European Union Referendum Bill
David Burrowes Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Salmond
I am very tempted to do so, but I can see that the Chairman is encouraging me to move on to our other amendments in this group, new clauses 3 and 4, on the whole question of how the Government should behave in a referendum campaign.
The members of this group of 56 speak from the standpoint of being totally united in our support for the European Union—we are pro-European to our fingertips —but that does not mean we would be willing to accept a referendum that was in any way biased or rigged by the Government. Just because they are pro-European, and the suspicion is that the Government may wish to bias the referendum in the pro-European direction, does not mean that that would be right and proper. It does seem to SNP Members that if the rules of purdah about the behaviour of a Government during an election campaign are correct, as recommended in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 all those years ago, that must pertain during a referendum campaign as well. In new clauses 3 and 4, we have set out in some detail what a referendum code of conduct for the Government should be.
It is astonishing that the Government should think that the exclusion of any such restrictions from the Bill would be meekly accepted by a majority of Members in Committee. It is entirely wrong for the Government to do so. We have a very recent example of why it would be very foolish for the Committee to take the Government at their word in saying that they would not engage in behaviour that breached the normal standards of purdah in the upcoming referendum campaign.
Let us take the scenario or possibility that, at some point in the course of the referendum campaign next year or the year after, the no side moves to the front. In that scenario, let us just assume that, to try to get the yes result that the Prime Minister wishes, he needed a last-minute initiative. With no rules or restrictions saying that new political initiatives should not be made at governmental level during the last 28 days of the campaign, what would stop the Prime Minister doing a tour of the capitals of each of the Governments across Europe—suspending Question Time in the national Parliament—and stop their flying as one to London to announce a new commitment, a new undertaking, a new pledge, a new vow? A new vow might be made to the people of the United Kingdom saying, “Only if you vote yes will we secure these new terms, which we did not mention before the campaign started, but which we now, as good Europeans, undertake to offer to the people.” Let us just say that, under those circumstances, that vow was influential in persuading enough people, perhaps one in 20, to switch their vote and to vote in favour, and let us just say that, after the dust had settled, all those European leaders did not really want to go forward with the full extent of the vow they had made. How would people in the United Kingdom view that situation? Would it not be rather better for the Bill to state explicitly that during the last 28 days—and only during the last 28 days—of a campaign period, the people must be able to make a judgment on the arguments that are property presented, without the use of the governmental machine to bias the result one way or the other?
When the Government explain why they want to wipe away these rules, I hear them say, “Of course, Government cannot really function in a purdah period. We won’t be able to make representations to the European Council. It will be impossible to do so over a 28-day period.” But that is what happens in each and every general election that we fight. In April and May, I did not notice that the Administration of this country ground to a halt. In fact, a lot of people thought it was better not having a fully activated Government during the campaign period. If it can be done in each and every general election, it can certainly be done in this referendum campaign.
Even more insidious than the role of the Government in making political announcements is the role of the civil service. In normal times, the civil service quite rightly views impartiality as following the policies of the elected Government. That is what the civil service is there to do; it is not meant to be neutral on issues, but to follow Government policy. When it comes to the purdah or quarantine period in an election or in a referendum, however, it is the job of the civil service to be impartial over that 28-day period.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making not a party political point, but an important cross-party point. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made that case in 1998, when it reported—this relates to section 125 of the 2000 Act—that
“just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers’ money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants, official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument.”
The then Government accepted that point.
Alex Salmond
And the point has been broadly accepted since. It is not just a question of the Government accepting that point, however, but of having them live by it. In the Scottish referendum, which is what I was clearly alluding to, the UK Government accepted the principle of a purdah period and all that, but despite that, they went ahead with what I would argue was the governmental, political initiative of the vow in the last few days of the campaign.
Despite the fact that the UK civil service should have been neutral in that 28-day period, that was not the case, particularly of Sir Nicholas Macpherson. I notice that his knighthood has recently been enhanced in the recent honours list—let us all congratulate Sir Nicholas on his extra honour for services rendered. In particular, the Treasury had a referendum unit working through the purdah period to place in the press stories hostile to the yes side of the argument. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who were on the no side of the Scottish referendum campaign did not feel that that was particularly objectionable at the time, but I ask them to imagine how they would feel if they were arguing on the no side of the European referendum debate and Her Majesty’s Treasury and its civil servants under Sir Nicholas Macpherson did the same thing. That is exactly what will happen unless the House sets rules that have to be abided by.
The Economy
David Burrowes Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the Queen’s Speech debate today and to congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches, particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). She made a fine maiden speech, true to the traditions of those who have gone before her in that constituency. She talked about what is at the heart of this Queen’s Speech and this Government—mobility and aspiration for all. We will continue to strive for that throughout this Parliament.
Like my hon. and learned Friend, other hon. Members have paid generous tribute to their predecessors. One tribute, however, has not been paid, and I have given the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) notice that she made no mention of her predecessor. I am going to correct that wrong—that omission—and pay tribute to Nick de Bois, my former colleague, a neighbour and friend. He was a great asset to this House, and Members on both sides can recognise his contribution to this House and to his constituency. It is appropriate to pay tribute to him in this debate on our economy, because it is right to recognise his contribution to supporting our growing economy. It was Nick de Bois who initiated the jobs fairs that many colleagues have taken up throughout the country. They have provided great results, and he championed jobs and apprenticeships in Enfield. He also championed trade envoys. Again, that has been taken up by the Government and we have envoys to many different countries now. The fruits of his labour are having great effect, with us at last turning around the legacy of decades of underinvestment in exports and working with UK Trade & Investment to produce great results.
Nick de Bois has left a great legacy, as I saw when we co-hosted our latest jobs fair, at Southbury leisure centre in February. We saw hundreds of people benefiting from hundreds of jobs and having their lives transformed. We are talking not just about the stats or about plans, but about real lives that have been transformed. Many people responded to that jobs fair and told us how much they had benefited, not least from the hard work of Nick de Bois. He has left that legacy and he can be proud of it. Our Government can also be proud of that legacy, as we strive towards full employment.
The right hon. Member for Enfield North did talk about our local Chase Farm hospital, another thing Nick de Bois championed and campaigned hard on. Although she mentioned it, she missed a number of points. There is a contrast to make here with the previous Labour Government, who were full of broken and empty promises. Before the election, Nick and I secured the business case, which was signed off by the Treasury. We secured £270 million for redevelopment at Chase Farm hospital. That is significant because it means that we will have a modern, 21st-century local hospital with eight operating theatres. We will have all the existing services put together in a 32,000 square metre building.
That is very important, and what is the contrast with it? It certainly contrasts with what we heard from the right hon. Lady, who said that this was going to gut Chase Farm hospital. Far from gutting it, this is going to breathe new life into decrepit buildings left behind by the last Labour Government. The contrast is very clear: we need a strong economy to be able to have a strong national health service. We needed the strong economy to be able to ensure that this was based on taxpayers’ money—£120 million-worth of taxpayers’ money, as part of a wider £270 million deal—and not on the private finance initiative. Our local hospitals have been beset by that. The millstone around the necks of Barnet hospital and of North Middlesex University hospital was PFI. That is typical of the previous Labour Government. They maxed out the credit card and now we are paying off those debts. Sadly, our health service is struggling and challenged because of it.
I wish to highlight two areas that will have a big effect on our economy and our society. They will be a litmus test of something we talk about a lot: a one-nation party and one-nation Government. The first of those areas is the family. We now have a family test, introduced by the Prime Minister last August. It means that every Department will be held to account for the impact of its policies on the family. Will the Minister say what the impact was of the whole Queen’s Speech? A summary of that might be useful. It is important that we do not just have a tick-box exercise; the Government have had tests in the past, but this needs to have real meaning. It would be good to continue to work with The Relationships Alliance to ensure that there is real meaning and to show that we are true on our deep commitment to the family. We all know that family breakdown costs—it has been estimated at £48 billion a year, perhaps more—and it is the poorest households that get hit.
Two thirds of 15-year-olds in the poorest 20% of society no longer live with both parents. Our party, however, supports marriage loud and clear. Towards the end of the last Parliament, there was the welcome introduction of the marriage tax allowance. It is small, at £212, but it is a start and I want the Government to go a lot further. At the heart of our one-nation concern is a concern for others. Nowhere can we see that better than in our concern for strong marriages and strong families. The good support for childcare is welcome, but let us broaden that understanding and support marriage as well.
Another test is how we support complex needs. I welcome the fact that in the autumn statement there was real support for the troubled families programme, which has transformed many lives and saved a huge amount of money. We can work that model into cases with multiple needs. By working hard for strong families and those with the most complex needs, including housing, addiction and educational needs, we will pass the test and truly be a one-nation party and one-nation Government.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
David Burrowes Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the Government invest about £1.5 billion a year in apprenticeships. In its 2012 report, the NAO suggested that for every £1 spent in this area, we got a return of £18, and studies by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggest that the return might be even greater: £28 for every £1 invested. Therefore this offers good value for money. Our policy on apprenticeships is an additional step, and I am delighted that the tax system can be used in this way. Once again, it demonstrates that the Government are on the side of those who wish to work hard, improve their skills and get on in life.
With those remarks, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.
Mr Speaker
I think we shall treat of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order afterwards.
Mr Speaker
In that case, we shall come later to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up. It would be a shame to squander him too early.
Clause 2
Consequential etc power
Mr Speaker
It is always a joy to hear the Minister develop the argument, but he is exercising a self-denying ordinance. I must say that the way he has addressed matters thus far—comprehensively and courteously, in his usual manner—has been accompanied by a slight increase in the number of Members present for the next business. It is not for me to suggest that those two phenomena are causally related, but some people might think they are. I suppose if one is in a tight corner and hoping that the Minister will develop the arguments fully, one can always best depend (a) on a Treasury Minister and (b) on a lawyer, and he is both.
Lords amendments 3 to 5.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has any consideration been given to disapplying Standing Order No. 16(1), which allocates 90 minutes to consideration of the mitochondrial donation regulations? When similar regulations, concerning embryo research, came before the House in 2000, some 3 hours and 19 minutes were taken. Through the usual channels, the House has previously disapplied Standing Orders when dealing with issues of great significance, not least in this area. Obviously, many are concerned about the significant impact of these regulations, not least in respect of mothers at risk of passing on serious diseases to their children. This matter is of great significance to the country, because, for the first time in the world, we would be permitting human germ-line genetic modification. Given the significance of these matters, not just for those in the House but for the public, and in the interest of considering them in detail, I would have thought these matters deserved fuller debate and scrutiny, although I respect the fact that we will be turning to a general debate on rural phone and broadband connectivity afterwards. Given all that and the significant safety and legal issues, as well as ethical issues, surely we need longer than 90 minutes. Has any consideration been given to disapplying Standing Orders?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his point of order and for his usual courtesy in notifying me in advance of its intended content. I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear—I say this in all sincerity—that I am unable to help him. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is within the power of Ministers to propose an extension of time available for a debate to which the 90-minute limit under Standing Order No. 16 applies. Notice is required, and there is no such motion on today’s Order Paper. I am clear that that is extremely regrettable, so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned and many other Members may feel likewise. But we are where we are. In practical terms, the possibility of proposing such an extension is in the hands of the Government business managers, and is not available to Back Benchers.
The hon. Gentleman knows my views about the importance of empowering Back Benchers, and I have never been much fussed about empowering Ministers in any Administration, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Obviously, however, the Speaker has to operate within the established procedures of the House. As far as I can see—I have taken advice on the matter—today’s business must therefore conclude after an hour and a half.
The Minister is always a most courteous Minister, and she will have taken note of what has been said. Knowing the Minister as I do, I know she is planning to be pithy in her remarks to facilitate the majority of Back Benchers. About 18 Members wish to speak in the debate. If Members help each other, it will maximise the number of contributors. I fear we will have to leave it there for now.
Autumn Statement
David Burrowes Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
First, we have announced this week important changes to support infrastructure in and around Liverpool, including to the port of Liverpool, which is a very exciting source of economic development on Merseyside. Secondly, the trans-Pennine link supports journeys from Liverpool all the way over to Leeds and Hull, but we also want investment in the rail services in and around Merseyside. That is why we are electrifying the lines in that part of the north-west and why we are looking for major investment in HS2, so that journeys from Liverpool to Birmingham and London will be much quicker once the train joins the track at Crewe. Those are all measures that we are taking to support Liverpool.
I also announced major investment in science in the north, and Liverpool will be one of the beneficiaries of that. This is all about trying to work together. I am very happy to do that on a cross-party basis, with Members of Parliament representing Liverpool, Joe Anderson—the mayor of Liverpool—and the Government, to see what more we can do to increase the economic potential on Merseyside.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
As we approach small business Saturday, I, on behalf of my high streets, welcome the package of measures to reduce the impact of business rates. What should I tell my businesses about the impact of following the shadow Chancellor’s proposal to increase corporation tax?
Mr Osborne
The shadow Chancellor and the Labour party want to increase corporation tax. That is their stated policy on the legislation this House has passed. They make it pretty clear that they would increase national insurance if they ever came to office. That would be devastating for the small businesses of Enfield, and indeed of the whole country. We know what happens when there is a Labour Government. We know the impact on businesses: the high unemployment and the business closures they would create, because that is exactly what happened five years ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of employment.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
A record 30.76 million people are in employment. Since the coalition came to power, employment has increased by more than 1.7 million. Over 2 million private sector jobs have been created since early 2010, meaning that for every public sector job lost, over five have been created in the private sector.
Mr Burrowes
Can the Minister help my constituents, who are pleased by the record number of people in jobs in my constituency but confused by the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that our plan would mean the loss of 1 million jobs, and concerned about the impact that Labour’s pledges of more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes would have on jobs in my constituency?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to point out that irony. Under this Government, we have just seen the biggest drop in unemployment ever. In particular, long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are dropping fast, giving hope, prospects and a decent wage to so many in our country. We should be celebrating these things and definitely not letting Labour put them in jeopardy.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Grant
The hon. Gentleman raises a lot of issues and I will do my best to deal with them in the time available. The measures will certainly put an end to unsupervised easy cash-based staking above £50, allowing continued use of machines while ensuring greater opportunities for supervision and protection. The measures are targeted, reasonable and proportionate, and completely justified on a precautionary basis. We have made no change to the stake and prize. The U-turn is absolute nonsense. The shadow Minister knows that I have declared continually that there is no green light for FOBTs, and our package of reforms has been carefully considered. In my opinion, our proposals are targeted and proportionate; his proposals were knee-jerk and impractical.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I invite the Minister to take no lessons from the Opposition who are just opportunistic about FOBTs—in 2000 there were none, but in 2010 there was an explosion of 30,000 FOBT machines. The packages yesterday to protect communities are welcome in my constituency, which has seen a saturation-level of FOBTs, particularly in Palmers Green. Will she also consider the introduction of a cumulative impact test for licence applications? Is it part of the package? That would assist communities that want to take back control of this issue.
Mrs Grant
I know that my hon. Friend has considerable concerns about FOBTs, not just in his constituency but around the country. We will see strengthened play protections that will help to deal with the risks of FOBTs, wider self-exclusion and more intervention. I am happy to have a chat with him about the issue of impact assessments that he has raised.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Our opposition to this measure is that it disproportionately impacts on women and benefits men and that it does not recognise five out of six households with children up and down the country who are, as we know, struggling to make ends meet.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The problem with the hon. Lady’s point is that she is looking at married couples individually. The change is that, rather than wholly going down the route of an individualised tax system, as has happened in the past, this policy considers married couples. Married couples are benefiting and, if we asked them, they would say that they are benefiting as a couple and as a household. They are not hiving off men against women, which is what she seems to be doing.
Catherine McKinnell
The tax system works on an individual basis and this proposal introduces incredible complexity to the tax system. I shall cover that in more detail and explain the cost implications. Government Members obviously think that the costs are worth it, but I would be very careful about the concept that all married couples will happily share all their money and any tax gain—although, admittedly, we are talking about £3.85 a week. That seems to be rolling the clock back somewhat and assuming a level of communication within households that I do not think it is the Government’s place to assume.
Women are more than £26 a week—a week—worse off in real terms since 2010, and after significant progress under Labour, when the gender pay gap fell by more than 7%, it is now rising again for the first time in five years. The gap between women’s median weekly earnings in the private sector and the public sector has increased between 2009-10 and 2012-13 from 28% to 31%. The same gap for men has decreased from 17% to 14%. At the same time, the cost of child care places, which we debated at length yesterday, has risen by an average of 30% on this Government’s watch, five times faster than pay.
Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that the Chancellor’s tax and benefits strategy since 2010 has raised a net £3.047 billion, or 21%, from men and 79%, or just under £12 billion, from women. That includes the Budget 2010 tax credit cuts, which took £2.7 billion from women and only £750 million from men, the 2010 spending review, under which reductions in child care support through tax credits took £343 million from women but just £47 million from men, and the three-year child benefit freeze, which has taken £1.26 billion from women and £26 million from men. That, of course, contrasts with the £3 billion tax cut that was given to the top 1% of earners in this country, under which 85% of the gainers are men, and this marriage tax allowance, under which 84% of the gainers will be men. This issue goes to the heart of the clause and of why we are tabling our amendment.
Alison Seabeck
It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). He and I have recently campaigned jointly on the future of our Land Registry offices, but I am afraid that we will be in different Lobbies this afternoon. I cannot agree with his assessment of the value of this tax change for a range of reasons.
Like many measures introduced by this Government, this one is disingenuous at best. It was brought forward to a fanfare of trumpets, after a great deal of pressure from Conservative Back Benchers, but it is basically unfair. I pick up a sense of that unfairness, which is driven through the tax system, when I do a street surgery every Saturday and in my postbag. That unfairness is what the public have the greatest problem with, whether in relation to the tax system or to other Government changes. It is also indicative of the problems we have seen in the House this week. We in this place do not read the public mood as well as we ought to at times, and this measure is yet another example of that problem.
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Lady is talking about fairness. Who is it fair for—the 80% of people in the OECD area who live in countries that recognise marriage in the tax system, or the 20% who live in countries that do not?
Alison Seabeck
Plymouth has one of the largest percentages of single parents in the country—I will return to that point—and my constituents think that the measure is unfair. How people in other countries view it is entirely up to them, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituents do not see it as fair.
The transferable allowance—a tax break of about £1,000—discriminates against millions of families, especially those headed by single parents, as well as against non-married couples. We know from the Office for National Statistics that there are about 2 million single-parent households. They find life complicated enough at the moment. They are being hit with the bedroom tax, while some will definitely not benefit from this tax change, and most feel that this Government are not on their side. They face the same challenges as married couples with children, but they face them alone. They have to survive on one income, and they are mostly not single parents from choice. Sadly, death, divorce and separation take their toll on relationships, and financial pressures mount in every one of those circumstances. What have this Government done? They have introduced a measure that will favour just a third of couples and just one in six families with children.
I am almost speechless about this measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) drew attention to the fact that men will benefit from it far more than women. She highlighted other areas in which men have disproportionately benefited from changes brought in by this Government—this predictably male-dominated Government—and that fact has not been lost on the electorate. Quite frankly, women feel that, for some reason or other, they are becoming second-class citizens in tax terms and all other terms. I am picking that up on the doorstep, and my guess is that we will see it reflected in the ballot box in the elections ahead.
As I said, my constituency has an above-average number of single parents—roughly 38%—who, as I am sure other hon. Members will acknowledge, are struggling to make ends meet. It is wrong for the Government to encourage one type of relationship over another. The policy discriminates against widows, single parents and couples who both work, as well as parents who choose not to marry. Importantly, this tax break might discriminate against children who grow up in single-parent families, and against adults who leave abusive relationships.
In its recent report, “The Home Front”, Demos has argued:
“Evidence shows that it is the quality of relationships rather than relationship status which has the greater effect on…children’s outcomes. There is no evidence of a ‘marriage effect’, rather marriage is probably a proxy for more successful relationships… many married couples do not have children, making this proposal both moralising and inefficient, as it draws resources away from some of the most at-risk families.”
This is a tax change to please the Tory few, but it discriminates against millions of hard-working families. It should be scrapped. We should support the amendment, which demands a closer look at and a review of the measure’s impact, so I will support my hon. Friend in the Lobby this afternoon.
Tim Loughton
That is a good reason for going further. The debut of a married couple’s tax allowance in this Bill is a starting point, and it is the first recognition of marriage in this country’s tax and benefit system. I would like to include many more married couples, particularly concentrating on those with children under the age of five. That is where the allowance can have the greatest impact. We need to provide the greatest stability for young children in their most formative and impressionable years.
Mr Burrowes
The married couple’s tax allowance is a starting point, but I want to revise my hon. Friend’s description of this being its debut. Marriage was recognised in the tax system until 2000. We are only properly restoring what countries across the world, including more than 80% of European countries, recognise. We are simply going back to what was the case. We should not have moved away from that recognition in the first place.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is right. He has been a pioneer in this area for a long time. The previous Government abolished the recognition, and they had 13 years to try to do something about recognising families in the tax system. Despite the easy words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in practice. That is the record on which they should be judged.
Steve McCabe
I support the amendment and oppose clause 11. I fear that the clause shows all that is wrong with the modern Tory party. It is based on an illusion—the idea that the Tory party has some special affection for marriage that is shown in its policy actions. Conservative Members have been keen to say that Labour was wrong not introduce such a measure during our 13 years in government, but of course we were not wrong. Had we done so, we would have got into exactly the same mess the Government are in today. We would have been perpetrating a con on the electorate by pretending a level of support for married couples and families with children that our policy simply could not deliver. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but we have heard that he suffers from that delusion. He thinks that he is helping people with children, but in fact he is helping a narrow band of those people.
As we have heard, the policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the tax system. It is a policy for a few married couples and some in civil partnerships—perhaps as few as 3.4 million of the UK’s 12.4 million couples who are married or in civil partnerships. In some ways it is a classic coalition policy, because it does not really satisfy anyone. Those in the Tory party who favour traditional marriage never intended that the tax relief should go to those in civil partnerships—that was not what they were arguing for at the outset. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it was.”] No, it wasn’t. If Conservative Members want to tell me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is a keen advocate of civil partnerships, I guess that they have missed his speeches and blogs in recent years.
Mr Burrowes
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants to look at his party’s manifesto, but if he looks at ours, he will see that it made a clear promise to the electorate that we are keeping today.
Steve McCabe
I am happy to say that I have looked at the Conservatives’ manifesto, and it did not spell out the narrow band of people whom they intended to benefit. It created the pretence that they would help all married couples. The hon. Gentleman has persistently said during the debate that everywhere else offers the system that we are discussing, but I looked it up while he was talking, and New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Greece and Hungary do not have it, so his “everywhere else” may be wrong.
Jim Shannon
I cannot comment on the technical figures—no doubt the Minister will say something about them when he sums up the debate—but I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The Government clearly have much to do. Indeed, we all have much to do in putting forward our views, but let us hope that those who have an opportunity to enter into a marital relationship will be able to benefit financially as well.
Although 90% of young people aspire to marry, marriage rates are at an all-time low, while cohabitation rates are rising. The reason why that matters can be expressed in many ways, but I shall do so by employing language that the Treasury understands. The cost of family breakdown has risen to some £44 billion per annum, and crucially, according to the Centre for Social Justice, of every £7 spent on family breakdown amongst young families, £1 is spent on divorce, £4 is spent on unmarried dual-registered parents who separate, and £2 is spent on sole registered parents.
In this context it is absolutely imperative that the state does not place any unnecessary obstacles in the way of those who wish to marry, yet that is exactly what we do on many occasions. Since 2000 we have had a tax system that is very much in the minority internationally, as the hon. Member for Peterborough said. Just over a fifth of people in the OECD area live in countries that do not recognise marriage or have some kind of couple allowance. The vast majority of those people live in just two countries: the UK and Mexico. Research by Pearson and Binder published by the public policy charity CARE demonstrates that in this context the tax burden on a one-earner married couple with two children on average wage has been consistently much higher in this country than across the OECD on average. In 2012, the latest year for which there are comparable data, the tax burden on a UK one-earner married couple on average wage was 45% greater than the OECD average, up from 42% in 2011. Moreover this burden was a staggering 80.4% of that placed on a single person on the same wage while the comparable OECD figure was just 55%. Figures sometimes blind us to the issues, but these figures illustrate the issue of fairness and balance and show what the Government are trying to achieve through the legislative change before us.
In this context is it any wonder that rather than opting for marriage, couples are opting for other arrangements? Clause 11 will begin to put this right, but this is only a very limited, partially transferable allowance that, far from creating a level playing field, let alone a little nudge to opt for marriage, will instead only erode the incentive not to marry. Clause 11 is thus a hugely important first step; it is a foundation upon which we must build.
On 10 April 2010, when announcing the detail of the Conservative transferable allowance policy, which was then worth 11.6% of the personal allowance, the Prime Minister was clearly bothered that the package was not more generous. He indicated his wish to see more and, speaking on “Sky News”, he blamed the current fiscal constraints and said:
“Of course I want to go further and I am sure that over a Parliament we would be able to go further but this is a good first step.”
I believe this is a good first step. I am on record in my constituency as asking for this. I have done articles for my provincial press, supporting this option of the married transferable allowance. I believe today we have a chance to move towards that, and I hope this House will decide very positively and clearly on this.
It is clear that all we are going to get in this Parliament is a 10% transferable allowance. Many people will be watching to see the Prime Minister make good his commitment to go further in the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can confirm in his response in what ways the Government are committed to doing more in the next parliamentary term to introduce a fully transferable allowance. That must be the No. 1 income tax priority for the next Parliament.
Mr Burrowes
I very much welcome clause 11 and not the amendment in the name of the Opposition.
Before coming here I had an interview with children who are taking part in the BBC “Newsround” consideration of Prime Minister’s questions. I did not have an opportunity to ask them about the transferable allowance, but as they grow into adulthood I suspect they will look back on the proceedings here and think it rather odd that we are trying to put down dividing lines and divide along party lines on the basic issue of marriage being recognised in the tax system. They will think it rather odd that people are trying to pit one family relationship against another, when this is a very simple and moderate measure that is recognised across the world.
Catherine McKinnell
We have said very clearly that, rather than giving this tax break to only a third of married couples—some hon. Members say they are in favour of marriage, but only certain types, where one partner in the marriage stays at home—we would put that money towards all married couples and, indeed, all taxpayers by reinstating the 10p tax rate, which would benefit all marriages and all children in those households too.
Mr Burrowes
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I am afraid that will not wash with the electorate. The reality is that the Labour Government abolished recognising marriage in the tax system, and Labour now needs to make up that lost ground and join the mainstream in the other OECD countries and across the world. The Opposition need to recognise that people support marriage.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman is robustly sticking to his guns. All young people aspire to marriage. I aspired to marriage when I was 17, and I thought that my marriage was going to last for ever, because that is what everyone hopes. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that this tax change will not deal with the fact that people whose marriages break up after, say, five years will lose the tax break at that point? How is that fair, when they are still bringing up their children?
Mr Burrowes
As I said, we need to look at ways of supporting such couples to stay together, not least for the sake of their children. Too many children see their parents breaking up. We need to look at the evidence in support of marriage, because these decisions need to be based on evidence rather than on moral judgments. We have heard statistics relating to adults’ and children’s health and well-being, which I will not repeat. Members have talked about public health benefits, and mention has been made of smoking and other issues. Leading research has stated:
“If marriage were a drug it would be hailed as a miracle cure.”
Why are the Opposition so keen to avoid a basic measure to recognise marriage in the tax system? Members should not take my word for all this. Let us go across the Atlantic and hear what Barack Obama wrote in “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream”:
“Many single moms—including the one who raised me—do a heroic job on behalf of their kids. Still, children living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with both their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.”
We have heard statistics to back that up today. Barack Obama went on to say:
“In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it…are sensible goals to pursue. For example, most people agree that neither federal welfare programs not the tax code should penalise married couples.”
He did not want to go against the Bush tax plan, and he recognised that it contained aspects of the Clinton welfare policies, but he wanted to ensure that proposals to reduce the marriage penalty would enjoy strong bipartisan support. It is a shame, given the bipartisan support for recognising marriage in the tax code across the Atlantic, that no such support exists here. We should learn the lessons and take a leaf out of the book of Barack Obama.
I mentioned that the children who were interviewed earlier for BBC “Newsround” would have been confused as to why anyone would disagree with this basic measure. Let us look at the recent history, since 2000, when marriage was not recognised in the tax system. We have heard many of the reasons behind the brokenness of Britain under Labour. One was the lack of recognition of the importance of marriage, not so much culturally as financially. That has certainly played a part, which is why there is a commitment at the heart of Conservative policy to reverse the 15 mistaken years of a system that did not recognise marriage.
One of the criticisms of transferable allowances for married couples is that they amount to giving a few privileged people a bribe to get married. It has been suggested that we are being discriminatory, but where is the discrimination in the tax system? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the couple penalty facing those considering whether to marry is significant, at £44.70 a week, rising to over £85 per week for couples with children under 16. It is that group who have been discriminated against for many years. Our limited but important transferable allowance provision will begin to erode the discrimination and create a level playing field for those couples. Far from creating any kind of privilege, it will simply remedy an injustice that has been going on for 15 years in refusing to recognise the huge policy benefits of recognising marriage in the tax code.
We have heard that marriage is popular, but it is not popular only with a privileged minority. It is an aspiration that goes across social cohorts, and particularly among young people, 90% of whom aspire to marriage. Many of those people do not take up the opportunity to marry, however, and we need to look at the reasons for that. The transferrable allowance will not mean that all those people will suddenly get married. They will have to find an appropriate partner, for a start, and their marriage will of course be based primarily on love and being well-matched. The bottom line is an issue of social justice, however. Why are there particular barriers to marriage among poorer communities? People in those communities have just the same aspiration to marry, but fewer of them do so. We have to recognise that financial and cultural barriers are involved.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
No transferrable allowance will make anyone get married or stay married, or even encourage them to get married. The whole point is that when one person in a married couple—usually the woman—stays at home to look after the children, they are uniquely disadvantaged by the benefits system. This is simply a question of justice; we are righting an injustice in the benefits system.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are simply talking about justice. The Government need to take a lead in this area. The culture can change in many ways, but one way we can take a lead is through the introduction of a small financial instrument to recognise marriage in the tax system. That is what we are doing today, and it will help to bring about a change of character across the whole country.
Sheila Gilmore
For many poorer couples who are living together, whether they are married or not, the benefits system does indeed have a couples penalty. Would the hon. Gentleman be interested in campaigning to end that?
Mr Burrowes
If the hon. Lady looks at the Conservative party manifesto, she will see in it a recognition of the couples penalty. Sadly, there was no money left by the previous Government, but we want to do a great deal to correct that legacy of injustice that they left us. The couples penalty is one example among many. The discrimination is increasingly happening among couples with children, and the transferrable allowance will at least start to right those wrongs.
I am keen to give the House the opinions of others as well as my own. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly demonstrated that the transferrable allowance is progressive, so I invite all those who support progressive policies to join us in the Lobby when we vote on this measure. It was suggested earlier that we are taking a partial view in relation to the IFS, but I understand that about 70% of the benefit will go to those in the lower half of the income distribution. I am not sure whether anyone has yet corrected the comments from the IFS. Anyone who is concerned about family responsibilities should also recognise that this measure does something that has not been done for 15 years—namely, recognising family responsibilities in the tax system.
This is an issue of trust, certainly for the Conservatives, who put this measure in their manifesto and who want to retain the trust of the electorate. This is a vital first step, albeit moderate, towards fulfilling that manifesto commitment. We will also seek to give further recognition to marriage in an increased transferable allowance. We are fulfilling our vow to the electorate, however. At the election, people will look back at this debate and see that the Opposition were not supporting marriage. The electorate will remember that. I urge all Members to support marriage.
Finance (No.2) Bill
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. New clause 1 draws attention to the rising costs of child care for working parents since 2010, and seeks to commit the Government to addressing their failure in that regard. It also seeks to establish ways in which the tax and benefit systems could be used to make child care more affordable before April 2015, so that hard-working families experiencing a cost of living crisis can have the help that they need now, especially in the light of the challenges that they face as a result of changes made by this coalition Government.
The new clause gives us a welcome opportunity to explore one of the most pressing issues that face millions of parents throughout the country, and to address the fact that millions of families are facing a child care crunch. It is important to set the issue in context by revealing just what has happened to child care costs on this Government’s watch. The average bill for a part-time nursery place providing 25 hours a week has risen to £107, the highest level in history. The cost of nursery places has risen by 30% since 2010, five times faster than pay, and the average weekly cost of a full-time place has risen to £200 or more. That means that parents working part time on average wages would have to work from Monday until Thursday before they had even paid their weekly child care costs.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
The hon. Lady has given statistics showing what has happened since 2010. Did child care costs increase before 2010, and if so, what did the last Government do about it?
Catherine McKinnell
The point of putting the issue in context is that the rise in child care costs since 2010 is astonishing, and has made child care unaffordable for many parents. I shall say more later about the number of parents, particularly mums, who feel that the cost of child care prohibits them from going to work. I think that rather than questioning the statistics, Government Members should get real and do something about that. Waiting until 2015 to make a promise for tomorrow is just not good enough, which is why we tabled our new clause.
According to alarming new research from the Family and Childcare Trust, families are paying more on average for part-time child care than they are spending on their mortgages. They are handing over a staggering £7,500 a year or more for child care for two children, which is about 4.7% more than the average mortgage bill. Rising prices have been matched by the fall in the number of child care places. The number of places provided by nurseries and childminders has fallen by more than 35,000 since 2010, at a time when the number of four-year-olds has actually increased. Most worrying of all, there are 576 fewer Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010, which means that an average of three are being lost each week. At least, that was what we were seeing before the Government took their database down.
Catherine McKinnell
It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentions that, because I will quote directly on this issue a little further on in my submission.
We know that the Government are good at con tricks, giving with one hand but taking much, much more with the other. For example, they made a U-turn last month when they decided to support 85% of child care costs for all universal credit claimants. That was a welcome reversal after the coalition decided in 2011 to cut the support for child care through the working tax credit from 80% to 70%—a decision that led to an average loss of £570 a year for low-paid working parents. It is just another example of this Government taking with one hand and giving with the other.
As Alan Milburn, chairman of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has said, low-income families will still lose out, despite this increase in support for those most in need. He told The Independent on Sunday:
“The Government has taken half a step forward. The announcement that 85% of childcare costs will be met under universal credit from 2016 will help work pay for low-income families. This is very welcome. The sting in the tail is that this £200 million expansion in childcare support will come from within the universal credit programme…That risks robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Perhaps the Minister could also give a bit more detail on how she intends to pay for the increase in support. While she is at it, perhaps she could provide some clarity on when low-income families eligible for universal credit can expect to receive this support with their child care costs.
Under the original plans of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, most would have expected to receive the increased support when the tax free child care is introduced in 2015, but clearly that is not going to happen. Will the Minister clarify when the Government expect to introduce this support and whether it will be in the near future? Ultimately, as Opposition Members have made absolutely clear, parents facing a cost of living crisis will see through any child care con, because it does not make up for how much the families are now paying for child care under this coalition Government.
I come now to the first part of new clause 1 and the Opposition’s proposals for improving child care support, which we know will make a real difference to working parents. New clause 1 proposes that the Chancellor should undertake a review of the ways in which child care could be made more affordable before April 2015. We have done much of the work for him with our clear suggestions for supporting families on this pressing issue. We want to extend free child care for three to four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents, which can be fully funded by increasing the bank levy. As with the 15-hour early-years entitlement, the new 25 hours would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child each year. Perhaps most important, Labour’s plans will not demand that working parents spend £10,000 on child care in order to get the maximum promised help.
We also know that for school-age children, child care can become a logistical nightmare, with many parents increasingly struggling to find before and after-school child care, while the Government stick their fingers in their ears and hum. On the Government’s own record, 62% of parents of school-age children say that they need some form of before and after-school or holiday care in order to combine family life with work, but of those nearly three in 10 are unable to find it. To give parents of primary-age children peace of mind, the Opposition would set in law the guarantee that they could access wraparound child care from 8 am to 6 pm through their local school if they wanted it. This primary child care guarantee will benefit parents of primary-age children most, because those parents most need support. Of course, these plans will be in addition to all the support that parents will already receive, and they will not be contingent on spending thousands of pounds on child care in order to qualify.
At Prime Minister’s questions recently, following a Budget empty of any measures to address the problem now, I asked the Prime Minister to explain why his Government had failed to take the action to help parents with child care costs before the next general election. He answered:
“We are helping families with child care, not least by giving 15 hours…That is happening before the election; it has happened under this Government in this Parliament—15 hours of free nursery care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds…Opposition Members say it is not enough; it is more than Labour ever provided.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 344.]
That was not only a very complacent response but, unintentionally I am sure, misleading, and goes to show just how out of touch this Government are on this issue of child care.
The previous Labour Government introduced 12.5 hours of free nursery education for three to four-year-olds a decade ago, back in 2004, with the clear intention that that would be extended to 15 hours by 2010. Far from this being a coalition policy, the plan was inherited by the coalition from the previous Labour Government. As I set out, the future Labour Government will continue to build on this legacy, extend it to 25 hours a week for working parents, funded by an increase in the bank levy, and guarantee wraparound child care.
This was the Chancellor’s final opportunity to introduce policies that will really benefit parents before the general election, to give much needed support to working parents now, not in 18 months’ time. Parents have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than their pay. They are already spending more on child care than on their mortgage. They have already seen the number of nursery places fall by thousands. They have already seen hundreds of Sure Start centres close, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary. Of course, most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, already see child care costs as one of the biggest barriers to their going back to work or increasing their working hours. A review of the issue is both due and urgent, and I commend new clause 1 to the Committee.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Essentially, she seeks to press a reset button in relation to a new Labour history—is it new Labour any more?—of child care. It seems that for Labour life started—or, it might say, ended—in 2010.
We did get to an element of truth at the end of the hon. Lady’s remarks when we heard reference to the previous Labour Government’s policies. When I came into Parliament in 2005, the Labour Government announced a new tax relief for child care benefits, which, as we heard, then went through various stages. In September 2009, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), fronted the extension of free child care for two-year-olds. We inherited those two policies. In the coalition Government’s first Budget, we confirmed that the previous Government’s measures were being taken forward. Therefore, any reference to the costs in 2010 must be a reference to the legacy of the previous Labour Government. By any logic, this coalition Government merely extended the previous Government’s policy on tax relief and free child care for two-year-olds. It is inappropriate, and a partial view of history, not to refer to the legacy inherited from the previous Government.
Bridget Phillipson
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong not to acknowledge the great strides forward that were made in child care in the 13 years of the Labour Government. For the first time, child care was taken seriously as a matter for Government. In the past, it had been regarded as a private family matter, but it is not; it allows women to play a full role in the economy. Perhaps he could acknowledge that in those 13 years many good things happened that supported women back into work and allowed children to take up these places.
Mr Burrowes
I am a generous person, I hope, and I recognise that there were benefits, but we have to look at the history. Let us go back to 1990, when the then Chancellor, John Major, introduced the policy that meant employees would not be taxed on the benefits they received from using a nursery or play scheme provided by an employer. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to intervene to recognise the benefits of his proposal. He set in train a process to allow more affordable child care by ensuring that the tax system recognised the need to give benefits, in particular, to women who need to be out and working and to have affordable, accessible child care.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly recall the efforts of Labour Members to try to sort out child care. I had two young boys at the time. I put my two little boys into a nursery and claimed the child tax credit vouchers, but then needed to get a nanny for them because my hours changed and the situation became impossible. It is rather like so many of the Opposition’s ideas: they might be all right in principle, but in practice they are absolute rubbish and do not meet the needs of our society.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for that robust intervention. There is obviously cross-party support for recognising that child care is a central and significant issue in dealing with parents’ ability to manage their budgets and go out to work.
The lack of affordable child care is one of the reasons for the increasing numbers of relatives looking after children, especially grandparents. Two thirds of grandparents—well over 5 million—regularly look after their grandchildren. It is important to recognise the wide variety of child care. As we properly extend formal child care, I encourage the Committee, and the Minister, to recognise the role and value of informal child care for the millions of parents and grandparents who are out there saving a lot of money—thousands of pounds a year—for working families. Yes, the cost of child care is one of the reasons for the increasing number of grandparents taking on this role, and it is an important factor in parents’ decisions, but the significance of grandparental child care cuts across many areas. One in three families relies on it; one in two single-parent families particularly relies on it. It is relied on especially by families with disabled children. Often they may be living nearby, perhaps on the margins of poverty. Grandparents play a very significant role in providing emotional, financial and practical support, often through short-term care in times of crisis which then extends into long-term care.
Black and minority ethnic households are more likely than other households to have a grandparent living under the same roof as the parents and the child, taking on caring responsibilities. As we extend formal child care, it is important to acknowledge the calls from vulnerable families in particular for more flexibility in terms of tax-free relief and, as has been said in other debates, unpaid leave for grandparents who are in work.
It is important to talk not just about pounds and pence, but about child care and development. A review on child development conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Nuffield Foundation asked parents to rank the factors that motivated them to ask grandparents to care for their children. The top-ranking factor was trust and just below it was love. We have to recognise that. Yes, more affordable child care is needed to relieve the strain on grandparents and other family members, but at the same time what parents want is for the person looking after their child, particularly in their early years, to have a trusting, loving relationship with them. The report was published in 2012, but it still holds good. It provided evidence that care from grandparents often results in high vocabulary and socio-emotional development.
It is obvious to parents and, indeed, those relatives and friends who know their children best, that the love and general interest shown by grandparent carers is invaluable. It is hard to quantify in financial terms, but it is certainly valuable. Relatives put themselves out on a personal level and that is what we want for all our children. We want them to have that type of care, whether it be in a nursery, from a childminder or, more often than not, from a grandparent or relative. We want them to receive that extra support on a personal level, which is of immense value to the child’s development and care.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not knocking grandparents, who obviously play a valuable role in many cases, but there are studies that clearly show that grandparent care does not necessarily mean a higher level of early-years education for children, and that care in a formalised or trained setting can be better for child development.
Mr Burrowes
I appreciate that and I have looked at various parts of that evidence, but it is important to recognise that the Nuffield Foundation and IFS report noted that, while being in formal child care appeared to make children initially more school ready,
“being cared for by grandparents did not significantly put children at a disadvantage in school readiness compared to children not in formal childcare”.
Andrea Leadsom
I challenge the concept suggested by Opposition Members with regard to formal versus informal child care. It is incontrovertible neuroscience that a baby’s brain develops through being stimulated by the love of an adult carer, and that is what gives a baby its lifelong potential. Of course early-years education has its place, but in those very early, vulnerable periods in the first couple of years of a baby’s life, there is no doubt that the love of an adult carer—a primary or secondary attachment figure—is far more important than whether they are in a formal or informal child-care setting.
Mr Burrowes
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on “The 1001 Critical Days”, which highlights the importance of attachment, care and attention. Parents seek to find such care in a formal as well as informal child-care setting, but the reality is that families, particularly disadvantaged families, rely on the help of grandparents and relatives who are close at hand.
Undoubtedly, the Government are right to take important steps to make child care affordable, because obviously one of the key routes out of poverty is work, which we all support, but we should also support quality child care in all its forms.
There is also a need for flexibility. I have been seeking to make the point that we must have a wider understanding of child care. It involves more than grandparents, because at least 300,000 children are cared for full time by relatives, friends or other people. That often starts in a crisis or an emergency, when friends and family members step in, particularly those in the extended family—perhaps an older sibling, an uncle or aunt. Those people may have their own challenges. They may be in work, but have to stop work to care for a friend’s or relative’s child. They may be on a pension giving a fixed income, and there may be a significant impact on them. We must therefore recognise that there is a considerable impact on carers. A significant number of children are cared for by that group of people.
It is therefore right for the Government to focus on encouraging more people into work and to ensure that it does pay to work. We must recognise the impact on families on different earnings. Reference has been made to poverty. Statistics from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation show that 52% of children living in poverty are in single-earner families. One answer to that is the straightforward one of providing the single earner’s spouse, through the opportunity of affordable child care, with the choice of going into work.
We must recognise the Government’s statistics. The “Childcare and early years survey of parents 2012-2013”, which was released this January, had some interesting findings on parents. It is important to recognise that 71% of parents at home were there by choice, while only 13% of them cited cost as a problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) speaks from a sedentary position. If she wants to intervene, she may do so. I am simply citing a Department for Education survey from January 2014. Some 37% of working mothers said that they would prefer to stay at home and look after the children if they could afford it, while 57% said that they would like to work fewer hours and spend more time looking after their children if they could afford it.
According to the Netmums survey on “The Great Work Debate”, which had some 4,000 respondents, 33% of part-time working mums said that they would prefer to be at home. I am not here simply to bang the drum, but it is interesting that when one raises the issue of stay-at-home mums, there is immediately an artificial dividing line between yummy mummies exercising a lifestyle choice and those unfortunate mothers and others who want to work. I know that hon. Members will not want to make such a distinction, but it does happen and it can be paraded in that way in the media.
As a Conservative, I believe in freedom and aspiration. Freedom must include freedom of choice. People should be free to work, and we must ensure that affordable child care is available for them. However, we must also recognise that a considerable number of parents want to be able to choose to be at home. That involves income strands, and income is particularly relevant, as I have highlighted. Households on lower income levels, which are on the margins of poverty or indeed in poverty, often want to call on relatives and friends or their own family structures to support them. It is important to allow them the choice and flexibility to do that, and to recognise the impact on such family members in the tax system.
We can all agree that we must support aspiration as well as freedom. Aspiration includes the aspiration to work, and the aspiration of mothers or indeed fathers who want to give up their career or take a cut in their income to care for their family at home. The question is about how we can provide support. We will have a similar debate tomorrow on the transferable married couple’s allowance, which would provide some recognition of that.
We can also all agree that raising children needs time. It needs time to cultivate relationships, and that can happen in a variety of forms. Such time is what many parents are striving for. Many parents look back on the fact that, because of all their other commitments, they did not have enough time to spend with their children. As Members of Parliament, we are probably the last people who should talk about that. We have our own concerns about that, and we can certainly declare an interest about our lack of time. I have six children, so I can understand that.
We also have to recognise that many parents—from looking at some surveys I would say most parents—want more choice and more opportunities to have time with their children. They also want to be sure that if they do not have the opportunity to care for their children at home because of the choices that they have to make, or if they prefer not to, there is a guarantee that they will be able to entrust their children’s care to others who will be able to give them the time and commitment that they need.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will make massive strides in providing support for affordable child care. However, let us ensure that we do not lose sight of the need for greater flexibility, freedom and aspirations for families, so that we can support good-quality child care whether it takes place in a formal setting or through grandparents, parents or other relatives.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls
No, I am not going to give way until I have made these points. I will give way to both hon. Gentlemen, but if they shout “Give way, give way” at me in the middle of a sentence, I am not going to do so.
We will do things in a different way. We will introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee to get young people who have been out of work for more than 12 months—up by over 129% in The Wrekin and 140% in Ipswich—and the long-term unemployed all back to work, and we will sort out the shambles of the universal credit. As for the idea that the Chancellor should say to the Work and Pensions Secretary, “Take your time to get universal credit right. Have as much money as you want,” how irresponsible is that?
We will stop paying the winter fuel allowance for the richest 5% of pensioners; we will scrap the bedroom tax, which is not only unfair, but may end up costing more money than it saves; we will get more houses built; we will restore the value of the national minimum wage; and we will tackle the low wages which the OBR has said have pushed up the bill for housing benefit. We will make different and fairer choices to keep the social security bill under control and tackle the root causes of higher welfare spending.
Mr Burrowes
Now that the shadow Chancellor has explained that he is going to support the welfare cap, will he also clarify whether he will increase housing benefit? If so, where will he make the welfare savings to keep within the welfare cap? When he finds the statistics on Enfield, he will be able to get confirmation that the youth unemployment claimant count is at its lowest since 1997.
Ed Balls
As we and many others have pointed out, including the National Housing Federation, the Government’s bedroom tax is pushing people on to housing benefit in the private sector—on higher rents—so there is a grave risk that it is going to cost money, rather than save money. We will abolish the bedroom tax, within the welfare cap set out on page 87 of the Red Book. That is our very clear position. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that in Enfield, Southgate there has been a 500% rise in long-term youth unemployment, and he should be backing our compulsory jobs guarantee.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
This is an important moment in the way that we run Budgets in this country, it is an important moment for the accountability of politics and it is an important moment for the way we deal with the welfare crisis we were left by the previous Government. It is an important moment in the way we run the Budget in this country because most people would be astounded by the notion that we do not already have a managed expenditure limit on welfare. What most people, even in this Chamber, will not be aware of is that last year, for the first time in the history of setting Budgets in this country, unmanaged expenditure rose above managed expenditure—51% of Government spending came within annually managed expenditure, or AME, and not within departmental limits. So for the first time we are, in effect, writing a larger portion of the Budget on a blank cheque, rather than on the basis of the limits set by the Chancellor at his Budget every year. That, in itself, is astounding, but in five and 10 years’ time people will look back and wonder why on earth we had not come to this point earlier.
The reason, as we have heard so often from Opposition Members—they prefer to pretend that it is not their position now, because the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said in private a few days ago that they would prefer all the Government’s reforms on welfare to have been reversed—[Interruption.] It is down there in the transcript. She would prefer all the Government’s reforms to be reversed—not only that, she would prefer all existing benefits to be made universal. She is very welcome to intervene on me to deny in the House that she made those comments. I am open to have that discussion with her. She has been given that opportunity before, she is not doing it and the House will draw its own conclusions. The fact is that what the Opposition say in private is very different from what they say in public.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Burrowes, you have nothing to hide, and I certainly do not want to hear you shout again—I want to hear Mr Gummer. You may not. If you do, you know where to go. Mr Gummer, you have the Floor.
National Minimum Wage
David Burrowes Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I was one of those in 1998 who spent the night here as Conservative Members did everything in their power to try to stop the national minimum wage legislation. Today, they are still warning about employment risk. Only last week the Chancellor talked about his fear that a rise in the minimum wage would jeopardise jobs and risk the recovery. I am afraid that is all too familiar.
We are supposed to believe that there is a new-found enthusiasm for the minimum wage on the Conservative Benches. They are leaking stories to the press that suggest there is a Conservative-Liberal Democrat battle over who will promise a hike in the minimum wage in their 2015 manifestos. Well, they are the coalition. If we are all in it together, give us something on account: give us some of it now.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On support for the living wage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that leading by example is important in the private and public sector, including in Government Departments? Does he recognise that Conservatives have been on the case for a number of years? Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has introduced the London living wage in city hall.
Steve McCabe
I am a fan of the living wage and I will mention it before I finish.
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am a little cynical, but there is a consistent thread to Tory opposition. In 1983, they abolished the fair wage resolution. In 1993, they abolished wages councils. It took them until 2005 to give a manifesto commitment to retain the minimum wage. Of course, nobody told the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has made successive efforts to sabotage it. All of that is probably why only 14% of people think the Tory party best represents low-paid, private sector workers. The sad truth is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and the early gains have been wiped out. In October, those on the minimum wage got a 12p rise while the Government were busy giving millionaire bankers a tax cut worth £100 million. It is funny how that poses so little threat to the economy. In fact, it apparently poses no threat at all, because they are about to give them another one.