Finance Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
That is the first time I have heard a Finance Bill being called a consultation—I do not even know where to start.
The Budget in March also included a 3p rise in fuel duty in August and limits on charitable donations. All this was necessary, we were told, to deal with the deficit. Yet the Bill before us, as we reach Third Reading, contains none of those measures. We have had a series of abrupt reversals that, according to one estimate, will cost the Exchequer nearly £700 million.
Opposition Members argued that these measures were misconceived from the start, and that adding to the costs faced by families and small business at this time would make it even harder for our economy to climb out of the recession that this Government have dug us into. But it must be a matter of regret that so much uncertainty and confusion has been created for those affected, doing real damage to businesses, charities, pensioners and families, and that at a time of tight public finances the Government’s financial and fiscal planning seems to be in such disarray, with no one at all clear what the Government’s priorities actually are.
Despite the Government’s belated change of heart on those matters, the Bill remains a deeply flawed, unfair and utterly inadequate response to the problems facing our country today and that is why the Opposition will vote against it this evening. The Bill still offends against the most basic principles of fairness by giving priority to a reckless and irresponsible tax cut worth tens of thousands of pounds for a few thousand millionaires while at the same time asking millions of ordinary people who are already under pressure from rising prices, falling wages and cuts to tax credits and benefits to make further sacrifices and endure further hardship.
The Bill breaks a promise that the Chancellor made in the Budget last year to Britain’s pensioners that their age-related allowance would rise in line with inflation for the rest of this Parliament and instead imposes a stealth tax that will hit 4.5 million people over the age of 65, all of whom live on modest pension savings. The Bill is breaking the principle of universal child benefit and still means that one-earner families will lose thousands of pounds a year while a two-earner family on almost twice as much will keep all their benefit. It is a botched, half-baked measure dreamt up for a party conference speech but the measures are described by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as a “policy disaster” that are
“in danger of becoming a practical disaster when they come into effect”.
We have raised a number of other concerns about the Bill, such as the controlled foreign companies changes and the impact that they will have on developing countries. What is most wrong with the Bill, however, is that it represents a massive missed opportunity to end the recession and get our economy working for ordinary working families, pensioners, businesses and young people. It could have been a Bill that took the tough decisions necessary to ensure that those who could make a fair contribution to deficit reduction did so, so that those hit hardest by the current crisis were not put under even more pressure.
It could have been a Bill that cut VAT, giving immediate relief to hard-pressed families and giving our economy the stimulus it needs to get growth under way again and to make unemployment fall. It could have been a Bill that redirected money wasted on excessive bank bonuses and put those resources to better use, helping young people get back to work and constructing new affordable homes.
Rachel Reeves
The Government are borrowing £150 billion more. That is the cost of the Government’s failed economic policies. The reality is that with more people out of work claiming benefits and fewer people in work paying taxes, Government borrowing is higher and not lower.
Finance Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that child benefit as we have traditionally understood it has had one great advantage, in that not only does it recognise the role of women in bringing up children, but its universality has ensured that there is virtually no fraud or error, and nor does it in any way add to the unemployment or poverty trap?
Cathy Jamieson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is important to understand that the fact that this was a universal benefit ensured that everyone who ought to have had it and who needed it was able to get it. When we debated this topic in the House previously, some Members tried to characterise our concerns about these proposals as Labour trying to protect a universal benefit paid to high earners, rather than looking at the overall principled position, and some may try to do so again this evening. I should repeat what I said both earlier this evening and in that earlier debate: that kind of argument does not wash at all in terms of fairness from a Government who have given a tax cut to millionaires while millions of ordinary families are feeling the pinch.
During the earlier debate, I also reminded Members of article 27 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which the UK has signed up to. It outlines the obligations on states to assist parents to meet the needs of their children, and I pointed out that a number of organisations—as well as a number of Members—had highlighted the importance of those obligations. Sadly, that exhortation to make this debate about fairness to children and families seems to have gone largely unheeded, apart from some honourable exceptions. There have been Westminster Hall debates looking at this issue in more detail, in which a number of Members highlighted both the unfairness of the proposals and their practical difficulties.
Mr Gauke
Clause 8 introduces a new income tax charge that will be used to withdraw child benefit from a claimant or their partner who receives income of more than £50,000. The charge will reduce the cost of child benefit to the Exchequer while protecting those on low incomes. This measure, like so many others, is a consequence of the previous Government’s profligacy. We are having to make these decisions because of the budget deficit that we inherited—the largest in peacetime history. Unfortunately, it is the British people who have to pay for the debt left by the last Administration. Without addressing the deficit we will face sterner economic conditions, so we are having to ask for more. However, we will do that in a way that is both fair and reasonable, and this measure will ensure that those on low incomes will remain unaffected and those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden.
Although reconsidering the universality of child benefit was never our first choice, it is the position we have been left. I recognise that many people are concerned about the change and believe that child benefit must somehow be sacrosanct. However, it simply is not fair that an individual who earns £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000 should pay for benefits for those earning £80,000, £90,000 or £100,000. When a Government need to raise revenue, it makes sense to turn to a measure with a broad base and significant numbers of recipients who do not rely on the additional payment that they receive. Child benefit is just such a payment. The steps that we are taking will raise £1.8 billion for the Exchequer by 2014-15.
Mr Leigh
What conceivable political point is there in a Conservative Government attacking 1 million of our own people—hard-working people on middle incomes and families in which someone, usually a woman, wants to stay at home to look after a child? What are a Conservative Government doing?
Mr Gauke
Speaking as a Conservative, I consider that all the British people are our people.
By raising £1.8 billion by 2014-15, we will ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. That was why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we would seek to withdraw child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. We always said that we would consider ways to implement the measure, but we have been clear that a complicated new means-testing system, which is what would happen if we extended the tax credits system in the way that some have proposed, would not be a sensible way forward. Instead, we should look to existing systems and processes to ensure that we can achieve our goal.
Clause 8 withdraws financial gain from child benefit from families in which one partner has an income of more than £60,000, and reduces the gain if one partner has an income of more than £50,000. It does so in the most efficient and pragmatic way possible, applying a tax charge on those high earners using existing processes. That charge will apply to an individual in receipt of child benefit, or to their partner if they are married or in a civil partnership or living as if they were married or in a civil partnership—a point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made. That is an existing definition of partners within social security legislation and means that other adults living in the household will not affect the liability.
The changes will not affect those receiving child benefit who have income under £50,000, or whose partner does. Some 85% of families receiving child benefit, or 7 million families, need not be troubled by the changes. If an individual or their partner has income of more than £50,000, the charge will be tapered depending on their income. The equivalent of 1% of the child benefit award will be charged for every £100 increase over £50,000 in adjusted net income. Child benefit will be withdrawn in full only at an income of £60,000. Furthermore, the thresholds between which the taper will operate will not depend on the number of children.
The changes will take effect from 7 January 2013, and the individuals affected will include information relating to the charge on their self-assessment returns for the first time for the tax year 2012-13. The first payments of the charge will be due by 31 January 2014 if a taxpayer chooses to pay in a lump sum. Those affected will be able to opt out of child benefit payments—that answers a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) asked. Some may wish to do so, although Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will set out clearly the options and implications. For example, if an individual’s income were to fall below £60,000, they may revoke their election not to receive child benefit, and payments would be resumed.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is another of the behavioural consequences, the full implications of which are not yet apparent.
One has to ask why we are going down this road. The justification for it—the avowed policy objective—is this:
“In order to address the fiscal deficit, the Government believes that it is right to ask those on higher incomes to contribute more.”
The Government’s proposal, however, asks those on higher incomes with families and children to contribute more, while those on higher incomes without children are not asked to contribute more. I do not see how that can be fair.
In case anyone thinks this is an issue discussed only among academics, let me say that it certainly goes very close to the heart of many of my constituents. I shall quote briefly from a letter that I received since the Budget from a constituent living in Christchurch. He starts off:
“I am writing to express my utter disgust and outrage at your party’s stance on child allowance announced in the budget last week.”
He explains that he and his wife choose to work hard, believing that they have a responsibility
“to look after ourselves and to help to generate wealth for the wider community”
by contributing their utmost to industry. He says that he has an income of £60,000 and that his wife earns £12,000, providing a combined income of £72,000. As he puts it:
“under your disgusting new Tax rules we will lose the child benefit for our two children. However, in a household with two working parents earning £40,000 each, combined income of significantly more…that family gets to keep their benefit.”
Mr Chope
Before I give way to my hon. Friend, let me read the last paragraph:
“I ask for your commitment to continue your fight against this latest most disgusting taxation scheme on child allowance and rally your fellow back benchers against the current disgraceful and unethical budget.”
Mr Leigh
Unfortunately, we are introducing more and more complexity. For example, the new charge must be paid by the higher earner, who might not be claiming child benefit when the lower earner is claiming, even though the lower earner is not legally obliged to inform the higher earner whether he or she is claiming child benefit. This is an absurdity, making our tax system even more complex.
Mr Gauke
I recognise that not everyone wants to address the matter and that there are those who do not want to change the position whereby people earning £20,000 or £25,000 a year are paying taxes to fund child benefit for substantially wealthier families, and I realise that arguments are made to defend that. But if we are to do something about it, we have a choice. Do we do this through a tax credit system, which means putting everybody through that system, and doing it on a household basis, or do we try to find an alternative way of doing it that reduces the administrative demands? I do not deny that there is complexity in this method, but relatively, we believe that this is the simpler way of doing it.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
No, I really want to make some progress.
None of that has been changed by the Budget announcement. There is a borderline that causes confusion between repairs and alterations. The Budget decision also reflects the view that grants provide a more flexible mechanism than VAT for providing specific financial support for heritage—
Mr Leigh
This is a key point. The Government have announced that they will increase the listed places of worship grant scheme by £5 million, but they have cut it from £23 million to £7 million, so that is totally inadequate. What we want tonight is a commitment from them that they will resolve the problem. Half the ancient buildings in this land are run by the Church of England, by ordinary people who want to support their local communities. The Government must compromise on this issue.
Mr Gauke
I refer my hon. Friend to the comments that I made before his intervention.
Let me respond briefly to what was said by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). We are restricted in regard to what we can do for public transport. If we provided a reduced rate for passenger transport, we would not be able to focus it entirely on charities; it would apply more widely to taxis.
Taxing static holiday caravans and larger touring caravans will bring their treatment into line with that of other holiday accommodation. VAT is already paid on mobile caravans, camper vans, canal narrow boats and camping equipment. We therefore propose to replace the current definition of a zero-rated caravan, which is based on size, with a new definition based on whether the caravan is designed for residential use. We are considering applying British Standard 3632, and are also considering an additional test. However, I have received representations from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) arguing against that, and we will examine those arguments closely.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend speaks from her knowledge of her constituency in Hull and of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which will be particularly affected by changes to the caravan tax.
I was in Leicester on Thursday last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), speaking to small businesses which will be affected by the changes to VAT on hot snacks. Many businesses are worried, about both the additional tax they will have to pay and the additional bureaucracy of form-filling. As hon. Members said, it is not at all clear at which point VAT will stop being charged. What temperature does the food have to be, or by how much must it have cooled down before the tax rate goes to 0% from 20%?
We will also have a chance this week to debate and vote on important tax simplification measures. Given the generous decision of the Chancellor to simplify the tax arrangements of 4.4 million pensioners, I am surprised that they are not more grateful. That tax simplification will cost pensioners £83 a year on average and will cost hundreds of thousands of people who are coming up for retirement next year up to £322 a year.
The Chief Secretary referred to the Office of Tax Simplification. Its tax director has registered his concern about the changes to the tax allowance for pensioners and has said that the Government’s claim that they were only following its recommendations
“was not 100 per cent accurate”.
Meanwhile, Age UK was moved to write to the Chancellor about the change to tax allowances for pensioners. It stated:
“Age UK supports the OTS review of pensioner taxation and was very pleased to have been invited to be represented on the consultative committee. However given the OTS was set up with the aim of providing”
the Chancellor
“with independent expert advice on simplification we are very surprised and disappointed that”
he has
“announced a change to simplify the system without waiting for that advice.”
Contrary to coalition spin, this tax simplification will hit not those with big pension pots, but people with personal or occupational pensions that pay around £5,000 a year. It will hit people who worked in ordinary jobs for modest salaries, and who made sacrifices during their working lives to put away just enough to give themselves a small pension, which means that they do not need to depend on means-tested benefits in retirement. It is simply not true that they have been insulated from the effects of the current economic climate and other changes to taxation. Pensioners have been hit hard by VAT, quantitative easing, cuts to services that they rely on—not least the national health service—and massive increases in the heating and electricity bills for their homes. Older people deserve better than this mean-minded, penny-pinching measure. If Government Members agree, they will have a chance to vote down the granny tax later this week.
It tells people all they need to know about this Government’s priorities and the balance of power in the coalition that when the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would agree to cut the 50p rate if it was paid for by a mansion tax and the Opposition said that we would support a mansion tax if it was used to relieve the pressure on ordinary hard-working families, the Chancellor forgot the mansion tax, cut the 50p rate anyway and paid for it with a raid on pensioners’ incomes and a raid on charities.
Finally, we will offer the Chancellor a last chance to make good the great omission of the Bill—its failure to offer a shred of hope to the 1 million young people who are desperate to find work and its failure to do anything about the fact that long-term youth unemployment has more than doubled in the past year. Our amendment will open the way for the funding of a guaranteed job for every young person who is out of work for more than a year—a job that they would have to take up. That is the kind of measure that our country is crying out for. It would change the lives of thousands of young people and transform the prospects for our economy. It could easily be funded by raising new resources from the banking sector, which still squanders billions on bonuses while doing little to support British businesses and families. We will therefore offer Members a chance to vote for the reinstatement of the tax on bank bonuses to fund the creation of 100,000 new jobs for young people and the construction of 25,000 new affordable homes.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the 50p tax rate was such a painless revenue raiser, why did the Labour Government take 13 years to implement it?
Rachel Reeves
As the Chancellor once said, we are all in it together, and if we have a deficit to reduce it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear a little more of the burden. That was why the former Chancellor increased the top rate of tax to 50p. This Government have reduced it and are instead asking millions of ordinary families and pensioners to pay more so that millionaires can pay less. That is their priority; the Opposition’s priorities are very different.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Everything that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) says would be fair enough if what this Government were doing were any different from what a Labour Government would have been doing at precisely this time. The public sometimes lose track of the reality of the situation that we are in. We politicians talk in terms of billions or—perhaps soon—trillions of pounds, but a constituent put it to me like this, offering a better way of describing our situation. It is as if we were somebody who had an income of £50,000, who had knocked up a credit card debt of another £50,000, and who had promised to repay £4,000 of it but was actually repaying only £2,000. We are in a dire financial situation. I suggest that whoever were in government at this time would be doing much the same. In fact, I suggest that what the Government are doing is the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.
We have had a lot of debate about the ratings agency, and I am sure that the Labour party is gearing up to tease the Government if there is any decline in our rating score, yet if we did anything less than what we are doing to address this deficit, we would be in dire trouble with the markets, and I have no doubt that interest rates would eventually have to rise, with all the consequences we know about for businesses and for ordinary mortgage payers. I therefore do not accept this apocalyptic view of the Government’s proposals. As I say, the Government are doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain market confidence.
I do not accept either the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that there is some sort of right-wing plot—that we have been waiting for years for this crisis in order to take a stab at Keynesian politics and that, really, all we are interested in is a slash and burn of the public services. It is hardly a slash and burn, given the sort of figures we are talking about. In fact, Government spending is as high as it has ever been. All we are doing is trying to get to some sort of grip with the deficit.
Personally, I have always argued that the economy would benefit from deregulation and from simplification particularly of the tax system, leaving aside the total size of the public sector. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House could accept that what is needed is simplification. How, then, are we going to get it?
I spoke in the Budget debate at about 6 o’clock. Such is the complexity of the modern Budget process that it is difficult for people to get a handle on what is going on as it is being enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was teased by one of the Whips because, apparently, precisely as I stood to say that it was a courageous Budget, coincidentally all the press started turning against the Government—and it has been pretty bad ever since. I say that it is courageous because the Chancellor has started to take some difficult decisions to simplify the tax system. We have heard a good speech about charitable giving. So much of the so-called bad publicity that the Government have attracted over the Easter break—whether it be over the so-called granny tax or charitable giving or child benefit or all the other problematic areas—shows that the Chancellor is beginning to try to address these appallingly difficult structural problems.
There has been a lot of talk about the Titanic this week—nobody should worry, as I am not going to repeat the tired old cliché about deck chairs—and I think that the whole structure of the ship is wrong when it comes to the tax system. The ship is unbelievably badly built, and it is gradually sinking under us. What I have found in listening to 28 successive Budgets in this Chamber is that the tax system has become progressively more complex. It was possible 25, 30 or 35 years ago for a Chancellor to come across as providing a reasonably coherent lecture in his Budget statement—we all used to get very excited because tax on whisky or the basic rate of tax was going to go up or down by 1p—but such levels of complexity have been loaded on to the whole tax process that it has become virtually impossible for any Chancellor to come out on Budget day with any coherent proposal that is not in succeeding days unpicked and trashed because of the hundreds of pages of small print. If the structure is fundamentally flawed—it is, I think, the longest tax code in the world apart from India, and one of the most complex in the world—it is virtually impossible for any Chancellor to get a grip on it. I have never made any secret of my personal belief that we have to be prepared to be radical. We cannot just try to improve the structure; we have to go back to first steps and argue what we really believe in. What I really believe in is a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of tax.
I have recently read an excellent book written by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), about the 19th century statesman John Bright. He was wholly uninterested in politics, but was a substantial statesman, who continually argued in terms of retrenchment, sound public services and a sound financial system. He said:
“Better teach the people something good for the future than resign oneself to work institutions already in existence”.
I suspect that too many politicians—I do not blame those on the Treasury Bench, as I know what they are paid to do—are fundamentally doing what John Bright did not want to do, which is resign themselves to work institutions already in existence. I think that the purpose of politics, certainly for those on the Back Benches, is to try as John Bright said to try to teach the people something good for the future.
I believe that this idea of a much simplified tax system or a flatter and ultimately a flat rate of tax, which has always been dismissed as an idea of the radical right, is of increasing interest to those on the left. Why? We have heard a great deal about tax avoidance, and the more complex the tax system, the easier it is to avoid it. Every time we try to deal with the problem, we create more loopholes and more difficulties, making it easier for the rich to avoid paying tax. With a much flatter—ideally, flat—rate of taxes, there is no possibility for avoidance. The TUC claims—I am sure it is right; it is not known to be a particularly right-wing organisation—that tax avoidance results in a loss to the Treasury of £13 billion a year from individuals and £12 billion a year from corporations.
To make another left-wing point, some politicians have recently had a bad press; they have been standing for various public offices or arriving in this House with good incomes outside politics, but instead of paying tax like the rest of us at the basic and then higher rates, they have put their money into private companies in order to pay much lower rates. Some politicians in America who have huge incomes, including some bidding to become President, have had a very bad press, as we found that they paid minimal rates of taxation. Why is this? It is because the tax codes in both countries are so complex that the rich and the powerful can always avoid paying tax. They cannot do that, however, under a much simplified tax system.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend not think that politicians should give a lead? It is not just Ken Livingstone who has been egregiously avoiding paying tax. It is clear from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that some Labour Members have been routing their funds into private service companies. Should that not be stopped; should not politicians set an example?
Mr Leigh
I do not want to ruin my argument and I do not want to lose any support that I might have from my friends on the Opposition Benches by recommending a tax on particular Labour politicians. The trouble is that there is always a huge temptation for anyone with a high income—a politician, an entertainer or a business man—to listen to the advice provided by chartered accountants. They will say, quite rightly, “Oh dear, why is a successful chap like you”—a successful chap like, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who doubtless has a very large income—“paying all this tax, when you could be setting up a small company and paying about 11%?”
In the past I have argued for a much flatter, ideally flat, rate of tax throughout earned income, but now I will be even more radical, and suggest that there is an increasing case for transposing that to small company income. I am not privileged to serve on the Treasury Bench, and I do not have teams of civil servants to advise me. I constantly come up with ideas such as this during Finance Bill debates, and I can produce figures, but I do not know whether they are correct. I have been told that a flat-rate tax of 22% with a £15,000 allowance would result in a reduction of £63 billion in tax revenue in the first year. Although I believe that the extraordinary savings that would be made through the ending of tax avoidance might well enable us to claw that back, there is no point in my simply going to the Library and then coming up with figures.
I see that the Minister is busily scribbling down every one of my pearls of wisdom at this precise moment. It would be really nice if, rather than just saying at 10 or 10.30 tonight “I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for making such an interesting speech”, he wrote to me in the next week or two, when he has the necessary leisure, telling me—on the basis of the Treasury model—how much of the cost of avoidance could be saved through the adoption of a much flatter, or ideally a flat, rate of taxation, under which it would increasingly not be worth people’s while to try to shift their income from one pot to another. Is that, in fact, such a radical idea? Has it been tried out anywhere else? Well, of course it has.
As I have said, the size of the UK tax code has more than doubled since 1997. The present situation is absurd. The Chancellor is doing his best, but whereas 15% of taxpayers will pay a higher rate in 2012, only 3% paid it in 1978. Graphs showing the rise and fall in people’s incomes according to whether they have one child or more feature extraordinarily sudden and tremendous blips because of the child benefit clawback from people who earn more than £50,000 a year, of which I have been very critical. I do not know whether this is correct, but I have been told that a family with three children and an income of between £50,000 and £60,000 faces an additional effective marginal tax rate of 24%, on top of income tax and national insurance. I cannot believe that the Chancellor wanted to impose such a sudden, steep burden of taxation on middle-income taxpayers.
Many Members favour helping people on very low incomes. I happen to believe that the best way of helping poor people is not to churn more and more tax and benefits in their direction so that they have very high marginal tax rates—as high as 73% in the case of those who increase their earnings if they earn less than £10,000—but to take them out of tax altogether. Let me say to my Liberal friends that the one good thing that they have done in recent years is to present that argument, and I think that they have made their case. An extraordinary burden has been placed on people on lower incomes, who have been taxed far too much far too early.
I believe that my idea of a flat rate of tax is not such a radical or bad idea but one that could appeal across the spectrum, and I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to consider it carefully. Otherwise, every time the Chancellor seeks to tamper with the screws and the bolts on the Titanic to ensure that those watertight compartments do not just reach halfway up the forward decks but reach the top so that the thing does not sink, he will produce a Budget that sounds good on the first day but will be unpicked and unpicked.
I think that, rather like John Bright, the Chancellor needs to see that shining light on the horizon. He needs to say, “This is my strategy, this is my philosophy, this is what I want to do. I want to say to the British people that ultimately I will take pretty much the same share of the cake as has been taken in recent years.” We all know that, for all Mrs Thatcher’s reputation for being such a right-wing radical Prime Minister, it was only after many years that, by an almost infinitesimal margin, she gradually reduced the extent of the state’s take from ordinary people. It may be impossible for the Chancellor to make a great deal of difference in those terms, but he can say, “This is my strategy. I want to be upfront and fair to the British people, so that they know exactly where they stand. If you have an income of £300,000, I will take a third of it: I will take £100,000. If you have an income of £100,000, I will take £33,000—and so on across the spectrum.” Then there will not be all the hillocks and valleys and clawbacks and allowances and churning of benefits and taxation.
I am, in a sense, sympathetic to the philosophy behind what the Chancellor has been trying to do with child benefit. Why should middle-income earners pay tax at a certain level and then be handed it back in child benefit? I agree with the Chancellor that that is absurd. However, he got himself into a dreadful mess by taking the appalling step that meant that the moment there was one higher-rate taxpayer in a family, all that family’s child benefit vanished. I thought that that was very unfair on a family in which one person worked and another, usually the wife or female partner, wanted to stay at home and look after the children. I am not suggesting that such an arrangement is better or worse than the other form of family life, but I believe that it is simply unfair, which is why I have argued for a marriage tax allowance.
I will do a deal with the Chancellor. I will give up my campaign against his reduction in child benefit and my campaign against his continued failure to introduce a marriage tax allowance, despite what he said in his manifesto, if he will say to me, “I will get rid of all these allowances, and introduce a greatly simplified tax system which is fair and equitable for all classes of people.”
I agree that there should not be a tax system that distorts people’s choices. I agree that any attempt to influence behaviour through the tax system, whether it affects marriage, children, mortgage tax relief—as in the old days—or, now, charitable giving, will produce perverse incentives. It will cause people to adjust their behaviour to reduce their tax bills rather than doing what is right, and I want people to do what they feel to be right. I want the state to be open, fair and upfront about what it is going to take, and I want the Chancellor to come to the House and say in his next Budget “This is my strategy, and this is my belief.”
I accept that—bravely, courageously, with great difficulty, and in the face of an enormous amount of bad publicity over the last three weeks—the Chancellor has taken the first essential steps towards getting rid of those allowances, and I am prepared to stand by him. I am prepared to be unpopular over the granny tax, because I can see where he was coming from. The Chancellor considered it absurd for people to be paid that allowance. Although it was apparently very popular, when there was talk of abolishing it, no one remembered that it had been introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925. I am prepared to be unpopular by supporting the Chancellor on all those issues if he is prepared to enunciate his philosophy of creating a fairer and simpler tax system. That is a fair deal, I think.
Amendment of the Law
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who always makes his arguments well. I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole of the rest of the debate; I wish to attend the memorial service downstairs for David Atkinson. I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to him on the Floor of the House. He served the House with tremendous distinction for many years, particularly in the Council of Europe. He was particularly hard-working on promoting democracy throughout Europe.
I see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), on the Opposition Benches. We have been in the House together for a long time, and we have heard many Budgets. I said to my wife this morning, “We have heard so many Budgets. Will this be just another Budget that takes with one hand and gives with the other?” but I think it is a very courageous Budget that is rather different from many that I have heard. I have sat through so many—from Nigel Lawson, John Major and the previous leader of the Labour party.
The Budget is courageous for two reasons. First, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is persevering with dealing with the deficit, which is the greatest problem that we face. Politically, it is in the interests of the Labour party to claim that we are indulging in a tremendous campaign of cutting everything in sight. One of the problems that it faces is that it knows perfectly well—as do the public—that, if it had remained in power, as it very nearly did, it would have done much the same as us. It is also politically convenient for the Government, of course, to proclaim that they are taking difficult decisions, but we are probably not cutting public expenditure enough to keep interest rates low. We are cutting what would otherwise have been a runaway increase in the deficit, and that is very different indeed.
The decisions that the Chancellor faces are extraordinarily difficult, and he is conducting himself very well. I have watched him ever since he was a freshman Member of Parliament, serving on the Public Accounts Committee. What he is achieving, both on the deficit and on many other things, is important and courageous. The other brave thing that he has done today is deal with the issue of the 50p top rate of tax. I know that that is not necessarily populist. I listened to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, which was very good, and afterwards I congratulated him on it. It was good politics, and it appealed to his people, but the question that the Labour party has to ask itself is: does it want its leader to give a speech that appeals to his core supporters, or a speech that addresses the real problems of the country? This is the problem in respect of the top rate income tax payers: the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 28% of total taxes and they are highly mobile in the way that they conduct their lives and their businesses, and simply imposing a 50p tax—which Tony Blair and Mandelson resisted year after year—does not actually achieve anything for the economy. It may be good Labour politics, but it does not achieve anything for the economy. As we heard from the Chancellor today, it is only giving us about £100 million. Therefore, although this measure may not be popular, it has to be taken if we are to revive entrepreneurship.
The task facing the Chancellor is very difficult and complex, but he has set about it in the right way. He is trying to close many of the tax loopholes. The difficulty here, however, is that we do not want the very rich just to bury their money in the ground. Instead, we want them to be “white knights”, to set up businesses and to become entrepreneurs. Indeed, many of the so-called tax avoidance schemes were designed by previous Governments to encourage the rich to invest in business.
The Chancellor has also taken a brave decision on child benefit. I was critical of his original proposals, although I understand why he suggested them. There was the overriding need to deal with the deficit, and his child benefit reforms were going to save £2.5 billion. There was also a desire to “detoxify” the Tory brand, and to attack higher income tax payers. There may have been some pressures within the coalition, too. However, we all know that the Chancellor’s original proposal would, as it were, have created a cliff edge and would have been fundamentally unfair, because the situation would have been very different for a family with one higher tax earner than for a family with two taxpayers whose earnings are just below the £41,000 limit.
The Chancellor has taken the courageous and right decision to try to deal with that problem, but we still have a long way to go, and I believe that a better way forward would be to have a tax allowance. That would solve the problem of the higher income tax payer family. In France, instead of getting child benefit, couples are given a family tax allowance, which is spread between themselves and their children, irrespective of their income. An adult counts as one unit of tax allowance, and children count as half units. Therefore, a married couple with two children are given three units-worth of tax allowance. As a result, the level of income at which they start to pay tax is higher than it would be in Britain. That system has the added advantage of addressing the perverse incentives against family life and couples staying together.
I will continue to argue that the Government must fulfil their pledge to recognise marriage in the tax system. Critics of my arguments often say, “Just a little tax break isn’t going to make people get married or stay married.” That is perfectly true, but what we currently have is almost a perverse incentive against family life. A married couple where one parent stays at home to look after the children are hugely more taxed than almost any other taxpayer. We do not want to create a tax break for marriage because we think that that alone will deal with the wider problems; we just want to right an injustice.
The Chancellor has remained true to the overriding need to have a fiscally neutral Budget and to attack the deficit, has demonstrated a determination to promote entrepreneurship even if that means taking unpopular decisions, and has courageously recognised that he may have made a mistake on child benefit and that he should try to reform the system in a more equitable way. Although the Budget may not be popular with everybody, it is certainly a good Budget, and the right Budget for the nation.
Financial Services Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Well, that is a bit like the John Cleese sketch—the right hon. Gentleman started it by creating the biggest banking crisis in this country’s history. We are trying to clear it up. That is what this Bill is about. In all those interventions, we heard not one word about whether he will support what we are doing to clear up the mess he created.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does not the ding-dong of the last four or five minutes illustrate the dangers of political interference in regulation? Once we get back to the subject of the Bank of England, and given that the top 1% of taxpayers provide 28% of total taxes, can we have regulation in the future less by populism on bonuses, salaries and the rest, and more by the raising of the right eyebrow of the Governor of the Bank of England?
Mr Osborne
The key issue in our regulatory system that we are seeking to restore is judgment by the regulator, and I will explain how the Bill will enable us to do that. I agree with my hon. Friend that the financial services are an incredibly important industry for this country. They employ more people than any other industry in Britain and, crucially, its proper regulation is not only good for the economy, but essential to prevent taxpayers from being exposed to what they have been exposed to in recent years.
Banking Commission Report
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I do not think that it automatically follows that if we ring-fence the banks, we double the number of bankers. It is our intention, yes, to have a successful financial services industry, which is very important in Derbyshire, Cheshire, where my constituency is, the west midlands and Scotland, as well as in the City of London.
However, we do not want our entire economy to be in hock to the City of London; that is what we are seeking to avoid. We do not want to put all our bets on the City of London. That is what happened over the last 13 years, and it went disastrously wrong. The Government are determined to build up other sectors of the economy, including manufacturing and small businesses. The very fact that later today we are debating the Government’s apprenticeship programme shows our commitment as a Government to building up those other industries.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
After these reforms, will our banks be more or less regulated than their international competitors?
Mr Osborne
In certain respects, they will be more regulated compared with some other regimes. Obviously, the ring-fencing requirement that we are introducing is not present in every other financial centre. However, it is an appropriate course of action for the UK, given the size of our banking system relative to our GDP—it is 500% of our GDP; the United States banking system is only 100% of its GDP. As I said, there is now quite a lot of international interest in what we are doing, so we may find that other financial centres follow our lead.
The Economy
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) suggests that RBS should be made into a national investment bank and that it would then be our saviour. I wonder whether he watched a programme on BBC2 yesterday, which relayed the entire history of how it cost the nation £20 billion. I am not sure it is an entirely good model, therefore.
First, I want to say a few words about what is happening in Europe this week. An express train is coming in our direction in the shape of the putative agreement between the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. The shadow Chancellor said we should learn the lessons of history. Well, I have been reading about the congress of Vienna, and it is extraordinary how history repeats itself. Our whole national policy in those days—and for 300 years—was to prevent an agglomeration of power on the continent. Indeed, Napoleon created the continental system precisely to exclude us from the continent. That is why we fought so many wars over the centuries.
We are now faced with a worrying situation. If the eurozone creates fiscal and monetary union, we will, of course, voluntarily exclude ourselves from that. However, although we may exclude ourselves from the euro, because of qualified majority voting the eurozone countries will have not just influence but enormous power over our financial institutions. We should be extremely worried about that. Over the next few days the Prime Minister must ensure that we have real protection from what will be going on.
There has been much comment about the EU financial transaction tax. We may be able to refuse to implement it, or be given an opt-out. I certainly hope that that is the case, because the City of London is the global derivatives trading centre. Astonishingly, it accounts for 45% of all global trades in interest-rate derivatives, and this tax could cost us £26 billion. Vague reassurances are not enough.
The ex-head of the Financial Services Authority has recently said that between 80% and 90% of our prudential rule book originates from Europe. In 2010-11, the FSA has listed 29 financial regulations that come from Europe. All this is coming in our direction because the eurozone countries can muster 230 votes, and we will have no way of stopping it. We should be prepared to say no or to demand a treaty reassurance, and if necessary put any proposal to the British people in a referendum.
Turning away from Europe, I want now to talk about our woeful economic situation. It is in the interests of both parties to claim that the deficit reduction programme is tough and is hurting. It is in the interests of the Government because it shows that they are being prudent and implementing austerity measures, and it is in the interests of the Labour party because it is arguing that we are deepening the recession. In fact, however, we are not doing nearly enough to address the problems we face. Some 38% of all our output goes to Government. That is a higher proportion than in the USA, Canada or Australia. Contrary to what we have heard, many EU countries have a lower tax burden than ours.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My hon. Friend has alluded to the situation in Greece. Does he agree that much is borrowed but not accounted for?
Mr Leigh
That is absolutely right. We do not know what is going on in a lot of areas. Many EU countries, including Greece and Spain, tax their economies less than might be thought.
I apologise to Opposition Members for having to say this, but much of the blame lies with the previous Government. They increased Government spending by more than 55% in real terms and, contrary to all the political argument here today, we are cutting that by just 3%. The Government must decide whether they want to be liked or to deliver long-term prosperity and growth. As we have also heard today, we are still borrowing £141 billion every year. The cost of servicing that debt is £43 billion every year, more than we spend on defence. This is a staggering burden. I want to hear more of an intellectual case for smaller government. Big government leads to big waste. Sir Philip Green calculated in his study that £700 million could be saved on the Government telephone bill alone.
People are hit with a double whammy by all this Government spending. Like a black hole, it sucks in enterprise, and it inflates prices and taxes people of all their spare income so they have less to spend on their families and themselves. As a result, the economy deflates.
Governments say in such circumstances that more must be done and propose a fiscal stimulus, usually through public works, but those works are often driven by politics not the marketplace. A better way to deliver stimulus is to cut taxes.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I have a lot of sympathy with the case my hon. Friend is making, but can he point to any international examples of countries or organisations that recommend going further and more quickly in terms of austerity measures?
Mr Leigh
I can point to successful economies in the world that have the taken the view that the way to get out of the problem of a flatlining economy is to release more money back into the economy through the stimulus of lower taxation. I have referred to one tax that raises little money but acts as a tremendous disincentive to enterprise: the 50% tax rate. I would abolish that, as it achieves very little apart from bearing down on enterprise.
We still have the longest tax code in the world; indeed, it is longer than the tax code in India. The Centre for Policy Studies estimates that the marginal tax rate on poor people is as much as 96%, while the marginal tax rate on higher earners is 57%. There is a greater imperative than ever before for Government to be the facilitator, not the central planner. They can, by all means, deliver some public works, but they must not be fantasy or vanity projects such as high-speed railway lines. Instead, they must be works such as the third runway at Heathrow, which the market is prepared to build for us because the market wants it. By all means, let us have public works, but they must make sense in terms of the marketplace, and let us also have tax cuts. I support the Liberal proposal to take the lower paid out of tax, because that also delivers incentives and cuts the marginal tax rate on the lower paid. I want us to have a much flatter overall tax system, too.
Despite all that we have tried to do, Great Britain ranks as the 72nd country in the world for Government wastefulness, which is lower than Tajikistan and Ethiopia. The House may not accept all my arguments, but I hope Members will accept that an intellectual case must at least be made for a smaller and leaner Government who tax people less and deliver more vitality and entrepreneurship back into the economy. That is the only way we will fight our way out of this recession.
Eurozone Crisis
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Carmichael
Inflation did go down, but after the IMF loan was made. It reached a peak in 1976, which I think was 26%. That happened to coincide with the time of the IMF loan, so that is the position that we should discuss.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. He will accept—will he not?—that we should not have stayed in the exchange rate mechanism.
Neil Carmichael
Well, we were blasted out of the ERM. We do not want to repeat that fiasco, and we should all recognise that.
We talked briefly about the United States. Gerald Ford, President of the United States in the mid-1970s, refused to bail-out New York, and quite right, too. He was a fiscal conservative. That was the right decision in the long run, and, of course, a decision that did not affect New York’s membership of the dollar. I just wanted to put that on the record.
We must focus on two things, and the Prime Minister identified them both in his speech yesterday. I want to ram home the importance of reforming the European Union, because that is what it needs. In particular, we have to drill down on the single market, to ensure that it is a single market and that competitiveness in goods and services is enhanced. We can really do that.
On euro measures, this country would be making a big mistake if we assumed that the euro will not affect us significantly, because it certainly will. [Interruption.] I shall wind up. I have been so generous with interventions that I do not have the time to point out that we need fiscal union in the eurozone, the ECB to be enhanced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) rightly said—and much more rigorous auditing of what is going on.
Last but not least, there is a democratic deficit, although the IMF extension was discussed in the House and we voted on 11 July. I have noticed two things. First, Germany and France are effectively bypassing the Commission in a lot of their decisions—