects and, at a time of tight public finances and tough decisions on deficit reduction, it could cost billions of pounds, making it harder to deal with the deficit and necessitating harsher sacrifices for others in society.

The granny tax is addressed in another of our amendments, which would reverse the Chancellor’s shameful raid on pensioners’ incomes. We must give the Government a chance to make amends for what is essentially a broken promise, and for their shabby attempts to sneak this past Parliament and the public. We call on the Government to cancel this unfair measure for a number of reasons. First, the Government made a commitment as recently as last year that the age-related allowance would be uprated each year of this Parliament in line with the retail prices index. It is there in black and white on page 35 of the 2011 Red Book. Recently it has been reported that the Prime Minister is resistant to suggestions from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that he break pre-election promises on benefits for older people. Yet here is a promise made only last year that the Government have consigned to the dustbin. Instead of acknowledging this most disreputable of U-turns, the Chancellor actually sought to conceal it, dressing a crude tax grab up as a “simplification”.

According to the House of Commons Library, by far the majority of those being asked to pay more live on incomes that put them in the bottom half of taxpayers. The crucial point—again, I am sure that Government Members will have heard this—is that having a small personal or occupational pension of just £67 a week, or little more than £3,000 a year, would be enough to put someone in line to lose under this measure. We are talking about the people who did not earn big salaries in their working lifetimes but managed to save so that they could provide for themselves. These are more people doing the right thing; they avoided the means-tested benefits. So yet again I say: why are the Government so keen on policies that penalise the people who are doing the right thing? Why do they penalise the people who are trying to work—the low-paid, part-time workers who lose their tax credits—and the pensioners who have tried to avoid the means-tested benefits and have saved for their retirement and done the right thing?

There is no doubt that pensioners have been hit hard by this Government’s decisions: winter fuel allowance has been cut; pensions have been indexed to a lower measure of inflation; the increase in the state pension age for women has been brought forward; last year’s VAT rise added £275 to the cost faced by an average pensioner couple; and cuts have been made to services such as the NHS, social care and local transport—all the things that matter on a day-to-day basis for pensioners. So pensioners have been hit hard by this Government’s decisions and policies, yet with this Finance Bill the Government are coming back for more. They are not content with all those things and are coming back for more. In total, this measure will raise more than £3 billion pounds over the next five years.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it a coincidence that the tax cut to the rich costs £3 billion, which is exactly the same as the tax increase for elderly people in society?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. That must be purely coincidental, because surely no Government would want to take that amount of money from pensioners simply to give it to the richest. Perhaps this Government would though; perhaps we have the same old Tories with the same old policies, yet again. The pensioners who have been hit hardest by this Government’s decisions are seeing them coming back for more. That £3 billion raised over the next five years is the biggest revenue raiser in the whole Budget, and it is coming from the pockets of pensioners with modest incomes. And it is all going towards what? Is it going to paying down the deficit? No. Is it going to help young people get back to work? No. Is it going to help the poorer pensioners? No. Instead, this money is being taken from millions of older people living on modest pensions and redistributed to a few thousand individuals with incomes of more than £150,000 a year. What an absolute disgrace: taking from the pensioners to give to those already on those high earnings.

The Government were said to be surprised by the anger this tax change has aroused. If that is the case—if they were surprised—that shows just how out of touch they are with the values, principles and priorities of the British people. At the time, the response of Age UK was very clear. It said that it was disappointing that the Budget

“offered a tax break of at least £10,000 to the very wealthy while penalising many pensioners on fairly modest incomes, who are already being squeezed”.

We could not have put it better ourselves. The chief executive of Saga said:

“Over the next five years, pensioners with an income of between £10,500 and £24,000 will be paying an extra £3 billion in tax while richer pensioners are left unaffected.”

The National Pensioners Convention said:

“We have been inundated by pensioners who are disgusted that those on around £11,000 a year will no longer get additional reductions in their tax—whilst those earning £150,000 or more will see their tax bills reduced.

This is seen by many as the last straw...Pensioners feel they are being asked to bail out the super rich—and it’s simply not fair.”

Pensioners are absolutely right to feel that way.

These amendments are a chance for the Government to rectify one of the most blatant injustices in this Budget. It simply cannot be right to ask millions of pensioners on modest incomes to pay more while finding a way for a few thousand millionaires to pay less. It is extremely hard to comprehend how the Government could ever have thought that this was fair, or that it would be acceptable to pensioners and to others who care about pensioners, but now they have an opportunity to put it right, and Members from all parts of the House have a chance to show where they stand. They can support these amendments and do the right thing by the people who did the right thing for themselves.

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, who has set out such a partial view from the Labour party’s perspective on this Budget. I think there is a better approach: the more people we take out of tax, the better, as the administration cost is less and there is less hassle for people, particularly the least well-off. I want to see the personal allowance increased to £10,000 as soon as possible. Good progress was made in the last Budget, but the sooner we take the number to £10,000, by far and away the better. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that most basic rate taxpayers will see an annual cash gain of £220, and I welcome the fact that this Budget takes 2 million people out of tax altogether. That is important, particularly given that we all remember the fiasco over the 10p tax rate. The more we can look after the least well-off and take them out of the tax system, by far and away the better.

I was fascinated by the whole discussion about the 50p rate. We can see from Treasury figures that we are talking about £100 million. That figure is rubbished by the Labour party, which thinks the figure is completely wrong and cites an IFS report. Let me quote the relevant passage from the IFS report, which is where I think the Labour party draws its approach from. The IFS states:

“The worry for the Chancellor is that the estimate that cutting the top rate to 45% will only cost £100 million is particularly uncertain. It assumes a ‘no behaviour change’ cost of £3 billion offset by a behavioural change of £2.9 billion. The first number we know reasonably accurately; the second number is estimated with great uncertainty. Even if we knew the effect of introducing the 50p rate—which we don’t with any precision—responses may not be symmetric. Those who have got a taste for avoiding the 50p rate may continue to avoid the 45p rate (even if they wouldn’t have done so had the 50p rate never existed). The experiment with the 50p rate does not appear to have gone well.”

My first conclusion is that the IFS is saying that making the rate 50p in the first place was a complete and utter disaster. The second issue raised is the uncertainty over behavioural change. On that, I say that we have empirical evidence on what happens when the rate is reduced. I do not know whether everyone recalls this, but we used to have an income tax rate of about 80%. When that was reduced, first to 60%, there were great cries from the Labour party that it would cause a collapse in the revenues, but instead the revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people avoided tax. The Government of the day then reduced the rate to 40p. Again there were great cries from the Labour party that that would let the rich off the hook, but what happened? The revenues rose. Why was that? It was because fewer people were as interested in avoiding tax and they paid up a fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

High income child benefit charge

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 24, page 5, line 4, leave out clause 8.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 25, page 134, line 2, leave out schedule 1.

Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 138, line 10, leave out

‘in relation to the payments’

and insert

‘equal to 100 per cent of any amounts in relation to which one or both of conditions A and B are met under section 681B of ITEPA 2003’.

Amendment 22, page 139, line 10, leave out

‘in relation to the payments’

and insert

‘equal to 100 per cent of any amounts in relation to which one or both of conditions A and B are met under section 681B of ITEPA 2003’.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to open the debate on these important amendments. I intend to pursue a theme that emerged earlier this evening—that of fairness to children, families and people who are feeling the squeeze as a result of the Government’s current policies—and also to discuss feedback from people who are concerned about the practicalities of the Government’s proposals on child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, along with points that were raised by Members during that part of the Committee stage that took place on the Floor of the House.

When I spoke about this issue in Committee, I reminded Members that child benefit involved a number of important principles, not least the principle of universality, which Labour of course supports. Because I spoke at some length on that occasion, I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments again now, but I think it worth repeating that child benefit is supposed to benefit—literally—children and families. That fact has been lost at various points, but I hope that we shall be able to keep it in our minds tonight as we consider what the Government are proposing.

As I pointed out in the earlier debate, child benefit was designed to ensure that mothers—at that time, specifically mothers—had money paid into their purses regularly, so that they had a stable income that could be used for their families.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that child benefit as we have traditionally understood it has had one great advantage, in that not only does it recognise the role of women in bringing up children, but its universality has ensured that there is virtually no fraud or error, and nor does it in any way add to the unemployment or poverty trap?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is important to understand that the fact that this was a universal benefit ensured that everyone who ought to have had it and who needed it was able to get it. When we debated this topic in the House previously, some Members tried to characterise our concerns about these proposals as Labour trying to protect a universal benefit paid to high earners, rather than looking at the overall principled position, and some may try to do so again this evening. I should repeat what I said both earlier this evening and in that earlier debate: that kind of argument does not wash at all in terms of fairness from a Government who have given a tax cut to millionaires while millions of ordinary families are feeling the pinch.

During the earlier debate, I also reminded Members of article 27 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the UK has signed up to. It outlines the obligations on states to assist parents to meet the needs of their children, and I pointed out that a number of organisations—as well as a number of Members—had highlighted the importance of those obligations. Sadly, that exhortation to make this debate about fairness to children and families seems to have gone largely unheeded, apart from some honourable exceptions. There have been Westminster Hall debates looking at this issue in more detail, in which a number of Members highlighted both the unfairness of the proposals and their practical difficulties.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is unfair to expect a family in my constituency where the parents might work in manufacturing industry for about £8 an hour to be contributing from their taxes to pay benefits to people who earn over £50,000 a year?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Well, there were some robust exchanges on that issue in previous debates. If the hon. Gentleman feels that is a difficult point, I cannot understand why he does not also feel that it is unfair that people on the very top earnings—those earning millions of pounds each year—are to get a tax cut of £40,000 per year, instead of focusing on the needs of children. I find that extremely odd, and I shall say a little more about the unfairness of the proposals later.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) is mistaken? We are not talking about redistribution from poorer to richer people. When child benefit was introduced, it took over the function of child tax allowances. Its purpose was to maintain tax equity. That is why there was the element of free income regardless of whether people were on £8,000 a year or £80,000 a year. It made a distinction between those who were responsible for children at any given level of income, and those who were not.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which explains the history extremely well. That is why I have focused so much on reminding us that this is supposed to be about children and doing the right thing by people who have the responsibility for caring for them, whether parents, or grandparents or other family members who may be entitled to claim the benefits. I hope to have enough time to be able to say a few words about that towards the end of my contribution.

The Government did revise the original proposal, but that revision has not gone far enough to deal with the inherent unfairness. The revised proposal will affect about 1.2 million families, of whom it is estimated that some 70%—790,000 couples and 30,000 lone parents in 2013-14—will lose the full amount of their child benefit. A further 330,000 couples and 20,000 lone parents affected by the charge in 2013-14 will lose a proportion of their child benefit. The average loss for those who are going to lose out is estimated at about £1,300 a year. In a previous debate, I highlighted the difficulty for families who are going to lose about £500 a year because of other changes that have been made. That £1,300 is a very significant amount for anyone caring for children in today’s economic climate.

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

Of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the unfairness of this proposal. We hear statements from the Government about the complexity of the tax system, so does she not find it surprising that they have come up with a proposal that increases complexity in the taxation system, as well as unfairness?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I shall deal with it in detail in a moment or two. Strangely, given everything else that the Government have supposedly wrapped up to try to make anomalies disappear, we know that sometimes even more anomalies have been created as well as unfairness. In trying to simplify things, they have actually made them more complicated.

In the Committee of the whole House, I raised issues about the principle and about the costs. It is important to have those firmly stated on the record, because the Government have estimated that the additional cost to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the first five years will between £8 million and £13 million for the computer system—the development and running costs—about £100 million for staff resources and £5 million for customer information. I asked the Minister in that debate for some further information on that. Some further parliamentary questions since then elicited more information, particularly on how much would be spent on marketing the new system. However, having looked at all this again in great detail, I must say that in my opinion and in that of Labour Members, it is not marketing that is needed at this point in time to make a bad policy and an incoherent change to the taxation system palatable to people, but a change of policy to make sure that whatever is done is fair and workable, and will not cause any further problems.

Despite exhortations from Government Members for further changes, those with incomes above £50,000 will have their child benefit withdrawn at 1% for each £100 of income from January 2013. That means that there will be no child benefit entitlement for families where any earner has an income of more than £60,000. As I said in Committee, although the changes that the Government have made are a small step forward, they do not deal with that inherent and fundamental unfairness. That is because they still leave the scenario where a couple with children where one earner is on £60,000 and the other is on £10,000 lose all their benefit, whereas a dual-earner couple on £49,000 each keeps it all. We still do not see how that is fair.

It is not just Labour Members who are saying that there is a problem. Irrespective of someone’s views on whether this is a fair system or whether they support the principle of what the Government are trying to do, which I do not, there remain a number of issues that others have raised. These points will not be new to the Minister, but I am outlining them once again because they have not been adequately addressed during the consideration of the Bill. The most recent information that has come from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales makes things clear. It states:

“While this Bill makes some steps in the direction of tax simplification, many of the measures introduce yet more complexity and taken overall the Bill does little to simplify the UK’s complicated tax system. The child benefit reforms…create considerable cost, confusion and complexity.”

It is also concerned about the Bill in general and states that

“the valuable lessons in drafting style produced by the Tax Law Rewrite project have been lost.”

I mentioned that earlier in our consideration of the Bill. As so much of the Bill is made up of complicated schedules and guidance and as it is the longest finance Bill ever, we must question whether we have had the opportunity to carry out all of the scrutiny, even though we did our best in Committee.

People who have to operate the provisions are concerned that they might need to be amended in the light of experience to ensure that they all work properly together and do not end up having further unintended consequences. Essentially, we are using the amendments to ask for clause 8 and schedule 1 to be withdrawn because we believe that the changes are flawed and unfair. That has also been pointed out by the ICAEW, which was straightforward and blunt in its language, stating that there could be a “reputational and operational disaster” for the Government and for HMRC. Those criticisms were largely reported and we have had the opportunity to listen to them in our debates.

We share the ICAEW’s disappointment that the Government have not tabled more workable proposals in time for our final consideration of the Bill. I would hope that even at this stage the Government will at least be able to give us some answers to the criticisms that have been raised or to accept that their plan is not only unfair but risks being unworkable.

The criticisms highlight the fact that

“the phased withdrawal for those earning between £50-60,0000 will be difficult to implement, open to error and potentially costly for HMRC to administer and for taxpayers to comply with.”

As those critics have said:

“The trouble is that an income tax system based on taxation of individuals, does not work properly if it has to cope with benefits that apply to a household”

such as tax credits

“or potentially to another person”

such as child benefit. The real concern is that:

“The phased withdrawal will not work well with the PAYE system.”

A considerable amount of concern has been expressed that the

“‘sliding scale’ approach to tapering down the benefit makes the system much more complicated.”

It has been described as “perverse” that such an approach is being removed for higher personal tax allowances for those aged over 65 on the grounds that this will help to simplify the system at the same time as a form of it is being re-introduced for the withdrawal of child benefit. That does not seem to be a consistent policy approach.

A further criticism is that the implementation timing is odd, with a start date of January 2013 that does not align with the start of the income tax year on 6 April. Concern has been raised that that

“could trigger many unexpected tax bills at the end of the tax year, as many more taxpayers will be brought into self-assessment.”

I do not think that the public have yet caught up with what they will be required to do.

The system is also

“unlikely to cope efficiently if families change or break up”

and we had a considerable amount of discussion on that question during the previous debate. As we all know, family formations change over time. Couples form, the people involved might have children from previous relationships and so on. There is real concern that

“The confusion caused by the new system could hit tax compliance, and undermine confidence in the tax system at a time when the employers are also having to implement the Real Time Information scheme for PAYE.”

On top of the criticisms set out by the ICAEW, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised a number of concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an answer to some of these points about the complexity of the scheme. The institute’s concern is that

“ a high degree of complexity—for both HMRC and taxpayers—into what has hitherto been a straightforward benefit with practically universal take-up”

is now being introduced. It also believes:

“If the legislation is to be implemented, there are many issues that need to be resolved”

and that that should happen well before the new charges go live. Given the timing of the implementation of these provisions, there is not a huge amount of time to sort out any of the anomalies. I hope that the Minister can say something on that point. [Interruption.] I heard someone say “six months”. If it is believed that all this can be sorted out in that time, I would like to hear it from the Minister, because many of us have experienced cases where, with the best of intentions, and with support on all sides, fairly complicated systems—new computer programmes and so on—let alone systems of this complexity, have not worked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend saying that if a person’s income fluctuates during the year, but they do not know that it is fluctuating, and do not know the full amount of their income until the end of the year, the child benefit will be treated by one set of rules, whereas if they know how their income is fluctuating and whether they are moving in and out of the zone in which the charge applies, they will be treated in another way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Yes, my hon. Friend has got the situation exactly right; that is the problem as it has been described. As for people who may elect not to receive the benefit, the Government’s proposals make it difficult for people who do not know what their earnings will be over a particular time to make that judgment.

A number of issues have been raised to do with how one would determine the higher-income person in a relationship. The measure raises a number of complex issues to do with independent taxation and taxpayer confidentiality. I know the subject has been raised with the Minister. My understanding is that HMRC will tell the couple which person had the higher income and is therefore subject to the new charge. As I outlined previously, I can see some difficulties associated with this. Not only does an individual need to know about their partner’s income, but they would need to know whether their partner has claimed child benefit and whether the partner has elected not to receive the benefit.

This will be particularly important where a couple are not on speaking terms. That does happen. It may not seem like it when everything is cosy in the coalition, but there are relationships in which people are not on speaking terms or where they have separated. In those circumstances, we need to be clear about what HMRC intends to do to inform a partner whether the other has made an election not to receive child benefit. Will they be advised, should the partner subsequently revoke that election?

There are potentially Catch-22 situations, particularly in relation to self-assessment and submitting the returns. Far from simplifying the system, which was straightforward and understood by everyone and which made it easy for people to claim, we seem to be making it far more complicated.

I want to raise, briefly, the issue of extended families. There are concerns that there may be contentious cases where different people claim entitlement to child benefit—for example, where parents are unable to look after the children and perhaps grandparents take over that role. We know the valuable role that grandparents can play in those circumstances, often at considerable cost to themselves. There could be situations where a parent continues to receive child benefit, although the child lives with the grandparents. If one or both grandparents have adjusted net income over £50,000, under the relevant provisions of the Bill, the higher-earning one would be liable for the higher child benefit payment, even though the grandparents are not necessarily at that point receiving the child benefit and could even be in dispute with the recipients.

These are some of the practical problems that come into play when we look at how people live their lives. I have mentioned the issue of timing. Perhaps the Minister can answer that. The issue of national insurance credits was raised in the Committee of the whole House. Although the Minister went some way towards explaining the situation and giving reassurance, it would be helpful to hear that stated here this evening.

I shall spend a moment on the problem of electing not to receive child benefit and revoking the election. Where one party to a relationship has an income in excess of £60,000, it seems that HMRC would like to encourage the child benefit claimant to claim the child benefit but to elect not to receive it, because that somehow makes everything neater. HMRC would stop paying out the child benefit, which would reduce the need for the higher earner to join self-assessment and to pay their tax. Those who expect their income to be more than £60,000, apply for child benefit and elect not to receive it, yet subsequently realise that their income for the year is likely to be between £50,000 and £60,000, could lose out unless there are some changes to the legislation.

It is important to place on the record that it is not only the Labour Opposition who oppose what the Government are doing. People who understand the tax system and want to see it improved, such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation, say that ideally the clause and the schedule should be withdrawn and a fresh consultation launched, with a view to coming up with a more workable alternative to the current proposals. We have tabled a couple of amendments to test the Minister’s view on whether that is needed. It has been suggested that these are needed to assist in the situation where people elect whether or not to receive child benefit.

The amendments would put all claimants not subject to 100% high income child benefit charge on the same footing as other claimants able to make a revocation, so this might be easier, it is argued, for HMRC staff to understand and implement. There is a clear distinction between people who elect not to have payments and then find that their income is under £50,000, and those who elect not to have payments and find that their income was between £50,000 and £60,000. The Bill copes with the former, but not with the latter.

I can see people’s eyes beginning to glaze over at these technicalities. Hon. Members in all parts of the House no doubt want me to bring my remarks to a close. [Interruption.] It is good that we all agree on something. These points are very important.

To return to what I said at the outset, if we make the situation more complicated, cause more confusion and make it less likely that people will know whether they qualify for the benefit, that will not be helpful for families, it will certainly not be helpful for children and, I would argue, it will not be helpful for Ministers, because it is they who will have to come back to fix the problem later.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have made the case for a cap on the number of children receiving child benefit. I hear his point about an alternative policy, but we must ensure that the child benefit regime provides support for those who need it most. The policy for which we are legislating maintains that principle—those on the lowest income will retain support.

The Government strongly discourage anyone from not registering for child benefit on the birth of their child, even if they decide to opt out of receiving payments. The child benefit system does not process only child benefit, and failing to register can affect state pension entitlement and make it less straightforward for the child to receive a national insurance number when they turn 16. It is therefore important that children remain registered.

Amendments 21 and 22 would allow those on the taper who have opted out of child benefit retrospectively to receive the payment. I am pleased to confirm that HMRC will apply the legislation as it is to enable such a claim to be made. I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the amendments are not necessary. As I have said, the legislation provides a claimant whose income, or whose partner’s income, is more than £50,000 with the opportunity to elect not to be paid child benefit, so they are not liable for the high income child benefit tax charge. A claimant who has elected not to be paid child benefit can subsequently revoke that election and ask HMRC to reinstate payment of child benefit.

The payment of child benefit would then normally be made from the first pay day after the revocation has been received by HMRC, and not from the date when child benefit was first stopped. That is because it would make no sense to pay arrears of child benefit to those whose income, or whose partner’s income, is more than £60,000. However, the legislation provides for retrospective revocation when a claimant discovers that, contrary to their original expectations, they do not have an income of £50,000 or above. That retrospection will be limited to two years after the end of the tax year to which the original election applies. That means that child benefit can be paid for up to that two-year period.

When a child benefit claimant or their partner has income of between £50,000 and £60,000, the decision whether to elect to receive child benefit is not so clear cut, because the amount of the tax charge is dependent on their income. HMRC recognises that a couple might be nervous about making an election if a later decision to revoke the election would apply only to future payments, leaving them worse off. The legislation provides HMRC with the power to issue directions as to how the election process will be administered. I hope I have cleared up that point.

Let me try to deal with the few remaining points. Draft guidance is being prepared over the summer, during which time HMRC will consult external representatives, including the Social Security Advisory Committee and the HMRC benefits and credits consultation group. The directions will confirm that an election that has been made by a claimant whose income or whose partner’s income is between £50,000 and £60,000 can be revoked retrospectively, to the point at which the child benefit ceased.

I have dealt with this point on the state pension, but it is possible to be registered even if people are not receiving cash. I have also dealt with the point on the definition of partners used in the Bill. As for the argument that the measure is complicated, we have looked at alternatives, but we think the measure is the best available to us. On the principle of individual taxation, HMRC is committed to protecting confidentiality. For taxpayers who are unable to discuss their incomes with each other, HMRC will develop a process with appropriate security checks so that they can answer yes or no to simple questions about the income of their partner.

As I have said, the Government have had to make difficult decisions. The measure means we can continue to provide child benefit, and so, in a sustainable manner, protect those who need it the most. We accept that this is not an ideal situation, but the budget deficit left by the previous Administration is the challenge we must overcome if we are to avoid a far worse predicament. I urge the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

[Cathy Jamieson]

In the very short time available, I want to say that we will press amendment 24 to a Division, although I accept what the Exchequer Secretary said about amendments 21 and 22 not being necessary. The only other point I would make is that it seems odd for him to say that he did not want a more complicated means-test system and then to introduce an extremely complex taxation system. It does not make any sense, and does not pass the test of competence or the test of fairness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.