Worboys Case and the Parole Board

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The reconsideration process is a way of ensuring that decisions by a Parole Board panel can be tested very thoroughly. On other cases, I have requested that the Department look closely at circumstances where there is a decision to release a category A prisoner directly. That happens very rarely—I think there have only been six in recent months—but I have sought the Department’s reassurance that there is nothing to be concerned about in those cases.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am particularly pleased that the Secretary of State says that other civil legal action will be taken into account in future. I have written to the Department about a case where this is relevant. I had a reply from the Department which is full of errors. I wrote back on 19 January. I have not had a reply. Please could I have a meeting?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. As I mentioned, since 2010 the sentence for rape has gone up by 30%—something that I am sure he would support. On the figures that he asks for, if I may, I will take that question away and see what information can be provided to him.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My constituent, who was raped repeatedly in childhood, came to see me in considerable distress before Christmas because the first she knew that her perpetrator had been released was when he visited the pub next to her place of work. I have raised the matter with the Department, but the letter I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), blamed her for not giving the victim contact scheme her change of address. I would like the Secretary of State to commit to looking again at her case and to apologising to my constituent.

[Mr Gauke]

Obviously, I am not familiar with the case that the hon. Lady raises. As I said earlier, we need to look at communication with victims very closely. Clearly, to communicate, it is necessary for the authorities to have contact details. [Interruption.] We need to find a way to ensure that the relevant authorities have those contact details, so that we can provide the support that the victims want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Universal credit is helping people to get into work and to progress in work. It is also clear that people on universal credit are spending more time looking for work than those on legacy benefits. It is really important that we all work to ensure the success of universal credit. We believe it will result in 250,000 more jobs—something worth achieving.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

What the Secretary of State has repeated again this afternoon falls into the trap of treating everyone on universal credit as if they were out of work. Surely one big issue is the problem of applying conditionality to people who already have jobs?

[Mr Gauke]

The point about universal credit is that it operates when people are out of work and when they are in work. What we will not get is what happens with the legacy system: people worrying about working extra hours in case they find that their claim is closed. That holds people back from progressing. I believe that in-work conditionality has a role to play within our system to ensure that people progress. There is an issue in terms of people who are in work but are none the less receiving substantial support from the taxpayer. We want them to be able to progress to be less dependent on the state. That is what universal credit will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

If the Government are protecting the budget, why is the average cut in my constituency 8%, rising in some village schools, including to 22% in Butterknowle?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, the reality is that the total core schools budget is increasing, and it can increase only if we have a strong economy that can pay for it. It is also right that we have a fairer funding formula to ensure that that money is distributed fairly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

This Government are determined to ensure that we have strong transport infrastructure in the north of England, but I very much hear the points my hon. Friend has made. We have committed to investing an extra £161 million to accelerate the transformation of the M62, and £75 million to improve other road links, including the A66 and the A69. We very much recognise the case he is making and, as I say, as a Government we are determined to ensure that the north of England can fulfil its potential.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Cabinet? Earlier, he was very vague about the European structural funds. Some £800 million of European structural funds were part of the north-east devolution deal. Without a guarantee from the Government, the loss of that money will drive a coach and horses through the deal. [Interruption.] I will give the Minister time to listen to what the Chancellor is saying in the hope that he can come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will guarantee the £800 million.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said earlier, we recognise the need to bring any uncertainty to an end as soon as we possibly can. In the circumstances, it is right that we take a moment before making any guarantees, but let me be absolutely clear that as a Government we remain committed to doing everything we can to strengthen the northern powerhouse and to ensure that the north of England fulfils its full potential, which includes transport infrastructure. On the specific point, we will make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, HMRC has gone through the data and will provide them to the ONS. It is for the ONS to decide the timing, but I have drawn the House’s attention to what it has said.

Returning to the Treasury analysis, it compares one scenario with other scenarios, and all three possible scenarios for leaving the EU would leave this country poorer than we otherwise would be.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The impact of EU membership on jobs is obviously significant. Will the Minister pass on my congratulations to the officials who did the useful analysis that was published yesterday? A regional breakdown on page 65 of the document suggests that 100,000 jobs in the north-east are dependent on EU exports. I had thought that the figure would be 140,000, so will he ask the officials to look at it again with a view to revising it up?

[Mr Gauke]

I will certainly take that representation on board. Of course, the north-east of England has the very large Nissan plant, which provides a significant number of jobs. The argument in the Treasury analysis is that we benefit from an open economy. If we leave the single market, we become a less open economy, which will have a cost to the British people in their living standards.

Budget Changes

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Last May, the British people endorsed our long-term economic plan and we have to stick to it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, the cut in business rates has been welcomed by the small business community. In oral questions an hour ago, Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers said that local authorities would be completely compensated for that reduction, yet there is no sign of that in the Red Book either. Is this not simply another £1.7 billion black hole?

[Mr Gauke]

No, it is not. Local authorities will be compensated.

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds the House of an important point. When we brought in the diverted profits tax, the intention was clearly to make sure that we got more money being paid in corporation tax. We want to stop companies diverting their profits out of the UK, and we are leading the way in bringing forward legislation on this.

Let me address the shadow Chancellor’s point about resources for HMRC. We have invested heavily in HMRC’s ability to strengthen its anti-evasion and compliance activity, including through extra funding and hiring professionals whose area of expertise is multinational companies. For example, contrary to the impression that he gave, the number of people working in HMRC’s large business directorate has gone up, since it was formed in 2014, from 2,000 to 2,600 people. We believe in competitive taxes—that is why we have cut our rate of corporation tax so that it is the lowest in the G7—but we also believe in making sure that those taxes are paid.

I turn to the issue of transparency raised by several hon. Members. Taxpayer confidentiality is a fundamentally important principle of our tax system, as in the tax systems of every other major economy. We hear complaints that HMRC is not disclosing full details of the settlement. HMRC is prevented by law from disclosing taxpayer information. The resolution of tax disputes, however, is subject to full external scrutiny by the independent National Audit Office, which has reviewed how tax inquiries are concluded by HMRC. In 2012, it appointed a retired High Court judge, Sir Andrew Park, to investigate HMRC’s large business settlement process. Sir Andrew concluded that all the settlements he scrutinised

“were reasonable and the overall outcome for the Exchequer was good.”

I do wish that those who are so keen to accuse HMRC and its staff of sweetheart deals were as keen to look at what happens where independent scrutiny occurs in order to see that in fact there are no sweetheart deals. HMRC introduced—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Let me just make this point. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his best in a difficult situation. However, Ministers are not barred by law from publishing the minutes of meetings that they have, so could he now publish the minutes of all 25 meetings that Ministers have had with Google?

[Mr Gauke]

We have a very open and transparent arrangement for disclosure of meetings. I am very clear that when it comes to determining the tax liability of a company such as Google—or, indeed, any other taxpayer in this country—there is no ministerial involvement. HMRC is entirely operationally independent. There is no ministerial interference in such areas, and no suggestion that there would be. When it comes to determining the tax bill of any taxpayer, it is a matter of HMRC enforcing the law; it is not for ministerial involvement. HMRC introduced new governance arrangements for significant tax disputes in 2012 to provide even greater transparency, scrutiny and accountability. They included the appointment of a tax assurance commissioner to ensure that there is clear separation between those who negotiate and those who approve settlements. The tax assurance commissioner oversees the process and publishes an annual report on his work.

Let me be absolutely clear. There are no sweetheart deals, and there is no special treatment for large businesses. HMRC resolves disputes by agreement only if the business agrees to pay the full amount of tax, penalties and interest. Otherwise, it is a matter for the courts—an arena in which HMRC has a strong track record of fighting and winning.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

As I have said, I would not have made a commitment on the upper earnings limit. That is just not my view. Fortunately, in the House of Commons we are free to speak as we find things. We are having this debate and I am making my contribution. I am telling the House that that is not a terribly sensible commitment to make.

The hon. Member for North West Hampshire made some good points about the certainty that small and micro-businesses need, but I ask hon. Members to consider for themselves how many small and micro-businesses are employing people on £150,000 a year. I suggest that not many are doing so. I know that Hampshire is better off than County Durham, but it is not so much better off that every farmer and small shopkeeper is paying themselves and their staff £150,000 a year.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

May I seek some clarity? The hon. Lady said that she would not make a commitment on the upper earnings limit. Is she therefore suggesting that the 12% rate of national insurance contributions should also apply to higher rate income tax payers?

[Helen Goodman]

I am saying that it would be perfectly reasonable to consider that, rather than pre-committing in the way that the Bill is doing. That seems to be common sense.

It is surprising that the Treasury thinks that it can simply continue to switch off policy levers and that that is an intelligent way of carrying on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South has said, commentators including the Financial Times and PricewaterhouseCoopers have pointed out that this measure will force the Government into a more difficult and tricky situation. The position will become more constrained, and it will be more difficult to take sensible decisions on raising money. The Bill will put more pressure on the Government to cut public spending.

Future Government Spending

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

So there we have it—that is the complaint from the Opposition. Their big problem is that we have not cleared up their mess fast enough. That is the essence of their argument. They have opposed every difficult decision we took on the path towards recovery—every spending cut and every welfare change. As for the deficit, they usually forget to mention it. All the rhetoric we are hearing from them is about how they would reverse the decisions that we have taken and presumably turn the clock back to 2010—the time when we had the worst deficit in peacetime history, when we were borrowing £1 for every £4 spent, when we had an economy whose ability to pay its way was questioned internationally, and when the outlook of the Labour Government could be summed up by the note left by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne):

“I’m afraid there is no money.”

This Government have made great steps forward to get us out of that mess. In 2014, our growth rate was 2.6%—the highest of any major advanced economy. Our deficit is down by half as a percentage of GDP. Thanks to the stability that we have put in place, businesses have created 2.16 million private sector jobs since the first quarter of 2010, each and every one representing someone in the UK who is now standing on their own two feet. Some 2.1 million more entrepreneurships have been set up, with over 750,000 more businesses than in 2010. That has all happened under this Government.

[Helen Goodman]

Can the Minister explain why the real Chief Secretary is not responding to this debate? Is it because when the OBR finally audited the Government’s future plans and found that they would take us back to the 1930s, the other coalition partner peeled off and left the Tories isolated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is right that we highlight that point. They do not like our spending plans, but what are they going to do? Are they willing to borrow more? Are they willing to tax more? It must be one or the other or both. Which is it to be: a borrowing bombshell or a tax bombshell?

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way to the hon. Lady. She will give us an answer.

[Helen Goodman]

I want to bring the Minister back to the point he was making about five minutes ago, when he said that there should be £12 billion of cuts to the welfare budget. Would he like to spell out for the House and the nation what those £12 billion of cuts will be?

[Mr Gauke]

We will set out the full details in due course, but we have already said that £3 billion of that will come from freezing benefits. If the Labour party is ruling out touching the welfare budget, which is a considerable part of public spending, where else is the money coming from?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There is no reason to believe that the measure is discriminatory. I will address that point in slightly more detail in a moment.

The third category of people who will not benefit is couples where both members are basic rate taxpayers, but those are the households that have benefited most from the very significant increases in the personal allowance that this Government have been able to deliver. One has to look at the overall package and what this Government have done in terms of cutting taxes. I come back to the point that couples with two earners have benefited significantly, more so than couples with one earner, as a consequence of the personal allowance increase.

I mentioned that the Opposition want to use the money to fund a 10p rate of income tax. They have complained in the course of the debate that the benefit is worth only £3.85 a week. This is about sending a signal. The benefit from the new 10p rate, assuming that it were funded from this, would be in the region of 50p a week, and I am not sure that that would change things significantly.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I am short of time so, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way.

Let me deal with a couple more points. On support for women, it is worth bearing in mind that of the 3.2 million people who have been taken out of income tax, 56% of the beneficiaries are women, and we have done a lot to help with child care. On the practical points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, only the transferor will need to make an election, which will make it administratively easier for couples. We also want to implement the measure through a digital process, but we recognise the need for support for those unable or unwilling to use that method. HMRC will be properly funded to deliver this policy.

Let me conclude by reiterating the purpose of the clause. It is to reinforce the important institution which is marriage—whether gay, straight or civil partnerships—while also providing support for many households that have not been able to benefit fully from our changes to the personal allowance. I therefore request that amendment 3 be withdrawn, and move that clause 11 stand part of the Bill.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Minister did not mention the reverse on VAT for listed places of worship. My constituency has the oldest Baptist church and the oldest Methodist church, so do the changes announced by the Government on listed places of worship apply only to the Church of England or to all denominations?

[Mr Gauke]

They apply to all denominations, but to provide further clarity we made it clear that we would change the level of grant available under the listed places of worship scheme to reflect the need; after consultation with the Churches, we have increased that number, but there is no change to the tax law relating to VAT for listed places of worship.

Child Benefit

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The permutations and problems are too numerous to mention.

We raised our questions with the Minister during the debate in Committee on clause 8 on 19 April. I asked him specifically whether independent taxation for men and women could be maintained. He responded:

“Independent taxation will still apply, each partner will still have their own personal allowance and tax rate bands, and the amount of child benefit, even if it is received by the taxpayer’s partner, will not increase the amount of income liable to tax.”

That is absurd, because it is not what independent taxation means. He continued:

“Where there are two high earners in a household and they do not want to tell each other their incomes, there will be a mechanism whereby they can find out whether they have a higher or lower income but without the full details.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 19 April 2012; c. 617.]

He then said, “my time is up”; he could not explain in any more detail, and we were dismissed. Since then, tax experts at the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants have examined the matter and identified exactly the same problem. The Minister should take account of what hon. Members say. Now that tax experts are saying the same thing, I hope that he has asked his officials to re-examine the matter and can tell us today that he has changed his mind.

When I was first elected in 2005, I had the great pleasure of serving on the Finance Bill Committee with the Minister. He was always telling us what Mrs Gauke thought about things; she is an accountant.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

She is a lawyer.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was coming to that point. I want the Minister to address specifically the point about independent taxation of women. He was shaking his head earlier. I hope he will explain from the Dispatch Box in two minutes’ time how he can maintain it. My hon. Friend is right. As I said, there is an issue, thirdly, of complexity being added to the system.

Finally, the proposal is completely uneconomic. It will be bad for work incentives. People will think, “No, I’m not going to do extra hours.” There will be arguments in families about who does what. It will also mean that some people will refuse promotions. This is no way to make the British economy more efficient.

[Mr Gauke]

We are somewhat short of time. There are two reasons why we may not be able to do the measure justice. First, the Opposition tabled an urgent question, which took an hour out of our debate—[Interruption.] They may groan, but they did. We had agreed that there would be no statements today to allow us to have a proper amount of time. Secondly, the Opposition included in the debate both the clause and the schedule. They need only have put the clause in for us to have the debate. As a consequence, the schedule will not be scrutinised in the Public Bill Committee.

Clause 8 introduces a tax charge on a child benefit recipient or their partner if their income is above £50,000. The changes that we are introducing in the Bill ensure a balance between reducing the cost to the Exchequer of child benefit and ensuring that those on low incomes are not affected. Opposition Members like to forget that the reason why we are making very difficult decisions is the state of the public finances that we inherited. We must ensure that the measures that we take are both fair and reasonable. It is only right and proper that we ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest burden. That is why the measure and others announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Budget—

Budget Leak Inquiry

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I suspect that my hon. Friend is right and apologise to the House for getting that wrong.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

One of the reasons why Budget leaks are particularly serious is that they facilitate tax avoidance. When the Budget speech was leaked in 1984, Lord Howe instituted a police inquiry and everybody working on the Budget was interviewed by the police. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not do the same?

[Mr Gauke]

I know that the hon. Lady speaks with great knowledge on this issue. I agree that it is very important that sensitive information is protected and can assure her that, on the one potentially sensitive area of stamp duty, the Treasury was not involved. If something is announced in the morning, even if it comes into effect at midnight, people still have the opportunity to exchange contracts in the interim period, as indeed was the case when previous Governments raised stamp duty.

Living Standards

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am going to make a little more progress.

We cannot ask our poorest and our most vulnerable to carry the burden; it is right and fair for those with the broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burdens. Those who say that we are not asking the wealthy to pay their fair share are the very same people who are jumping up to oppose reform of child benefit, which will do exactly that.

Under the previous system, about nine out of 10 families with children were eligible to receive tax credits. Under our reforms, the proportion will fall to six out of 10. As is shown by our distributional analysis of the impact of the autumn statement and previous fiscal events, the top 20% of households will make the greatest contribution to reducing the deficit as a percentage of their incomes and benefits in kind from public services.

[Helen Goodman]

Strictly speaking, what the Minister has said is accurate, but he knows as well as we do that the only reason for the positive distributional effect is the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) before the last general election. Surely the Minister can acknowledge that the measures taken by the coalition Government are massively regressive.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for accepting and confirming that all the measures that will be put in place in 2012-13—which we could implement or not implement—are progressive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Consistent with the approach taken at the June Budget, the Government will publish analysis on the Budget’s overall impact on households across the income and expenditure distributions in the Red Book. The Budget is an overall statement of economic policy containing a wide range of measures, and it is not possible to make a robust assessment of its overall impact on specific groups.

[Helen Goodman]

I am surprised by that answer. Since the general election, the Government have made 17 distinct cuts to tax credits and child benefit, which are paid to women. Tomorrow, the Chancellor will announce increases in personal allowances, which will benefit millions more men than women. Does the Minister think it is fair that money should be taken from women to give it to men?

[Mr Gauke]

All I can say is that I am surprised that the hon. Lady is opposed to increases in personal allowances and I suspect that she might be somewhat lonely in the Lobby opposing it.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

In order to achieve that difference in the debt to GDP ratio four years hence, we will see cuts of 25% across most Departments, four times greater than those that Geoffrey Howe tried to impose on the country in the early 1980s. Even so, the tax burden will also rise by £33 billion. We have to question the judgment of a Government who are taking that amount of money out of the British economy.

Another issue is whether the Budget will promote growth. It is clear that in overall terms it will not do so. That is clear from the revisions to the forecasts made by the OBR, which show that growth is down and unemployment is up. Given the huge cuts proposed in the public sector—we heard about the first slice yesterday to the Building Schools for the Future programme—not only will the number of public sector jobs be reduced, but the knock-on effect will be significant increases in job losses in the private sector. The Government’s contention that 2 million private sector jobs can be created is just not credible. That is far more than was achieved in the 1990s when interest rates were cut aggressively and the pound depreciated by 25%. In those years, it took seven years for employment to grow by 1 million. Obviously, interest rates cannot be cut aggressively in the current situation, and it is highly unlikely we will see a depreciation of the pound against the euro, given that the European economies—our largest market—are in the state they are in. Under the Labour Government, 2.5 million jobs were created over 13 years, but that included extra jobs in the public sector, a housing boom and huge increases in financial services. The Government are now putting forward a prospectus that is simply not tenable. The argument that we have to attend to the level of the deficit because private sector investment is being crowded out by the public sector is also not credible, given that the economy has 4% spare capacity.

I turn to the measures in the Bill. On corporation tax, the coalition Government are cutting the rates—this is a long-standing pattern with the Tories—while cutting the allowances. What will that do for growth? How will that enable the economy to be rebalanced in the way the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills says is so important? Cutting allowances for investment is bad for manufacturing. The small and medium-sized firms in my constituency, where there is a lot of engineering and small manufacturing, provide several examples demonstrating what the problems are. Over the past month, I have visited two firms that make packaging, which means they supply the retail industry. Obviously, if shops are not doing very well, those firms are not doing very well. Clearly, they need a lot of big machinery to make the packaging, and if they are to continue to have the new, up-to-date machinery to do that, they need investment allowances.

Not so long ago, I visited a building and joinery firm that also has a lot of expensive machinery that it needs to keep up to date, and it also needs these investment allowances. Its contracts are largely dependent on the public sector and on schools and police stations being refurbished, so these cuts in the public sector will have huge knock-on effects in the private sector. Let us take a final example: a chemicals firm making sealant for aircraft. How will it fare with cuts to the defence budget, which is one of the budgets not being protected? Once again we have a complete picture that is totally incoherent. What the Government offer in practice and what they say they want to achieve are two completely different things.

Many hon. Members have commented on the unfairness of the low level of the bank levy and on the fact that the banks will gain more from the corporation tax cuts than they will lose from the increase in the bank levy. However, no one has asked why the bank levy is only being introduced from 1 January 2011. I would like Treasury Ministers to explain why there is a delay in the introduction of the bank levy. Surely that gives the banks a lot of time to move their assets around and avoid this tax, at which, as we all know, the financial services are particularly adept.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

indicated dissent.

[Helen Goodman]

The Minister shakes his head. They clearly do not know the answer.

The Conservative-Liberal coalition cannot agree on its environmental policy either, which is presumably why, rather than acting on environmental taxes, we now have yet another commission to look into the climate change levy. Once again, therefore, a potentially progressive measure is being put on the backburner. We do not know when it will happen. We do not know when we will see progress on it.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the unfairness of VAT. The Government claim that they had no choice, but of course they had a choice, and they have made it. Their choice has been to change the national insurance regime and replace the increase in national insurance with an increase in VAT. However, one of the things that the Government will not admit is that VAT is also a tax on jobs. VAT also drives a wedge between the cost on employers for the goods and service that employees buy, and what they pay for them, so the notion that we can have an increase in VAT without seeing an impact on the number of jobs in the economy is yet another fantasy.

The Government have not explained what they are doing about the lower rate of VAT, on essentials, and many Opposition Members would like some clarification on that.

The third and final issue that I would like to discuss is fairness in the income tax and benefits system. The Liberal Democrats say that raising the personal allowance is their major attempt to be fair to poor people. The attempt is being made, but it has not produced the upshot that the Liberal Democrats are looking for. Rather, it has failed, because they have not taken account of the interaction with the tax credit reductions and the cuts in welfare benefits.

The distribution figures on page 66 of the Red Book purport to show what the position in the Budget is. However, a day or so later, we all discovered that chart A2, entitled “Impact of all measures as a per cent of net income by income distribution”, in fact included not just the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in announcing his June Budget, but the measures taken previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, which were jumbled up with them. When those figures were stripped out and separated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we could see that the distributional impacts were totally different. Whereas my right hon. Friend’s Budget took less than 0.5% from the poorest and almost 7% from the richest, the June Budget took 2.5% from the poorest and 0.5% from the richest, so the claim of fairness is completely fraudulent.