Income Tax
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House believes it is a mistake to reduce the top rate of income tax at a time when working people, who are on average £1,600 a year worse off since 2010, are not feeling the recovery and while the deficit also remains high; notes that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that, by next year, households will be on average £974 a year worse off because of tax and benefit changes since 2010; believes that a fair plan to balance the books would reverse the cut in the top rate of income tax, which is worth £3 billion a year for the top one per cent of earners, for the next Parliament, and introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax; and calls on the Government to rule out a further reduction in the top rate of income tax on earnings over £150,000 a year.
Four and a half years into this Government, the squeeze on lower and middle earners is as bad as ever. Wages are still failing to keep pace with prices, and the typical working person is £1,600 worse off. This is the longest suppression of living standards since the 1870s, and my Labour colleagues know that this gap is getting wider and wider. This Government are presiding over one of the worst records on income growth of any European country—only Portugal, Cyprus and Greece have seen wages erode more severely than we have. For most people, there is no economic recovery at all.
When the Chancellor was asked, however, in a recent ITV news interview why there was no feel-good factor, his answer was, “Well, I simply don’t accept that.” Of course, in the world the Chancellor and the Prime Minister inhabit life is sweet. Someone lucky enough to be in the richest 1% of society has seen their share of the nation’s income grow considerably. Over the past year, the share of the national post-tax income of the top 1% of taxpayers—just 300,000 people—has risen from 8.2% to 9.8%, whereas the bottom 90%, a total of 27 million taxpayers, have seen their share fall from 71.3% to 70.4%. Those are Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ own statistics. That most privileged 1% elite have not just seen their fortunes grow by chance while others have fallen behind; they have been actively helped along by a cut in income tax for those earning more than £150,000. The shrinking share of national wealth held by the vast majority when compared with the growing share held by the richest does not represent a recovery for the many rather than the few.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the coalition Government, thanks to the input of the Liberal Democrats, have raised millions of people out of paying any income tax? Will he give an assurance that should there be a Labour Government they will match the pledge to raise to £12,500 the level before which income tax is levied?
Chris Leslie
There are a number of facets to the hon. Gentleman’s question. Let us just remember that it was the Liberal Democrats who voted to cut that top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman nods and says, “Quite right” from a sedentary position, but of course he is not seeking re-election and so he is brave enough to say that. I wonder whether his Liberal Democrat colleagues would also say that about the cut from 50p to 45p. I will give way if Liberal Members want to defend the way they voted on that.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised the issue of the personal allowance, and I expect the Minister will do the same. But the public out there are not going to be fooled by Government Members saying, “Just look over here at this particular change”, because they know very well by now that Tories and Liberals give a little with one hand but take away far more with the other. On the tax burden, there is a sense of people being worse off year after year, and they know the truth.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
If Labour went down the route of a 10p tax band in place of the £12,500 personal allowance that Government Members want to see, surely that would leave people on £11,000 worse off.
Chris Leslie
No, we believe that instead of having the married couples break, which does not actually help many married couples, it would be far fairer to introduce that 10p starting rate of tax, because it would help many, many more people. The hon. Gentleman has hit upon yet another example—perhaps this is one for an Opposition day debate on a different occasion—where the Government constantly choose the route of unfairness, limiting the help to those who need support and assistance. Labour believes that everybody should have a share in growth and prosperity, which is precisely the opposite of the trickle-down economics that we have had so far from the parties in the Government.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Getting back to the 50p tax rate, does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation for the fact that when we voted on it in March 2012 only two Labour Members voted in that Division and the rest abstained? What is the explanation for that?
Chris Leslie
We have consistently opposed this outrageous change to dish out a tax cut for the very privileged 1% in society. The hon. Gentleman should join us, and I hope he will, in voting for today’s motion, as it is about a key divide in British politics and in Scottish politics. It is very important that we expose the fact that by cutting the top rate of tax on earnings above £150,000 from 50p to 45p Ministers have wilfully accelerated the divide between the majority and the richest 1%.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the shadow Minister concede that the considerable increase in personal allowances under this Government has been of no benefit to those earning more than £150,000 because between £100,000-worth and £110,000-worth of earnings all the personal allowances are removed?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman has done more for the very wealthy earning over £150,000. At this time of pressure on our public spending and on his constituents and mine, what did he decide to do? A typical millionaire, he gave away a benefit worth £100,000. He voted for that cut in the 50p rate of tax, which the vast majority of people feel is an obscene example of the unfairness of this Government. It is particularly a stain on the reputation of the Conservatives, but I want to hear how the Liberal Democrats justify their votes for the cut in that 50p rate.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
Apart from the fact that the top rate of tax was 40% for all but 39 days of the Labour Government’s time in office, will the hon. Gentleman tell us which Chancellor of the Exchequer cut capital gains tax to 18%, which this Government have now increased to 28%, and which Government capped the amount of tax relief for high earners on pensions? It was not his Government, but the present Government.
Chris Leslie
It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman is trying to wriggle out of voting for that cut in the 50p rate. He tries to change the subject—“Look over here, we’ve done this” or “We’ve done that,” but he voted for a cut in the 50p rate for the very wealthiest in society. He asks—I am sure we will hear this from the Minister as well—why we did not do that for 13 years. We had a global financial crisis that hit tax receipts significantly, and in 2009, looking at the state of the public finances, we felt that the fairest thing to do was to raise the rate to 50p, which is obviously shocking to Government Members.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The financial crisis actually started in America with JP Morgan. The Government are trying to rewrite history. Is it not true that under this Government people are worse off to the tune of £1,600 a year, and that the purchasing power of their wages has dropped 6%?
Chris Leslie
People faced a double whammy—the tax and the changes to their tax credits by the Conservatives, together with that squeeze on living standards as a result of wages failing to keep pace with prices.
We are doing the Government a favour today. We are trying our best to persuade them of the error of their ways. We have tabled a motion that allows them to put right the wrong they have done, get their priorities right and admit it was a mistake to reduce the top rate of income tax at a time when working people are not feeling any recovery.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
For nearly half a century the Indians and the Chinese pursued a punitive ideological politics. Since they turned away from that, they have pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. With the exception of the Labour Front-Bench team and President Hollande, I think the hon. Gentleman will find himself very much in the minority. As Abraham Lincoln famously said, you never pull anybody up by pulling somebody down. Is not this debate about the Opposition’s political opportunism, rather than long-term economic reality?
Chris Leslie
There we have it—the voice of the ideological right wing of the Conservative party, which says we should not have progressive taxation in this country. The hon. Gentleman almost espouses the flat tax mentality, on which we know the Conservatives all agree. Perhaps he wants to elaborate.
Paul Uppal
Unlike those on the Opposition Benches, I have been poor—dirt poor. [Interruption.] I do not want any sympathy. The reason I sit on the Conservative Benches is that I want to empower the people in my constituency and give them a ladder of opportunity to escape from poverty, not keep them in poverty, which is the position of those on the Opposition Benches.
Chris Leslie
That ladder of opportunity is being pulled up by the hon. Gentleman. At a time when people’s pay is failing to keep pace with prices and the burden of taxation is greater, he not only votes to give tax benefits to the wealthiest in society but says, “If you’re lower or middle income, you have to pay higher VAT. You’re not going to leave the country. We have to reduce those tax credits and all the support that has been available before, but if you’re a wealthy individual in society, if you’re earning over £150,000, we have to cut your taxes because you might just leave the country.” That is not what has happened.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but first I want to hear a little more of the logic and the ideology espoused by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal).
Paul Uppal
If the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says, will he explain why, under the Labour Government, venture capitalists paid 10% tax, as opposed to their cleaners, who paid 20%, whereas they had previously paid 10%?
Chris Leslie
Again, Conservative Members do not want to talk about the 50p rate of tax. They will find any example of other things. They will talk about the personal allowance or venture capital arrangements, and maybe we will get them on to VAT. We want to know the ideological basis for cutting the 50p rate to 45p. They may have thought that that would suddenly enliven enterprise across the country, but it has not done so.
Frank Dobson
There have been references to the ladder of opportunity. Education and training are a major part of that. It is this Government who have taken away the education maintenance allowance, which allowed large numbers of working class children to stay on at school, at college and in training. Taking that away has shifted several steps out of the ladder of opportunity.
Chris Leslie
It is important that we look in aggregate at the fate that has befallen so many of our constituents since 2010. We have had 24 different tax rises, as well as the effect of wages not keeping pace with prices. Let us look at some of the changes that have taken place since 2010—freezing child benefit, cutting maternity grants, cutting tax credits, abolishing the education maintenance allowance, higher insurance premium taxes, a frozen higher rate threshold, the granny tax, freezing allowances for pensioners and, of course, raising VAT to 20%.
In what must count as one of the most brazen transfers from the least well-off to the richest in recent years, the Chancellor announced in his conference speech a £3 billion strivers tax hit on tax credits until 2018—the same £3 billion sum given away in the tax cut to millionaires. There we have the comparative priorities—£3 billion in a tax cut to the very wealthiest in society, and the same amount taken away from some of the poorest and middle income families.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What does he say about the Chancellor’s words in 2009, when he said:
“Well, I’ve set out the principles we will adopt when it comes to the 50p rate. I’m not a fan. I regard it as a temporary feature but I cannot even consider lifting it while I’m asking others in the economy to bear a burden.”
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head—as if our constituents are not still bearing a burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not countenance reducing that 50p rate until people were no longer bearing that economic burden. Are we in that position? Absolutely not. What does he do? He chooses to give that tax cut to the very wealthiest in society. Has there ever been a fallacy greater than the Chancellor’s hollow claim that “we’re all in this together”?
How strange that before the last election, as my hon. Friend says, the Chancellor said, “No, no, no, we certainly wouldn’t tackle that 50p rate,” but after the election, amazingly, he decides to do what Conservatives always do. That was at a time when Oxfam reports that 20 million meals were given out in food banks last year, up by more than 50% on the previous year. Its chief executive is right to say that the fact that they are needed in 21st century Britain is a stain on our national conscience. We cannot and we must not allow these warped and perverse priorities to go unchallenged.
There is an alternative and a different set of choices. When Government borrowing is 10% higher in the past six months compared with the same period last year and the deficit is rising, the Treasury cannot afford to dole out tax breaks to those at the top of the pile. Borrowing so far this year has been £58 billion, compared with just over £52 billion for the first six months of last year. The revenue from the 50p rate of tax remains essential when that deficit is pressing so heavily on vital public services and bearing down on the shoulders of lower and middle income households in our constituencies.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend will know, income tax receipts were projected to rise by 7% this year but have, in fact, gone up by only 0.1%, so there is a pressing need for extra income. He will also know—perhaps he will comment on this—that the marginal rate of tax for national insurance and income tax is 62% for people on incomes between £100,000 and £120,000, so how can the Government argue that behavioural changes resulting from a 50p rate will suddenly drive everyone away? It is obviously a load of bunkum designed to protect their rich friends.
Chris Leslie
It is amazing what contortions Ministers have forced their officials into in trying to justify why the 50p rate could no longer continue—the sort of ideological nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West—such as the suggestion that somehow it would not raise important revenues at a time when our deficit is actually rising.
Chris Leslie
I am sure that the Financial Secretary will confirm that the deficit is actually rising.
Mr Gauke
The shadow Chief Secretary might be aware that earlier today the Daily Mail reported on its website that a former Labour Cabinet Minister, Alan Milburn, said at a Labour party conference fringe event that, as far as the state of the public finances was concerned, increasing the 45p rate to 50p would be “absolutely incidental”. Does he agree?
Chris Leslie
I do not agree that it would be incidental, but I have never suggested that it is the full solution to dealing with the deficit. However, it is an important part of it—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says that it is not an important part of it. He says that we should not worry about the revenues we would get from a 50p rate. I am sorry, but the country cannot afford that sort of attitude and those priorities from Government Members. The deficit affects our constituents because of its effects on public services and the accumulating interest that has to be paid to service the mounting debt under the Conservatives. We have a choice about a tax rate that would raise £3 billion, and it is important that we take that opportunity to tackle our deficit, rather than giving that money away to those people who are already in an extremely privileged position.
Chris Leslie
I do, and let me explain why. We have to debunk this myth, because it is essentially the argument that the Minister will set out in his speech today. The static cost of the 50p tax rate before behavioural effects are taken into account is £3 billion—those are the official HMRC figures and the Minister agrees with them. Ministers, however, including this one, have strained every sinew to try to prove that those behavioural effects would almost entirely erase any revenue generation whatsoever, claiming that it would raise only a net £100 million. That is the figure we have. However, we must not forget—perhaps he can confirm this—that it was a ministerial decision to pick the tax income elasticity rate of 0.45, which miraculously massaged the official figure down to that £100 million. Was that a Government decision, because that is what the HMRC figures say?
Mr Gauke
It was HMRC that determined that, but I just want to be absolutely clear about what the shadow Chief Secretary is saying. He is right that the £3 billion is the static cost, but he is saying that that is the actual cost that the Labour party believes it would raise. He is saying that there would be no behavioural change as a consequence of a 50p rate of income tax. That is the most extraordinary and incredible position, and it is inconsistent with the position that the Labour Government took when they introduced this some years ago. If that is what he really believes, he is stretching credibility even further.
Chris Leslie
We are making a little progress, because the Minister has at least acknowledged that the static cost of this change is £3 billion, and we have also pinned down the fact that it was HMRC and the Treasury, not the Office for Budget Responsibility, that picked the TIE rate, which is the device he used to massage the figure down to £100 million. [Interruption.] He says that that was not Ministers, so we will have to see whether a freedom of information request can elicit more information.
Even if we accepted the behavioural changes that the Minister has suggested, rather than tackling the tricks and manoeuvre used to avoid paying the tax, what is the attitude of the Treasury and the Minister? Their attitude is to wave the white flag and basically say, “Let’s allow them to get away with those behavioural effects.”
Chris Leslie
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie).
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Chief Secretary is being most generous and accommodating in giving way. I simply point out to the House that the second debate has a comparable number of would-be contributors as does this one. If we are working on the assumption that this debate will finish at about 4 o’clock, it is important to ensure that there is maximum time available for Back Benchers who wish to make speeches. After that, I am in the hands of the House.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
To bring my hon. Friend back to the whole subject of fairness in taxation, especially in these economic times, it was this Government who told us that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the majority of the burden, yet the first thing they did was reduce the tax rate to take that burden off their shoulders. [Interruption.]
Chris Leslie
There is a lot of protest coming from Government Members. Only those who are not standing for Parliament again will dare to stand up and defend cutting the 50p rate. Mr Speaker, I have heard your entreaties about being a little more strategic in the way we progress through the arguments, but I thought that it was important—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne)—[Interruption.] Order. I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as a very cerebral denizen of his House. I do not know whether he has become a bit demob happy because he is standing down, but I look to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as a gentleman, to comport himself with a dignity comparable to that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), who is beaming on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) might be demob happy, but his constituents are demob happier.
I want to look at some of the other arguments we will hear from the Minister. When he came up with his calculation of £100 million, which was supposedly the only revenue from cutting the 50p rate, HMRC did not take into account the forestalling effect it would have—[Interruption.] No, it did not. If the Minister reads the small print of the Treasury costing, he will see that it did not take account of forestalling. I will send it to him, because it is there in black and white.
Everybody knows that wealthy individuals, usually paying themselves through personal services companies, merely changed the date when they paid themselves, from the financial year when the tax rate was 50p, and waited until the Chancellor did the business and cut it to 45p. The OBR has observed that substantial amounts of PAYE tax liabilities were deferred from the end of 2012-13 to the early part of 2013-14 in order to be taxed at 45p, rather than 50p. It estimates that around £1.7 billion in tax was deferred in that way. If that charge was at the lower rate, clearly there would be far more income lost to the Exchequer. The Chancellor has colluded in the wholesale avoidance of the 50p rate, and they telegraphed it so far in advance that they almost created the circumstances in which they were able to give the impression that it did not really matter that it would not have an effect.
The Conservatives will also make a number of other allegations about the 50p rate. They will say that it stifles enterprise and repels entrepreneurs abroad. However, recent studies have shown that a 50p rate did not deter or discourage wealthy people from locating in the United Kingdom. A new report from the New World Wealth organisation looked at millionaire migration and found that more millionaires migrated to the UK between 2003 and 2013 than to any other country.
The real question in the minds of so many Conservative ideologues, as Conservative Members are, is whether they will get their way and see this 45p rate cut even further to 40p, because that is essentially what they want.
Chris Leslie
There are plenty of the Chancellor’s friends, some of them standing opposite, who want that to happen. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, says:
“The Government should open up some more blue water, and cut the top rate back to 40p.”
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) says that 40p would be his priority. The politics of the 45p cut
“was very straightforward and it really wouldn’t have made any difference to the popularity…of the measure if you went from 50p to 40p rather than 45p.”
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the important point is that, yes, a marginal income is raised through the top rate of tax, but it is also about the principle? We know that the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality, with the impact that that has on matters such as life expectancy and health. If the Government do not recognise the divisions and hardship that this is creating, it is a sad day.
Chris Leslie
I sometimes get the impression from Ministers that they would not understand fairness if it hit them in the face. They certainly do not get it when it comes to the moral imperative as well as the economics of ensuring that we have a fair tax system that ensures that those with the broadest shoulders contribute a fairer share.
A Labour Government would reduce the deficit in a fairer way than the approach that we have seen from the Government. Of course, we have not seen much deficit reduction in recent years. We want to balance the books as soon as possible in the next Parliament, but to do so in that fairer and balanced way. We will reverse this Tory and Liberal Democrat tax cut for millionaires. We have to make some tough choices.
Chris Leslie
No, we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
We will stop paying winter fuel allowances to the richest pensioners. We will have to raise child benefit by just 1% for two years, and Ministers’ pay also should be restrained. But we also have to cut out the waste and incompetence of this Government —£3 billion wasted on an NHS reorganisation; the universal credit debacle; the pointless exercise of a worse than useless Work programme. A fair plan to balance the books in the next Parliament would reverse this obscene tax cut for the top 1% of earners. We will have to finish the job that this Chancellor has so patently failed to deliver, and we will do so with a plan that will create sustained and balanced growth, 200,000 homes by 2020 and a British investment bank; cutting business rates for small firms; providing a jobs guarantee and child care to help people back to work; reconnecting the wealth of our country with the finances of individuals and families; and, above all, ending dogmatic trickle-down Tory economics, which hits lower and middle income households while the Government lavish tax cuts on the rich.
Chris Leslie
Does the Minister agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says:
“The uncertainty around HMRC’s estimates mean it is possible that the 50p rate would be somewhat more effective at raising revenue than their initial estimate suggests”—
because we have had several subsequent financial years?
“Given this, there is certainly a case for HMRC looking again”.
Will the Treasury now conduct an impartial analysis of the true revenues of that 50p rate?
Mr Gauke
Let me quote what the IFS said in January of this year:
“there is little additional evidence to suggest that a 50p rate would raise more than was estimated by HMRC back in 2012…the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit”.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to pray in aid the Institute for Fiscal Studies, I can tell him that one thing that it would dismiss is the idea of a £3 billion pot here. The idea that there is no behavioural impact at all, which is the argument that we heard from him, is entirely fanciful.
Chris Leslie
I have quoted from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Does the Minister disagree with the Office for Budget Responsibility, which questions the nature of the Treasury evaluation, calling it “highly uncertain?”
Mr Gauke
But it was the OBR that signed off the numbers in the March 2012 Budget. The hon. Gentleman seeks to pray in aid both the OBR and the IFS, but their position has been supportive of the Government. The fact that he suggests there is no behavioural impact here—that appears to be his position—is absolutely absurd.
Let us set out a few facts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) mentioned, the previous Government had a top rate of 40p for all but 36 of their 4,758 days in office. It is also the case that the richest in our society now pay more than at any point under the previous Government, with HMRC statistics showing that the top 1% is expected to pay 27.4% of all income tax this year. At the same time, 25 million working people are paying less income tax than they did in 2010. It is of course right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, and I will set out our actions in a few moments.
Consideration must also be given to ensuring that the United Kingdom is competitive in attracting wealth-creating individuals to locate and stay in this country, which is a point that even the previous Labour Government recognised for most of their time in office. Making our country an attractive place in which to invest is something that this Government are committed to doing. Indeed last week, the World Bank published its 2015 Ease of Doing Business report, placing the UK eighth overall and sixth among the OECD countries.
As I have already noted, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) announced in his 2009 Budget that the additional rate of income tax would come into effect in April 2010. It was accepted by that Government that there would be behavioural changes as a result of this policy. To be specific, not including forestalling, they accepted that it would result in revenues from the additional rate being around £4 billion lower than the static cost of the change. That is an important point. The 2009 analysis that Labour produced suggested that it would raise £2.5 billion, with £4 billion having been lost because of behavioural changes. Those behavioural changes are now being ignored by Labour, which is extraordinary.
The previous Government told us that the increase from 40p to 50p for incomes above £150,000 would raise approximately £2.5 billion a year. But the evidence suggests that it fell short of even that, raising at best £1 billion and at worst less than nothing. That is the conclusion not of my party, but of the HMRC report, which was laid before the House by the Chancellor alongside the Budget in 2012. The report lays out thorough and compelling evidence on the impact of the 50p rate. It showed that the additional rate was distorted, inefficient and damaging to our international competitiveness and that the previous Government greatly understated the impact of the additional rate on the behaviour of those affected. It has been criticised by business and has damaged the UK economy. The Government have decided not to stifle the economy further, but to show that we are open for business, which is why we reduced the rate to 45p.
Mr Gauke
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, and I know that many Members wish to speak in this debate.
I have set out the measures we have taken on avoidance and evasion. At the same time, though, we have used the tax system to help hard-working people on lower middle incomes to keep more of the income they earn through personal allowances. The tax-free allowance has increased from £6,475 in 2010 to £10,500 in April 2015—a tax saving of £805 for a typical basic-rate taxpayer. These changes will have given tax breaks to over 25 million individuals and will have taken 3.2 million low-income individuals out of income tax altogether by the end of this Parliament. A future Conservative Government will go further, increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher-rate tax threshold to £50,000.
Chris Leslie
We asked the Chancellor a question yesterday and did not get very far, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) asked it of the Prime Minister today and did not get very far, so can this Minister now tell us how, specifically, the £7.2 billion promise that he has repeated will be paid for?
Mr Gauke
I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question and the Chancellor answered it yesterday—we will reduce public spending to pay for it.
Members in all parts of the House agree that those who can most afford it should contribute their fair share to the Exchequer, but Labour Members insist that we should achieve that through a 50p rate that damaged our economy, sacrificed our international competitiveness, and did not raise the revenues intended. Those advocating a return to a 50p rate have to answer this question: given that it will not raise any significant amount of revenue, is “absolutely incidental” to the public finances, to use Alan Milburn’s phrase, and may even cost money, why do it? It is not about deficit reduction, it is not about economics, and it is not even about getting more from the wealthy, because there are better ways of doing that. It is all about the politics—but at what cost? At a time when the UK must compete to prosper in a global world and when we have a choice as to whether we sink or swim, those who advocate a 50p rate are taking the easy choice—short-term populism triumphing over increased competitiveness, with a stone age message of “bash the rich” prevailing over the need to attract wealth creators and keep them in this country.
This country’s route to success will not be through the lazy populism we have heard from Labour. Instead, we have taken steps to ensure that those with the most contribute the most, while maintaining a tax system that enables us to compete on a global stage. We are creating a tax system that is not only fairer but shows that the UK is open for business, encourages work, and gets people doing the right thing.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the shadow Minister wishes to intervene, I am more than happy to give way.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman said that the 50p rate was clearly ridiculous, but my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) quoted the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who said before the last election that he could not countenance reducing the 50p rate while so many people were bearing such a burden in our society. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that burden has lifted?
Andrew Bridgen
The deficit of £150 billion that we inherited from the previous Labour Government has been reduced by a third, but there is much more work to be done. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and listen to my speech, during which he will have the chance to intervene, I think that I will answer many of his questions.
The ability to earn more than £150,000 does not give or guarantee happiness, health or friends, but it does give choices. People who earn more money have more choices. My definition of poverty is having no choices: people with no choices are in poverty. One of the choices people have is about where they are domiciled for tax. With taxes rising in France, there has been a flight of people to the UK, to such an extent that, as was pointed out at a meeting with the Mayor of London a few months ago, so many French people live in London that it is the fourth largest French city.
I have always been a great believer in this quote:
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
When the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) brought in the 50p tax rate before the last election, I naturally assumed that he did not take on board George Santayana’s sentiments, as history has told us time and again that
“for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
Yet the Labour party persist in this notion that having one of the highest top rates of tax in the world will increase revenues and make the country more competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) was quite right to quote Abraham Lincoln, who said:
“You can’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.”
He described economic inequality as benign, rather than malevolent. Understanding the difference leads to understanding why allowing the greatest number of opportunities works better for increasing everyone’s wealth than trying to equalise outcomes. That was true then, and it remains true now.
The Labour party’s economic blindness seems to extend to failing to take note of what is happening over the channel in France. It is in its third year of being led by the Leader of the Opposition’s comrade Francois Hollande. After the Socialist Government increased a range of taxes, including the top rate of tax, revenues have proven to be half of what was expected. France has virtually no economic growth, and it has a black hole of billions of euros in its public accounts, to the point that it now wants the UK to pay €2 billion to help to bail it out. An uncompetitive top rate of tax decreases the incentive to work, reduces the amount of money for investment and, as has been seen in France, ultimately reduces the size of the economy.
What the Opposition do not seem to grasp as they play 1970s politics is that we live in a different world from that of the 1970s, when the UK had draconian top rates of tax. The principal difference is that high earners now have the option to live elsewhere, without any inconvenience, because of the internet and much improved air travel. We do not want to go back to the brain drain, and to being the sick man of Europe.
Plenty of people have offered advice on this issue to the Labour party. Let us take the comments of Mark Giddens, a partner at UHY Hacker Young, who stated:
“We would lose some of the edge that we currently have over other Western European countries in attracting successful entrepreneurs and investors. We will also find it harder to compete against other major English speaking economies such as the USA”.
The evidence seems clear. Under the French model we see high tax rates, anaemic growth, high unemployment and lower Government revenues; under our current model the long-term economic plan is working, we have the fastest economic growth in the developed world, and an economy that has created more jobs than the rest of the EU combined, leading to more tax revenue.
We can see in the HMRC analysis that was mentioned by the Minister and published in 2012, that the 50p rate was raising nothing like the £3 billion that Labour estimated at the time and continues to hold dear. Indeed, the direct cost of the reduction in the rate of income tax at that time was estimated at only £100 million. When other lost tax revenues are taken into account, it is evident that there was no direct cost to the Treasury in cutting the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, not to mention the wider economic impact of that higher rate of tax, as we have seen in the French economy.
When Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60p to 40p in 1988, the tax take rose and top earners paid a larger share of it. When the Treasury decided to set the rate of capital gains tax at 28%—up from 18% under the previous Labour Government—it stated that its studies had concluded that that rate maximised the tax take. If the optimum rate of unearned income is 28%, I suggest it is unlikely that the optimum rate of income tax should be nearly double that level. Figures show that less than 1% of the population earn more than £150,000 a year, yet those people contribute approximately 30% of the total income tax take. That is a total of £49 billion from the 45p rate, compared with only £40 billion raised the year before when the rate was 50p— evidence that when we cut the rate of tax, revenues rise.
What is Labour’s case for tax rates that will lead to decreased revenues? When the measure was first suggested it was nothing more than a pre-election attempt to convince its core vote that it was still the party of squeezing the rich, and remains so today. At the same time, Labour was obviously laying a bear trap for the incoming coalition Government. It was a Trojan horse of a policy; a Trojan horse of a tax. Members will have noticed that I have referred to France rather a lot in my speech. That is because for the future of the UK should Labour win the next election, we have only to look across the channel and see what has happened. As the Leader of the Opposition said previously, “What Hollande is doing in France I want to do in Britain.”
Mr Browne
Let me finish this point. The crucial philosophical problem I have with a 50p tax rate is the underlying presumption that the state co-owns your income with you, and that when you work you are in a 50:50 shareholding relationship and for every extra hour of work you do, half the money belongs to the former Member for Shipley and half belongs to you. It is as though it is good of him that he is letting me keep half my cash; I do not accept that as a basic philosophical argument.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman’s conversion to Conservatism is now complete. Let me ask him a clear question. He is implying that the 50p rate is on the entirety of somebody’s income. Does he accept that it applies on earnings of more than £150,000 of income or has he totally abandoned any notion of progressivity in our tax system? Is he arguing for a flat rate of income tax?
Mr Browne
I will finish in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not abandoned that, which is why people earning up to £10,500 pay no income tax under this Government, whereas under Labour the relevant figure was £6,500. Of course there is then a standard rate and a higher rate. The hon. Gentleman made a mistake in his speech when he talked about tax cuts for millionaires. Let me give an example, which is party political. The Leader of the Opposition is a millionaire who does not pay this top rate of tax, but somebody who has just got a job earning £160,000 a year is not a millionaire but does pay his 50p rate of tax. It was deliberately misleading from the hon. Gentleman and it reflected badly on him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Not in England. In regard to playing catch-up, I would say to the hon. Lady that we have heard from Labour’s civic leaders in Greater Manchester that they want a directly elected mayor. We have heard from the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the view of those on the Labour Front Bench on this proposal? Last week, the Labour leader was in Manchester saying that the Labour party would never sign up to such a deal, but four days later all his civic leaders did so. What is the policy of the Labour party?
Mr Osborne
As my hon. Friend knows, people earning up to £100,000 who are paying the higher rate have seen the benefit of the increase in the personal allowance. They have seen their income tax bills fall. He is right to say that more people have been pulled into the 40p rate, however, and that is why we are proposing to increase the threshold to £50,000. That will be in our election manifesto, and it is something that we can deliver in the next Parliament so that people on middle incomes, as well as those on lower incomes, can benefit from a tax-cutting Conservative Government.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor did not give us the small print relating to the promises that he has just repeated: terms and conditions apply. Will he acknowledge that there is a price tag attached to those promises, and will he tell us specifically what the cost of those commitments would be?
Mr Osborne
What I would say to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is—
Mr Osborne
It is around £7 billion when we add it all up. That would be paid for by lower public expenditure. These are tax cuts that are paid for. I note that that is not the approach taken by the Labour party, which would increase tax, increase borrowing and increase spending, sending the economy back into the mess that it left it in.
Chris Leslie
So we have established that this would mean £7 billion of lower public expenditure. What elements of public expenditure would be involved? Would the Chancellor cut the police again? Would he take the money from schools and hospitals? Or are we to judge him on his usual track record, which would mean that after the election he would simply add it on to VAT?
Mr Osborne
What we have seen under this Government is a party that is able to bring our public finances under control; to reduce the welfare bill; and to make sure the egregious waste in Westminster and Whitehall that took place under the previous Government no longer takes place. We will fund that by lower public expenditure, because once we get the public finances under control we are going to keep them under control.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I agree with the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses that we want to make it easier to employ people. I would argue that the reductions that we have already made in national insurance on coming into office and the provision of an employment allowance, which has been enormously popular among smaller businesses, and next year’s move to remove under 21-year-olds from the jobs tax are all steps we are taking to support the creation of jobs in the economy. Of course, the Labour party would like to put up the jobs tax, but that would be deeply counter-productive and put people out of work.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Chancellor find it a cause for concern that the Bank of England has halved its forecast for wage growth for the rest of this year?
Mr Osborne
Of course one of the challenges across the western world has been wage growth. The shadow Chancellor put it very well in an interview he gave last week. He said:
“I think that the fact that you had the massive…financial crisis which happened on our watch meant people saw their living standards hit.”
There is an admission of where the source of the problem is, and the solution is to grow our economy, create jobs and help people get on in life, and that is what we are doing.
Chris Leslie
I am not sure whether I detected any concern from the Chancellor. But if he is concerned about this issue, why is it that under his plans it is always those with the lowest incomes, those in the poorest areas and those who are most vulnerable in society who end up being hit hardest by these measures? Will he now prioritise action to ensure that we have proper enforcement of a decent minimum wage, end those exploitative zero-hours contracts and promote some incentives to have a living wage?
Mr Osborne
We are introducing new measures to strengthen enforcement of the minimum wage and to ensure that there is not an abuse of zero-hours contracts. Might I add that for 13 years the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce those measures and it did not? The record under this Government, despite the incredibly difficult economic inheritance, is that child poverty is down by 300,000 and inequality is lower than it was on average under the previous Labour Government, so we are proceeding to deal with the enormous problems that we inherited in a way that is consistent and fair.
Finance Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
No, the hon. Gentleman may not take my advice. It is not the position of the Chair to advise hon. Members, far less the Leader of the Opposition, on the content of their speeches, but the hon. Gentleman has put his facts on the record, and I am sure that they have been noted on both Front Benches.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to stop these eager Front Benchers seeking Cabinet preferment in the forthcoming reshuffle from making spurious points of order, when what they should do with statistics is allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to audit these—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order, nor could it be further to a point of order, as there was no point of order.
Chris Leslie
Now that we have reached the final stages of consideration of the Finance Bill, may I join the Minister in commending all hon. Members in all parts of the House who took part in the scrutiny, and in considering all the details? As he said, there were 31 hours of consideration of the Bill. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). Let us be honest: they did the heavy lifting in Committee and on Report, as did—in an equal but perhaps less audible way—my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the Opposition Whip, who made sure we kept to time and that everything was pursued diligently. Many hon. Members, certainly from the Opposition side of the Chamber, pushed Ministers and probed on specific matters of policy, and I grant that Ministers tried to address many of those points, though they were ably assisted, I suspect, by the officials from the Treasury, who also put a lot of work into these Finance Bills.
The Bill is long on clauses but short on ambition, I am afraid. I said on Second Reading that our goal was to try to improve the specifics. We have tried our best in a number of areas, but I fear we have not always succeeded in persuading Ministers to see the error of their ways. Let us consider some of these specifics, such as the crass and ill-timed tax cut for investment fund managers through the abolition of stamp duty reserve tax. At a time when so many people in this country are struggling with cuts to tax credits, such as the bedroom tax, and finding it difficult to make ends meet, the Government’s priority was to give that support and help first and foremost to those poor, hard-up investment fund managers. It is a badge of shame that that was their priority.
Chris Leslie
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is an investment fund manager who has done well out of this, but I will give way and find out.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman is repeating something we have discussed over and over again. Does he not understand that the money from the change in stamp duty goes to the investment funds, not the manager, and that, in fact, millions of ordinary people up and down the country benefit from this change?
Chris Leslie
I am sure those investment fund managers have absolutely no interest in the abolition of SDRT in any way! I thought the hon. Gentleman was once a Liberal Democrat. Before the general election, the Liberal Democrats used to pretend they were in favour of standing up for the vast majority of people, against the vested interests in society who tend to look after their best interests, yet here he is again, voting for tax cuts for investment fund managers. This is a specific element of the Bill that we opposed. We tried to persuade the Government to drop that measure, but we were unsuccessful.
Mark Field
I feel I must stand up for investment fund managers, not least because their business brings significant amounts of money to the UK. I reiterate the sensible words of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales): ultimately it is all of us who are investors in such funds who will reap the benefits of ensuring that this business comes to these shores, rather than to many other globally competitive financial centres.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman represents very many of those investment fund managers. He is doing the job he was sent to do, but this is a matter of priorities, and I have to say that the Opposition just disagree. The Treasury has finite resources at its disposal, and at a time of pressures, cuts, and rises in tax—through VAT and in other ways—that hit the least well-off in society, I just disagree with Ministers and Members on the Government Benches that this should have been the priority.
There were other specific areas where we tried to persuade the Government to improve the Bill, such as the proposal to give shares to employees in exchange for employment rights. We believe that undermines what should be a healthy approach to employee share ownership, because it gives the sense that something is being taken away, and that there is a disadvantage. That point was voiced not just by Opposition Members, but by some Government Members. Again, however, we could not persuade the Government on that.
So many tax loopholes need to be addressed, and the Finance Bill should have been the opportunity to tackle some of them, not least the notorious quoted eurobond exemption, which is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers ought to have had the courage to take on that issue. Some of the Bill’s proposals for pensions flexibility are sensible, but big questions remain about the advice we will be able to give retirees to make sure that they get the guidance they need, at that most crucial point in their financial lives, to make the right choice, if they are not purchasing an annuity. Ministers have not lived up to the challenge of ensuring that that guidance and advice is possible. In the debate, I heard that that guidance may currently equate to 15 minutes of face-to-face advice—perhaps I should say face-to-faces advice, because the Minister with responsibility for pensions is now saying, “We will give you some guidance, but it might be as part of a group of people.” The Government have to improve the legislation in this area.
The Bill contains a proposal for a married couples allowance. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, I suspect, the Chancellor personally disagree with it, but in a coalition they have to throw a bit of meat to the Back Benchers. The allowance discriminates between forms of partnership and does not help many married couples at all, as we see when we look at the total number who will benefit. If we have tax cuts to give, they should be given to as many people as possible.
Of course, we also tried to improve the specifics and dissuade the Government from continuing their tax cut for millionaires—the reduction from 50p to 45p in tax on earnings of more than £150,000. Again, that is a sign of their priorities: they stand up for those who already have significant wealth in society, but do not respond to the needs and requirements of the least well-off.
We tried our best to improve the Bill, but it missed a number of opportunities. Significant reforms should have been in it, but are conspicuous by their absence. Why did the Treasury not put the cost of living concerns front and centre in this legislation? I am not just talking about making sure that energy companies stop ripping off households up and down the country, or about passing on wholesale price reductions to ordinary households; the Bill should have contained, for example, steps towards a 10p starting rate of tax. There are a number of ways in which cost of living issues should have been far higher up in this legislation.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Conservative Government of the early 1970s recognised that there was a cost of living problem in this country, and they gave a cost of living payment, through the wage packet, to the low-paid in industries.
Chris Leslie
One would have thought that by now Ministers would have twigged that for all the talk of growth and the recovery, their constituents, never mind ours, are not seeing the benefits in their daily lives. That should have been a focus in the Finance Bill. It should have focused more on housing, as we have a crisis in this country, whereby demand exceeds supply and we have the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. Yet Ministers seem intent on structuring a lopsided recovery in our housing market, failing to deliver the 200,000 properties a year we should be aiming towards by 2020. In addition, many tenants are being ripped off by lettings agencies in our private rented sector. We need reforms to deal with those sorts of things and the Budget ducked those issues, as did the Finance Bill.
The Bill could have dealt with some of the exploitative zero-hours contracts. It should have contained measures to help small and medium-sized enterprises with business rates, because many firms in our constituencies are finding it difficult to get by. We should make sure that we help them, not just with business rates but by making sure that the banks do their job and provide credit. Those are the sorts of reforms that would make a big difference, but again, they were not in this Finance Bill.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman should at least acknowledge that we dropped the small business rate by at least 1p, which has helped businesses. Will he guarantee before the House that he would not increase corporation tax should the country be unfortunate enough to see a Labour Government in power after 2015?
Chris Leslie
That is already on the record. Our view is that the proposed change in corporation tax from next April—from 21p to 20p—should not proceed. That help, instead of going to 2% of companies, should go to 98% of businesses, including the small and medium-sized companies that are the backbone of our economy and that form the bedrock of enterprise in this country. Funnelling that resource through business rates is our preferred choice, but we will set out all our plans in a manifesto, as I suspect the Minister will do as well. We had a debate on this matter earlier, in which we focused on annual investment allowances—the capital allowances for businesses. As we all know, the Minister cut that allowance to a very small level straight after the general election, causing great chaos for very many businesses. Amazingly, it is going up again, in time, coincidently, for the next general election. He revealed in the small print today that it is a temporary change, so the allowance will presumably go back down again.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the Minister if he will tell us what that investment allowance will fall back down to in 2015. Will he tell us?
Mr Gauke
It is hardly in the small print. It was in the announcement that was made when we extended and increased the annual investment allowance until December 2015. After that, it is a rate of £25,000. That rate is in the public domain, and, presumably, it is the rate that the Opposition have as well.
As the hon. Gentleman did not quite respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), let me ask it again. The Labour party has given a heavy hint this week that it could increase corporation tax up to 26%, as that would still be the lowest rate in the G7—that is the test that it has set itself. Will he provide some reassurance today that a Labour Government would not increase corporation tax to 26%?
Chris Leslie
We know the Minister’s game. He is again trying to scare firms and businesses with various suggestions on tax. We have made it very clear that we need to ensure that corporation tax levels remain at their most competitive among the G7. We will set out our tax plans in a manifesto, as the Minister will be required to do as well. If my hon. Friends think that VAT is due to stay at 20% under a Conservative Government, they should think again. I have heard that the Conservatives may wish to increase VAT to 21% or 22%. I will give way to the Minister if he can rule it out for us right now, here in the Chamber, that he does not have any plans to increase VAT in the next Parliament. Will he rule that out?
Mr Gauke
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we can do: we can continue to reduce the deficit without increasing taxes. That is more than he can offer. Unlike his party, we have not given a heavy hint that the test based on the most competitive rate in the G7. Canada has a rate of 26.5%. If the Labour party imposed a rate of 26%, it raises the question of whether it would be complying with that commitment.
Chris Leslie
Let the record show that the Conservative Minister did not rule out increasing VAT to above 20%. It is telling that he gave a heavy hint that that remains open as an option. We can have these discussions and examine these particular issues, but I am looking at the missed opportunities—the things that should have been in the Finance Bill. We are now on its Third Reading, and it is time that Ministers realised that people from across the country are crying out for significant changes and improvements that will affect their lives.
I am thinking, for example, of the 5 million people in low pay and the incentives to deliver a living wage. That could have been part of the Finance Bill, but it is not. I am thinking of those families who are struggling with the high cost of child care, which is increasing at a rate higher than inflation. If only the Minister had designed his bank levy properly in the first place and collected the £2.5 billion that he promised the country, we could afford to move from 15 hours of free child care for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 25 hours. That is the sort of reform that could make a big and appreciable difference to the lives of working people up and down the country.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Once again, it comes back to helping families with the cost of living. The Government cut Sure Start, nursery places and so on. Although they boast that they expanded that provision, they did not—they cut it, although we do not have the exact figures. The situation is exacerbated for a lot of families by the bedroom tax, which is forcing people into more expensive accommodation and thereby driving rents up. There is also a lack of social house building in this country.
Chris Leslie
That is my point. The Press Gallery is not bursting at the seams because the Government do not want people to think about what could have been in the Finance Bill. That is not something they want to talk about. They want it to be a “steady as she goes” Finance Bill. They do not want to address the problems of the bedroom tax or to supply real help to the long-term unemployed through starter jobs to give them the opportunity to repair their CVs and get a foot on the ladder. Repeating the bankers bonus tax would have supplied the revenue for that. There are funded ways of doing those things; despite how Ministers seem to want to portray it, this is not about unfunded commitments or borrowing. There are clear, practical and well-costed ways of delivering real improvements to people’s lives, but Ministers refused to do them.
Why are Ministers missing the opportunity offered by this Bill? As far as they are concerned, everything is fine with the economy. It is all going perfectly well. That is their view, but I am afraid that we disagree on that point. As far as Ministers are concerned everything is fine with living standards, but the OBR has said that people will be worse off in real wage terms in 2015 than they were in 2010. Ministers think that everything is fine in the welfare system, but they do not realise that the welfare bill is rising because they are not tackling the root causes of welfare inflation, such as rising rents, long-term unemployment and the subsidies required for low wages. Those are the sorts of challenges that should have been covered in the Finance Bill but are not.
On the deficit and the national debt, Ministers think that everything is fine even though the past couple of months have seen the deficit rise. It is going in the wrong direction. They have added a third to the national debt, which is now at £1.2 trillion. If interest rates go up even by 25 basis points—0.25%—an extra £2 billion of public expenditure will be required to service the debt that they will be accumulating.
Ministers think that everything is fine with productivity, yet infrastructure output is down by 10% compared with in 2010. They think that everything is fine in the housing market, yet we can see by the lopsided nature of what is happening in the economy that there are real risks that mortgage rates might well rise prematurely because of how they have failed to recognise the need to match demand and supply more effectively. They might be satisfied with the state of the economy, but we are not.
Mr Cunningham
It is interesting that my hon. Friend has mentioned interest rates, because, one way or another, they are bound to go up over the next 12 to 18 months. That will have a major effect on negative equity for people who have bought their houses, but, more importantly, it can affect small businesses that want to borrow money and are not getting much help from the banks at the moment. The Government spend half their time blaming a Labour Government for the mess that the banks created. They have never attacked the bankers, who made the economic situation worse, not better. They are apologising for the bankers and blaming us.
Chris Leslie
Government Members and Ministers do not understand how important it is that we ensure that the recovery is sustained and sustainable. A premature rise in interest rates has considerable risks. Three quarters of credit and debt is floating, so if interest rates do rise prematurely, significant harm will come to many householders. Even a quarter point rise in interest rates will cost the typical householder £240 per year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) may be relaxed, as the Chancellor is relaxed, about interest rates. The Chancellor says that he is not bothered—that he is relaxed about rising interest rates. Is the hon. Lady relaxed about rising interest rates? I will give way to her if she is.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
All I will say is thank God we have not had a Labour Government for the past four years, because I expect that interest rates would now be at 10% and people would be handing back their keys and hoping that the hon. Gentleman does not get into power next year.
Chris Leslie
I do not know what evidence the hon. Lady has for that spurious assertion.
We will see what happens in the coming months. We will make sure that mortgage customers in the hon. Lady’s constituency know that the increases in interest rates are partly related to the condition of the housing market, which is causing significant risk. The Governor of the Bank of England is trying to deal with this very lopsided situation. Of course, it is a matter for him to decide on. Government Members need to speak to the Chancellor to get him to pull his finger out on the housing market and make sure that this is pursued correctly. They do not understand why it is important for the recovery to be fair for all—to be something that everybody in every part of the country benefits from. The richest 1% having been doing especially well in the past year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Just to be helpful, there are three more speakers to come. The debate that is ping-ponging across the Chamber is very interesting, but I would like to hear from Back Benchers as well.
Chris Leslie
You are completely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had this debate going on throughout the day.
The Minister is a Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire. If his constituents find work in London, under one set of statistics the jobs are classified as located in London, but under the set of statistics he prefers, they are located in Hertfordshire and not London. We can talk about the methodology used in relation to these things.
Ultimately, this Finance Bill is not focused on the long-term best interests of this country. It is not a long-term Finance Bill for stability and for the vast majority of this country; it is a short-term Finance Bill from a part-time Chancellor who is more concerned about getting from here to election day than building a sustained recovery that is fair for all. The defining challenge of our times is to reconnect the wealth of our country with the ordinary finances of households up and down the country. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Finance Bill and to send this Bill and these Ministers back to the Treasury drawing board.
Finance Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is investors in pension schemes who will bear the cost. The UK investment management industry, which exists up and down the country—we had a debate about the regional nature of that industry—will also be damaged. The cost makes it hard for UK-domiciled funds to compete. We want UK-domiciled funds to compete. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not Labour’s position, although I note that the shadow Chief Secretary seems to be accepting from a sedentary position that this is not a tax cut for hedge funds.
Mr Gauke
Again—I hope the record will pick that up—this is for investment managers, not hedge fund managers. That is the argument the hon. Gentleman is making, which is different from the argument we have heard from the Opposition on occasions. For example, in July last year, the Leader of the Opposition accused us of making a tax cut for hedge funds. In the shadow Chancellor’s response to the autumn statement in December last year—he gave a speech that many of us will remember for a long time—he called on the Government to reverse the tax cut for hedge funds. It appears that the Labour Front-Bench position is to accept that there is no tax cut for hedge funds. That, I suppose, is progress. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun says, it is for investment managers, not hedge funds. She is still wrong, but she is perhaps less awry than she was. That is progress, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will withdraw any suggestion of a tax cut for hedge funds. We will be looking out to see whether that features in any Labour party promotional material over the months ahead, but I am glad we have made progress on that front at least.
In conclusion, clause 107 supports the Government’s objective to create a more competitive tax system and will increase the attractiveness of the UK as a location for fund domicile. Amendment 67 would serve no useful purpose, given the information already made available about this measure. New clause 7 rectifies a minor omission from clause 105 and ensures that the reduction in the SDLT higher rate threshold to £500,000 operates as intended. I therefore move that new clause 7 be accepted and request that amendment 67 not be pressed.
The Economy and Living Standards
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
After six days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, what have we learned? I have learned that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches have been determined to make the points on behalf of their constituents, while Government Members consistently ran out of time.
My hon. Friends have been diligent in pointing out all the items that have been conspicuous by their absence from the Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), for Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—I have listed him already; that is how good his speech was—my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and many more. I apologise to the hon. Friends I have been unable to mention.
We did not get the measures we wanted in the Queen’s Speech. Many hon. Friends mentioned cigarette packaging and smoking in cars, which were not included. There was nothing on border controls and no mention of the national health service. My hon. Friends should not be surprised by the paucity of the Government’s legislative programme, because it is not by accident; it is by design. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid time-consuming legislation that would be difficult for this House to deal with. They want to scrape the barnacles off the bottom of the boat, as Lynton Crosby famously put it, because they do not want anything to get in the way of the image they want to craft ahead of the general election.
This Queen’s Speech is not about rising to the challenges that the public want the Government to confront; it is all about giving the appearance of activity, but not real activity itself. It is about image, not substance. It is about the theatrics of government, not getting on with real reforms. It is also about repeating more and more promises, rather than fulfilling the ones they made in the first place. Look at what they promised on making work pay, again in the Queen’s Speech. Strangely, they made that promise in the 2010 Queen’s Speech. This time they made a promise about cutting red tape, which they also promised to do in 2010. They made a promise this time, as they did in 2010, about balancing the books and eradicating the deficit. We know that the Chancellor’s failure to generate growth for three years after the general election means that they have failed to meet that promise.
Of course, we must not forget one of the most foolhardy promises of all: to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands. In his solemn pledge on that, the Prime Minister said, “no ifs, no buts”. That was what they guaranteed. It is amazing that there was no mention of that pledge in the Queen’s Speech. But promises are difficult. These are tough times and, because of the Chancellor’s failure to get a grip and generate growth early enough, public finances are in a difficult state.
We are going to find times tough in the next Parliament and lower priorities will have to get less funding. What is the reaction of Government Members to these difficult circumstances? Do they knuckle down? Do they redouble their efforts, roll up their sleeves and try to do something about the challenges facing this country? Absolutely not. They switch on to autopilot mode and go into “coasting”, and we end with a legislative programme, such as the one we have, that does not confront the problems that the country faces.
Yes, we hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help small and medium-sized enterprises with late payments, but what about helping businesses with real lending support and the banks that should be helping those businesses get the equity in and get the growth that we need in our economy? We hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help with penalties where the minimum wage is not paid, but what about the real reform strengthening the minimum wage and ensuring that we link it to average earnings to make an appreciable difference? The Government want pensions flexibility. We welcome that, but what about the advice and guidance that those retirees will need in order to avoid problems further down the line? The Government even talk about child care tax relief eventually, but what about 25 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds? That would be possible if the Government only pulled their finger out and collected the bank levy as they are supposed to do.
We do not see these measures because the Government do not understand the challenges that the public face. They do not offer a long-term economic plan. This is a Government obsessed with short-term political calculations—the phony concern of those who are focused more on the appearance of introducing reform than on the reality of undertaking reform.
Robert Flello
On pensions, the £5 billion or whatever figure will go into the Treasury from the Government’s proposals will be more than offset when, no doubt under a future Labour Government, the chickens come home to roost and mis-selling scandals hit. It will be a Labour Government who have to pick up the mess.
Chris Leslie
That is why we want to see the full detail of the advice and guidance that need to be put in place. The Government do not like hearing it, but these are the questions that have to be answered. Those answers were not in the Queen’s Speech.
It was not a long-term economic plan that we got in the Queen’s Speech, but a set of short-term obsessions focused on political calculations. The Queen took less than 10 minutes to read out the speech that she was given, yet for most of our constituents it offers zero progress on their concerns. The parties in government think that all is fine with the economy—everything is going perfectly well—but how detached from reality can they get?
The Financial Secretary will no doubt speak shortly and she can quote all the economic data she likes, but I have to tell her that for many people this is an economy that is about low pay, zero hours and, for those who are struggling, food banks. She can quote GDP statistics in recent months, but we are seeing an economy where the very wealthiest 1% in society are doing particularly well and seeing their share of the cake grow while the rest of the population are seeing their share shrink further and further. The Government may be satisfied with this state of affairs, but the Opposition are not.
In the remaining 11 months before the general election, we should have a substantial and meaningful legislative programme which tackles some of these problems, rather than the set of headlines and press releases that have been strung together for effect.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Chris Leslie
No. I have only a few more minutes.
I wanted also to focus on the Infrastructure Bill that the Chancellor has brought forward—the so-called Infrastructure Bill. Third time lucky. The last two infrastructure Bills certainly did not do the trick, nor did the 11 infrastructure plans and strategies that the Government have published since the last general election, or the 79 press releases that we have had on infrastructure since then. We know that this Chancellor is obsessed with presentation, not with getting diggers in the ground.
Let us look at the problems that this country is facing. There are 5 million people on low pay in our country today, yet there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to incentivise the living wage, which would make a real difference. Bank lending to small businesses that need real help is falling, but banking reform has been inadequate and is not the action that we need. There is a cost of living crisis, with prices yet again exceeding wages, according to the latest economic data. Yet no action has been taken on the big six energy companies, which continue to fail to pass on to their customers even reductions in wholesale energy prices.
The state of affairs in housing is one in which demand goes higher and higher, but house building is at its lowest since the 1920s. I must say to the Chancellor that if he thinks that a new town in Ebbsfleet adds up to a housing strategy, he is sorely mistaken. Yes, we have Help to Buy, but we need “Help to Build” alongside it if we are to tackle that particular problem. Tenants in insecure accommodation are being ripped off by letting agents.
On child poverty, it is predicted that 3.5 million children will be in poverty over the next few years, which is five times the Government’s original estimate, but that does not even get a reference in the Queen’s Speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out, 20 million meals have been served in food banks in the past year, which is a badge of shame for the Government, but there is no reference to that in the Queen’s Speech. The national health service is, of course, under more strain than ever before, but there was not a single word about it in the Queen’s Speech.
With all those problems, what have the Government been doing for the past week? They have been feuding among themselves, with Cabinet Ministers briefing against one another and not just two parties in coalition but at least four factions vying for political control. Somebody somewhere has got to get a grip and to show some real leadership and good government, rather than allowing this appalling state of affairs and factionalisation to continue.
I must tell Government Members that, day by day, we are seeing a coalition that is less a coalition than a conspiracy for inaction. [Interruption.] I will give way to the Chancellor if he wants to talk about food banks, child poverty or housing strategy. They are not interested in those matters, however, because the Queen’s Speech is an artifice—it is all about presentation and the spin that they want to put on these issues.
Where is the Government’s ambition and sense of urgency about the problems in the country today? The legislative torpor in the Queen’s Speech is absolutely appalling. They have turned the House of Commons into the most expensive waiting room in history. In this Queen’s Speech, they are treading water for another year. We know that their legacy will be the slowest economic recovery for 100 years. This will not do, and our constituents will not stand for it. The fact that we have to wait a further year for the general election is a tragedy for the millions of people who need real help now. The Government are squandering the chance for change in this country and, with it, the potential that our country should have, which is why Opposition Members believe that Britain deserves much better than this.
Nicky Morgan
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton showed in his opening paragraph that he understands the Government’s economic policy perfectly. It is a shame that he did not stop there, because he summed up so beautifully all the Government’s achievements over the past four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about the dairy industry in his constituency, and I heard what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) talked about the increase in the personal allowance. His kind offer to advise the Treasury on the reform of stamp duty has been noted and I am sure that we will take note of what he has to say in the run-up to the next fiscal event.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) offered to write the Labour party manifesto for the next election. I wonder whether those on the Labour Front Bench were listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) talked about recall, about which he is passionate. I suspect that there will be many debates on that issue in this House before the recall Bill is passed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about how the Government are delivering for manufacturing and rebalancing manufacturing. It is worth noting that manufacturing is expanding faster in the UK than in any other country in the G7.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), whom I cannot see in his place, spoke of an era of discontent and disconnection. I agree with him. There is an era of discontent and disconnection in the Labour party—discontent with the leadership and disconnection from what this country needs to rebuild the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) talked about the Labour party’s promise to end boom and bust. He was right to say that it delivered only one half of that promise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) talked about trusting people with their pension savings.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) talked about the successes and investment in his constituency, and mentioned the Tees valley city deal. I am sure that all Members wish him and everybody who will sign it next week the best of luck.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) talked about the 10p tax rate. He laid claim to the fact that the last Government introduced it. The last Government also got rid of it, which caused great unfairness to those who were being taxed at that rate.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) made a spending commitment of £1.9 billion, which only reminds us that the amendment would cost £14 billion.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about zero-hours contracts. I think she said that 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts. In fact, the ONS estimates that there are 1.4 million zero-hours contracts and that 583,000 people are on them. She should be careful, because the ONS recently warned the shadow Business Secretary about his interpretation of those figures.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) gave an eloquent speech and demonstrated to all of us the dangers of someone turning up at a local party meeting and saying, “I want to get involved.” Many years later, they find themselves here on the green Benches—we have all been there.
Many hon. Members made points about the cost of living. Of course the Government want to see rising living standards for households up and down the country, and we have helped households by freezing fuel duty and council tax, taking money off energy bills, capping rail fares and introducing free school meals. However, the best way to improve living standards is to stick to our long-term economic plan to improve productivity, get as many people in work as possible and ensure that they take home as much of their pay as possible.
As the House will know, we have already made real progress on that front, but this Queen’s Speech introduces measures that will further increase employment. It offers tax-free child care, which will make a return to work more financially viable for thousands of mothers and fathers and, for the first time, help those who are self-employed or setting up businesses. It offers a small business Bill, which will make it easier to establish and grow small businesses, and an Infrastructure Bill that will help businesses both large and small by creating the transport and digital networks that they will need to thrive in the long term. All those steps will help our businesses get more people into work, which will support our households and grow our economy.
Nicky Morgan
I cannot take any more interventions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to make his arguments, but let us see how we get on. First, I want to respond to the points that hon. Members made about housing.
Of course we recognise that in some parts of the country, people are worried about house price rises over the past year. However, I point out, first, that real house prices are still below their pre-crisis peak; secondly, that the Government are committed to a number of new building schemes to increase housing supply, including the new garden city at Ebbsfleet; and thirdly, that through the Help to Buy scheme we are helping thousands of people who earn enough for a mortgage but are struggling to raise a deposit. The official statistics released last week show that Help to Buy is opening up home ownership to thousands across the country, with more than 94% of all completions outside London and more than 85% by first-time buyers. To the Opposition Member who dismissed the “stupid” Help to Buy scheme, I say that that is an attack on aspiration and on everybody who wants to own their own home.
Fourthly, I point out that the Financial Policy Committee is in a position to step in if it thinks we are seeing a return to unsustainable lending levels. We are monitoring the situation and taking action, and we are ready to take further action if we believe it has become necessary.
Chris Leslie
I thank the Minister; we do have a little bit of time left. Does the Minister believe that people in this country will be better off at the time of the general election in 2015 than they were at the time of the last general election? Does she agree with the IFS that they will not be?
Nicky Morgan
The whole country will be better off, because we are fixing the economy, getting more people into work and seeing wage levels going up and the inflation rate falling. If the hon. Gentleman was waiting to ask that question, he could have asked it during many other speeches this afternoon. He will have to do better than that next time.
It is worth noting that the hon. Gentleman gave a speech recently on efficiency savings, but no savings were identified. He listed a lot of ways to spend money, instead—£21,000 on keeping a police station open; the restoration of the spare room subsidy; the jobs guarantee for young people, which as we have heard today is a £1.4 billion commitment; a house building programme; and a British investment bank. The Government will not take lectures on how to run the economy.
This Queen’s Speech proves that this Government are just as radical in our fifth year as we were in our first. There were more Bills in this year’s Gracious Speech than there were in the last Government’s final Session, and they are serious Bills tackling serious issues—pensions, infrastructure, small business, child care payments, serious crime, modern slavery, the armed forces, social action and heroism, national insurance contributions and the recall of Members of Parliament.
This Queen’s Speech will be one further crucial step in the Government’s long-term economic plan. It will help those who want to work but are put off by child care costs, and those who are forced to work by the despicable practice of traffickers and slave masters. It will help small businesses access finance and savers access their pensions, and most importantly, it will keep employment rising and the deficit falling. That is why we reject the Opposition’s amendments and why I commend the Gracious Speech wholeheartedly to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
May I first thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and say how very much I enjoyed working with him for several years on the Treasury Committee? As with many Opposition Members, there has been a lot of agreement between us on issues of competition and minimising pay. With regard to allowances, the key point to remember is that bonuses at RBS are down 68% overall since 2009. The figure we want to focus on is the restriction in pay and bonuses across that bank.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, genuinely welcome the hon. Lady to her post and the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint her to the Chancellor’s Department. May I ask her to be very clear on this particular point? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is using the EU bank bonus cap legislation in respect of RBS, but at the same time the Government are mounting a legal challenge against that legislation. Will she clear up some of the confusion? She alluded to whether it was a UKFI decision, and it was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister apparently waded in to override the Chancellor. Was the Deputy Prime Minister at odds with the Chancellor, or was the Chancellor just at odds with himself?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The key point to remember is that we are challenging the proposal at the European Court of Justice because we believe that it will not suppress remuneration and create proper equivalence between risk and remuneration in the banking sector. We in this country are at the forefront of trying to ensure that risk and reward are properly aligned. We do not think that the bonus cap will do that, so it is perfectly consistent to implement the cap—since it is the law—but to challenge it in the European Court of Justice.
Chris Leslie
I very much hear what the hon. Lady says, but I am asking a question about how the decision was made. Who was involved: was it UKFI; was it the Chancellor; or was it the Deputy Prime Minister who did it? I might not get a clear answer, so maybe I can move on to the next question: how much has this cost so far? It is a legal challenge to the change that she is herself using. How much has it cost so far, and is it a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Finance (No.2) Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Let me see if I can find a point of consensus with the hon. Gentleman. We want—and I suspect he wants—to ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution towards reducing the deficit, and the challenge for any Government is to work out the best way of doing that. Let us look at this Government’s record on raising money from the wealthiest. Budget 2010 increased the higher rate of capital gains tax and Budget 2011 tackled avoidance through disguised remuneration—a policy that was opposed by the Labour party, even though it addressed avoidance by high earners. Budget 2012 raised stamp duty on high-value homes and autumn statement 2012 took action to reduce the cost of pensions tax relief, while Budget 2013 and autumn statement 2013 announced further measures to tackle offshore evasion by high earners. In 2013-14, the richest 1% of taxpayers contributed a larger share of income tax receipts than in any other year, including every year under the Labour Government.
The point is how we raise money from the wealthiest. The 50p rate is not the most effective way of doing that, because the behavioural effects are so strong that it fails to raise money. Now that growth is finally picking up, the Government will not consider any actions that might put the UK’s recovery at risk. Despite reducing the additional rate, the richest now pay more income tax than they did in any year under Labour.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister was generously trying to find a point of consensus and I want to build on that, following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The Minister talked about what might be raised by closing avoidance loopholes for the very richest, but what about the 13,000 honest millionaires who my hon. Friend says have benefited from a tax cut of £100,000 each? Will the Minister address that specific point and confirm that those honest millionaires—this is not about avoidance and loopholes—will each benefit from a tax cut of £100,000?
Mr Gauke
I suppose we are talking about the people who for almost the entire time the Labour party was in power were paying a lower rate of income tax, a lower rate of capital gains tax and a lower rate of stamp duty. I hear the Labour party’s position. [Interruption.] If we are trying to build consensus, let us look at what some Labour politicians have said. The noble Lord Myners, a former Treasury Minister, has said:
“The economic logic behind Ed Balls’s thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,”
and that
“Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Lord Jones, the former trade Minister in a Labour Government, described the policy as “lousy economics”.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
It was because our first priority in business taxation was to bring down the very high, internationally uncompetitive headline rate of corporation tax. It was 28% when we came to office, and it will come down to 21% this year and 20% next year. We also chose to reverse the Labour Government’s planned increase in the small firms rate of corporation tax from 21% to 22%. Instead, we took it down to 20%. Those were the right priorities at the start of this Parliament, but given the present encouraging environment for investment, it is now important for the Government to put in place incentives to bring some of that investment forward.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has made a pertinent point. The Government brought down investment allowances from, I think, £100,000 to £25,000—a significant reduction, which kicked in from April 2012. With hindsight, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admit that that was a mistake?
Danny Alexander
No.
The Bill also recognises that social enterprises have a role to play not only in growing the economy but in rebalancing the economy and in reforming public services. At present, public services are often ineligible for existing reliefs. The Bill introduces a new tax relief for investment in social enterprises at a rate of 30%, the same as for existing venture capital schemes. I believe that this will unlock up to £500 million of additional investment in social enterprises over the next five years. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give the Finance (No. 2) Bill a Second Reading because it fails to address the cost-of-living crisis which will see working people worse off at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning; because while working people are £1,600 a year worse off it prioritises a tax cut for millionaires of on average £100,000; because it offers a marriage tax allowance which will help only a third of married couples, rather than a 10 pence starting rate of tax which would help millions more families; and because it fails to set out measures to tackle rising energy bills, get young people into work, boost housing supply and help families with childcare costs within this Parliament.
You would not know it from hearing the Chief Secretary, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this Finance Bill is a massive missed opportunity when much more is needed. It has so many pages—the document I have in my hands is only half of it—yet it is a minor Bill when we need major reforms to address public concerns. The annuities changes diverted attention from the shortcomings of the rest of the Budget, and that short-term approach reflects the short-term ambitions of the Chancellor and the Government at large.
We will seek to improve the Bill in Committee, but it is important that we reflect on its contents and on those things that ought to have been in it but were not. That is why we propose that the House declines to give the Finance Bill a Second Reading this evening: it fails to address the cost of living crisis that, as my hon. Friends recognise, will leave working people worse off at the end of this Parliament than they were at the beginning, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted. While working people are £1,600 a year worse off, it prioritises a tax cut for millionaires of typically about £100,000 and offers a marriage tax allowance that helps only a third of married couples rather than, for example, a 10p starting rate of income tax that would genuinely help millions more families. It also fails to set out measures to tackle rising energy bills, get young people into work, boost housing supply and help families with child care costs. Those are the priorities that we believe ought to be in the Bill but are not.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman refers to the cost of living. Does he not understand that by next year, under his party’s policy, my constituents would have been paying 20p a litre more and those on the islands would have been paying 25p a litre more for their fuel than they are under this Government? That would have been a disaster for the cost of living of my constituents. Will he apologise to them for wanting to make the cost of fuel 25p a litre higher in their area?
Chris Leslie
We are not opposed to the measure that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he ought to be straight with his constituents. That is only one aspect of the tax burden that they face. Of course, his constituents have suffered many other tax rises and cuts in benefits since the general election, and as we start to walk ourselves through the Bill we can explore some of his priorities. We just need to consider the first set of clauses, under which he will be voting to give millionaires—the richest in society—and those who are fortunate enough to earn £150,000 and above, which can of course involve significant amounts of money, a tax cut to 45p from the 50p rate that his Government abolished. He willingly went along with that.
As well as the personal allowance change that Government Members often trumpet, we should have a 10p starting rate of tax. Government Members have supported at least 24 tax rises and principally the change to VAT, which has taken hundreds of pounds from the constituents of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), perhaps by stealth. Perhaps they have not petitioned his constituency office and perhaps, with that little wry smile on his face, he has been counting the coins that he has been taking by stealth from the wallets and purses of his constituents, but that is a significant amount of money and he should be honest with his constituents about the VAT increase, the so-called granny tax, the child benefit reductions, the tax credit cuts and all the other changes.
Chris Leslie
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take the opportunity to tell the full story.
Chris Leslie
I love it when Liberal Democrats start talking about VAT. Of course, the hon. Gentleman promised to oppose the VAT bombshell, and my hon. Friends will remember the picture. I do not know whether he was driving the van that went round Parliament square at the time; perhaps the Chief Secretary was in the driving seat. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to ask what our position is on VAT. I cannot promise to get rid of the VAT increase that they have put in place, contrary to the manifesto on which he stood—yet another Liberal Democrat broken promise. When Labour makes promises in our manifesto at the next general election, we will make sure that they are fully funded and that the sums add up. If we do make promises, everybody will be clear where the money will come from—[Laughter.] Government Members do not like that idea, because it is so foreign to them. They are so used to making promises that they do not recognise the concept of trying to be honest and straight with the electorate.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I ask him to bear it in mind that it is important to be open with his constituents about the full picture of what has been happening with tax and benefit changes. He needs to answer a question prompted by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has calculated the impact of all the tax and benefit changes since 2010 on his constituents. Its conclusion is that the typical household is £900 worse off after those tax rises and cuts to benefits and tax credits. Does he disagree with the analysis of the independent IFS?
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman says that his pledges will be fully funded come the manifesto, but does he not accept that the fact that the Opposition have so far spent the bankers bonus tax more than 10 times does not give this House or the people of this country much confidence that they will be able to add up when we get to manifesto time?
Chris Leslie
I shall have to send some details to the hon. Gentleman, because he is obviously not fully aware of the situation. I would never accuse him of misleading the House, as that would be unparliamentary, but perhaps he is unintentionally giving an impression that is not correct. We have said that we would repeat the bank bonus tax, which was very successful in 2009 and raised a significant amount of money, and spend it on starter jobs for the long-term unemployed. He should know about long-term youth unemployment because in Dover it has rocketed since he was elected.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The jobs going to young people will be particularly welcome in the black country, where long-term youth unemployment is twice as high as it is across the country as a whole. To tackle the issue of plans adding up at the next election, would it not be simple for the Government to follow our proposal to subject our plans to independent scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility? Why does my hon. Friend think they will not agree to that? Does he think that perhaps the Liberal Democrats in the coalition do not want to do that because it would show that their plans do not add up, as they did not at the last election, when they made a series of promises that they were unable to keep?
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for addressing that point. Yes, such transparency would help a great deal. Let us elevate the level of public debate and allow an independent assessment of those policy costings. The public can then decide for themselves and make a judgment about the relative merits of the various policies in the manifestos of the major political parties. I know that in his heart the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees. I know that he realises that the Chancellor is standing in the way because the Chancellor wants to run the general election campaign by means of smears and falsehoods, giving a false impression of the policies of the other political parties. We must grow up and raise the standard of debate. Let the OBR be the judge of these things. Ministers can talk among themselves and perhaps negotiate concessions so that when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, we may be able to reach cross-party agreement on that point.
Chris Leslie
I forgot to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Long-term youth unemployment has gone up in Dover by 125% since he has been its Member of Parliament.
Charlie Elphicke
Long-term youth unemployment did go up in my constituency by 300%, and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency by 400%—in the previous Parliament. Will he welcome the fact that long-term youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 22% in the past year and in his constituency by 15%?
Chris Leslie
If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade statistics, I am more than happy to do so. In my constituency there is a significant problem with unemployment, long-term youth unemployment and youth unemployment generally, and it has worsened significantly since the general election. He talks about the past 12 months. Let us hope we are turning a corner in aggregate levels of unemployment because it is about time that happened. The tax and benefit changes and their impact on our constituents are very significant indeed. I hope to have an opportunity to focus on a few of them.
Mr Kevan Jones
I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether he could remember any time when the Liberal Democrats opposed the Labour Government’s spending commitments. Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have amnesia, in that they agreed to our spending targets right up until the banking crash in late 2008? If at that time we had followed the proposals of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Prime Minister in relation to things such as Northern Rock, that crisis would have been a lot worse.
Chris Leslie
Trying to get inside the heads of the Liberal Democrats could take quite a long time. The Chief Secretary is enjoying being at close quarters with the Conservative party a little bit too much. The Conservatives have captured him—it is called capture bonding. Sometimes he even starts to view the abuse or the lack of it as rewarding. That is not coalition; that is Stockholm syndrome.
Guy Opperman
May I return to the issue of the regions? Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with the interpretation of the north-east chamber of commerce and the Trinity Mirror-owned Newcastle Journal, which welcomed the broad thrust of the Budget’s job-creating policies, its help for small and medium-sized firms and apprenticeships, reform of air passenger duty and general relief for energy-intensive industries?
Chris Leslie
We should be cutting business rates for small and medium-sized enterprises. I am very surprised that the Government are focusing their help predominantly on the 2% of the largest multinationals—the big firms—and not doing, in my view, sufficient for that 98% of British business, the small and medium-sized enterprises. They will be the backbone of a recovery and we have to do much more to support them.
It is a shame that in the Bill the Government are choosing to go to that 20% rate in April 2015. We could instead use that resource and focus it on the multiplicity of small firms. They should be getting a cut in business rates. We calculate that it would deliver an average tax cut of at least £400 for 1.5 million properties through the business rates system, benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises, which after all are the backbone of the economy. They provide the dynamism to get the growth going, which we so desperately need.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I know it is the Opposition’s job to oppose, but does the hon. Gentleman wonder whether sometimes this is not good politics? He will be getting the same message from his chamber of commerce as I am getting from mine, as well as from hard-working families who are benefiting from the Budget, pensioners and people on low incomes? Instead of the reasoned amendment, surely there is something that he can welcome in this remarkably popular Budget—go on, have a go.
Chris Leslie
It is simple. It is easy to do a Budget in which the Chancellor gives a few little things back, such as that penny off a pint of beer—buy 300 pints, get one free—and we are supposed to be grateful for such generosity. The hon. Gentleman should be advising his constituents to check their wallets. The thing about this Chancellor is that he takes far more with the other hand than he gives in the first place. That is his fundamental problem.
Chris Leslie
Before I give way, let us look at what is happening in the new tax year that is about to begin. I urge my hon. Friends to think, for example, about the change hitting some of the poorest households in our constituencies, homes on the lowest incomes, which will see council tax support withdrawn at a significant level in the new financial year. Some have called this poll tax mark 2, with the poorest and most vulnerable households, carers, single parents and the disabled seeing their bills go up by 120%. The Government impose these tax rises in a stealthy way by saying, “Local government, we will devolve it down to you. It’s your responsibility”, but nobody is fooled by their techniques. Look at the squeezed middle and the extra tax those people are paying.
Chris Leslie
Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he can tell me this: I think about 2 million more people are being sucked into the 40p rate of income tax. I heard that that caused consternation among Members on the Government Benches. From this April, at a number of levels, people will lose out significantly.
Mark Field
I will ask the questions rather than answer them, if the shadow Minister does not mind. He implores us to look at the Bill in a balanced way. We have heard statements about tax cuts for millionaires time and again over the past year and again today in the House. Does he recognise that the top 1% of British citizens are now paying the highest share of income tax that they have ever paid in the history of that tax—some 30%? Purists such as me have at times been mildly critical of the inconsistency of elements of the welfare and tax changes that have been made even during this coalition Government, but we have gained a hell of a lot of social cohesion in this country—
Mark Field
—in marked contrast to many other European nations, and the Government should be congratulated on that.
Chris Leslie
I do not think it helps with social cohesion to move from the 50p to the 45p rate. That sends a very bad signal, and I know that Members on the Government Benches will feel that in their constituencies, especially when the Government are jacking up taxes and reducing tax credits and other help for some of the poorest in society, while giving that very generous tax cut—typically £107,000—to the average millionaire at the top of the scale. I do not think a 50p rate is unreasonable.
It is unreasonable for Government Members to say that a 50p rate does not raise any money—“we cannot possibly do it”. If it is telegraphed to that set of high earners at the point at which a 50p rate comes into effect that it will be going in a year or two anyway, of course they can stave off the point at which they draw down their dividend from their personal service company. Everybody knows how they managed to avoid paying that 50p rate. They waited until the new tax year ticked over, then they paid the lower rate. It was very simple, which is why in the statistics we suddenly saw bonus payments go through the roof, sky high, at the point when the 50p rate fell to the 45p rate. We should have been allowed a proper assessment of what happened at that point.
Jonathan Edwards
I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman says and I agree with the point he makes, but will he explain why the Labour party proposes only a temporary return to the 50p rate, rather than a permanent return?
Chris Leslie
We have said that a 50p rate needs to be the policy for the next Parliament. We make judgments in manifestos from one Parliament to the next. Tax policy should never be written in perpetuity. We have said that while the deficit is likely to be as high as it is, the 50p rate is justified. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about social cohesion. While the process of deficit reduction will now have to continue well into the next Parliament, when it was not expected, the 50p rate is perfectly justified for good social cohesion reasons.
Chris Leslie
How could I resist the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful on behalf of North East Somerset to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. Is he therefore saying that he believes that the 50p rate is a good thing in and of itself for the symbolism that it brings to bear, even if it does not raise any money?
Chris Leslie
I think it will raise a significant sum to help to alleviate the burden on lower and middle earners, and that is why it is important to have it. If it is there for not just a temporary period, but for a significant period, it would settle and be an important part of the tax system. But generally speaking, of course we all want all taxes to come to a lower level. I do not want to see taxes higher than they need be, but the hon. Gentleman has to understand that the context will be, I am told, a potential £75 billion deficit to be inherited by the next Government—I hope the next Labour Government—a significant amount of borrowing, hanging around the necks of whoever wins the general election, made worse by the fact that the Government promised that it would have been eradicated altogether.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I want to probe the hon. Gentleman further on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Does it mean that he believes that the last Labour Government made a mistake by not raising the top tax rate to 50% for most of the 13 years that they were in power, and that they should indeed have done so?
Chris Leslie
I know that Government Members like to expunge history from their memory banks, but there was a global banking crisis—I know this is a shock to some of them—which, from 2008 onwards, caused significant fiscal impact, which reduced revenues into the Exchequer and meant that tax rates had to be reappraised. It was at that point that the 50p rate was felt necessary, as one of the measures of fairness that we needed to put in place. I am proud that that Government took that step. It was not universally popular, as I know from Government Members, but necessary in order to help to reduce the deficit, whereas the Government chose to raise VAT and pull the rug from underneath growth that was beginning to come through in 2010.
I want to continue to scrutinise some of the details in the Finance Bill, because it contains a number of troubling changes. On capital allowances, my hon. Friends intervened on the Chief Secretary, and I also asked whether he thought it was a mistake that when taking office the Government reduced capital allowances—investment allowances—for businesses from £100,000 to £25,000. Yes, they are going back up again, but yet again we see more chopping and changing, more inconsistency; temporary measures, not giving the stability to business that it needs to plan for the long term. The Chief Secretary says that it was not a mistake that they should go down and now they are going up, but that, I am afraid, is typical of Liberal Democrats who like to face both ways on these matters.
In chapter 2 we have the married couple’s tax allowance. The Chief Secretary is deep in conversation, but I want to give way to him in a moment specifically on the issue of the married couple’s tax allowance. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he says that he will not intervene, but this is a critical point because I am not quite clear on his view of the married couple’s tax allowance. The Chancellor was apparently in a little bit of doubt about it, but the pressures from Conservative Back Benchers were such that they needed this transferrable allowance, which will help only about a third of married couples because it is available only to couples where one person is in work but the other does not use all their tax-free allowance. There are a number of other ways in which that amount of money could have been allocated. He could have decided to do it through the personal allowance—I know he is keen on that policy—perhaps a 10p starting rate of tax. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the implementation of the married couple’s tax allowance? This is his opportunity to set out the Liberal Democrat attitude to these things. I will give way to him. The record will have to show that, for whatever reason, the Chief Secretary does not want to stand up and sing the praises of the married couple’s tax allowance in this particular agenda. Yet again, he is stifled by his capture by the Conservative party, unwilling to speak his true mind on these issues.
On the employment measures in the Bill, such as they are, yesterday the Chancellor was full of rhetoric about full employment, yet the Government have come forward with no new policies to deliver this. The number of young people out of work for 12 months or more has nearly doubled since the Chancellor and Chief Secretary came to office, and we have a record number of people who want to work full time but are being forced to work part time, a Work programme that is so spectacularly unsuccessful that people are more likely to go back to the jobcentre than find work, and only 5% of disabled people on the Work programme have found work through that programme. We clearly need compulsory starter jobs for the long-term unemployed to help them to repair their CVs and to get back into work and on to the ladder to a long, sustainable career.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend on the compulsory jobs guarantee, and it is a great shame that we do not see such a measure in the Bill. Does he agree that there is a massive contrast between this Government when they took office and cancelled the future jobs fund, and the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff who introduced the Jobs Growth Wales scheme, which has now seen nearly 12,000 people across Wales benefiting, and one of the lower rates of unemployment in the UK because of that measure?
Chris Leslie
Conservative Members love to bash what is going on in Wales. They have an anti-Welsh attitude to these things, but it is one of the great success stories of devolution, making sure that they focus on a meaningful back-to-work scheme, particularly for those who have been out of work for a prolonged period. That is what we need to have, and I wish Ministers would learn from that.
Chapter 4 deals with annuities and pensions. Obviously, as we have said, in general those annuity changes are to be welcomed. Annuities are an outdated product and they failed too many pensioners, but it is important to reiterate the tests that we have. What sort of advice or comprehensive guidance will be put in place for those reaching retirement and potentially having to make calculations of income perhaps over a third of their lifetime to come, and what will happen to the annuities market for those who do wish to purchase such a product to have a steady stream of income in perpetuity?
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also think that the Government should publish their modelling on the proposal to see what effect it will have, not only on the annuities market but on the cost to the taxpayer in the long term, in terms of matters such as housing benefit and future care costs? Producing that modelling and making it transparent for all would allow people to see whether the policy will have a long-term implication for the taxpayer.
Chris Leslie
It is vital that we have serious consultation on those measures. We support flexibility in principle, but the changes cannot be made without taking into account the wider implications, so it is important that we have that level of information and analysis in the Treasury projections. I do not know whether the Government were motivated by the desire to benefit the population more broadly or by the short-term opportunity, following the annuities changes, to bring in a vast amount of tax revenue from pensioners much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. All I know is that the Chancellor used the annuities issue to provide a veneer of long-termism over what was otherwise an exceptionally short-term Budget and what is an exceptionally short-term Finance Bill.
Clauses 112 and 113 deal with the old question of the bank levy. My hon. Friends will be familiar with the Government’s track record on the bank levy. We will scrutinise those clauses very closely indeed, because The Daily Telegraph, among others, has reported that they could mean a secret tax cut for the banks. Last year Barclays paid £504 million in levy charges and HSBC paid £544 million—the most of any bank. But under the draft proposals the Chief Secretary is bringing forward in the Bill, Barclays’s bill would have been £129 million lower and HSBC’s would have been £169 million lower. What is going on? Given that the levy was supposed to catch up with the lack of collection in previous years—it was supposed to increase by 20% this year—it seems very strange that these clauses might give the banks a very significant saving indeed.
The purpose of the bank levy, of course, was to allow the Government to take £2.5 billion every tax year. It was an unusual tax because they set the amount of revenue to be raised and the methodology revolved around that. In its first year, the levy brought in £1.8 billion, which was a significant shortfall. Things got worse the next year, because in 2012-13 it raised just £1.6 billion. My hon. Friends know the attitude Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs takes to our constituents if an amount of tax they are asked to pay is not forthcoming, but that is not the case when it comes to the banks. It has gone soft in collecting the money the levy was supposed to raise.
We read in the small print of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report that accompanied the Budget that in 2013-14, for the third year running, the bank levy is projected to raise only £2.3 billion, which falls short yet again. The combined shortfall from the past three years is now a very significant £1.8 billion. We could pay the salaries of 60,000 nurses with that sum.
Chris Leslie
It is a very significant sum of money, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have something to say about that.
Mark Field
I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman must also recognise the importance of banks lending into the real economy, particularly as the recovery takes hold. Does he not recognise that if we are to ensure that banks are properly capitalised again, repeated demands for an ever-larger banking levy—it is already the largest it has ever been, even before 2010—could be diametrically opposed to the long-term interests of the British economy? In other words, it could hinder efforts to get the banks lending again.
Chris Leslie
Of course the banking sector is very important. It has been dysfunctional for a prolonged period. Net lending to business has fallen consistently throughout this Government’s time in office. But I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that when the Treasury said that the levy would raise £2.5 billion, it should have got that money in. All our constituents are paying more in tax and have lost out significantly because that money has not been forthcoming from the banks, which after all owe a little bit back to the taxpayer for the bail-out that followed their reckless lending decisions in previous years.
The very least we should do is ensure that we have a functioning bank levy that brings in the expected sums. We would ensure that it raises a further £800 million. We would use that money to expand free child care places for working parents of three and four-years olds by extending free nursery care from 15 to 25 hours a week. That would also be a good way of helping parents to get back into the labour market and to get the jobs they need. A 15-hour arrangement—three hours a day—for child care does not give a parent looking after a youngster the opportunity to get into work, but 25 hours a week would make a significant difference. We could do that through a reasonable and modest change to the bank levy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), does the hon. Gentleman recognise that an £800 million additional bank levy would reduce the ability of the banks to lend into the real economy by between £8 billion and £12 billion?
Chris Leslie
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, not least because the shortfall in the amount the Treasury said it would raise from the levy has been so much larger than £800 million. I think he needs to speak with Ministers. If he disagrees with £2.5 billion, he needs to tell them now. The Exchequer Secretary is in the Chamber, because he is the one—unbelievably—who was responsible for designing the bank levy. He must be massively embarrassed by its total failure. Why has it raised so little? How does he explain the shortfall? I will give way to him if he wishes to offer an explanation.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
indicated dissent.
Chris Leslie
No, nothing is forthcoming. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) can help us on that.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman referred to the article in The Daily Telegraph but did not explain it fully to the House. It shows that the Chancellor is keen to see foreign banks paying a fair share of the levy. It is not about letting off the major clearers; it is about ensuring that all banks in the UK pay a fair share. Surely that is right.
Chris Leslie
That is a very interesting explanation. There is a shift in policy, which is to let certain banks off the hook when it comes to the bank levy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right and that is a strategy. I have given the Minister an opportunity to explain what exactly the Government’s plan is, but he will not put it on the record. We will have to explore that in more depth in Committee.
While we are on the financial services sector, let us look at what the Government are doing in clause 107, which relates to stamp duty reserve tax. My hon. Friends might begin to wonder what that is all about, especially when we say that it is known as the schedule 19 charge, which refers to the 1999 Finance Bill. Many people think, “Oh well, we’ll see what comes of these taxes.” But the schedule 19 charge, set out in clause 107 of this Bill, seeks—this is the priority of these Conservative and crypto-Conservative Members—to give a tax cut of £145 million to the investment management industry by abolishing stamp duty reserve tax. At the same time, my hon. Friends’ constituents are having to cope with the bedroom tax, extra council tax charges and the VAT increase. Despite the hardships they are facing, the priority of the Chief Secretary and the Exchequer Secretary is to give away £145 million by abolishing stamp duty reserve tax. I know that they have been lobbied heavily on that.
We will oppose that change, because we think that the Government should be using that resource to help scrap the bedroom tax, if indeed it is raising any money—I have my doubts about that. The National Housing Federation states that it might well be costing more than the Government planned. We certainly should not be giving away that money, especially at a time when the investment management industry, which holds £5.4 trillion in collective funds, increased its holdings by about 7% in 2013. I do not think that £145 million is an unreasonable sum to ask from a sector that has been doing very well in recent years. We should be making sure that we pursue a fair policy and so will oppose that clause.
We then come to the Bill’s tax avoidance measures. We know that the Government have a bad record on that—[Interruption.] Well, they do. The oh-so-successful Exchequer Secretary, who cannot even manage to get the amounts of money he promised from the banks, cannot manage to get from the Swiss the £5 billion he promises through the Swiss tax deal. The Chief Secretary stood up a moment ago and said that he would get only £1.7 billion. We had a deal with the Liechtenstein Government, which we projected would bring in £2 billion; in fact, it has brought in £2.5 billion. When we have tax deals with tax havens, they work. However, when the Exchequer Secretary gets his fingers on these things, it is amazing how it all goes wrong—it is his reverse Midas touch.
The Government have fallen into bad habits in pencilling into the Red Book projections of revenues from the avoidance measures that involve what the OBR calls particularly uncertain assumptions. The Government are, of course, quick to spend the projected money; Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies calls such moves the Chancellor’s manoeuvres, always relying on revenues that are by nature uncertain. It is important that we scrutinise whether the supposed tax avoidance deals will deliver what the Government say.
Rather than the measures in the Bill, we need action to deliver starter jobs, guaranteed for the long-term unemployed. The number of young people out of work for a year or more has doubled and we need compulsory starter jobs for those who have suffered unemployment, which is a scourge not just on society but on their career prospects. We need action on child care. Free child care should be extended from 15 to 25 hours, paid for through a proper collection of the bank levy.
We need a help to build scheme to counter-balance the Help to Buy scheme. There is a serious risk—as the Chief Secretary knows, even the Governor of the Bank of England has concerns about these things—of a lop-sided recovery unless we match the boosting of demand with the boosting of supply. A help to build scheme particularly focused on ensuring that small and medium-sized construction companies can do better is one way to make a big difference.
Guy Opperman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the north-east, the Help to Buy scheme is absolutely transforming the housing market? In Humbles Wood in Prudhoe, a housing development in my area, 90% of new purchases have been through Help to Buy. That must be good news that the hon. Gentleman wants to welcome.
Chris Leslie
We do not oppose the Help to Buy scheme unless it is not accompanied by a help to build scheme. The supply of housing is key. Housing policy must revolve around affordability. We now have the lowest level of house building since the 1920s; the Government cannot just turn a blind eye to that problem. Affordability has to be at the heart of our approach. It is all very well helping people on to ever-higher mortgages chasing ever higher prices, but unless something is done to supply new buildings, we will not deal with the problem of affordability.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not sure what nirvana the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) lives in if he thinks that the housing market in the north-east is booming. Average house prices in the north-east are still £5,000 lower than in 2008; that compares with an increase of about £77,000 in London. The hon. Gentleman also fails to recognise that 16% of people in the north-east are still in negative equity. The idea that somehow the housing market in the north-east is booming is wrong. We have a two-speed Britain—a booming south-east and London, and a stagnating north.
Chris Leslie
For all the Government’s talk of a balanced, sustainable recovery, we see no action. Most of our constituents and most businesses would recognise that supply and demand have to be part of the picture. Everybody recognises that except, it seems, for the Chancellor and Chief Secretary, who do not recognise the fundamental problem in their approach.
There needed to be tough decisions, such as the 50p rate, in the Bill to make sure that there was fairness in dealing with the deficit and that we tackled the Government’s failure to keep their promise about balancing the books. That has not come to fruition. We need to help with business rates; we should be cutting them rather than simply focusing help on 2% of companies.
The Government are not ensuring a sustainable and balanced recovery. Consumers are having to dip into their savings at an alarming and increasing rate. The OBR even predicts that growth may well slow in future, when those savings run out. Exports are not predicted to contribute a thing to the economy for the next five years and nothing in the Budget tackles the country’s productivity crisis that has emerged in recent years.
Instead, the Exchequer Secretary and Chief Secretary have convinced themselves that cutting public services and raising taxes have helped economic growth. They believe their own propaganda about expansionary fiscal contraction, which was the philosophy of the right in British politics. It used to be the opposite of the Liberal Democrats’ view, but of course they have now bought into the concept.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman does not want to take this point from Government Front Benchers, but I have just been to the annual conference of the British Chambers of Commerce and it is absolutely delighted by the Bill and the Budget, which will help its businesses across the country. Will the hon. Gentleman join it in welcoming the Bill?
Chris Leslie
No, because the Bill could be significantly improved. I have given a number of ways in which it should be doing more for small businesses, for fairness in society and for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I think he will pay the price when the election arrives. He is under the impression that fiscal contraction is how growth materialises, but he needs to realise that growth is coming despite, not because of, the Government. I am afraid that they have still not learned that lesson.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are desperate for people not to spot their broken promise on borrowing and the deficit. Three years of economic stagnation will leave the next Government with a budget deficit of £75 billion. It is astonishing that in his Budget speech, the Chancellor had the nerve to stand there and say:
“as a nation we are getting on top of our debts”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 781.]
The Government have added a third to the national debt, which now stands at £1.2 trillion. What a nerve the Chancellor showed! He promised to stop adding to the national debt, but has borrowed more in the past four years than the last Government did in 13 years.
The Bill is bereft of the measures that we need to make sure that the recovery is sustained and shared by all. It has nothing new to tackle long-term youth unemployment, nothing to secure an energy price freeze and nothing to bring forward real help now for working parents who need extended child care. It has nothing new on infrastructure investment, which is still lagging behind, and nothing to address the wages crisis that leaves the typical person £1,600 worse off than in 2010. The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is so wide of the mark that it misses the point altogether. It is designed to help Ministers limp from here to election day. It falls short and is not good enough.
We would urge Ministers to go back to the drawing board, but it is increasingly clear that they do not even have a drawing board. I urge my hon. Friends to support the reasoned amendment. We will try our hardest to secure improvements to the Bill in Committee. This is a minor Finance Bill from a Government out of ideas. They delayed the Queen’s Speech because they do not have enough to put in it. The Bill should address the cost of living pressures faced by the majority and it should set a long-term ambition for a recovery built to last and felt by all. The country deserves a better Finance Bill than this.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Chris Leslie Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The debate has been all too short, so let me briefly reiterate to the House that the Opposition support capping social security spending—an approach that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition first proposed in June 2013. Welfare expenditure is the largest part of total Government spending and it is now £13 billion higher than the Chancellor planned in his first spending review in 2010. We must get a grip of these rising costs but do so in a fair way—tough on welfare inflation but tough on the causes of welfare inflation as well.
The Government might not realise it, but low wages and job insecurity are pushing the welfare bill higher and higher. The collapse in earnings during this cost of living crisis has hit the taxpayer too. Rising rents and the lack of housing supply push up the housing benefit bill. We need action on house building and a help to build scheme far more urgently than ever before. And long-term youth unemployment has doubled under these Ministers, costing the taxpayer more in benefits but also losing revenue to the Exchequer.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Leslie
I am afraid I will not give way because we have very little time. I have to give the Chief Secretary some time to try to make some sense of his proposals.
It is no wonder, I say to the Ministers, that in just the four months since the December autumn statement, they have had to revise their projections for welfare spending. In the Budget on Wednesday, they had to revise up predicted social security spending for next year by a further £1 billion and revise up the expected bill for the year after that, 2015-16, by another £1 billion. Controlling welfare inflation will mean tough decisions, such as ending the winter allowance for the richest 5% of pensioners, but we cannot afford the waste and ineptitude of the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who cannot even be bothered to come back into the Chamber for the end of this debate. That Secretary of State has squandered £34 million by scrapping the Department for Work and Pensions inquiry service, in an astonishing waste of taxpayers’ money. He has written off millions of pounds of universal credit IT spending at an alarming rate. He has failed to tackle fraud and tackle the error and overpayments made by his Department of £700 million last year. The country and the taxpayer need protecting from the failures and the incompetence of this Chancellor and this Tory-led Government.
On the modified charter before us, why have the Government not taken the opportunity to revise the OBR’s mandate to allow the independent audit of policy costings and commitments in the manifestos of the main political parties? Perhaps the Chief Secretary can explain why the Government withdrew their first version of the motion last week, which could have allowed an amendment on that matter, and then hastily retabled a fresh version, which was not amendable. I wonder why they did that.
On the wider set of fiscal targets, will the Chief Secretary explain why the Treasury want to reiterate, in their charter today, the particular points on which they fail? If they want to restate the promise that they originally made to get the national debt falling by next year, be our guest. The motion before us today serves to remind the world of their failure to get the national debt down in 2015-16, and as the OBR said last week,
“We expect public sector net debt”
still to be rising in that year.
So the fiscal mandate is already in tatters. It had expired even before today’s debate. Is the Chancellor even aware of what he is doing? In his Budget speech on Wednesday he used the phrase,
“as a nation, we are getting on top of our debts”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 781.]
Does he not even realise that he has increased the national debt by a third—£1.2 trillion?
A new fiscal mandate will be needed in the new Parliament and we will obtain just that. We will balance the books and get the current budget into surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament—a fairer approach to deficit reduction and tough on the causes of welfare inflation. We need long-term recovery and long-term growth, not the same old short-term politicking from the Chancellor. Sound management and stronger control are necessary to prove to taxpayers that the important safety net of social security for the vulnerable and those in need is sustainable for the longer term, so we will support the motion, should the House divide.