Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

1. What progress he has made on his long-term economic plan.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

14. What progress he has made on his long-term economic plan.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Government’s long-term economic plan is working, and the International Monetary Fund expects the United Kingdom to grow faster than any other G7 country this year. But the job is not yet done; there are growing risks abroad from a disappointingly weak eurozone and persistent risks at home from Opposition Members who would abandon the long-term plan and return Britain to the economic mess they left it in.

[Fiona Bruce]

I welcome the statistics out today on the Government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme. It is helping those families it was designed for: those buying a house worth less than the national average—overwhelmingly, these are people outside London and the south-east. The policy is boosting aspiration and helping hard-working families on to the housing ladder. So will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not listen to the Labour party, which has opposed the policy, and will instead continue with Help to Buy as part of our long-term economic plan to deliver greater economic security and a brighter future for our country?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We heard lots of scare stories from the Opposition about how this scheme would be used only in central London and the like. The fact is that today’s figures show that almost 50,000 people have been helped by Help to Buy, and that 80% of those have been helped outside London and the south-east of England. In her own council area, more than 300 families have been helped. Members of Parliament from west Yorkshire would like to note that Leeds is the No.1 location for people using Help to Buy. The scheme is working, it is about backing aspiration and it is about helping people get on in life.

Consumer Rights Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am very pleased to see this important Bill complete its passage through this House. Economic development depends on those receiving goods and services knowing that they can depend on robust legal protection and clear redress. Knowledge of the reality of the protection that this Bill promotes and provides will enable people and businesses to get on with the important job of producing and accessing goods and services, in which context our economy can continue to grow.

The principle of fairness underpins this Bill. As the Minister has said, it is vital that the law keeps up with technological developments. It is vital, therefore, that in developing new medical technologies, such as mitochondrial transfer, we do not rush into them, especially when significant consumer protection concerns are in play. That is only right and fair. Just yesterday, the fertility expert Professor Robert Winston stated:

“I don’t believe there has been enough work done to make sure mitochondrial replacement is truly safe.”

For that reason, I regret that there was no time to debate my new clause 31, even though it was selected.

The situation also demonstrates the importance of not bringing to Parliament any proposed legislation permitting such procedures until all the necessary pre-clinical tests have been concluded, some of which have been described recently by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority as “critical”. Only then should parliamentarians be asked to assess the evidence and vote on such measures. Only then will we demonstrate to our constituents that we are not rushing to adopt new medical techniques without treating safety concerns with the utmost seriousness.

I am very concerned we have not had the opportunity to debate new clause 31, because it needs parliamentary time. I very much hope that the concerns it addresses will be thoroughly debated in the other place at another time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points made. The Bill has benefited from thorough and considered debate in this House. We have now had lengthy discussions on many subjects covered by the Bill, and possibly even more on those not covered by it.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the issue of mitochondrial donation or transfer. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority set up an expert panel, which has conducted three reviews on the safety and efficacy of the proposed treatment. I want to reassure her that any proposed regulations on this matter would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, so were measures to be taken forward, there would be a full debate.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the Minister reassure me that regulations permitting such a treatment will not be laid before the House until clinical procedures that have been described by the HFEA as critical are concluded and reviewed?

[Jenny Willott]

I suggest that the hon. Lady take up that issue with Health Ministers, as this policy area sits firmly under their portfolio. She is asking a very technical question about the background to the regulations, and it might be more proper for one of them to respond.

I was a little disappointed by the response of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). She is very dismissive of the Bill, which she has described as full of loopholes. Consumer and business organisations all agree that the Government are doing the right thing and that the Bill will make a real difference, as we repeatedly heard in evidence to the Public Bill Committee and to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee during its pre-legislative scrutiny.

It cannot be denied that the Bill is the most dramatic overhaul of consumer protection for a generation. The UK already has very high levels of consumer confidence and knowledge—higher than almost any other country in the European Union—but I believe that we can raise them higher. It drives huge change both in business and across society to have consumers who are well informed and confident of their rights, and who know what they can do when something goes wrong. Consumer protection drives innovation across businesses, growth in the economy and confidence among our consumers. I believe that this Bill is the way to achieve that, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jackson]

I accept that, which is why I think it is unbecoming to focus on £3.85. We are not arguing that this is merely an issue of monetary transaction. It is about accepting that the inherent benefits of marriage are good for the individuals involved and, principally, their children, as well as for families, communities and society as a whole. We have the evidence.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the work of Harry Benson of the Bristol Community Family Trust, who has found that during early parenthood the single biggest predictor of stability is whether parents are married, even when age, income, education, benefits and ethnic group are taken into account?

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done in this area and I hope she will continue to do it. I look forward to hearing her contribution later.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree entirely with many of the Tory MPs who wrote to The Daily Telegraph about the policy in one respect: the benefits of marriage to society do not depend on one’s tax code. It is a failing to make that judgment—it is failing that means that we exclude widows, single parents, deserted mothers and cohabiting couples. They have the same right to benefit from the Government and the tax system but are excluded. That is why the policy is wrong. A Government can do many good things to encourage stable relationships and family life. Unfortunately, this policy is a phoney, misguided and poorly targeted measure. It simply is not one of the good things that we could do.

[Fiona Bruce]

I support clause 11, and acknowledge and support the excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I support marriage, not for moral, religious or ethical reasons, but because, as they said, and as all the evidence shows—I shall provide evidence shortly and will not be deterred by the fact that others have quoted it—marriage promotes stability, security and better life outcomes for children; improves health and well-being for the parties to the marriages, notably as they age; and strengthens the wider community, as those in married families are more likely to be actively involved in it.

The Opposition, as the debate has shown, do not get it that the proposal benefits not only those couples who will receive the allowance, but the much wider society. Supporting the proposal, and supporting marriage through the tax system, is a matter of social justice. Underlying so many social problems that the country faces is the problem of family breakdown and, in particular, family breakdown outside marriage. Many hon. Members are reluctant to talk about that for fear of being branded judgmental, but the fact is that helping to strengthen health and well-being through supporting marriage is to help to tackle a key, root cause—relationship breakdown—of so many contemporary problems, such as addiction, abuse and mental health issues, and the increasing problem of acute loneliness, especially in old age.

The proposal is even more a matter of social justice because, as the Centre for Social Justice reports, indications show that, whatever the liberal press might say, the better off in our society get the fact that the benefits of marriage are worth buying into and are marrying while the less well off are increasingly not getting married. According to the CSJ, that is causing a widening gulf between better-off married people and less well-off unmarried people. The latter do not access the health and well-being benefits that I and other hon. Members have mentioned and that marriage can bring. Rather, they are falling into an increasing cycle of negative outcomes and social instability, which is inter-generational. If we really care about building a society that promotes social equality rather than inequality, and one that offers a key route out of poverty for those who may otherwise be trapped within it, and if we are really serious about social justice, one key policy is backing marriage.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough and for East Worthing and Shoreham have stated, the statistics are stark. Children aged five are five times more likely not to be living with both parents if their parents are not married. The position is far worse for children aged 15. Women and children are significantly more vulnerable to violence in unmarried families. Teenagers living outside married family relationships have much higher delinquency rates than others. Seventy per cent. of young offenders come from unmarried families. The prevalence of mental health issues among children living outside married family relationships is 75% higher than among children of married parents.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Does the hon. Lady believe that, if a tax break acts as an incentive or a reward, more couples would marry, and that those problems would then go away?

[Fiona Bruce]

The measure sends out a clear marker from the Government that marriage works. That is why it is important. I absolutely agree that it will not be an incentive, but I hope it will be an encouragement. I hope it is a start that will be built upon.

On old age, 90% of all care beds in hospitals and care homes are occupied by unmarried men and women. Couples who separate and who have never been married are less likely to support each other in old age and, apparently, their children are less likely to support their elderly parents.

On the positive side, the commitment that marriage requires in terms of the emotional, economic and social investment in the relationship in turn generates security, health and longevity. As we have heard, even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. The health gain from marriage could be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking, leading some researchers to suggest that, if marriage were a drug, it would be hailed as a miracle cure. I could continue, but the evidence is legion.

None of that is to suggest that all married families enjoy better outcomes than any single-parent family or cohabiting couple. Clearly, there are dysfunctional married families and successful single parents and cohabiting couples. However, the weight of evidence is firmly in favour of stable, publicly committed married families being the most beneficial structure.

[Steve McCabe]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying. I am not exactly sure what the source of the evidence she quotes is, but does the evidence draw any distinction between the impact on married couples of whom both partners work and the impact on married couples of whom only one partner works? Has that distinction influenced this tax policy?

[Fiona Bruce]

This tax policy increases the opportunity for choice. Many mothers and fathers want to stay at home and do not want to go have to go out to work. I appreciate that the financial implications of the policy are small but, none the less, the policy says, “We value you and your role in society if you want to stay at home.”

If we are serious about finding effective solutions to community breakdown and to the poverty that blights parts of Britain characterised by family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness and addictions, supporting marriage is one way to do so. The public support that, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] I apologise. She is in the Chamber, but in a different place. I endeavoured to intervene on her because, according to a YouGov poll, 85% of people support giving financial recognition to married couples through the tax system, and 83% of the public think that tackling family breakdown is important. Even more starkly, according to the Centre for Social Justice, half of lone mothers think it is important that children grow up with a father.

Yes, the proposal will cost the Exchequer—I believe the shadow Minister said it will cost some £550 million—but that is dwarfed by the cost of family breakdown which, in 2012, had risen to some £44 billion. It is estimated by the Relationships Foundation to have an equivalent cost to the UK taxpayer of £1,470 a year each. Of course, that figure is still rising—currently £46 billion and increasing.

Support for marriage, therefore, simply cannot be dismissed as giving money to those who are already comfortable. As we have heard, this proposal will disproportionately benefit those on the lower half of the income scale, but it is much more than that. It is a matter of social justice. Supporting marriage is progressive. It is the right thing to do, not only for individuals but for the beneficial public consequences it promotes. If arrangements have beneficial public consequences, such as good environmental conduct or saving for one’s pension, it is established practice that such public benefits are recognised by the tax system. So it should be with marriage.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there any provision that would mean that people who have been together as a family—a man and a woman, with children—for a certain period of time, say five years, would be able to count in the same way as being married to get the tax break? The benefits would then be almost the same, would they not?

[Fiona Bruce]

The benefits that are proposed in this clause are for married couples. That is the way in which our society recognises a permanent and lifelong commitment that is intended by the parties.

Of course I would like to see more, but I welcome this positive start. I would like to see a department for families, a dedicated family policy across government and greater investment in relationship education for young people, both in school and later for those embarking on relationships or contemplating having a family. In the meantime, I fully support this proposal. It will encourage marriage and sends out an important signal that, for the first time in a long time from the Government, marriage is valued in our society—something the last Government never did. It places Britain in the position of recognising marriage in the tax system, whereas we were the only country in Europe not to do so. Is it any coincidence that the UK has one of the highest levels of family breakdown in Europe? We have to do what we can to change that, and this is one way. As the Prime Minister said, this change will provide support. Our support for families and marriage puts us on the side of a progressive politics and on the side of change that says, “We can stop social decline, we can fix our broken society and we can make this country a better place to live for everyone.”

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I certainly will not yield one inch to her in the value I place on the importance of marriage. Like her, I am a member of the Mothers’ Union, the Church of England organisation that promotes and supports stable family life in this country. However, she is making a mistake. The undoubted benefits of stable relationships could be far better encouraged by the Government in several ways: if, for example, resources for tackling domestic violence were not being reduced; if, for example, we had compulsory sex and relationship education in schools that prepared people for healthy adult relationships; and if, for example, we had a decent child support system that did not incentivise the non-resident parent to ignore their responsibilities to their children, because that is what is happening. Instead of tackling those real problems, or looking at the factors that put families under stress—debt, long hours and zero-hours contracts—the hon. Lady ignores them. She does not understand that those factors are the cause of rows, tension and stress in families. If Government Members turned their attention to policies that would make a real difference, instead of faffing around with this fatuous married couple’s allowance, families would be a lot better off.

Autumn Statement

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We are helping lone parents in particular by offering them more help to obtain work, or to obtain the skills and training that they need in order to find work. All the evidence—and I know that the hon. Lady has spent a great deal of her life examining it—suggests that if children of lone parents can be in working households, that will really assist their life chances. Lone parents often have the least skills and have received the least help, and we are doing a huge amount to change that.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Does he agree that, while by reducing corporation tax the Government have already shown that Britain is open for business, today—with the announcement of real help for high street retailers, support for SME exporters, and the extension of small business rate relief—they are showing that Britain is very much open for small business, too?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend and neighbour has been a champion of small businesses. I am delighted that the change that we have brought about today with a £1,000 discount for shops and high streets will mean that in Congleton, Holmes Chapel and Middlewich, the people whom she represents will get a better deal.

amendment of the law

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the Budget on behalf of the almost 4,000 hard- working small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—companies such as Dutton Contractors in Middlewich, which I visited on Friday and had the privilege of opening two new warehouses for. It is a family business that was started in 1974 by the father, John Dutton, who is a farmer. It sells and transports building construction materials. The son, Richard Dutton, has so developed the business recently that it now has 80 employees. The decision in the Budget to further stop Labour’s planned fuel rises is worth £7 to every family each time they fill up a family car, but it is worth considerably more to companies such as Dutton Contractors, which has a fleet of vehicles, so it very much welcomes the Budget.

Dutton Contractors also welcomed the £2,000 national insurance allowance. It was also welcomed, in particular, by Neon Freight Ltd, which is based in Holmes Chapel. Honours go to Ian Mallon, the proprietor of that freight forwarding company, and currently its sole employee, for giving the fastest response to the Budget. He sent me an e-mail at 1.28 pm—the Chancellor can barely have sat down. The e-mail’s subject was, “Employers tax/Budget”, and it reads:

“Great news… please send my thanks to G.O… I will be taking on staff this year.”

That is what I call a result.

Having said that, however, I am disappointed that the Government appear once again to have done nothing to honour their manifesto commitment—it is a coalition commitment and certainly a Conservative manifesto commitment—to recognise marriage in the tax system through transferable tax allowances for couples where one partner stays at home. Many people are genuinely bemused that such an important commitment should remain completely untouched well into the second half of this Parliament. They are increasingly bemused by the announcement of the introduction of tax-free child care worth up to £1,200 every year for children aged up to 12, but obtainable only by either single parents working or couples where both partners work. The Prime Minister said:

“This is a boost direct to the pockets of hard-working families in what will be one of the biggest measures ever introduced to help with childcare costs.”

But do families with one parent who stays at home not work hard, too? That has not sent out a positive message to mothers and fathers who stay at home and commit themselves to parenting; it does not say to them, as I think we should, “We value you.”

[Mr Leigh]

One advantage of the child tax allowance announced in the Budget is that it makes it almost inevitable that we will have to fulfil our coalition promise on a transferable tax allowance for married couples.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not criticising the Government’s decision to support child care costs; I am saying that they have got the balance wrong by doing that while not at the same time honouring the coalition commitment for transferable tax allowances for married couples.

I have massive respect for those mothers and fathers who stay at home. I have never stayed at home to work and have always worked outside the home, but many parents do so sacrificially, and many parents in one-earner families, as Department for Work and Pensions figures clearly show, stay at home because they have to. Many have significant child care responsibilities for very young children, or care for sick or disabled relatives. It is interesting that the Government quoted OECD figures in support of its decision last week. Let me quote some OECD figures: the tax burden on a one-earner, married couple family on an average wage in the UK is now 42% greater than the OECD average.

I have raised this issue in respect of every Budget since I have been in this House. Two years ago, having tabled an appropriate amendment to the Finance Bill, I received from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury a letter that said:

“Dear Fiona

I am writing to about the new clause on transferable personal allowances for married couples that you have tabled for the Finance Bill. I agree entirely that marriage is a positive institution and it is clear from our manifesto that we believe this should be recognised in the tax system.

We are keen to send a clear message that family and marriage matters and that strong and healthy families help create a strong and healthy society. We must do more to support families and the tax system is one way in which this can be achieved…you can rest assured that our commitment to bringing forward these changes remains firm and that we are assessing various options with a range of different costs and will bring forward proposals at the appropriate time.”

I believe that that time is now. If we genuinely believe in choice—a word much trumpeted last week on the announcement of support for child care costs—we should not be making it more difficult for mothers to stay at home but should give them that choice, too. The Prime Minister has said:

“If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term…we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 429.]

This year, I again call on the Government, at the third time of asking—it sounds a bit like calling the banns of marriage, but that is quite appropriate—to insert a provision into the Finance Bill, this time by way of their own amendment, to introduce transferable allowances for married couples. That is quite simply the right and honourable thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

Absolutely. That shows the sort of difficulties in the Labour party’s arguments. If it is to form a Government, it must come up with a viable alternative.

I do not support cutting for the sake of cutting. If Tesco has a problem in its bread department, it sells bread more efficiently; it does not cut the number of loaves it sells. I agree about that, but the Labour party cannot give simplistic solutions based on more wasteful spending, nor can it constantly say that our problems would be solved if we restored the 50% tax band, when every study proves that it reduced revenues to the Treasury. As we know, the top 1% of earners pay 24% of all tax revenues. Labour has to come up with something more intellectual and rational if it is to convince the British people that it is ready for government.

The situation is dire. The incomes of 2007 will not be seen again until 2019. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we will need a further £9 billion of cuts to public services after the next election. In 2015, there will be £70 billion more borrowing than was predicted in 2010. Any Budget giveaways—I accept that this Budget is politically astute—will be soaked up by inflation rising faster than wages. That point has already been made about the 1p cut in beer duty. One would have to drink five pints every night for seven nights to save 35p a week. I am not sure that will impress anybody. The cut in corporation tax is welcome, but that is only a small part of the total cost to business. Business rates have increased by 13% in three years and are the prime motivator against growth in the small business economy.

The problems that we face are difficult, complex and international. I am still firmly convinced that we need a strategy based on levelling taxation as much as is possible. The attempt to bring corporation tax more in line with small business tax is a first step. We should try to flatten all capital taxes and business taxes. We should then move on to income taxes and get rid of the plethora of allowances, which fuels an industry based on evasion and avoidance.

At first sight, the excellent scheme that the Chancellor is trying to bring together to help with home loans is very good if it does not lead to a property bubble. However, it is a bit like somebody climbing a ladder with loads of our money, throwing it over the edge and saying, “May the fittest come and get it.” It is a bit like the person rushing towards the pool of Bethesda.

It would be much better to have a flatter, simpler form of taxation so that people make their own decisions and do not rely on Government handouts, and so that we do not have a huge industry based on evasion and avoidance.

We are creating a special child care allowance for people who want to put their children into child care. That is great, but why have we not fulfilled our pledge to introduce a married person’s tax allowance?

[Fiona Bruce]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are out of line with international best practice in not recognising marriage in our income tax system?

[Mr Leigh]

We are out of line. I am quite prepared not to hold the Government to account on their solemn promise to bring in a married tax allowance if they get rid of the other allowances and restore universal child benefit and all the other things. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot make it tax and benefit advantageous for a mother—it is usually a mother—to go out to work if they do not help mothers who want to stay at home and add to the economy by looking after their own children. That is unfair and something has to be done about it.

We cannot carry on with Budgets that simply tweak things. We need a long-term strategy based on simplifying the tax system and on budgetary reform. We must remove as many of the allowances as possible. We must change the culture of constantly tweaking things with Budgets and instead look to the long term and create a more simplified and effective tax system.

Transferable Tax Allowances

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) not only for delivering an excellent speech, but for his dogged pursuance of the issue during this Parliament.

Supporting marriage in the tax system, certainly where children are involved, is a social justice issue. It is about supporting children to flourish, and helping them to get the best start in life and fulfil their potential. The Government support children, especially disadvantaged children, in many ways—providing nursery places, the pupil premium, school dinners and university funding—so why do they not support children in one of the best ways we can, by supporting a stable, secure environment in which they can grow up? We focus so much on ensuring that children have the best education within the school day, but a crucial factor in enabling them to take advantage of that education is if, at the end of the school day, they can go home not to a chaotic environment but to a stable and secure one, not least so as to do their home work, rest and prepare for the next school day.

My hon. Friend cited some excellent statistics from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Social Justice on the better development outcomes of children from stable families. I do not want to repeat those, but I will mention others. The Centre for Social Justice, to which I pay tribute for its work, has informed me that children in families with transitional relationships are eight times more likely to be on a child protection register, and 50 times more likely to die of a deliberate injury in the home. There is no doubt that children living in families with transitional—indeed, sometimes chaotic relationships—suffer acutely; the converse is also true.

As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said, the effects of children suffering behavioural problems spill out to the rest of society. Relationship breakdown for children means that they suffer grief—often far into adulthood—and so fail to fulfil their aspirations. Therefore, not only for children during childhood but for wider society, we should support marriage in the tax system, which is about sending out a message that it is good for children, but it is also good for society, and about saying that we value the commitment, care and self-sacrifice of parents. Children are a blessing, but they are also a responsibility—they involve hard work—and many parents, when one is a non-earner, give up their earning capacity to help bring up the next generation in a positive way, from which we will all benefit as the years go by.

Marriage is a more secure environment, which is why we should support those who are married and not only those who cohabit. The Department for Work and Pensions recently announced that only 55% of children still live with both parents by the age of 15, but 97% of those families are headed by married couples. Another advantage is that a married couple’s tax allowance would effectively target the poorest with that benefit. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that such an allowance would have a disproportionately positive effect on those in the lower half of the income distribution, because 70% of the benefit would go to them. We all support an increase in the personal allowance. I would like that to be increased further, but an increase to £10,000 will benefit even those in the highest tax brackets. A married tax allowance is simply more targeted and therefore more effective for benefiting children in the poorest and least advantaged homes.

I therefore join my hon. Friend in calling for the Chancellor to bring in, as early as possible, a transferable tax allowance for married couples: yes, because it was in our manifesto; yes, because it was a coalition agreement commitment; yes, because it will recognise marriage in the tax system and, in so doing, bring us more closely into line with other OECD countries; yes, because it will rebalance the tax burden on married couples compared with single people; yes, because it will send out a signal from Government that they value marriage, and recognise and appreciate the contribution that married couples make to wider society—with elderly relatives or voluntary work—as so many non-earner married people do; yes, because the greatest benefit will accrue to the least well-off; yes, because it is worth making such an investment that will reap its benefits and rewards for society not only in the next few years and while today’s children are growing up, but potentially for generations to come as those children grow up to be responsible, positively contributing citizens; yes, because it will contribute to social mobility, helping children from the poorest households to achieve a better outcome in life and to achieve their aspirations; and yes, as I said at the outset, because it is a matter of social justice. It is simply the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree, and it is very important that we recognise the clear data that make that point. The Centre for Social Justice has said that the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting couples is such that even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. It is very important to recognise that this issue is one of social justice.

We recognise that most of the serious social problems that face us have their roots in the breakdown of the family. It is important for Conservatives to recognise and to make the point clearly that we support marriage. Far from making the case for the 1950s model of supporting marriage that I referred to earlier, we want a thoroughly modern and progressive measure that is underpinned by social justice.

As my hon. Friends have said, we are out of step with the majority of other developed countries. Most of the individuals living in OECD countries who are in a system that does not recognise spousal obligations are in either the United Kingdom or Mexico—and that cannot be right. Among highly developed economies, the UK is on its own in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations.

As my hon. Friends and I have said, this is an issue of social justice. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have made it very clear that, if a transferable allowance were implemented, 70% of the benefit accrued would go to those who are currently in the lower half of the income distribution level. The introduction of a transferable allowance would also reduce the number of children living in households below 60% of the median income, and that is where we want to be.

It is important that we properly urge the Chancellor—my hon. Friends and I have clearly done that this morning—to make good our collective promise and introduce a transferable allowance for married couples with young children. That is where the focus is. We recognise that it is not adequate simply—in a minimalist way—to have a partial transferable allowance that would be worth—what?—£150 a year, or £3 a week. That would also open us up to some criticism. We need to focus on and target married couples with young children.

[Fiona Bruce]

Perhaps I could mention that some polling from the Centre for Social Justice has found that more than 80% of adults agree that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home to bring up their children in the early years. Does my hon. Friend agree that support for child care does not always mean that child care needs to be outsourced, and that some of the best support can be to help parents to stay at home to bring up their own children?

[Mr Burrowes]

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. We need to look in the round at the benefits of child care—the social and economic benefits. Many of us know the value of well-supported care at home, which we sometimes do not properly quantify. That is a message that we need to amplify.

In conclusion, we are on the side of some of the poorest families in Britain, and we can help them by fulfilling the promise in our manifesto and in our coalition agreement. An unimplemented promise would not be a promise kept. We need to implement our promise properly and fully in the Budget of 2013.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

As I have said, there will, of course, be an opportunity to review the Bill in the light of how it operates. The answer to this question is all to do with realism: the Bill’s provisions are, in effect, a form of public spending—I shall explain later how they differ from tax relief—and so a limit has to be included in the design, because such funds are not endless.

The sector has raised concerns about the perceived complexity of the community building rule. It is true that in order to obtain a simple result—that charities doing the same things should get an entitlement that is similar—we are going to need to put in place some fairly detailed rules. I hope Members agree that that is preferable to disadvantaging some charities just because of the way they are set up. However, as I have said, it is only those charities, or groups of connected charities, wishing to apply for top-up payments on more than £5,000 in donations who need to consider the community building rule. Most small charities collect less than £5,000 in small donations, so the rules will be irrelevant to them. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will issue clear guidance, developed through working with the sector, to show exactly how these rules will work in real-life situations. I am confident that that can be made to work.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

In that respect, will the Minister look at the prohibition on the residential use of the community building? That will potentially have a negative impact on hospices, for example, which we all value so greatly in our communities.

Fuel Prices

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The high cost of fuel is impacting detrimentally on families, pensioners and businesses in my constituency, comprising as it does rural areas interspersed with market towns. I want to concentrate particularly on the small businesses in my constituency and the impact it is having on them.

In my constituency there are just a handful of large businesses, the largest of which employs just over 500 people, but there are 4,000 small businesses, which are therefore the engine of the local economy. For most of them, car travel and other vehicle travel is not an option but a necessity. As someone who has run a small business for 20 years, I know the reality behind the phrase “living on the margins”. That is a constant reality for many small businesses today. Because transport costs are a substantial component of their outgoings, fuel price rises have eroded those margins to almost unsustainable levels.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about small businesses, and I recently found a statistic of which she may not be aware. Over the past year the UK’s 4.8 million small and medium-sized businesses have paid over £260 million more for fuel than they did only 12 months ago. Does she agree that sometimes the price of fuel becomes a step too far for small businesses?

[Fiona Bruce]

I entirely agree. Small businesses are being forced into an impossible predicament. Do they transfer the increased costs to their customers, do they lose their customers, or do they sacrifice the making of any profit just to keep going, which is not sustainable in the long term?

[Esther McVey]

We are talking about small businesses, which I too represent here today. In the Wirral there is the double whammy of not only increasing fuel prices but increasing toll prices. Marginal profit is completely wiped away when both of those are taken into account.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Let me give the House some specific examples of small businesses in my constituency that are suffering in that way. Smallwood Storage Ltd is a transport and storage business in Sandbach employing nine people. This week it told me:

“We need a level playing field, the price of fuel has become too high as a percentage of our overheads and is out of proportion with the rates we charge. As a small business, we do not have the power of larger companies and are being squeezed from all sides.”

Another local company, B Lakin Transport, a haulage businesses in Somerford employing 10 people, said:

“Increased fuel costs have knock-on effects on everything…as the price continues to creep up, customers will go elsewhere and even look to foreign drivers who can use cheaper fuel from the continent; avoiding the extortionate prices in Britain.”

It continued:

“A driver from Luxembourg can fill up their petrol tank in Luxembourg at a fraction of the cost here. In October 2011, 1000 litres of unleaded fuel would cost £1130 in Luxembourg compared to £1350 in the United Kingdom—that’s a saving of £220 each time the tank is filled.”

Let us remember that haulage competitors from Luxembourg can fill their tanks there, drive to the UK and then return to Luxembourg without having to fill up here at all. B Lakin Transport tells me:

“Combine this with the exemption from road tax for foreign drivers, and we are clearly at a significant disadvantage to these foreign drivers from the outset.”

[Mr Watts]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is very important that we are honest with the British public in saying exactly what sort of cut we are looking for? I expect that the level that the Chancellor will look at will be a lot less than is being suggested here today.

[Fiona Bruce]

Through the motion, we are asking the Government to explore a number of ways in which they could assist small businesses, such as the ones that I am describing, with this predicament.

I will cite another business in Cheshire. It is not a small business, but it is an interesting comparison, because it is not a haulage company. Roberts Bakery is a large family business that produces bread in Northwich, just outside my constituency. Just yesterday, it informed me that the increase in fuel prices since last year alone has added £10,000 a week, or £500,000 a year, to its delivery costs. That is a serious additional overhead for such a family company.

The price of fuel is hindering such businesses from playing their essential role in the economic recovery and job creation that we so desperately need in this country. It is effectively pricing UK businesses off the road, driving people out of work, preventing companies from taking on and holding on to contracts, and fuelling further economic difficulties.

I signed up to support the motion, and I applaud all the other Members who have done so. I ask the Government to consider as a matter of urgency the impact that high fuel duty rates are having on local economies such as the one in my constituency, and to take action to address the issue accordingly.

Finance Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has great experience in this area, and she makes a clear point. People on lower incomes and possibly of lower educational standing than others will not look at the tax system and say, “I’m going to stay married because somehow I will be financially better off.” That is why it is important to simplify the tax system.

If we are looking to help children, this proposal would not do that. Indeed, some aspects would be detrimental to families, especially put alongside the Conservatives’ existing proposals on changes to the tax and benefits system. We need an honest debate on the family, child poverty and how we can build communities. By investing in Sure Start and child tax credit, the last Labour Government raised a whole group of individuals out of poverty. That was the way to do it. If money is tight, it needs to be targeted very carefully.

The approach that has been put forward, which recognises marriage, is not targeted and will not have the effect that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wants. That is unfortunate, because I think that he is well intentioned and has just come to the wrong conclusions. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the new clause. I do not think that they will, because it is not what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined in the manifesto or in the lead-up to the general election. It will be interesting to see how much pressure the Liberal Democrats can bring to bear to ensure that this proposal never sees the light of day. The coalition agreement says that they can sit on their hands if it is brought forward.

In conclusion, the individuals who are trying to address this issue, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough who is well intentioned and thoughtful in trying to do the best for families, have got it wrong in thinking that the answer is marriage. The root cause of social breakdown is not that people are not married, but poverty. We need to ensure that not only the tax system, but the benefits system and everything else, supports families, whether the parents are married, single, in a civil partnership or whatever. As has been said, and as the modern part of the Conservative party recognises, the modern family comes in all shapes and sizes. One size does not fit all and one solution does not fit all. Giving a pathetic sum of money to support marriage will not relieve child poverty; nor will it ensure that people stay together longer if the taxman will raid their savings or income if they do not. I do not think that this is the answer, and if it goes to a vote I will oppose it.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Only a few days ago, on father’s day, the Prime Minister stated:

“I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment”.

I believe that the Government’s commitment to introduce such a provision is genuine. It was in the Conservative manifesto, it is in the coalition agreement, and I trust that the Government will introduce it in this Parliament, just as they are addressing the couple penalty. I warmly congratulate the Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the work being done to address this subject.

[Kate Green]

I know that the hon. Lady and her colleagues feel strongly about the couple penalty. Does she not accept that the design of the benefits cap that her Government are proposing will bring in a couple penalty—something that I thought they were trying to remove?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The Government are seeking to support families and stable communities. In supporting marriage, that is what we are seeking to do.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the hon. Lady define what she thinks a family is?

[Fiona Bruce]

Committed relationships.

Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain recognised marriage in the tax system. The Labour Government did away with that in their first term. Britain’s fiscal arrangements effectively made it more challenging for people to marry than was the case in most other developed countries. Today we still live with that legacy. Apart from those in the UK, only 18% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system. Most of them live in Turkey and Mexico. Our failure to recognise marriage puts us out of line with fellow developed countries, and that arrangement continues to be a cause for concern, for a number of reasons relating to both fairness and social well-being.

[Barry Gardiner]

I notice from the amendment paper that new clause 5 is in the hon. Lady’s name. Could she explain to the House why she did not move it?

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) kindly moved it in my stead.

Is it fair—

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish in any way to dispute the hon. Lady’s version of events, but I am quite sure that I distinctly heard her—maybe the official record will show this—say “not moved” when she was asked about new clause 5. Am I wrong in my recollection of that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read Hansard and work it out for himself tomorrow. As a matter of record, as he knows, it is open to any Member to move a new clause, despite the fact that the Member who tabled it has decided not to move it.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I heard the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) say “not moved”. I think that I saw one of the Tory Whips at her beforehand, so I do not know whether they tried to persuade her not to have this debate, but I think we need to clarify this point before we move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Is it fair that when incomes are equivalised, one-earner married couples with children, on the average male wage, find themselves thrust into the poorer half of the population in income?

[Chris Leslie]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady’s flow, but this is really quite important. Did she or did she not say “not moved” at the beginning of the debate on new clause 5?

[Fiona Bruce]

I have already indicated that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough kindly moved the new clause in my stead. I am very pleased that he did so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Why, because you’re not up to it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Fiona Bruce]

If I may, I will move on.

On the subject of young people’s aspirations, it is striking that surveys demonstrate that approximately 90% of young people aspire to marry, yet that is not reflected in the marriage figures. I am not suggesting for a minute that fiscal considerations are the only factor, but the Government should at least ensure that it is not more financially detrimental to marry in this country than in other developed OECD countries, if we are to be true to our determination to become the most family-friendly country in Europe.

As a Government, we should send out a clear and credible signal to young people that we value marriage and encourage their aspirations in that respect, particularly as marriage acts as a stabiliser not just for the individuals within it but for the wider community. The prevalence, for example, of the isolation and exclusion of the elderly is influenced by the wider breakdown of family and community networks, as the Centre for Social Justice stated in its “Fractured Families” report.

On social well-being, the current problems in our local communities resulting from our failure to recognise marriage are pressing. As we have already heard, in December 2006 the CSJ’s report “Breakdown Britain” clearly resonated with the public. One of the key drivers of social challenges is family breakdown.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

No, I am going to continue now, because I have given way so many times that, as has been pointed out, it has interrupted the flow of my speech.

Family breakdown is an incredibly important challenge for the Government. The cost in human terms, especially in terms of children failing to fulfil their potential, is far too high. Although most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and deserve support as they do so, the evidence is that on average, the children of married parents do better on significant measures such as educational attainment, health, likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse.

The crucial thing to understand about British family breakdown is that the key is not only divorce, but the break-up of cohabiting relationships, which are far less stable than marriage. The CSJ report states:

“While marriage accounts for 54 per cent of births, the failure of marriages—ie divorce—accounts for only 20 per cent of break-ups and 14 per cent of the costs of family breakdown, among all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80 per cent of the break-ups and 86 per cent of the costs.”

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful case. Does she agree that Conservative Members are not denigrating forms of family other than those that involve marriage, but saying that we believe that marriage makes for a powerful start in life for children, and leads to better social outcomes on average?

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree with my hon. Friend in that respect—nor are Conservatives seeking to take away the support that we give to other family groups such as single parents. We are saying that there should be a tangible affirmation of the very important relationship of marriage.

A child born to cohabiting parents has nearly a one in two chance of living in a single-parent family by the time they reach the age of five, but a child born to married parents has only a one in 12 chance of finding themselves in that situation at that age.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

No, because I took interventions from Opposition Members earlier.

The direct costs of family breakdown are variously calculated at between £24 billion and £41.6 billion per annum—a huge amount of money that cannot be ignored, especially in times such as these. When faced with such enormous figures, a provision such as the transferable tax allowance to support marriage, and in turn to support stable families, who in turn form an important element of promoting the stable communities that we all want and that are so very much needed today, is surely worth considering.

I am aware of the argument that the principal cause for those different life outcomes is not marriage but family income, but that analysis is too simplistic. No one is trying to argue that family income is not relevant—it is—but in my view, insufficient recognition has been given in recent years to the importance of family stability in promoting the health and well-being of children.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

In my hon. Friend’s careful preparation for her speech, did she analyse whether other countries have given similar recognition to marriage?

[Fiona Bruce]

I did indeed, and I shall refer to that before I close my speech.

The CSJ report “Fractured Families” demonstrates significant differences in family stability between married and unmarried couples in the early years of parenthood, after discounting other factors such as age, income, education and race. Even the least well-off 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.

It is appreciated that we do not need to preach or moralise, but if we are to be truly family-friendly we must ensure that choosing to marry is no more difficult in this country than it is in any other developed country.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will give way—[Hon. Members: “No!”]

Moreover, if we rise to that challenge through the provision of a transferable allowance, as suggested by the new clause, we would do so in a way that makes it easier for one parent to stay at home for the children, which parents value and from which children benefit. That is also a matter of women’s rights, for it is often women who will exercise greater choice and flexibility. Women want that choice.

A 2008 YouGov poll found that 88% of parents think that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home and bring up their children in the early years, and 97% of them agree that the Government should do more in this area. Furthermore—this is of huge importance—the relative costs of introducing a transferable allowance are small when compared with the huge costs of family breakdown. I quoted those figures earlier.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

The transferable allowance would help to reduce those costs, and would therefore be an investment very well made. The £550 million cost of the partially transferable allowance proposed by the Conservatives prior to the general election represents just 1.3% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the Relationships Foundation—[Interruption.] And just 2.16% of the direct costs of family breakdown, as calculated by the same organisation—

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Lady give way, in this so-called debate?

[Fiona Bruce]

No. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I will not. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Lady should carry on.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Fiona Bruce]

I am going to conclude.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Fiona Bruce has made it absolutely clear that she has no intention of giving way at this stage. I am sure that she will make it clear if she changes her mind.

[Fiona Bruce]

I fully accept that the Government’s priority has been to clean up the terrible financial mess left by the previous Administration, which has necessarily involved difficult decisions, and I want to put on record today my support for the Government, who have not been afraid to grasp the nettle and make the difficult decisions that the previous Administration were incapable of making. Britain is on a much sounder footing today than was ever the case under the previous Administration, and I pay tribute to the Government’s hard work in this respect. However, even in the current economic environment, I believe that new clause 5 would, as I have outlined, be an investment well worth making both fiscally and socially. The Government have said that they will recognise marriage in the tax system at the appropriate time. I suggest that that time is now, particularly given that it would still take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs some considerable time to implement a transferable tax allowance, because of the IT and other implications.

Does the Minister agree that the increased tax burden on one-earner married couples on an average wage—it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average burden on such families—commends the early introduction of the transferable allowance if we are to be, as we aspire to be, the most family-friendly country in Europe? What assessment has he made of the time it will take to make the necessary IT and other changes to give effect to the Government’s commitment to introduce the transferable allowance? If he has not made such an assessment, will he do so? I ask the Government to bring forward this legislation not when they are ready, but sufficiently in advance of that, so that all IT and planning changes can be made first, and when the money is available, transferable allowances can become operational quickly, not one or more years later.

The transferable personal allowance was a key election commitment from many of us in the House and an important reason why people voted for the Conservative party. They are now looking for action. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say, and I will conclude with a quotation from a speech given by the Chief Rabbi in another place earlier this year:

“If the Jewish experience has anything to say to Britain today it is: recognise marriage, not just cohabitation, as in the best interests of the child. Do so in the tax system. Do so in the educational system. Do so in relationship support. Otherwise, our children will pay the price—financial, educational, medical and psychological—for generations to come. Without stable marriages we will not have strong families, and without strong families we will not have a big society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 366-7.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the first time in what I suppose is a long time, I will be at odds with some of my colleagues sitting on the Opposition Benches. They are surrounding me at the moment, and I suspect that I will say something that they might not be entirely happy with. None the less, that will not stop me making my point of view heard.

Scotland Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment.

Campbell Christie also said:

“I firmly believe a Scottish government equipped to vary all taxes—including corporation tax… would be able to tackle the serious difficulties we face.

I do not want a tax regime to be imposed on Scotland that is utterly unfair and inadequate to meet the challenges we face. I hope Scotland’s politicians will join me in opposing these unfair proposals.”

I hope that Members throughout the House will note carefully what Campbell Christie said about the devolution of that tax.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says these proposals would be unfair, but one of the fairest things a Government can do when working with the business community is ensure that businesses have time to prepare for change. At present, when there is such a great priority on the economic strengthening of the nation, we need to work in a relationship of trust with the business community. Therefore, is it not unfair to suggest the introduction of this tax at this time?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, it is not, and if the hon. Lady looks at later amendments she will find that an entire series of them is related to the commencement powers, precisely to ensure that the right things are done at the right time, with the agreement of everybody involved. We will consider that, and I hope the hon. Lady is still present in the Chamber when we do so.

Two specific corporation tax issues relate directly to the Bill’s provisions. Existing provisions allow assigned revenue from a share of income tax—one large tax and a chunk from that, and lots of small measures. It would be much better if there was a balanced basket of taxes, so there was not an over-dependence on, and therefore a potential volatility from, having such a large amount of assigned revenue from a single tax. It would also be preferable if there was a personal tax and business taxes, so that they could be offset. It would also, of course, be preferable to remove the perverse disincentive under the Bill in respect of any future Scottish Government reducing income tax. Let us imagine that a Government decided that, for whatever reason, such a measure might be sensible to stimulate growth, but the Scottish Government took the hit in reduced revenue yield from income tax while the UK Government took the benefit of increased corporation tax. The effect of having only a large personal tax, and not a significant business tax, is that it unfairly and unnecessarily removes the number of economic or fiscal levers open to the Scottish Government. That is an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is important that we move forward on these tax powers for the Scottish Parliament. The big difference between these proposals and the ones in the Scotland Act 1998 are that these apply to all the different rates of tax. The structure being used and the fact that there will be a corresponding reduction in the block grant will deliver to the Scottish Parliament a real ability to make decisions, be accountable and test how well these things work. We wanted that in Scotland and we need it, but that is not to say that the arrangements will not have any complications and that there is no need to be clear about the answers to some of these questions. Some could be covered by regulations that are to follow, but there is always an anxiety involved in depending too much on detailed regulations, as opposed to primary legislation.

I wish to discuss two particular areas, one of which is tax avoidance and the provisions that the Government suggest we put in place to deal with it. The last thing that we would want is for those who have the ability to arrange their tax affairs in different ways to be able to avoid paying this tax, as that would harm the Scottish economy and undermine the whole principle behind what we are trying to achieve. We need to know what provisions will be put in place to deal with tax avoidance in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) mentioned the self-employed, and they are also important. It is easier for them to arrange their tax affairs in a beneficial way, whereas those of us on PAYE may not be able to do that. It is important for self-employed people to know exactly how this system will work for them, particularly if they generate earnings in different parts of the United Kingdom, as it is quite possible for such people to generate.

I also have concerns about the future interrelationship between the benefits system and the tax system. This is important because the way in which benefits are calculated for some people depends on their income after tax, which means that a variation in tax will affect benefits. The Government may be clear that systems will be in place to deal with that very quickly, but the last thing that people on benefits need is any uncertainty about their income. They need to know how any increases in their income, and therefore in their tax liability, or any decreases in their income will affect them, because at that level of income people suffer particularly badly when changes are made. If the Welfare Reform Bill proceeds in full, we will be moving towards a new benefits system at just about the same time as some of these new powers come into force, so it is important to get this right. I urge the Government to provide answers to these questions, if not now, in time for Report, so that we can be clear about how this interrelationship will work.

[Fiona Bruce]

May I begin by telling hon. Members how pleased I am that, after a thorough independent evaluation of the devolution settlement in Scotland, this Government have been quick to legislate on this issue, fulfilling a manifesto commitment of more than one party in this House? After more than a decade, the time is right to assess the implications and consequences of the devolution settlement.

I shall now speak generally in support of the provisions of clause 26. The Calman commission review predates the economic crisis, but the need to recover the UK’s economic strength makes this issue ever more important. It is clear that economic growth will be driven by enterprise in local communities. Creating a Scottish rate of income tax will give the Scottish Government more responsibility over not only how they spend revenue, but how they raise it. That is a crucial discipline, which we hope will increase the likelihood that fiscal decisions will reflect the needs and priorities of Scotland, the Scottish economy and, most importantly, the people of Scotland. This is an opportunity for genuine fiscal accountability.

The proposals outlined in the Bill are not entirely new, but they do mark the next stage of the devolution settlement for Scotland. The existing Scottish variable rate gives the Scottish Government the power to raise or reduce the basic level of income tax. As Donald Dewar, the original First Minister, said, the Scottish variable rate

“asks the Scottish Parliament to face real financial choices and makes it, in a sense, more directly accountable to the people it represents.”—[Official Report, 31 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 465.]

However, as we have discussed tonight, the Scottish variable rate has previously been only somewhat theoretical, in that it has never been employed as a tool to influence the economic fortunes of Scotland. That raises the question of whether the new rate will be any different, but I believe that it will be. I believe that the Scottish Government can and will enjoy more financial responsibility through the radical proposals in the Bill. More importantly, the proposals have the propensity to have long-lasting positive effects in Scotland.

To understand that, we have only to ask ourselves how our constituents—no matter which part of the UK we represent—would respond if more funding were raised and distributed locally, rather than by central Government. If that were the case, I am sure that my constituents would take an even greater interest in what their money was spent on and would be able to assess more easily whether politicians were responding to local priorities. Although the provisions relating to Scotland are based at the national level, not the local one, the same phenomenon should apply. This move should strengthen democratic accountability and bolster political engagement in Scottish communities.

I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member recently to have received letters from constituents unhappy about the level of block grant funding given to the devolved nations and, in particular, concerned that there is a difference in funding for certain policy areas, such as university fees and prescription charges. What needs to be communicated more effectively is how the Scottish Government can prioritise their funding. In England, all funding is distributed by the UK Government but in Scotland, the UK Government pay for national—that is, UK-wide—public services, such as defence and industry, and the block grant funding is distributed by the Scottish Government and pays for devolved powers: education, various aspects of health policy and so on. As a result, although decisions on funding in England must involve national, regional and local priorities, the Scottish Government can spend their block grant funding on regional and local issues only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady concede, nevertheless, that choices are made about how to spend that block grant and that if a Scottish Government make a choice about how to deal with university funding, they do so to the potential detriment of other funding? The decisions that have been taken in this place about tuition fees and the reduction of the teaching grant for universities have had a considerable impact on Scotland, so we are not somehow free from those decisions.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point and that is why I prefaced my remarks with the phrase, “What needs to be communicated more effectively is how the Scottish Government can prioritise their funding.” By that, I meant that checks and balances are involved and that that needs to be communicated nationwide. A greater understanding of that needs to be gained.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend’s answer to that intervention was very generous. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should make decisions about priorities in Scotland—about free tuition, prescriptions and whatever else—but the question that remains and needs to be answered is whether the baseline of the block grant, as it is set up, is fair on Scotland, England and Wales.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Let me turn now to the proposals in the Bill. It is only right that I should explain why complete financial independence would not, in my view, be beneficial for the Scottish or wider UK economy. Members of the Scottish National party might say that the Bill’s financial provisions do not go far enough but devolving full economic responsibility while retaining various regulatory and other competences would create a two-tier system that would serve to weaken our economy. Devotees of the two-tier system argue, I believe, on the basis of a fiction, if not a fantasy, that such a fragmented system could exist without disastrous consequences. The Calman commission and the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Bill both rule out financial independence on the grounds that it would create havoc for taxpayers and break up the Union.

In its final report, the Calman commission gave its reasons why income tax should not be fully devolved, including that it would not, in the commission’s view,

“be consistent with the social Union”.

We can add a further reason. There are certain areas of government that a responsible country will retain at a national level, such as defence and national security. They should remain UK-wide in the interests of the shared public good, and fragmenting them would be both inefficient and dangerous for national security. The same basic principles apply to immigration and trade. Unco-ordinated approaches in those areas could lead to potentially disastrous consequences so it is important that we act responsibly and in the whole country’s interest.

Such protections can be afforded only under a single economic framework and any moves to meddle in that area unnecessarily will create more damage than good. It is therefore refreshing that the Scottish Parliament recognises the merits of the Bill’s provisions and, rather than running before attempting to crawl, its report on the Bill does not go so far as to recommend full financial responsibility.

The Bill is about improving the devolution settlement and promoting economic growth. The income tax proposals in the Bill retain the reservation of overall fiscal management within the UK Government, which will ensure that the needs of Scotland are supported alongside a UK-wide strategy of promoting growth and economic stability. I welcome the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report on the Bill, which states in paragraphs 36 and 39, with reference to fiscal decentralisation:

“The evidential base was, in our view, remarkably weak, and the claims made did not stand up to challenge or scrutiny…the overwhelming balance of expert economic opinion in Scotland and internationally was that the existing evidence base supports neither any clear link between fiscal decentralisation and an economy’s long-run rate of growth, nor…a precise numerical link between fiscal decentralisation and an increase in GDP.”

It goes on:

“The Scotland Bill is about good government. It is intended to improve how Scotland is governed and align decisions on spending and taxation more closely so that the Scottish Parliament will be more accountable and, in the long run, take better decisions. Better decisions will, in the longer term, mean improvements to many aspects of Scottish public life.”

In true political fashion, I have a favourite section of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report, which was mentioned earlier. In paragraphs 43 and 44, the report states:

“Full Financial Responsibility was the Scottish Government’s alternative to the plans in the Scotland Bill. The Committee did not examine this in detail, as there was no detail to examine. We received no costings for these plans, no material explaining the practical implications for taxpayers, employers, Scotland’s financial sector or collection plans. However, we were able to come to several obvious conclusions. Firstly, as was made clear in evidence to us, fiscal systems serve constitutional ends. Full Financial Responsibility is no exception. The constitutional aim it serves, however, is not the preservation of the UK. Secondly, it is plain that under fiscal responsibility, Scotland would run a substantial deficit…Finally, it is clear that no thought has been given to the effect of these plans on the economy of the UK, to which Scotland will inevitably remain linked…The Committee is clear that the evidence shows that full financial responsibility or autonomy is not a serious alternative to the fully worked out plans in the Scotland Bill.”

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Is it the hon. Lady’s contention that full financial accountability is a euphemism for independence?

[Fiona Bruce]

It is my contention that full financial responsibility would not benefit either Scotland or the UK more widely.

In conclusion, it has been made clear by the Scottish Parliament and acknowledged by the Calman commission report that reform of the devolution settlement in Scotland is essential. It is fair to assume that the Bill would exist regardless of which party was in government, and I hope it receives the support it deserves. Any futile disagreements with its premises discredit the fine work undertaken by the Calman commission and serve only to play partisan politics. It is difficult to argue against the income tax proposals laid out in the Bill as they further cement the coalition Government’s commitment to the localism agenda. That agenda is about devolving power to meet more local needs, but that does not mean that all powers can or should be devolved. Powers should be devolved to the most local level possible if feasible and responsible. I hope that if the Bill is successfully passed and implemented, Scotland will be able more effectively to deliver Scottish solutions for Scottish needs and the Scottish people. I support clause 26.

[Stewart Hosie]

I rise to support amendment 42, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and amendments 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50. All those amendments are concerned with the commencement only of a number of clauses. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who is not in her place, on her technical questions. I have a very similar list so I shall not reread the questions but I would like to reinforce two of the points that were made.

The first concerns Labour’s probing amendment 70, on retrospectivity in the tax code. I am seeking a guarantee, as far as the Minister can give one, that such use of any retrospective tax powers would only be in relation to stopping tax avoidance or tax evasion. That is extremely important. The second is about people on board ships and other installations. Is the Minister convinced that the description in new section 80E(4), introduced by clause 26, that a place

“includes a place on board a vessel or other means of transport”

is sufficient?

Before I address my amendments, let me make an observation about the lovely speech of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She spoke about accountability under the proposals and not wanting things to be fragmented. I wonder how having control of 50% of the base rate, a quarter of the 40% rate and only a fifth of the top rate, and having no control over allowances and thresholds, is unfragmented. I understand that she wants things to work, but I fear that she might not understand that that might be deflationary. She said that there would be a link between tax and spending, which there might well be, but the provisions in total will assign the Scottish Parliament control of only 15% or so of the tax raised in and on behalf of Scotland. She also said that the Bill was a fully worked out plan. It is so fully worked out that there are amendments that we do not yet have, which we will debate on Report, and I suspect that amendments will be tabled in the other place. Of course, the Bill is also likely to be subject to a second legislative consent memorandum after the Scottish election, so it is not quite the fully worked out plan that she described.

Today, however, I am more concerned about commencement and I am glad that all the commencement amendments are being debated in a single group. They relate to tax provisions on the Scottish rate of income tax, stamp duty land tax and landfill tax, which come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, those provisions will not have any practical effect at that point because the Bill includes an additional step requiring the Treasury to appoint a tax year as the first year in which the income tax provisions are to operate. For SDLT and landfill tax, the Treasury will appoint a specific start date, but the principle is the same. Until the Treasury does that, those tax provisions will sit on the statute book without changing the current arrangements whereby the UK Parliament controls all aspects of income tax, SDLT and landfill tax. Similarly, although the measures to repeal the current Scottish variable rate provisions will commence two months after Royal Assent, they will have no practical effect until the Treasury appoints a tax year as the last tax year in which SVR will operate.

This two-stage approach to commencement is highly unusual but not unique. The practical effect is that the tax proposals will operate only when the Treasury decides they should. The powers conferred on the Treasury to appoint start dates are not subject to any parliamentary procedure and will not even be publicised by means of statutory instrument. The processes for bringing the tax provisions into effect do not require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Ministers or even the Westminster Parliament. That would be a fundamental flaw in terms of scrutiny, particularly where the commencement of flawed provisions would result in something damaging the economy.

The SNP believes that there has to be a role for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have outlined the serious gaps remaining in the proposals, not least the fact that crucial details remain unknown. It is essential that the Bill should include a specific mechanism giving the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to consider the proposals after Royal Assent but before they are brought into effect. Our amendments seek to change the commencement provisions to ensure that the tax provisions cannot be brought into effect without the specific consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As the Bill alters the devolution settlement, the Scottish Government do not consider it appropriate for the key provisions on taxation to be brought into effect by means of an administrative decision by the Treasury. There are plenty of precedents for Scottish consent to be required before UK legislation comes into force. Section 127(4) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 requires a joint order to be made by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers before certain measures can be brought into force. Section 148 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 contains a range of commencement procedures involving Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly. Certain provisions in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 relating to football banning orders require the consent of Scottish Ministers before being brought into force. Finally, the Public Bodies Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, includes a requirement to obtain the consent of Scottish Ministers before an order abolishing or reforming a public body is made where that order includes provisions on a devolved matter.