TV Licences for Over-75s

Debate between Chris Stephens and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

That is absolutely true. There was no suggestion that over-75s would lose their TV licences.

Let us examine some figures from some written answers about the cost to the public purse of providing free television licences to people over the age of 75. In the Glasgow South West constituency, the cost to the public purse is £700,000; in the Glasgow city local authority area, it is £4 million; and for Scotland, it is £50.5 million. In other words, BBC Scotland is being asked to find £50.5 million in its budget for the free TV licences.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

I give way to my constituency neighbour. BBC Scotland has its headquarters in her constituency.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. As the MP for Pacific Quay, I see the value of the high-end jobs based in BBC Scotland. The investment that the BBC has made in the new BBC Scotland channel has created jobs in the wider economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that removing that money from the budget would put at risk that brand-new venture?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree, and I have explored that with the shadow Secretary of State. I have very real concerns about the future of the creative industry, especially about employment in the BBC and its capacity to produce good-quality programmes if it is asked to bear the cost of the free TV licence. I sit on the all-party Youth Violence Commission, so I know that there are key benefits to young people finding employment in the creative industries. That is important, so we must continue to advocate and argue for it.

Many hon. Members mentioned loneliness and social inclusion as reasons why people over 75 should receive a TV licence. I agree. We are already seeing the impact of high and rising fuel bills on pensioners—particularly those who live alone. Age Scotland and Age UK report that six in 10 pensioners who live alone have difficulties paying their fuel bills. The number with health conditions and disabilities is increasing. More than four fifths of people aged 85 and over report that their daily lives are limited by a long-term health problem or a disability. Those things have a real impact because there are numerous extra costs associated with them, including taxis to medical appointments, medical equipment, and support and care, so it seems ludicrous that the Government are saying that people aged 75 and over will have to cough up for a TV licence. It really is incredible.

As Opposition Members rightly said, this commitment was in the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, and the Government then allowed the BBC to have a consultation. I did not hear from the Minister—perhaps he will tell us when he winds up—whether the Government will ignore the BBC consultation because they have a manifesto commitment not to take free TV licences off people aged 75 or over. If they will, they need to say so this afternoon.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Chris Stephens and Alison Thewliss

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

The renowned Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz has said that what we measure shapes what we strive to pursue. I tabled new clauses 14 and 15, in my name and the names of my hon. colleagues, to ensure that we are effectively striving to pursue the reduction in the tax gap and to consult fully on the provisions of this Bill. I support very much what the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said and support her new clause 5 and amendment 23. She made some excellent points, most of which I fully agree with and endorse. I will not repeat what she said, however, as she made her points very clearly; she did a fantastic job in putting across the Labour party’s view.

It was bizarre to watch Government Back Benchers tie themselves in knots yesterday in opposing new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), in relation to entrepreneur’s relief. If the UK Government are confident that their policies are effective, they must not be afraid to review them. Indeed, reviewing them is all we can do under this Bill; as the hon. Member for Oxford East said, we are limited in what we can do here. So we do propose a review on that.

Likewise on the provisions on tax avoidance, we must gauge our progress by continually measuring the value and effectiveness of those policies. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) mentioned the Dutch sandwich. I am sure that was sensible when proposed and I am sure that the Dutch Government then looked at it and decided that actually it was not working. They then will have reviewed the policy and looked at the detail and clamped down on that loophole; I am sure they must have done that as otherwise it would still be an issue. Likewise, this Government should do better at reviewing their policies, testing them, seeing how effective they are and making changes as a result.

Our proposal is in the spirit of achieving better, more robust policies in the future. We should also look to the world to see where the best polices are and see what we can do to adapt them, and we should collaborate with our near-neighbours in Europe, particularly to make sure we are not allowing companies to move around at will seeking the best policies to save money, rather than paying the taxes that they ought to.

There are many reasons why HMRC does not always collect the tax that it ought to be paid, whether through criminal activity, through evasion or avoidance or just through human error, and there is much more that can be done to address that. While a greater focus on the non-compliance of corporations is welcome, there is still ample opportunity to avoid paying into the system, and we need to look at that very seriously.

The SNP has long argued that the tax system is unnecessarily cumbersome and complicated. There are layers and layers of regulations and exemptions, which lead to loopholes appearing. The system seems to get more complex every year when we look at the Finance Bill, and there also appear to be armies of tax avoidance specialists seeking to exploit whatever gaps they can find.

[Chris Stephens]

Was my hon. Friend not astonished when the Minister admitted that no data is held on any of the higher-rate Scottish taxpayers who are registering themselves elsewhere in the UK, as peddled and promoted by the Scottish Tories last week?

[Alison Thewliss]

That is indeed astonishing, and if it is a problem, the Government ought to be looking at it. People living in Scotland should pay the appropriate amount of tax, because that is the price we pay for living in a civilised society. That is what the Minister said in his speech earlier. We also have to look at what we get for our taxes in Scotland. We get a better, fairer society, which is good for us all. All the academics in this field recognise that a fair society is better for us all.

Last year, this Government opposed my amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill that would have increased the transparency of Scottish limited partnerships by ensuring that those partnerships had bank accounts. We are still waiting for a response from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the consultation that closed on 23 July this year.

Strengthening the Union

Debate between Chris Stephens and Alison Thewliss

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I think that the account has perhaps deleted the tweet because it was getting so many retweets from people pointing out the utter hypocrisy of that position. It is entirely in our gift now as a nation to revisit that decision, given what has changed. Just yesterday, I had an email from a constituent who said:

“though I am not a Nat, I am coming to the conclusion that an independent Scotland within the EU would be the best outcome, at least for Scotland, from all this mess.”

Lots of people feel that same way and have reserved the right to change their mind when the circumstances have fundamentally changed.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the people who have now said publicly that they have changed their mind is Mike Dailly, director of the Govan Law Centre, who during the referendum campaign was on platforms for Better Together.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. He joins Murray Foote, one of the authors of “The Vow”, who has come round to the other point of view, having seen where this ridiculous Tory Government have taken us.

I want to turn to a few issues where I feel that Scotland—Scotland’s views and Scotland’s voice—has not been respected. One of the issues that I have campaigned on is the two-child policy and the rape clause. Scotland’s women’s organisations—all of them—and Scotland’s Government spoke out against this policy, but the UK Government have implemented it anyway, in the full and certain knowledge that it would push people into poverty. That policy is not finished now, because from February 2019, regardless of the date of a child’s birth, new claimants will not be able to receive the child amount for three or more children unless an exemption for the third or subsequent child applies. We do not even know what the impact of that policy is yet. The research has not yet been done, but we know that 73,530 households have been affected so far by the two-child policy, and we are only one year in.

What do the demented Unionist Daleks say about this? “Mitigate! Mitigate!” They say “mitigate” for a policy that we did not want, did not vote for and we will not have, but we are having it imposed because child tax credits are a UK Government policy. That ignores the evidence of organisations such as Turn2us, who say that women feel pressured into having abortions because of the two-child limit. It has evidence to suggest that this has actually happened. Government Members sigh and roll their eyes, but this is actually happening in the UK today. It is no Union dividend. This also ignores the fact that no claims under the rape clause have been made in Northern Ireland, probably due not least to the fact that the Attorney General started issuing guidance only a year after the policy came into effect. That was a whole year in which women and organisations were liable to prosecution under the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 as a result of this policy.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Chris Stephens and Alison Thewliss

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am delighted to be able to speak in this Budget debate on the issues of public services and housing, both of which are intertwined in defining quality of life. They are key aspects of what should have been a Budget for people and prosperity. Unfortunately, this chaotic Tory Government just limp on in crisis and have failed to deliver on either.

One way to inject further funds into public services in Scotland would be to pay Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in full the £140 million they are due in backdated VAT. I welcome, of course, the announcement that the Chancellor made yesterday, but if the logic of the argument is true today and yesterday, it must have been true in 2015, when we submitted it as an amendment to that Finance Bill, and it must have been true when the Scottish Government made numerous and lengthy representations to the UK Government on this matter prior to, during, after and since the implementation of the single services. I have read those representations, and it is absolutely clear that discretion has always rested with those who make the rules: the UK Treasury. We see that in the announcement yesterday. The Government could have saved not only money, but a good deal of civil service time and effort if they had conceded this point six years ago. The Tories and Labour in Scotland have supported the establishment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in their manifestos. Support for the principle of single services is not in dispute.

In October, Chancellor stated:

“We discussed this with the Scottish Government before they made the decision to unify the police, we warned them that under EU law they would not be able to recover VAT if they made this move, the Scottish Government told us that they had calculated that the savings they would make would be sufficiently great that even with the loss of the VAT recovery ability it was still a sensible thing to do—that’s their decision, a decision which they made, and we are now constrained by the VAT rules that are in place.”

Was the Chancellor misleading the public when he stated that to drop the VAT would break EU law?

Moreover, Murdo Fraser MSP, who was clamped gloriously today by Nicola Sturgeon, stated that

“because both Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are not part funded through local taxation, there is no justification for a VAT refund.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 31 October 2017; c. 77.]

It seems entirely unclear as to why the Scottish Conservatives believed that there was no justification to scrap the VAT then, even a few weeks ago, yet now advocate it and actively celebrate it.

I also noticed, buried away on page 39 of the Budget Red Book—it is getting shorter, because the Government used to hide things on page 88 back in 2015—that there is a change relating to VAT for combined authorities and fire services in England and Wales. This is very interesting. At the top of page 39, under the heading “combined authorities” it states:

“Through Finance Bill 2017-18, legislation will be amended to ensure UK Combined Authorities and certain fire services in England and Wales will be eligible for VAT refunds.”

How curious! Could it be that the Chancellor realised that he could not possibly make these changes for English bodies without accepting the logic for changes in Scotland? If so, claims of influence from the baker’s dozen on the Benches across from me have less substance than a cream puff. This UK Government, having accepted the logic as they did for Highways England, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and academy schools, must now make good their mistake and backdate the VAT.

There is a gaping hole in this Budget where there ought to be a commitment from the Chancellor to scrapping the public sector pay cap. Public services workers have, for years, been asked to deliver more for less, all the while seeing the cost of living increase. The Scottish Government are the only Government on these islands committed to scrapping the cap. I had hoped that, given the demonstrations, the pressure, the commitment and the U-turns, the Chancellor would have been bold and put a figure on this, rather than giving us what was in his mealy-mouthed speech yesterday.

[Chris Stephens]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the UK Government’s approach to public sector pay is such that those in male-dominated workplaces will get a pay rise but those in female-dominated workplaces will not?

[Alison Thewliss]

As on so many related issues, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The UK Government should commit, as the Scottish Government have, to paying the real living wage—not the pretendy living wage, not the living wage that does not apply to those under 25, not the in-built age discrimination that they continue to perpetuate, but the real living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation.

We cannot hide from the fact that workers need a pay increase, because prices are up in a range of areas. The price of basics like bread and butter have increased—bread by 5% and butter by 12%—since the Brexit vote. This is just another example of the Government forcing people to spread too thinly—literally—to get by. The London School of Economics estimated this week that the average household has lost £7.74 per week because of the higher prices in shopping baskets. Ask anyone at the supermarket and they will tell you the same, and it feels like an awful lot more to many people.

I note from the Red Book that the full basic state pension will rise by only £3.65 per week and the full new state pension by only £4.80 per week. That hardly seems enough to meet the increase in the cost of living caused by the Government’s chaotic Brexit obsession. Contrast that with the £82.2 million in sovereign grant funding going to two pensioners and their hingers-oan who live along the road from this building, and it is clear that unfairness is rife in this country. The impact of a no-deal Brexit and the lack of single-market membership will only make things worse.

We cannot deliver the public services on which we all rely without well-paid and well-motivated public sector workers. We must end the pay cap and deliver pay certainty for public sector workers right across the board, not just for those in the NHS, because as hard as they work, there are many others who work just as hard.

We must see appropriate consequentials. I mentioned the money the Chancellor trumpeted for the NHS—some £300 million. If the Government were being fair, Scotland should have had £30 million, but we are getting only £8 million. That is jiggery-pokery of the highest order. We have also lost £600 million for our trains in the Tories’ great train robbery. I ask for that to be put right as soon as possible.