National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to respond to the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this short debate. Before I do so, may I reiterate the main purpose of the Bill? It introduces the final aspect of the five-year tax lock, which is further proof of the Government’s commitment to provide certainty on tax rates for the duration of this Parliament and the commitment to low levels of taxation made in the Conservative manifesto for the general election in May, which resulted in a Conservative majority in that election. The commitment was that the rates of income tax, VAT and NICs would not increase. The Finance Bill introduced legislation to deliver that commitment for income tax and VAT, whereas this Bill delivers on the commitment for NICs. The benefits are that it provides certainty for employers and employees that for the duration of the Parliament NICs will not rise and the upper earnings limit will not exceed the higher rate threshold for income tax.

We have heard the argument that it is not necessary to legislate in this regard, but I remind the House that it was a Conservative manifesto commitment to legislate and we are fulfilling that commitment. Concerns were also raised that the measure might restrict flexibility for future Governments, and the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about the circumstances that might apply in such cases was very good. I do not think that anybody would advocate in the teeth of a recession that we should put these rates up. Fiscal credibility is very important, of course, and our determination in that regard will be demonstrated at the spending review on 25 November. It is important that we bring borrowing down, but we do not believe we should do that by putting up national insurance contribution rates, which is what the Bill prevents us from doing.

Future funding for contributory benefits, should NIC receipts prove insufficient, is a matter for the Chancellor and a decision to be made at the relevant fiscal event based on the latest projections available at the time and taking into account the NIC rate ceilings that we are introducing. The Government Actuary recommends a working balance of one sixth of benefit expenditure for the national insurance fund and there is provision to top up the national insurance fund from the Consolidated Fund to maintain the balance at that level. For the 2015-16 tax year a top-up of £9.6 billion has been provided for in legislation.

Let me point out, though, first, that this Government are committed to meeting our commitments in terms of the state pension and spending on the NHS. Secondly, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raises concerns that the projections might not be accurate. These projections in relation to national insurance contribution rates are made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, an independent body. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman might have concerns in general about projections for tax revenues, given that he fought a referendum not that long ago assuming that the tax revenues from North sea oil would be very much more substantial than they have turned out to be. In those circumstances, I can understand his sensitivity to the fact that receipts might not be what had been anticipated. However, this is based upon an independent assessment and, in the round, is nothing like the fiscal risk that the Scottish National party was offering the Scottish people just over a year ago.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Has the Treasury Minister forgotten that the North sea oil revenues go to HM Treasury and that the recent fall in income from the North sea proves the point to the Treasury that its forecasts can be wrong?

[Mr Gauke]

The proposition of the independence movement was much more optimistic about receipts than the OBR at the time of the referendum. Most important of all, the United Kingdom is more easily able to absorb a volatile oil price than an independent Scotland would be—a point that I would have thought anyone looking at this fairly had to accept.

Finance Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept that the provisions would not be retrospective. Nevertheless, older cars tend to more polluting and would therefore, under the new clause, carry the higher rates of duty.

The second argument that has been made is about the sale of low-emission cars, whereby it is said that the duty that will be imposed, which is a small percentage of the cost of a new car, will distort the market or dissuade people from purchasing one. When people are purchasing a new car, whether it is a hybrid car or a low-polluting car, the last thing on their minds when deciding to lay out £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000 will be whether they will pay a couple of hundred pounds in vehicle excise duty. It is argued that this will hurt the car market and the emerging market for more energy-efficient cars, but the price elasticity of such cars, or their running cost, is unlikely to impact on the demand for them.

I think the Government have got the balance right on this one. Yes, we do have to consider the detrimental impact of emissions that come from cars, and there should be a tax on that, but we must also recognise that a vehicle is very important for most families across the United Kingdom. As lower-income families tend to have older cars, a regime that ramps up tax payments according to the car’s age and emissions would be unfair. The proposal in the Bill is therefore acceptable.

I have a question that the Minister did not give a clear answer to, and I hope he will do so when he sums up. On the road fund that is being proposed as a result of the money that is collected, given that infrastructure developments are devolved issues in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, it will be important to know how exactly that fund will be allocated. Will there be separate accounting for the tax that is collected in each of the areas? Will it be done on the basis of Barnett consequentials or will some other regime be put in place? It is important that we know that, because if this is to be one of the ways in which infrastructure developments are to be financed in future, there needs to be certainty for devolved Administrations as to what money is likely to be coming their way and how it will be calculated.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I want to make a brief contribution on new clause 3. The Minister, elegantly as he does, fobbed us off by saying, “We’re having a consultation and so on, but meanwhile we’ll press on regardless.” However, there is still a major issue regarding a potential tax loophole that has not been closed.

I accept that fund managers are remunerated on two different and distinct levels: they are paid for the work they do as investment managers and also receive a reward for hazarding their own capital. I also accept that there is a gain in having fund managers hazard some of their own capital, perhaps more so than they do at the moment. Unfortunately, though, if we charge very different marginal rates on the income component and on the hazarding their own money component, we will create the capacity for a loophole in paying the lower tax on the capital gain and less on the income.

It does not matter what short-term changes the Minister makes to try to prevent existing ways in which hedge funds allow the personal investment component of the investment to be organised, because people will just think up new ones. We have to close the loophole at source. The obvious way to do that would be to go back to a previous situation in which income tax and capital gains tax were charged at the same marginal rate.

Unfortunately, for the past several decades we have proceeded down a road of constantly cutting taxes on capital. I think there was a case in the 1990s for cutting marginal rates of tax on capital, because it was a difficult economic period and we had to encourage investment, but the Government have transformed that into an ideological demand that we always go on cutting taxes. Indeed, one of the core philosophies of the Finance Bill is to cut corporation tax even more, despite the fact that, on both a UK and a global level, we have pyramided up corporate surpluses, which are not being used. The current problem is not to find more loose capital, but to find fiscal incentives to make the owners of capital invest it.

The inherent philosophical problem with which the Government present us in the Bill is the imbalance created when marginal rates of taxation on capital are pushed lower and lower while significant taxes on labour are not reduced effectively and significantly. Our new clause 3 is specifically designed to force the Government to respond to the philosophical principle that the loophole should not be created in the first place. I do not think that the Minister has answered that effectively, which is why we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me respond to what has been an eclectic debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to the Dispatch Box for her debut. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and wish her a long and successful career speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am sure she will be something of a star of the Labour Opposition Front Bench for years to come.

The hon. Lady said that the explanatory notes were only made available this morning, but I understand that they have been available on the gov.uk website since Thursday 22 October, which was the day after the amendments and new clauses were tabled. If she has any contrary information, I will happily look at it.

The hon. Lady touched briefly on the compound interest charge and asked me to respond to hostile comments from business. The measure is being introduced to ensure that a fair amount of corporation tax is paid and that any awards of restitution interest are paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We are setting the special rate to reflect the unique circumstances of the claims. It will affect only a relatively small number of companies—about 0.5% of those submitting corporation tax returns in relation to specific payments—and it will not affect the benefit given by the historically low rates of corporation tax on the trading and investment profits they currently make. It will ensure that relatively few do not gain a significant additional benefit at the expense of the public purse.

Let me turn to the lengthier debate we have had about reforms of vehicle excise duty. The hon. Lady raised a concern that they may damage UK car manufacturing and penalise cars built in the United Kingdom. We are not doing that. The supplement will apply to all cars worth more than £40,000, regardless of where they are manufactured, and we are supporting cars such as the Nissan Leaf, which is built in Sunderland, through zero rates for zero-emission cars. We think it is fair that more expensive cars pay more than ordinary family cars.

On the accusation that it is unfair that cars that are more fuel efficient pay the same as gas-guzzling vehicles, I would argue that they do not. Under the new system, the first-year rates for the highest-emitting cars will be doubled compared with the current system. Zero-emission cars will continue to pay no annual VED rate, and more expensive, bigger, higher-polluting cars will pay the standard rate supplement, so there will be incentives to buy smaller, lower-emitting cars on the second-hand market. What is unfair in the current system is that those who can afford to buy a brand-new car pay less than those who cannot do so. That point was made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). In the new system, those who can afford an expensive car will pay more.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reaching the Front Bench after far too long a wait. I can tell him that we would be more than happy to take over the setting of VAT in Scotland. That could remove the anomaly.

[Rob Marris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We shall shortly be having a discussion about the mechanics of setting VAT in the United Kingdom.

New clause 7 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). New clause 2, tabled by the Scottish National party, is similar but not as good. It was also tabled in Committee. The greater virtue of my hon. Friend’s new clause—in contradistinction to new clause 2—is that she has carefully listened to what the Government said in Committee about the road map, as we say these days, to achieving this worthy goal. She has worded her new clause in the light of the remarks made by the Minister in Committee, and I commend her for that. Her proposal has gained considerable momentum on both sides of the House, for obvious reasons. Of course, those of us on the Labour Front Bench will support it and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same. I will not say a great deal more about the new clause—

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I remind the hon. Lady that under the sixth directive, which sets out the tax rules in the EU, the anomalies that she mentions between different kinds of medical products, including tampons, are precisely the evidence we need to take to the VAT Committee in order to get a derogation that would allow us to move to the zero rate for all these products. In advancing her line of argument, would she like to ask the Minister why the Government have never asked for that derogation, which is perfectly possible given the evidence she has raised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. Whereas the previous Labour Government doubled the 10p rate of income tax, this Government and the coalition Government increased the personal allowance very substantially from below £6,500 to the levels I have set out this evening.

I turn now to the support that the Bill will provide to business. We want to provide certainty to businesses, increase investment and improve our infrastructure, because that will drive growth and job creation in the coming years. First, it is clear that we need a business tax regime that is stable, competitive and fair. This is essential to make the UK more competitive and to support growth. In the previous Parliament, the main rate of corporation tax was cut from 28% to 20%, which led to more businesses coming to the UK to carry out their activity. Given the global competition that the UK faces, we must go further. This Bill cuts the corporation tax rate to 19% in 2017 and to 18% in 2020, saving businesses more than £6 billion in 2021 and giving the UK the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20. The Bill also sets the annual investment allowance at the permanent higher level of £200,000. This will provide long-term certainty to businesses and encourage them to invest in plant and machinery.

Finally, I would like to turn to the measures in the Bill that tackle tax avoidance and evasion, tax planning, compliance and imbalances in our tax system. Hon. Members will recall that the summer Budget announced a raft of measures to tackle those who do not pay their fair share of tax. The measures will collectively raise £5 billion a year by 2019-20. I am proud to say that the Bill will implement a number of those measures and will make an important contribution to the further £37 billion in fiscal consolidation that is required over the course of this Parliament to run a budget surplus by the end of this Parliament.

[George Kerevan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me make a little progress.

First, the Bill ensures that investment fund managers cannot exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying capital gains tax. We will also address a tax planning risk in which corporate groups could exploit tax rules for asset transfers between connected parties. This ensures that profits are brought to tax.

Finally, the Bill modernises HMRC collection powers by allowing HMRC to recover tax and tax credit debts directly from a debtor’s accounts. This measure will tackle those who seek to play the system and who are avoiding paying their fair share of tax, which they can afford to pay. This measure will also, of course, be subject to robust safeguards and the most vulnerable will be protected. Taken together, these measures will protect our public finances and send a clear message that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax.

[George Kerevan]

In terms of helping business, would the Minister care to comment on press reports this morning that the Government are planning to abolish research grants to industry and replace them with loans, on which interest would be paid?

Tax Credits

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.

Britain is home to 1% of the world’s population and accounts for 4% of the world’s gross domestic product and 7% of the world’s welfare spending. Tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms in the decade between 2000 and 2010. In fact, Britain has the highest expenditure on family cash benefits in the world. In 2011, we were spending twice as much as the OECD average. Without sound public finances, there can be no economic security for working families, and the country cannot pay for the hospitals and schools that people rely on.

Those who suffer most when the Government run unsustainable deficits are not the richest, but the very poorest. As the Prime Minister made clear in a speech at Ormiston Bolingbroke in Weaver Vale, there is nothing progressive about burdening our children or paying more in debt interest than we spend on schools. There is nothing progressive about debt.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that a central portion of the national debt is owned by the Treasury and that we pay a substantial part of the interest payments to ourselves.

[Graham Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I have to say that I have a vested interest as I have three young children. Is he saying that we should increase our debt? Should the debt of £1.3 trillion be £2 trillion, £3 trillion or £4 trillion? How much more debt does he think this country should leave to our children to pay back?

[George Kerevan]

rose—

[Graham Evans]

Or should it be £5 trillion, £6 trillion or £7 trillion? I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman so he can tell me.

[George Kerevan]

The SNP is more than willing and happy to reduce the national debt year by year and annual borrowing year by year, but I say again that something over a third of the national debt is actually owned by the Treasury, so he cannot go on saying that interest payments go to somebody else; they go to ourselves to fund hospitals, for example.

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Scottish National party is happy to increase the national debt. That is the message: the national debt is going to go up. That is what socialism does and what socialists say. They are not concerned about the national debt, which is currently £1.4 trillion and getting higher. We can hear the message coming through loud and clear from the SNP.

Tax credits cost £l billion in their first full year, but have since risen to an estimated £30 billion over the last year, yet over the same period in-work poverty rose by 20%. The status quo on tax credits is clearly not working. Indeed, the former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, said that tax credits were

“subsiding low wages in a way that was never intended.”

It is vital to address the root causes of low pay rather than simply continuing endlessly to subsidise low pay through the benefit system. Reforming tax credits is crucial to achieving a sustainable welfare system that is fair both to the most vulnerable in society and to hard-working taxpayers who have to pay for it.

These reforms do not stand in isolation, but are part of a joined-up, wider offer to working people by this Government. With the announcement of the introduction of a new living wage by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor during his summer Budget, and the strides taken to raise the personal allowance, people will not only earn more but keep more of what they earn. It always pays to work.

On top of that, we doubled the number of free childcare hours of which parents can take advantage to 30, introduced tax-free childcare and froze fuel duty, saving a family £10 every time they fill up their tank.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I welcome clause 19, which fits in with the drift of the previous discussion we had about not all banks being the same and about how treating them the same under the new levy was therefore the wrong approach. We also agreed that savings banks should be encouraged. I am happy to tell colleagues that they are not simply a Scottish invention, but grew out of the savings movement in the 19th century following the industrial revolution. Given the experience of banking in this country in recent years, the savings movement is to be encouraged at all levels.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Pensions: special lump sum death benefits charge

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

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 21, page 32, line 44, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 16 of Schedule 32 to FA 2004 (benefit crystallisation event 7: defined benefits lump sum death benefit is a “relevant lump sum death benefit”)—

(a) in the first sentence, in paragraph (a), after “benefit” insert “, other than one—

(i) paid by a registered pension scheme in respect of a member of the scheme who had not reached the age of 75 at the date of the member’s death, but

(ii) not paid before the end of the relevant two-year period”, and

(b) in the second sentence, for “sub-paragraph” substitute “paragraphs (a)(ii) and”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is up to individuals to decide how they wish to save. We are determined to ensure that the opportunity to own one’s own home is available to as many people as possible. That requires us to increase the supply of homes in this country, and that is a Government priority. We are moving in the right direction, but, as we set out during the Conservative party conference last week, we want to do more to put in place the conditions wherein more people will have that opportunity.

On the impact of the changes, there was a question about whether the measures might move a basic rate taxpayer into the higher tax band. We expect that around 94% of landlords who will have to pay more tax will have a total taxable income of over £35,000. On average, landlords own 2.7 properties. Those currently with taxable income under £35,000 who will have to pay more tax have, on average, larger rental incomes and larger property portfolios; they have an average pre-tax rental income of more than £64,000, and own six properties. It is true that basic rate taxpayers could be affected by the measures, but often—not in every case, but overwhelmingly—those people will have quite large portfolios and may have leveraged up to a greater extent than the typical buy-to-let landlord.

I hope that clarification has been helpful to the Committee, and that the measures will have the Committee’s support.

[George Kerevan]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. I will make an exception in this case, but, as a matter of form, ordinarily when I call the Minister to wind up the debate, that is it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he needs to be a little more spritely in leaping to his feet.

[George Kerevan]

Forgive me, Sir Roger. I am concerned about a sub-class of property owners in rural areas who might have unincorporated businesses on farms. They often rely on rented accommodation as part of the diversification of their business. I am concerned that one of these changes will make that more difficult for them, as they will be penalised, albeit unintentionally, with regard to investing in their property as part of a farm business. They might also be penalised with regard to their ability to make relevant commercial deductions for investment loans. In rural areas, property is quite often mortgaged less as part of a buy-to-let and more as part of the general farm business. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Mr Gauke]

The same principles apply to rural landlords as apply across the board. We want to ensure fairness in how interest deductibility applies: the same rate should apply across the board. In terms of whether businesses will be able to secure loans against property for business development, the measure will apply to restrict relief for borrowings used for the purpose of residential property businesses, not to borrowings secured against residential properties that are used for the development of other business. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and, again, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 23, in clause 24, page 37, line 18, leave out “finance costs” and insert

“costs of a dwelling-related loan”

Amendment 24, in clause 24, page 37, line 19, leave out

“non-deductible costs of a dwelling-related loan”

and insert “individuals”

Amendment 25, in clause 24, page 38, line 26, at end insert—

“274B Tax reduction for accumulated or discretionary trust income

(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if—

(a) an amount (“A”) would be deductible in calculating the profits for income tax purposes of a property business for a tax year but for section 272A,

(b) the trustees of a particular settlement are liable for income tax on N% of those profits, where N is a number—

(i) greater than 0, and

(ii) less than or equal to 100, and

(c) in relation to those trustees, that N% of those profits is accumulated or discretionary income.

(2) The trustees of the settlement are entitled to relief under this section for the tax year in respect of an amount (“the relievable amount”) equal to N% of A.

(3) The amount of the relief is given by—

BR × L

where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year, and L is the lower of—

(a) the total of—

(i) the relievable amount, and

(ii) any difference available in relation to the trustees of the settlement and the property business for carry-forward to the year under subsection (4), and

(b) the profits for income tax purposes of the property business for the year after any deduction under section 118 of ITA 2007 (“the adjusted profits”) or, if less, the share of the adjusted profits—

(i) on which the trustees of the settlement are liable to income tax, and

(ii) which, in relation to the trustees of the settlement, is accumulated or discretionary income.

(4) Where the amount (“AY”) of the relief under this section for the year in respect of the relievable amount is less than—

BR × T

where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year and T is the total found at subsection (3)(a), the difference between—

(a) T, and

(b) AY divided by BR (with BR expressed as a fraction for this purpose),

is available in relation to the trustees of the settlement and the property business for carry-forward to the following tax year.

(5) In this section “accumulated or discretionary income” has the meaning given by section 480 of ITA 2007.”

Amendment 26, in clause 24, page 40, line 3, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 26(2) of ITA 2007 (tax reductions deductible at Step 6 of the calculation in section 23 of ITA 2007 in the case of taxpayer who is not an individual), before the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) section 274B of ITTOIA 2005 (trusts with accumulated or discretionary income derived from property business: relief for non-deductible costs of dwelling-related loans),”.—(Mr Gauke.)

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Enterprise investment scheme

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

George Kerevan Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A striking point made by a number of my hon. Friends on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week was that the introduction of the tax lock in the context of employers’ national insurance contributions gives employers much greater confidence. Providing economic stability and security is an important part of the Government’s long-term economic plan. A credible party needs to present to the British people how it will provide economic security and stability. That is what this Government are doing. I look forward to the day when there is cross-party consensus that economic security and stability are important to this country.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Sir Roger, not having served under your chairmanship before, I look forward to doing so. I accept the Minister’s point that he is trying to produce certainty through the clause, but it is surely the case that he is merely displacing the uncertainty. If projected tax receipts fail and the Bill is on the statute book, the Government will have to either cut public expenditure, which will impact on the economy and affect the confidence of suppliers, or raise borrowing, which again will have an impact on confidence in the economy because interest rates will have to go up. In no way can we ever introduce certainty; all we can do is put the uncertainty somewhere else, so the Minister’s argument fails.

[Mr Gauke]

I was making the point that it is important we provide certainty on taxes. At the last general election, the Labour party—I am not sure this was the case for the SNP—certainly said that it would not increase income tax, VAT and national insurance contribution rates. In that sense, there was a cross-party consensus—at least there was at the last general election; I appreciate things may have moved on since then—on not increasing those rates. We are underlining our pledge by legislating for it, which further strengthens our commitment. In the context of a Government who have a record of ensuring that income taxes do not increase, even when we face the most difficult circumstances, that pledge and this legislation have credibility.

The changes made by clause 1 will set out that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not rise above their current levels of 20%, 40% and 45% respectively for the duration of this Parliament. The tax lock will apply to the main rates of income tax for earnings and savings. That accounts for more than 90% of income tax revenue collected, and that is what we want to lock, enabling working people to keep more of what they earn.

The tax lock does not prejudice the Government’s commitments on tax devolution. From April 2016, Scotland will have the power to vary the rate of income tax for earnings, and we are devolving further unprecedented flexibilities over income tax to Scotland through the Scotland Bill, which will give the Scottish Parliament the power to set the rates and thresholds applying to earnings income. The Government are committed to delivering that in full, giving Scotland full flexibility over income tax rates and thresholds on earnings income. The tax lock will therefore not restrict Scotland from setting higher rates of income tax, nor Wales when it has the Welsh rate of income tax.

Clause 1 delivers the Government’s commitment to rule out increases in the main rates of income tax for the duration of this Parliament, ensuring that working people can keep more of the money they earn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful guidance, which is particularly useful to me and, no doubt, other new Members.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 3, and I encourage other Members to join me in doing so. I am mindful that there are European implications regarding VAT that we must consider, but I am certain that the European restriction on abolishing VAT on sanitary products is more oversight than intent. I have every faith that there will be support for addressing this injustice at a European level, and I urge the Government to investigate those possibilities. The new clause would give the Government 12 months, which would be ample time to conduct investigations.

There is huge public support for abolishing VAT on sanitary products. A recent change.org petition asking the Chancellor to look into the issue has reached nearly 250,000 supporters. The Prime Minister was asked what he would do about the issue by a student at the University of East Anglia in the run-up to the general election and he agreed to look into it again. We know that the new clause has cross-party support and would be well received by the electorate.

I am pleased that the new clause makes particular reference to women under 25. On average, girls need to start purchasing sanitary products at the age of 12. It should have as small a financial impact as possible. Girls at that age are inevitably in full-time education, so we need to ensure that what can be a big personal transition has a limited financial burden.

I found examples of bizarre VAT-exempt products, including alcoholic jellies, edible sugar flowers and exotic meats, such as crocodile and kangaroo. Perhaps most ironically of all, no VAT is paid on millionaire shortbread. [Laughter.] We can all have a giggle about some of those bizarre contradictions, but what an insult to women and girls they are. It is a travesty that tampons and sanitary towels have ever been deemed luxury purchases. They are necessities for millions of women. I hope the Government will do the right thing in considering the new clause.

[George Kerevan]

I am mindful of the fact that we have got another 48 clauses, so I will try to be brief—which is difficult for me. There are particular issues about the VAT lock that have to be put to the Minister.

VAT income to the Treasury is notoriously variable because VAT is a tax on consumption. It varies with the business cycle because it is a consumption tax. Unfortunately, in clauses 1 and 2 the Government are introducing the new doctrine that major taxes, including VAT, will be set once every five years at the start of each Parliament. I presume that in the Government’s mind the tax lock will exist in perpetuity and will be set at a different level every time we elect a Government. They are decoupling the raising of revenue—the revenue function of the Government and the Treasury—from the business cycle. As the business cycle goes up and down, income to the Treasury will go up and down independently of when we set tax rates—particularly VAT.

[Mark Garnier]

I am acutely aware of the fact that we have got a lot to get on with, but I find the hon. Gentleman’s argument utterly preposterous. He is arguing that, should the business cycle slow down, he would increase VAT—were he in a position to do so—which would have the effect of stifling consumption and thereby amplifying the problem, rather than negating it. This measure is quite clearly a cap, not a floor, so we can reduce VAT should we want to stimulate the business cycle.

[George Kerevan]

My good friend from the Treasury Committee anticipates what I was not going to say. All I am arguing is that we require flexibility in setting taxes to respond to events in the real economy. The doctrine that the Government are introducing of a tax lock in perpetuity removes such flexibly. That in itself creates uncertainty in the minds of business and the financial community, which the Government will have to address.

I accept the principle that we should try to set taxes in a way that is not destabilising. That should lead us to consult with the business community and community interest groups before we change taxes. That is perfectly possible and it is done in other countries. In Germany, for instance, there is mandatory consultation between the federal and regional Parliaments before income tax levels are changed. There are other ways to do that. The Chancellor accepted that principle in relation to North sea oil taxes when he gave an undertaking that any major changes would come only after consultation with the industry. Unfortunately, he did not extend that doctrine to the renewables industry, which would have been sensible.

To put a tax lock on VAT in perpetuity decouples revenue setting from the business cycle and, in the end, that is not tenable, because the taxes would be varied in an emergency. It is not tenable to decouple them, so the Government will live to rue the day that they put the lock in. That explains the reason for the lock. It is not for economic reasons; they are playing a political game. It is a gimmick.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

George Kerevan Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed; that is why we made that pledge first. There is nothing else to say about that. We understood how important that was, and made the pledge first—on income tax, national insurance and VAT. The only difference between us on that is that we would not have spent the time of a Public Bill Committee or Committee of the whole House on gimmicks—on putting forward legislation to bring in what we pledged. We support action to help small and medium-sized businesses, and a system in which business reliefs are clear and focused. We want to ease the burden on smaller business of navigating the myriad reliefs that, we have to admit, exist today.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

We will not challenge the main substance of clause 7, but it has unintended consequences that reflect on later clauses that we will try to amend; I want to bring those up, and will ask the Minister to reflect on them and perhaps discuss them with the Chancellor.

The clause pre-announces the cut to the main rate five years in advance. Ordinarily, I would think that was quite a good thing to do, because it maximises revenue streams and still gets us the maximum impact of the incentive. That worked very well in Sweden, so we should congratulate the Minister on that principle. The first problem that emerges is that significant evidence shows that large amounts of corporate surpluses are staying in the bank or are being used for share buy-backs. There has been no great evidence over the past few years to show that cuts to corporation tax are leading directly to reinvestment in manufacturing plant and productive infrastructure. In fact, corporate balances have been going up significantly in the UK and, for the same reason, the United States.

My practical worry is that if we continue, over these five years, to cut corporation tax, that may incentivise profit-making in business, but the profits will not be reinvested into raising productivity in the British economy. That link has to be looked at. The issue could be dealt with by adding extra incentives for investment, so that the corporate surpluses are recycled. One of my criticisms of the Bill overall is that those incentives do not exist. I ask the Minister to look at that.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we put in place the incentives that he describes, we would add complication to an already very complicated tax code? On his point about reinvestment, if corporate profits are dividended back to shareholders, it is likely that those shareholders will reinvest them elsewhere. If the profits are deposited in banks, my basic Maynard Keynes reading suggests that the banks will lend the money to other people. The money will find its way back into the economy, but via different routes.

[George Kerevan]

Both are fair points, but the recycling is largely going into property. Every crane that we count around this building is the result of that. We have offset productive investment into an overheated property market, which is hardly what we want to do to raise productivity.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point about how we craft incentives so that they do not become over-complicated and lead to further tax loopholes, that is an historical problem. This is a question of the here and now. I am sure that the Chancellor and the Government can come up with some good ideas on that.

I raised the issue with the Treasury Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee yesterday, because I am concerned that the Government are adding to the burden by attempting to run a permanent budget surplus—to generate surpluses that do not go into the productive economy. The representatives of the Monetary Policy Committee committed themselves to an answer that they may rue and that the Government should go away and think about. The committee was pressed on the point that if the Government run a permanent budget surplus, it must have an impact on the rest of the national income accounts. If we run a budget surplus, we are saving; we are taxing people to save. Where do the savings go? The best that the committee could do was say that there would be a further rundown of corporate balance sheets—in other words, money would flow out of the corporate sector—and that money might start flowing abroad, so we would end up investing abroad.

[Chris Philp]

We have a £1.5 trillion national debt, and I would respectfully suggest that surpluses would begin, in a very small way, to pay it down.

[George Kerevan]

I merely reflect the answer given to me by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The hon. Gentleman may take it up with them.

Clause 7 will have a second unintended consequence, which is more specific. The Finance Bill does not just cut taxes to business; it raises them in a new way in the banking sector through the introduction of the bank levy—the surcharge on bank profits, which will replace the old levy. The problem with the change to the surcharge is that it extends the new tax to challenger banks and mutual building societies. The Chancellor responded to me personally and said that challenger banks and mutuals will not be disadvantaged because any shift in the extra tax burden from the surcharge on their profits will be offset by the reduction in corporation tax. Unfortunately, there is a five-year gap, and therein lies the problem. Yes, the reduction in corporation tax will eventually feed through to the challenger banks and mutuals, but in the interim they will have to pay a surcharge. There is a problem for competition, because we will be placing an extra burden on the mutuals and challenger banks in the interim by raising the surcharge on their profits. The full effect of the cut in corporation tax will come only five years down the road.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has done a very good job of conflating two issues into one clause, but he needs to keep relating his speech to the levy on corporation tax. He has done that so far, but he seems to be straying from that a bit.

[George Kerevan]

I stand chastened, Mr Howarth. My point is that the one does not offset the other because of the time gap, which is where I wanted to finish. That is what I would like the Minister to reflect on.

[Mr Gauke]

I begin by welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for the reduction in corporation tax—although, if I may say so, she could have sounded a little more enthusiastic about the measure. I would be grateful to know whether the shadow Chancellor agrees with the reduction in the corporation tax rate first to 19% and then to 18%. He is on record suggesting that the rate should be considerably higher, but I appreciate that he made those comments when he was a Back Bencher, so perhaps we should not dwell on them for too long.

A few issues were raised, some of which relate to this clause. I will try to address as many as possible. First, on the issue of the UK’s reputation and the base erosion and profit shifting process, which was instigated by the UK Government and others, the UK believes in a tax system that is competitive and fair, and which properly reflects where economic activity takes place. We want a simple, competitive and fair tax system, which is why we instigated the BEPS initiative to ensure that companies are not able to make use of an outdated international tax system that does not properly reflect where economic activity takes place. Within that system it is perfectly reasonable to have low and competitive rates, and that is exactly what we have delivered.

As I set out earlier, we are seeing signs of increased business investment. The analysis undertaken by the Treasury and HMRC shows that much of the tax loss as a consequence of the reductions is recovered by increases in economic activity. A dynamic behavioural analysis shows that this is helping. Real business investment is growing as a proportion of GDP; business investment grew by 8% in 2014, and the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that it will grow strongly over the next few years. It is also worth pointing out that the likes of the OECD make the case that corporation tax is perhaps one of the most economically damaging taxes and one of the most inefficient of our taxes. That is why it has been a priority for the Government to reduce it. We believe that if the UK is to prosper and to win the global race, it is important that we have that competitive tax system.

Our case as a country would be aided if there was consensus that we should have low rates of corporation tax, and that is why I genuinely welcome the fact that the Opposition parties apparently will not divide the Committee on that issue. I hope that that consensus can be maintained, because those who go around advocating very high rates for corporation tax do not aid those of us who are trying to advocate that businesses should invest in the UK when they have a number of international choices.

Finance Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I think that we are now going rather wide of the amendment and the clause that we are meant to be debating. I wish to see a generous care system that is properly controlled and disciplined. If the hon. Lady has individual cases where people will be adversely affected unreasonably, I am sure that Ministers will be willing to look at them. The last thing I wish to see is unreasonable cuts affecting people who really need the money, but I also wish to see more work done—this is what the Government are doing—to promote the abilities of many people, including those she suggests are disabled, because many people have many abilities. This Government are about encouraging those abilities, helping people to do more for themselves and, where possible, to get into work so that they can lead more rewarding lives, and so that they can receive pay in addition to the benefit assistance for which they currently qualify. There is a complete policy there to promote better lives for everyone in society, and cutting income taxes is an important part of that, and promoting abilities and opportunities is another.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a moral hazard to a degree in taxing insurance? There is a moral hazard that we recognise through the fact that 80% of activity in the insurance business is not taxed. Therefore, if we are increasing the tax burden on that 20% simply to raise revenue, it might be worth coming back and looking at the consequences.

[John Redwood]

That is very good advice, and that is exactly what this Committee is trying to do by highlighting the issue in a short but thorough debate.

I will now make some progress on the specific matters relating to insurance tax. It passes my first test, which is that if we have to increase a tax rate we must ensure that we get more revenue from it. It passes that test because the starting rate is sufficiently low, and the forecasts indicate that we will see a substantial increase in revenue as a result of the change.

The second question is what is its distributional effect. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South understandably made much of the cases that are the hardest, but overall I would imagine—the Minister may have some figures—that people who are better off will pay more of this tax than people who are not so well off, because a lot of it is insuring property and asset and businesses, and it will be the people with the most substantial assets and businesses who will pay rather more of that tax. It therefore meets a general test of fairness in the sense that it is progressive.

My one nervousness about that—I look forward to the Minister’s response on this—is over the issue of the young driver, which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised. I think that we need to ensure that we have a very supportive package for young people generally, because they are finding it difficult to price themselves into housing, and they do not always get the rates of pay at the beginning of their careers that we would like to see them enjoy. It is very important that we keep cutting the income taxes at the lower end of income, especially for them, because they really need to keep everything they earn if their starting pay is not very good.

The biggest problem for the young driver, particularly the young male driver, is that the starting prices for insurance can be exceptionally high. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult for the very young male driver to get insured at all. We have to ask ourselves why that is. The main reason, of course, is that the young driver is perceived to be a bad risk by the insurance company. There is some evidence that the younger driver may, on average, have a worse record than the older driver, and that is why the premiums can be particularly high on younger people.

Perhaps the Government can help rather more, through and with the industry, to tackle the main problem, which is not the tax on the premium but the initial height of the premium. Some good work has been done in the industry to provide methods of reassurance that the young person will drive well and safely by means of technology in the car that monitors them, at their own request and with their agreement. That may be the price of their getting the lower premium. We need to look at how technology and support for good driving can be reinforced so that a young person is more readily insurable at a realistic price. Of course, if the young person behaved recklessly, that would become obvious and the arrangements would have to be changed, but there are ways in which this can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend puts the point much better than I could have. I commend the Committee for this section of this debate, because it is where it is at its most thoughtful and most articulate—perhaps because it is at the close of business.

The by-product of the regime to which I made reference is that foreign investment banks have moved their head offices from London to their home nations but not necessarily their jobs. That means that UK taxpayers are not liable for bank failure in the same way as they would have been previously. The point I wish to articulate is we should not just think of tax as the means to control the behaviour of banks; we should look at the regulation, and the separation of investment banks and retail banks. That has been a success.

As we move into the newer regime and as banks, to use their own rating, would be on “negative watch”, it is right that they pay an increased premium for the risk that still exists. We should absolutely be on our guard in that respect. It is also right that we treat them as another corporation—with corporation tax but with the tax in addition on profits. To address the point made in an intervention, I do believe that there are buffers within, but I also do not think it requires an amendment to state that the Treasury must undertake a periodical review, because the Treasury will of course do that on a daily and weekly basis. Given the support that this Government have given to allow challenger banks to be set up, the Treasury will of course ensure that the help is provided and that this is on watch throughout.

I welcome this change of approach, and believe the time has moved on from when we have a bank levy towards when we have an ordinary tax on profits. On that basis, I very much support the Government’s line.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I will be brief, Mr Howarth. I just wanted to respond to some of the points made by my colleague the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). Nobody from my side of the House disputes that the bank levy was in need of reform. Indeed, he made it sound far too well organised and manufactured; it was ad hoc, arbitrary and unpredictable, and it definitely needed to be replaced by something more predictable. Therefore, we are in no way rejecting the notion of moving to a surcharge on profits, which could be an effective way of raising the funds from the banks and, in a sense, of surcharging them for the social service that we provide through the Treasury in protecting them.

I do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in relation to what I would describe as the gentle blackmail from HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank. If anyone looks at the turmoil in the Asian markets and in China at the moment, they will not think that it was a good moment for a bank to shift their headquarters from London to Hong Kong.

Let us accept that there will be a change. Our view is that we need a mechanism that allows the Treasury to use statutory instruments to vary the rate and the application of the surcharge as it evolves and as we learn whether it is impacting adversely on some banks, building societies and mutuals. That is all we are saying. We are trying to find common ground with the Chancellor. We are moving in the same direction, but the Government are rushing the application. They are making it too uniform and are choosing arbitrarily a rate of surcharge that is simply designed to reproduce the current level of tax yield. That is a bad way of approaching how we manage the surcharge on the banks.

I suppose the essence of the argument—this is really where I want to go—is that there are differences between the challenger banks and the larger banks. Those differences are not just based on their level of profit. It is quite clear that it is proportionately more expensive for the smaller banks to provide the capital to support the credit risk in their loans once it is weighted against their risky assets. We know that from the work that has been done by the Competition and Markets Authority, and I would prefer to take its view rather than the special pleading from the banks—even the special pleading from the challenger banks.

The Competition and Markets Authority has looked at the expense to the different scale of banks in providing the capital to support their credit risk. It has come up with figures that say that on a typical £100,000 loan to a small business, a challenger bank, or a bank of that scale, has to put aside roughly £8,000 per £100,000 loan, compared with about £6,000 from one of the very large banks. The mathematical reason for that is quite simple; it is not rocket science. The smaller bank with the smaller balance sheet is carrying proportionately more systemic risk on each loan. When a small bank loses a customer or has a non-performing loan, it is quite costly to it given the scale of its balance sheet. Therefore, when we start doing the risk-weighted analysis, it will have to put more capital by; it will cost it more. It is economies of scale. Big banks have economies of scale. A specific non-performing loan to a small business is a relatively small risk to the larger bank, so the cost to it will be small. It follows on from the matters of big and small economies of scale. Nevertheless, they act as a barrier to the smaller banks being able to grow.

If we impose a uniform profits surcharge on all the banks, there is a higher real burden on the smaller banks. I would like the Treasury to take that into account as we move along, and have the powers to be able swiftly to shift the rates. I was trying not to be prescriptive in laying down how we would set different levels for different kinds of banks; I wanted a system to evolve. I want the Treasury to have the powers to do that so that if it does prove to be more costly for the challenger banks and to be taking more from their profits and their ability to raise capital, we might think about different kinds of banding, and that would be up to the Treasury to consider. We are simply saying that the smaller banks have different cost structures and therefore different risk elements, which means that imposing a single levy on profits across all the banks, big and small, is a bit too arbitrary and a bit too ad hoc. In other words, it brings us back to the sort of problems that we had with the original bank levy.

[Harriett Baldwin]

It has been a great pleasure to have my Opposition shadow, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), in the Chamber today making the points that she has. I sincerely hope that next week she will continue to be my Opposition shadow, because it is clear that she takes her role very seriously. I know that she supported the hon. Member for Leicester South when it came to nominating the leader of her party, so I hope that her point of view prevails when it comes to the announcement on Saturday.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed. The food sector, from farming through to retail and catering, is hugely important, contributing £103 billion to the economy and employing one in eight people. In fact, food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. We will absolutely continue to keep its importance, in Dorset and more widely, at the front of the plan.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Perhaps the Minister has forgotten that unemployment in the UK rose in the three months to May—the first rise in two years—but actually fell in Scotland. Will he now go to Scotland to talk to the First Minister about her long-term plan for growth?

[Damian Hinds]

With the growth and employment levels that we have seen in Scotland, it becomes increasingly difficult every day for Scottish National party Members to continue to peddle their line, although I am sure they will. It is true that in the most recent short-term figures there was a slight adverse movement. As we move closer to full employment, we will not see the same large increases in employment every month, but year on year, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the position has improved.

Finance Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

No, I do not accept that. Indeed, if one looks at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tax gap publication, which identifies where the tax gap falls, one sees that, in terms of avoidance and acting contrary to the intention of Parliament, we should not overstate the element that is corporation tax avoidance by large multinationals. It is important that we address it, but one should not believe that it amounts to a huge pot. We have taken a number of steps in this area, some of which are operational. For example, we have supported HMRC to expand its large business service. Again, further progress on that was announced in the Budget. We have introduced the diverted profits tax, which came into force earlier this year. That is a very significant measure to address aggressive tax avoidance. We want to take further steps. Indeed, the base erosion and profit shifting project, which the OECD is running, means that we can hopefully take further steps in future. But those areas are best dealt with on a multilateral basis, and the UK has been very engaged in ensuring that there is progress in that area. I hope that there will be further progress on that front later this year.

Once again, this Government have introduced a Bill that makes it clear that avoidance and evasion by corporates and wealthy individuals will not be tolerated. But fixing the public finances also means that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax. The vast majority of people pay their tax on time and in full, but a small minority of taxpayers refuse to pay what they owe despite having the money to do so. The Finance Bill introduces direct recovery of debts, giving HMRC the power to recover tax and tax credit debts directly from debtors who have debts of over £1,000 and more than £5,000 in the bank.

The UK must remain competitive as a global financial centre, but it is only fair that the contribution banks make reflect the risk they pose to the UK economy. The Finance Bill introduces a new supplementary tax of 8% on banking sector profit, while gradually reducing the full bank levy rate over the Parliament. That will ensure that banks contribute a further £2 billion to the short-term task of deficit reduction, while ensuring the lowest tax rate of banks’ profit in the G7 nations.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

In the shift to the new tax on banks, the Government are sweeping in mutual banks, building societies and the smaller challenger banks. That creates problems both in capital accumulation for the mutuals and in the ability of the new challenger banks effectively to gain capital to take on the larger banks. Is that an accident, or has some decision been taken to penalise those organisations?

[Mr Gauke]

The first point I have to make is that banks with the smallest profits do not pay the surcharge. There is a minimum level to protect the very smallest banks. The bank levy that was introduced early in the previous Parliament reflected some of the issues that existed at that time. It was designed in part to encourage a different type of behaviour that would reduce risks. Regulatory changes have rather addressed that particular point. The move to a surcharge—a higher level of corporation tax—is sensible and timely given some of the changes that have been made. It is not possible in those circumstances to carve out those institutions that we like and dislike beyond putting in that de minimis level. That was a sensible approach to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am happy to give that undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman. We have always been clear that the devolution of corporation tax was dependent on stability in the finances for Northern Ireland, and I believe we agree on that point. We want to be in a position to implement that policy and I know he is also keen to implement it, but it is dependent on proper progress being made, and I entirely agree with him on that point.

To provide certainty to business and encourage investment in plant and machinery, the Bill also sets the annual investment allowance at the permanent higher level of £200,000. Improving productivity also means prioritising investment in infrastructure.

[George Kerevan]

The reality surely is that the AIA is being cut from the de facto £500,000 per year to £200,000, so it is not an increase. Doing that at the same time as cutting corporation tax runs the risk that firms’ accumulated reserves will be used to buy back shares rather than to go into productive investment, thereby meaning that the productivity growth the Government are seeking will not be achieved.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that point. First, the increase to £500,000 was temporary, as we always made clear. Very strong representations were made by business groups that what was important was putting a permanent level in place. We have the highest permanent level ever; at £200,000 it is twice the level we inherited in 2010, at a time when corporation tax rates are substantially lower. This is therefore a much more generous regime than we have had before. Our changes to corporation tax rates are an important measure in encouraging investment. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not believe it was that long ago that the Scottish National party was advocating a corporation tax rate of 18%. I am sure the SNP is delighted that there will be a rate of 18% across all the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had to slip out of the Chamber to take part in the Treasury Committee’s questioning of the Chancellor, and I bring a few bon mots from him to add to the debate.

The test of the Finance Bill and Budget is whether it will raise productivity—one might ask why the Chancellor has waited for five years to get round to that necessary development, but that is the test. Does the Bill meet the test? No it does not. Between the March Budget and the summer Budget, the Chancellor has reduced projected capital spending, and we raised that point in questions to him this morning, but in his boyish way he avoided answering it. Nevertheless, we have seen a reduction in the projected capital spend.

Capital spending is vital. It is the basic thing we need to get the plant, machinery and infrastructure that raise productivity, and Britain’s fundamental weakness in productivity is that we do not spend enough on capital and plant per worker. The Chancellor is cutting his projected capital spending, and he has done that in the five months since the March Budget and now—I wonder why.

The Chancellor had an interesting explanation for why he is doing that—in the Treasury Committee he could not avoid saying that that is what he was doing—because he said that he had discovered a way of making the outcome of his spending more efficient so that he needs less of it. If he goes on in that way, in another five months and by the time we get to the autumn statement, he will have reduced capital spending projections even more. I am talking about capital spending projections to 2020, so there is no real indication in the Budget that productivity will rise.

There are other things wrong with the Budget. Consider the investment allowance that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) alluded to. De facto, the annual investment allowance is being cut from £0.5 million to £200,000. I know that, formally speaking, the available capital allowance was a marginal £20,000, and an emergency £0.5 million level was introduced in a previous Budget. Like some classic huckster trying to sell, the Chancellor pretended that the capital allowance was going to be removed on 1 January 2016, so that he could suddenly appear and say that actually it will be £200,000. We all knew that he was going to do that because in the autumn statement and the March Budget, while talking about his desire to raise productivity, he somehow neglected to tell us that the annual investment allowance was going to be not £20,000 but £200,000 in January.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend might recall that before the general election, if memory serves me right, only one party was praised in the Financial Times for its plans to raise productivity, and that was the SNP. Could that be why we polled 51% of votes in the seats where we stood, but the Conservatives polled only 37% across the seats where they stood?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I know that is true from talking to the small businesses in my constituency.

The Chancellor claims to want a productivity revolution, but that is given the lie by the fact that in the autumn statement in December and the March Budget he did not announce that the £500,000 allowance would stay or that it would in fact be £200,000. Investment requires long-term confidence—telling businesses well in advance what they can do in terms of investment. The fact that the Chancellor did not tell us, but has produced a rabbit out of a hat in the summer Budget, tells me that he is not that serious.

We have also heard today that the Chancellor intends to cut corporation tax progressively over the spending period to 18%. I do not gainsay that, but I ask the House to look at what happens when cutting corporation tax significantly is combined with a de facto reduction in the annual investment allowance. Surely we want to cut corporation tax to encourage firms to use their surplus capital to invest in plant and machinery. It is therefore necessary to maintain the £500,000 level—or perhaps even raise it further—to encourage firms to put their money into plant and machinery to raise productivity. By de facto cutting the investment allowance from £500,000 to £200,000 at the same time as cutting corporation tax, the Chancellor will encourage firms to keep their surplus capital sitting in the bank, instead of investing in plant and machinery. That is what has been happening in this country, and that is one of the reasons why productivity has fallen since 2008.

[Stewart Hosie]

Is it not therefore all the more important —at a time when the banks are still not lending fully—to incentivise to the highest possible extent to encourage businesses to use their own resources for investment?

[George Kerevan]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. We need incentives that co-ordinate and integrate, not just a series of random measures that allow the Chancellor to make headlines here and there but do not have an impact on productivity in the longer term.

The surplus balances held by British companies total something in excess of £0.5 trillion, and some estimates put it at more than £1 trillion. A reasonable estimate is £0.5 trillion or £550 billion. How do we incentivise firms to take that money out of the bank and put it into plant and machinery and create jobs? The Chancellor is doing his best to provide incentives in another direction. Raising the inheritance allowance on property is another way of encouraging shareholders—when shares are bought back by companies—to put their money into existing bricks and mortar rather than invest in companies.

We have a Budget that claims to be about productivity, but provides none of the efficient incentives required to get plant and machinery that will create jobs. Let us look at what has happened to productivity since 2008. Initially, when the recession started, UK productivity fell. What normally happens in the first few years of a recession, as workers are shed and firms rely on using their existing plant and machinery more intensively, productivity rises. It rose in most of the advanced industrial countries in Europe in the two or three years after the recession, and in America. Thereafter, we would expect firms to start to invest in new innovation and developments, and productivity would rise not simply from the shedding of labour but from expansion, new product lines and new companies. That is what has happened in America, which had a significant increase in investment and innovation, and productivity has risen significantly in a long-range curve, as American companies have grabbed market share. In the UK, we saw a second downward bump in productivity in 2011. That came just as the Chancellor realised the mistake he had made in rushing for austerity between 2010-11. He had made massive cuts, but at that point he changed. We have had several long-term plans. In 2011, his new long-term plan was to turn on the monetary tap and crank up an artificial housing boom. Of course, that created even more incentives for individuals, financial companies and businesses to put money into trading in property, rather than in factories and manufacturing.

What we saw post-2011 was British productivity getting even worse, while the productivity of other industrial countries—in particular the United States, but also China—started to improve for the very best of reasons: they were investing in new plant machinery. We have not solved our productivity problem because we have not got the incentives right. I see nothing in the Budget to change that.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

George Kerevan Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but my statistics still stand. Even when we make these changes, five out of 10 people will still be receiving some kind of benefit or tax credit. We always need to support the people who really need support, and the Conservatives will always do that. I spent Friday afternoon with my local citizens advice bureau, finding out and understanding what is happening and how we can continue to support the people who really need it. That will always happen.

Thanks to a shrewd Chancellor and the hard work of British business and the good people of Britain, Britain is now moving and growing faster than any other major advanced economy. It grew by 3% last year, as we have heard from other Conservative Members, creating 2 million more jobs—far more than the OBR anticipated. My constituency has played a major part in creating those jobs. Many businesses have grown and expanded. Unemployment is down and jobs are up. I will give just one example of a booming business: the Ministry of Cake in Taunton, which the Chancellor himself visited during the election campaign. Indeed, he iced a carrot cake.

The Ministry of Cake has recently secured a huge contract to supply cakes in coffee shops right across Europe, all the way to Moscow. It already supplies more than 1 million slices of cake a week to customers in the food service and the catering trade. It will now be employing another 30 people in Taunton, all of whom will be contributing to the local economy. This is exactly the direction we want the economy to go in. This example proves that it is. I would also like to say that the Chancellor is much, much better at handling the economy than he was at icing the carrot cake.

There is very little youth unemployment in Taunton: it is very low at 1.9% and it is continuing to fall. On Friday, I met a very fine example of the kind of young person who has been given the necessary skills to take our economy forward and is getting to work. Ashleigh Thompson was an apprentice at the local Creech St Michael preschool. For a year, she worked four days a week at the college and one day a week at the preschool. She has done her NVQ stage 3 and has just qualified. She has now got a full-time job at the preschool, because she is offering exactly the qualification and skills it wants.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady mentions exports. The OBR report, published alongside the Budget last week, shows that our export position and current account deficit is forecast to worsen over the next four years. How does she explain that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I gave an example of exactly the opposite of that. Exports, all the way from Taunton, are increasing. That is exactly what we want: companies taking advantage of the opportunities opening up and skilling up their workers.

I would like to reflect on one of the important tools in the Budget box: the welcome introduction of a compulsory new national living wage for all working people aged 25 and over. It will kick in at £7.20 an hour in April next year, rising to £9 by 2020. It will mean a pay rise for half a million people and translates into a cash rise of £5,000 for a full-time worker. It will benefit women especially—we had the equality and gender pay gap debate the other day—and quite a number of women are still in the low paid category. This measure will help them. Of course, it is businesses that will have to shoulder the changes, but the increase in employment allowance and the improvements to corporation tax should help businesses to pay the extra wages. I have consulted widely with businesses in my constituency. They welcome this measure and they agree that we need to raise the living wage.

I welcome the £7.2 million investment in transport infrastructure in the south-west. In particular, I welcome the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s commitment to upgrading the key road in my constituency, the A358, and its junction with the M5. This is the busiest road in Somerset. There will be a new employment site right on the junction, and without the road upgrade we cannot have the business site. We need the business site because we need the new jobs and the new skills to move the economy in the right direction. I therefore applaud all that, and I applaud the £10 million in the Budget to improve broadband in the south-west. It is absolutely imperative that all the rural areas that are missing out can take advantage and get broadband.

In conclusion, I welcome the Budget. It will transform behaviour and move us to a higher-wage and lower-tax and lower-welfare economy. It will cut the deficit and enable us, at last, to live within our means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who told us in her opening remarks that under this Government, and the coalition before them, our economy had tanked. Well, if growth of 3%, 2 million new jobs, and a fall in borrowing from a staggering and unsustainable £153 billion a year to just half that constitutes an economy that has tanked, I would hate to imagine how she might describe what happened under the Labour Government in the run-up to 2010.

It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister. I look forward to the considered and thoughtful remarks that I know he will make when he winds up the debate.

I want to focus on the steps that the Government are taking to grow the economy. As we know, we saw record growth of 3% over the last 12 months. We had become used to seeing “flatlining” gestures from the Opposition Front Bench, but we do not see those any more, not least because the person who used to make them is no longer present in the Chamber. We shall see 2.6% growth over the coming year, and it is important for us to maintain that growth, because the Government are doing two things. As any business, household, council or other organisation would do, they are controlling their expenditure —we have heard a lot in earlier Budget debates about how the Government are doing that—but it is also massively important for them to grow their revenues, and they do that when the economy is growing. That is why it is so important for them to focus on growth.

I want to focus on the measures the Government are introducing to grow the country as a whole through the governance of its cities, and on the more flexible planning system.

[George Kerevan]

I rise to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, as I do on all Conservative Members, in the forlorn hope that he might address the worsening trade picture and the fact that we have to borrow to fund our imports. The Government are shifting the burden of debt from the Treasury on to the private sector, and particularly on to foreign borrowing.

[Mark Pawsey]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the principle of reshoring, which is taking place in our economy right now. Manufacturing companies that years ago were offshoring and sending jobs out to other countries are now making products in the UK. In Coventry, which is immediately adjacent to my constituency, I visited a small company that is producing the rechargeable torches that sit in every Range Rover. Until recently they were being imported from China. Now they are being produced in the UK. We are slowly bringing manufacturing back to the UK, which will in time deal with the issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman and which is, of course, a concern for the Government.

[George Kerevan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Mark Pawsey]

No, as I want to talk about rebalancing our economy and ensuring that we get effective growth in the regions outside London, which has a momentum of its own.

The Government are looking closely at what is happening in Manchester, and that is the model they want to see. It is very good news that new combined authorities are coming together across the UK to provide the growth that the country needs, because the cities are of massive importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my constituency I can see the reduction in the number of NEETs and the increase in the number of apprenticeships. Opportunities for younger people are increasing all the time.

Coming as I do from a working-class background, I am keen to see the initiatives in the Budget that boost working-class people—blue collar Conservatives, as we tend to call them. Opposition Members are in total confusion about whether to accept the welfare cuts. No one can say that they were not flagged up during the election campaign, and the people of the United Kingdom voted overwhelmingly for a Government who would implement them, make the welfare system fairer and allow—[Interruption.] I take the point from the Scottish National party Benches, but we are still a United Kingdom, thankfully. Even the Scottish people voted in favour of that. The Budget must be judged as a package. Yes, there are those who will be hit by the changes to tax credits, but that is offset to a considerable extent by, for example, the changes to personal allowances.

On devolution, I have for many years been an advocate of elected mayors, and I am pleased to see that, as things go full circle, the Government are promoting that idea. An elected mayor is a figurehead, another ambassador for our areas, someone who can go out there and sell our constituencies. I would prefer a much more radical devolution and settlement for local government, but the Government have outlined a clear policy. I was at a cross-party meeting last Friday with the Humber MPs, and we can see a consensus emerging among Members. I hope that will be copied—

[George Kerevan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Vickers]

I am running short of time so I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The way that local authorities are beginning to come together and recognise the advantages of what is on offer from the Government suggests that they will move towards a system of combined authorities. Personally, I would prefer to see unitary authorities rather than combined authorities and economic authorities, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

I have some reservations—for example, in relation to planning. As we all know, planning is very controversial. It is an issue on which we must take our communities with us. If, as in the case of most of my constituency, which falls in a local authority area where there is no local plan and it is years before we will have one, the people, through the democratic process, must have some sort of opportunity to put their case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). It is also a great pleasure to welcome my fellow Hampshire Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), as Exchequer Secretary. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on their outstanding maiden speeches.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the summer Budget. It is a Budget that rewards hard work and aspiration, not just in London but across every region of our great United Kingdom; backs working people by cutting their taxes, boosting their wages, and clamping down on the abuse of the welfare system that they help to pay for; and strengthens our public services while backing our armed forces. I am proud to speak in support of this Budget not just because of those positive attributes but because it is a Budget that builds Britain’s opportunity society.

Although bolstering Britain’s economic growth and giving working people financial security is rightly this Government’s most pressing priority, building the opportunity society must and will be their most distinct legacy. Alongside our long-term plan for a stronger economy, for me this Budget signals our renewed commitment to a long-term plan for a stronger society. That society should be one in which everyone can fulfil their potential, no matter what their starting point in life, because what counts towards their success and prosperity in the opportunity society is how hard they work, the talents they have and the ambitions they hold, not who their parents were, where they grew up or what sort of school they went to.

This Budget gives fair chances to everyone across the entire spectrum of society, young and old, and across every region of our great country, north and south. That is vital, because building an opportunity society gives us not only a stronger, fairer, more prosperous economy at home, but a more competitive economy abroad.

[George Kerevan]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if we are exporting, the OBR has downgraded its forecast for the current account deficit for the next five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for his passionate speech; I do not agree with many of his points, but I admire his passion. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) for a good speech about the opportunity society, and other hon. Members for the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today, in particular that by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). I helped him during the campaign and I was thrilled by his victory on 8 May.

At its heart, this Budget is about opportunity, endeavour and responsibility. Those are my core values—the values that make me a Conservative. This Budget is not only about aspiration, but it underpins the truth that the Conservatives are the real party of working people. It aims to create a Britain where everyone has the chance to prosper through earning more, paying less taxation and having free innovation. Those are the kernels of aspiration. The rise in the minimum wage, the increase in the tax-free threshold and the rise in the 40p tax threshold will all contribute to a fairer society, where aspiration is a reality for millions of people. Key to that aspiration, opportunity and growth are productivity and a skilled workforce that are local to the workplace. The need for increased skills will be key to transforming the efficiency and growth in our economy.

My constituency of Fareham on the south coast has an economy of more than £2.5 billion gross value added, 1.3 million people, 50,000 businesses and thriving marine, aviation and aerospace sectors, with high technology and advanced skills and engineering.

[George Kerevan]

The hon. Lady mentions the aerospace industry. Can she name one airliner that this country still builds?

[Suella Fernandes]

I am very proud of the local aviation and aerospace industries. My constituency has Eaton Aerospace and the neighbouring Portsmouth constituency has BAE Systems—key British companies that are exporting and are at the cutting edge of the aviation and aerospace sector, thanks to lots of investment from central Government.

Solent local enterprise partnership, which I met today, benefited from the local growth deal, receiving more than £150 million of Government funding over the last Parliament to boost skills, improve infrastructure and provide better business support. That increase in higher skills has allowed Solent LEP to set a target of increasing GVA by 4%. Key to that target is an increase in the amount of housing. We need houses to accommodate the increase in the workforce and the employment base.

My constituency has a strategic development area called Welborne, which has been controversial. It will consist of 6,000 new homes, create 6,000 new jobs and contain 1 million square feet of employment land, which will enable growth and facilitate enterprise to take flight. It has been approved by the local council and the Planning Inspectorate. It is a huge opportunity for investment. It will be funded by £50 million from the new homes bonus—a great initiative that was brought in by the Conservative-led coalition—and £2 million from Solent LEP. There is currently a £30 million shortfall, but I hope that will be filled by central Government.

The problem with housing is not supply and demand; it is that the market lacks fluidity. Throughout the course of a life, someone might start off in a student flat, want to expand into a family home, get a larger home and then downsize in their old age. We do not currently have that fluidity, but the Budget addresses that.

We need to enable the ownership of housing. Ownership is more than just a name on a contract; it enables people to have a stake in society and, in many cases, something to hand on to their children. A key to that is enabling capital and equity. Those kernels of home ownership, responsibility and a stake in society are at the heart of our robust and bold Budget, which I commend to the House.