Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thought that might be the hon. Gentleman’s response. Today we are talking about social care as well as healthcare, and the principle of universalism does not apply to social care because it is and will continue to be the subject of means-testing.

The Government talk the talk of integrating health and social care, and I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. He justifies having a health and social care levy on the basis that they are interdependent. If they are interdependent and we are moving towards an integrated scheme, why do we not apply the same principles to both NHS healthcare and social care? We could have means-testing for healthcare, in the same way as we have for social care, or we could not have any means-testing for social care, in the same way as we do not have any means-testing for healthcare. If we are going to merge the two schemes, we need to resolve those anomalies. I am afraid that everything that has come out of this short debate shows that the Bill is a muddled fudge that perpetuates the distinction between health and social care but does not meet the challenge I put to the Minister: why not have a distinct social care levy?

Is it reasonable that we should have co-payment in the NHS? If so, it would generate an enormous amount of additional income. We essentially have co-payment on prescription charges, ophthalmology services, dentistry and, increasingly, audiology services. The idea that we should have co-payment more widely, so that people who can afford it contribute, say, half the cost of an orthopaedic operation, seems to be anathema to the Government. I do not understand why, if they want to get more money into the system.

Our system differs from most overseas systems. We are not spending more on healthcare in this country, but we are spending more on publicly funded healthcare and not enough on privately funded healthcare. I would like to see a Government strategy to encourage more investment by ordinary individuals in the healthcare system. I have a private Member’s Bill on co-payment coming up in the new year, but perhaps before that we might be able to get some movement from the Government on these principles. We have co-payment in the social care sector. If it is all right in the social care sector, why is it not all right in the healthcare sector? We are excluding hotel costs—the board and lodging costs—from the £86,000 social care threshold, but we do not charge any hotel costs to rich people who are in hospital. Why not? There does not seem to be any logic in that.

I am glad it looks like the Minister will have a long time to answer these points and the other important points raised by my hon. and right hon. Friends. If we are going to have a complete review and fundamental change of outlook on health and social care, we need to meet those challenges. What is the answer as to why we do not charge hotel costs for millionaires in hospital? That would introduce more income into the service and bring it into line with what happens with social care.

Those questions remain to be answered, but there are a whole lot more besides. I was looking at the Official Report of an exchange in the other place yesterday evening. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Lord Bethell, said that

“we recognise that family carers play a vital role. When we announced an additional £4.5 billion over three years for social care, it included a commitment to take steps to ensure unpaid carers have the support, advice and respite they need.”

We know that there are about 1.6 million unpaid carers, and that was leading them to believe that there was some sort of dividend around the corner for them. However, Lord Lilley picked up on that point and asked the Minister to

“confirm that…there would be only £1.5 billion a year going to social care from the large increase in national insurance”.

Obviously, that is correct. He then asked the Minister to

“confirm that nearly half of that will be absorbed by the need to pay for the extension of free social care to those with valuable homes…That means that nothing will be left to help domestic carers.”

That was a perfectly straightforward question, and as it was not answered in the other place last night, I hope that the Financial Secretary can answer it tonight. The answer that that Health Minister gave—perhaps the Treasury has a better view on this—was that

“the maths that my noble friend has done is a little bit premature.”

I did not think that maths could ever be premature. He continued:

“The White Paper will come out later this year; it will spell out the precise financial arrangements, and I am looking forward to that.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1130.]

The Minister was implying that he did not really have a clue as to what was going to be in it when it came out. That is an example of the muddled thinking, the failure of the Government to answer precise questions and the very dangerous policy of raising expectations among our constituents that somehow they are all going to be able to relax and spend all their hard-earned savings and use their houses for themselves without having to contribute much towards the long-term costs of social care.

May I throw out a suggestion arising from that exchange in the other place last night? If we have 1.6 million people providing free care for their loved ones, why are we choosing to impose upon them an extra levy, an extra tax? Surely it would be reasonable—clause 4 enables this to be done by subsidiary legislation—to exclude those who are looking after their loved ones, doing the right thing and saving the state a lot of money. We could say, “In return for doing that, you will be exempt from the 1.5% levy.”

[John Redwood]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend thinks that is a good idea. I hope we will get some nodding soon from those on the Front Bench, but I have looked there in vain so far.

Anybody who speaks in a debate such as this is open to the challenge as to how they would pay for this. That challenge was put across the Dispatch Box today by Conservative Members to Opposition Members, and answer came there none. I have an anecdote to share with the House. Probably around a fortnight ago I was talking to a former very senior aide at No. 10. He said that one great thing that has come out of the covid-19 emergency is the sure knowledge that we can manage with 25% fewer civil servants in government without any detriment to the quality of government. That came from a senior adviser at No. 10. How many fewer civil servants does my right hon. Friend the Minister think we can have without any detriment to the public service?

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he think that as a lot of civil servants now find they can work pretty well from home, we do not need all these expensive offices and perhaps ought to be surrendering leases?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is another excellent idea. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the suggestion, but I fear that the Government are so focused on spending money that they have lost any incentive to try to control expenditure, which I thought was the Treasury’s job. It takes me back to Geoffrey Howe’s first Budget. The Conservatives had become a national Government on the back of very high socialist spending and a popular rebellion against socialist waste and high taxation. In his first Budget, Geoffrey Howe emphasised: “Finance must determine expenditure”. That message has now been lost by the Government, who are saying that expenditure must determine finance. Our Government—I say “our Government” advisedly—have reverted to the old socialist tax and spend philosophy in which expenditure determines finance. I hope that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will explain why he thinks that to change our philosophy fundamentally is consistent with Conservative values.

My final point is about the Barnett formula. The Bill recites a restatement of the fact that the Barnett formula is there and says, “Isn’t it fair?” My constituents are incensed at the unfairness of the Barnett formula, which results in their paying higher taxes so that the people of Scotland can receive higher public services, with much more spent on those services in Scotland than is spent in England, financed by our constituents in England. Why, when we should be looking at issues that relate to expenditure, are we just saying that the Barnett formula is going to apply? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say what will happen when the Barnett formula is reviewed or abolished, as surely it must be because it has outlived its usefulness? The House of Lords did a comprehensive demolition job on the Barnett formula, which was brought in years ago as a stopgap—a plastering over of some cracks—and has now almost reached the status of some religious doctrine.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to persuade me to do other than vote against this Bill’s Third Reading, because introducing it is a chronic mistake by the Government, and it is even worse that we should be imposing taxes without explaining how we are to spend them. But let me leave that on one side. I hope that my right hon. Friend, wearing his Treasury hat, will be able to explain exactly what the Government are doing to help to constrain and reduce waste in public expenditure, whether it be by getting rid of leases on surplus buildings; by sacking staff who are not productive; by introducing the long-promised cap on exit payments; by stopping the obscene salaries that are paid in much of the public service; or by addressing the problem of all these bureaucrats in the health service who seem to squeeze out productive activity, for whom we are having to pay dearly and are going to have to pay the highest taxes in our lifetimes. Those are the challenges that the Government must face up to if they are to be able to recover not just my support, but the support of so many Conservative activists up and down the country.

Finance Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I fully accept what the hon. Lady says. This whole saga illustrates the frustration that many of us have felt in this House for a long time that the European Union works extremely slowly and very deviously. That was what the referendum was all about: it was about taking back control of these decisions to this House and being able to implement decisions quickly, effectively and in accordance with the wishes of the British people. Unfortunately, we have not got an instant departure from the European Union. We have to negotiate our departure and serve article 50 and so on, but in the meantime there is a lot of frustration, I accept. That has been exacerbated by the way the previous Government played down—let us be generous to them—the EU impact in this regard before the referendum. They did not want people to think that there was another reason to vote to leave, so that we could remove VAT from women’s sanitary products.

On Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary, said:

“The Government are committed to making that change…I am proud that in the Finance Bill we are legislating to enable zero VAT rates for women’s sanitary products.”

I then intervened and said:

“I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made. Why does clause 115 say that the measure will not come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, but is subject to the Treasury introducing a provision at some later stage? Why can we not legislate on this in the Bill without any qualification?”

My right hon. Friend replied:

“It is customary, with changes in VAT rates, to give retailers notice. It is not usual for VAT changes to be put in place on the date of Royal Assent, as notice is usually provided. I reassure my hon. Friend that the intention is to provide a short period of time, following Royal Assent, in which retailers will have an opportunity to adjust prices. This is no desire by the Treasury to kick this into the long grass—we want to make progress on the matter.”—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 102.]

I think that that was a very disingenuous remark, because there was no reference to any EU constraint. The impression given was that it was all being sorted out with the European Union and that it would be delivered through clause 115, as it then was, very quickly. Somebody in the Treasury must have known or suspected that it would not be delivered in the time envisaged or, perhaps, at all, but nobody wanted to disclose that to the British people in the run-up to the referendum. I have heard that an agreement was made between remainers in the then Government and in the Opposition to try to prevent the issue from being raised on the Floor of the House, in the Finance Bill, close to the time of the vote.

Is it not fantastic that we now have the freedom to do these things ourselves, in our own sovereign Parliament, in accordance with the wishes of the people? I hope that the new Treasury team will be much more open and transparent in the way they deal with such issues. If there is an EU constraint, let us say so.

I welcome Government amendment 161, because it says that the measure will take effect after the later of 1 April 2017 or

“the earliest date that may be appointed consistently with the United Kingdom’s EU obligations”,

whatever that might mean. Why, however, was that not included in the Bill to start with? It was never going to be possible for the measure to be implemented at an earlier date than was consistent with our EU obligations. People were led up the garden path: they were led to believe that there was going to be an instant delivery, but we now know that that is not going to happen. I hope that when we come to look at the wider issues of VAT, we will get on with, for example, removing the 5% VAT on domestic fuel, which we in the leave campaign made an issue during the referendum.

It was a long time ago, but it was on 1 April 1973 that VAT was introduced in our country as a requirement of our decision to join the European Union. At that time, the rate was 10% and the yield was £1.5 billion a year. The standard rate was increased in January 2011 and it has been 20% since then, and that raises £100 billion a year. After leaving the European Union, we will be free to set our rates of VAT at whatever level we wish.

[John Redwood]

Did my hon. Friend note that in the consultation document that the EU issued, not only did it not honour the pledge to our Prime Minister, but it made it very clear that it deeply dislikes discounted rates and zero bands, and so it wanted to take it in the other direction because it thought that countries presuming to give tax relief on products that they considered essential was an obstacle to a genuine single market?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sounds wonderful, does it not, Mr Speaker: an EU VAT action plan? We were led to believe that the action would provide more flexibility, but when one looked at the small print in the action plan, one could see that the whole thing was steered towards more rigidity, harmonisation and uniformity, exactly as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Again, is it not fantastic that we will now be able to take responsibility for these things ourselves? I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who will be responding to the debate, will take the opportunity to state that from now on the Treasury will be a lot more open in the way it does its business, both with this House and with the people, and that it will not use disingenuous statements to create an impression that is inconsistent with reality.

It does not seem to me that we will be able to make this change lawfully unless and until we have negotiated our exit. I wish that we could, but as somebody who believes in the rule of law, I think that that is the position we are in. But how different it is from the position that we were led to believe we were in prior to the referendum. I wonder why that is!

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that I do share some of the hon. Lady’s worries. I would like to see that clearly stated in writing and as an act of policy from the EU itself. That would probably be much appreciated in many sections of the United Kingdom, so that we can be sure that there would not be clumsy, unwarranted or unwelcome interference. It would be a double irony if the EU were using our money to do it. That is what makes it particularly difficult. UK taxpayers of both views would be paying the money to the EU, but only one side of the argument would be funded by that money.

[Mr Chope]

Surely the Government could do something on this front. They could ask the European Commission and the European Union not to intervene and not to fund the referendum campaign. They could then get a written undertaking from the Commission not to use European Union funds. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but the Minister could give such an undertaking.

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I am speaking to amendment 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who seeks to clarify this point and prevent the use or abuse of EU money. I hope that the Minister will respond and that he will have his own proposals on Report. The Electoral Commission has given exceedingly good advice across the board on this referendum. It seemed to suggest that it would not be right for the EU to give money for the campaign, and it would be nice to have a reassurance that the Government share that view and accept the advice of that august body, which is there to guide us.

There is an additional issue with EU money, to which some colleagues have referred. What do we do about the EU money that is routed to bodies or organisations within the UK that choose to make a donation to a referendum campaign? That is another difficulty. As I understand it, such a donation would be perfectly legal because the organisation giving the money would be able to say that it had other sources of money and it was not a direct gift of EU money to the referendum campaign. Such a body may be swayed by the fact that it had had generous access to EU moneys in the past. While one would hope that none of them were donating for that reason, people would suspect that a body in receipt of substantial EU moneys in the normal course of business that saw fit to give money to the campaign to stay in would hope that the EU would be better disposed to it when it put in its next application for money.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for responding so frankly. What he has said illustrates the farce we are in. As a result of the commendable passing of the European Union Act 2011, we are being asked to approve, among other things, the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency for the next five years. If we do not approve the programme, we have been told, “Don’t worry—they’re going to go ahead with it anyway and choose their own programme.” Similarly, as the Prime Minister told us earlier with regard to the multi-annual financial framework—the next seven-year budget for the European Union—if a real-terms reduction had not been agreed, it would have carried on spending more than had been agreed anyway. That shows the extent to which we have been tied up in knots by the European Union and its institutions. The evidence coming out of this debate will be prayed in aid by people such as me when we get into the hard issues of debating whether or not it would be better to stay in or leave the European Union. I see this as part of that debate.

This debate has raised a number of interesting points beyond the Minister’s insight into what our powers amount to in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) undertakes with extreme diligence his job as leader of the UK parliamentary group in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He raised a number of serious issues. Such issues are being raised not just by him as leader of the UK delegation, but by a lot of other delegations. One such issue is that, at a time when the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe are being starved of resources, we can see with our own eyes that the 27 member countries of the European Union feel that they can throw money at the gravy train that is the Fundamental Rights Agency. Sadly, I did not hear an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government are doing to stop that. They may be powerless to do anything about it, for the reasons given in his speech.

I do not think that that is good enough. We now have a situation in which we know that a lot of that money is being wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred in his excellent speech to undocumented migrants in Europe having access to health care. That was the very subject on the agenda at the Warsaw conference that I attended and on which I expounded on Second Reading. What a waste of money that was.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was concerned about the five-year delays in getting judgments. The European Court of Human Rights needs more money if it is to increase the speed with which it deals with its casework. It is not getting extra money because the 27 members of the European Union would prefer to spend their money on the Fundamental Rights Agency.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend not mean to say that the work load of the European Court of Human Rights should be severely reduced to leave more matters in the power of democratic member states? Surely he does not want more money to be spent at that level.

[Mr Chope]

As a lawyer—[Laughter.] As a non-practising lawyer, I believe that if somebody starts a case before the courts under the rule of law, it should reach a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. It is incumbent upon any organisation that operates a legal system to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the judges to reach decisions reasonably quickly.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Government’s very wise argument that we do not want so many appeals to the European Court of Human Rights and that individual litigants should be able to appeal only to our Supreme Court?

[Mr Chope]

I certainly agree with that in relation to our particular case. I look forward to debating that issue when we discuss the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill. Two months have gone by since the draft Bill was published and the Committee still has not been set up to consider it. However, that is another story.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I see the Minister nodding in agreement.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am terribly worried, because I normally agree with my hon. Friend, but he says that Scotland has a right of veto, and I want to know who speaks for England. Does England have an opportunity to have its own view heard as well?

[Mr Chope]

Of course although, amazingly, the inquiry into the West Lothian question to which the Government have committed themselves has been delayed and delayed.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It does not say that, actually, because if it did, it would be worded in that way. That is how it is being interpreted. If nothing else comes from this debate, something will have been achieved if that is how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority interprets the motion. My concern and the concern of many colleagues is that it seems as though the Government have picked a few items and put them in the motion.

To take one public service scheme as an example, the Government have made it quite clear that they do not think that the principles we are talking about today should apply to the armed forces scheme. I support the Government in that, but it is a completely separate issue from trying to tie the hands of IPSA at this stage. IPSA will come forward with its proposals and they will go out to consultation, at which point the Government will have a chance to express a view, as will everybody else.

[Mr Redwood]

Am I right in remembering that the idea of the Hutton proposals was that they should be negotiated between the representatives of the employees and the employers? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the idea in this case as well?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is, as almost always, absolutely right. The hon. Member for Blaydon made the point that in the public sector, proper negotiations are going on based upon information about specific schemes and about employment issues overall. It seems that for some reason, the Government are trying to pre-empt that negotiation, although we have a strong and independent group of trustees for our pension scheme.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I tried to negotiate with the Government a slightly longer debate on this issue, believing that we should take it up to 7 o’clock. I lost out in that negotiation, so now I feel it is incumbent on me to reduce my remarks pro rata to give others the chance to participate. I have tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, and I have been quite interested in the reaction that it has engendered. Since I tabled it I have heard colleagues say that they think I am on to a good thing, and that they would support it if the House were to divide. However, I will wait and see the view of others before making a final decision on that.

Finance Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and John Redwood

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am delighted by the case that my hon. Friend is making. As he is suggesting, people who insure for their health needs are paying twice, because they are also paying their contribution to the NHS, thereby helping doubly. Does he therefore think that keeping the tax rate at 5% is enough, or would he really rather it were lower?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. I would prefer the tax to be much lower—indeed, perhaps there should be no tax at all—for particular insurance premiums. However, in order to try to carry as many people with me as possible in this debate, I thought that I would limit my ambition, by saying, “Why don’t we not increase the tax from 5% to 6% for specific types of insurance premiums?”

I have picked out a couple of examples of that, and I will come to another in a minute, but obviously the principles could apply much more widely. For example, many people are now taking out insurance against their long-term care needs. Indeed, the Conservative party said in its manifesto that for an £8,000 premium, a family would be able to secure themselves against the cost of having to fund long-term care. I do not know whether such a premium, if it were paid, would be subject to insurance premium tax, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us about that. At the same time, perhaps he can let us know when he expects that part of the Conservative manifesto to be brought before the House for implementation in legislative form.

The principle of insurance is one that most Conservatives—most of my constituents—applaud. People can either self-insure, which means that they take the risks themselves, or they can pool that risk by buying an insurance policy, which many people do, by buying life insurance, pension insurance and so on. In the case of pension insurance, we are talking about incentives for saving; in the case of life insurance, we are trying to encourage people to ensure that if they die prematurely, their dependants have some support and are not wholly dependent on the state. Those examples do not fall within the scope of my amendments, but they would be covered by amendment 15, which goes rather wider. However, it is important that we should have this little debate, to try to tease out a bit more from the Government on these important issues.

Turning to my amendment 19, let me say that we have a real problem with motor insurance in this country. For young people, the price of motor insurance is almost prohibitive. Indeed, it is so high that people cannot afford to buy it. Instead, what happens is that young people might get their parents to put them on their policies, if they are lucky enough to have parents who will do so—sometimes in quite dubious circumstances, as we have been reading in the newspapers recently—but quite often they will take a risk and drive uninsured. I regard driving without insurance as an extremely serious motoring offence. It is reckless, and those who do pay for their motor insurance end up having to pick up the bill for those who cause accidents and injuries as a result of not buying insurance.