Finance (No. 2) Bill
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
This Finance Bill represents another step in clearing up the mess left by the previous Government. Most of my constituents know that a standard of living that depends on borrowing from the bank and running up credit card bills will eventually be reduced when people have to start paying off the debts. That is what we had under the previous Government. The Opposition are trying to con the public—
Ian Swales
Just a moment; I have only managed a couple of sentences. The Opposition are trying to con the public into believing that the cost of living can remain the same, regardless of the history and of the amount of money that was left behind.
Ian Swales
Unfortunately, I was not here during the last Parliament, but I have read a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), now the Business Secretary, said at the time. He was warning of the difficulties many years before they actually arose. I am quite certain that our party was watching the situation carefully, and that it could see what was happening.
There is a growing myth, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is no longer in his place—[Hon. Members: “He is here.”] My apologies; he is in a different place. That myth has also been repeated in the Opposition’s reasoned amendment, which states that
“working people are £1,600 a year worse off”.
Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies would admit that that is to do with gross income; it is not to do with net income, and it is not the amount by which people are worse off. Even the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) pointed that out in his speech. One reason why people are not worse off by that amount is that there has been a large cut in income tax. That was a high priority for the Liberal Democrats, and I am delighted that in a few days’ time people will have experienced a £700 tax cut since the general election. The Bill includes another £100 for basic rate taxpayers.
Julie Hilling
Would the hon. Gentleman like to mention the 24 tax rises that his Government have introduced, including the massive hike in VAT?
Ian Swales
I will come on to some of those tax rises in a moment. I am just saying that working people are not £1,600 worse off, as the Labour amendment suggests. There is no expert who says that they are.
This Government’s tax cut has reduced inequality. It has been praised by the Living Wage Foundation as reducing the gap between the minimum wage and the living wage, and I am proud that my party has driven it through in this Parliament. It is also good that the Budget shows that there will be real growth in household disposable income from now on.
Sheila Gilmore
Would the hon. Gentleman admit that, for many low-paid workers, the increase in the tax threshold over the past few years has been more than cancelled out by the cuts in tax credits, the freezing of child benefit and other changes? In fact, the Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other.
Ian Swales
Everyone is in a different situation, but it is certainly not true to say that, for more people, the Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other. The hon. Lady should know that.
The Opposition’s reasoned amendment also mentions a “tax cut for millionaires”. This is from a party whose former Business Secretary said that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
And it showed in what the Labour Government did for 13 years: the top rate of income tax was 5% lower than it is now until 6 April 2010, the very last day Labour Members sat on the Government Benches—until then they cut taxes for millionaires every year they were in power; capital gains tax was 10% lower, meaning that hedge fund managers in the City had a lower tax rate than those cleaning their offices; tax relief was available on pension contributions of £250,000 a year, whereas the current figure is £40,000—the difference is £100,000 in tax; and VAT was 2.5% lower, making a top Ferrari £5,000 cheaper—that is what was actually happening for millionaires.
Ian Swales
I do remember that, but I would make some comments about it. First, at that time we had not seen the note left by the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying that there was no money left. Secondly, and unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats were 269 short of an overall majority at the last election, so we did not have the power to implement our manifesto. Thirdly, VAT is a good, progressive way of raising money from the wealthy. [Hon. Members: “No it is not.”] I suggest hon. Members do the maths and have a look. I suggest that those who doubt that talk to someone on the minimum wage and ask them how much standard rate VAT they think they are paying, given that there is no standard rate VAT on their housing costs, food, energy and utility bills, children’s clothing, public transport, TV licence and insurance. Standard rate VAT is not paid on any of those items.
After the number of enforcement and compliance staff in HMRC was slashed by 10,000 by the previous Government there was such a culture of tax avoidance that six years ago a Radio 1 DJ thought it was fine to pretend to be a second-hand car dealer in order to avoid paying £1 million in tax. I am pleased that this Government are doing something about such avoidance, including in that particular case, and overall it is clear that millionaires had a much better time under the Labour Government.
I now wish to discuss some other items in the Bill, the first of which is the marriage tax allowance. That is the only area where I have sympathy with the Opposition amendment, as the measure was not a Lib Dem priority and it does affect only one part of the community. For example, it gives no benefit to a couple who are both on the minimum wage. We did not win the argument there and it is one area where we might have done things differently. The Opposition amendment then makes a comparison with a 10p tax rate—I would have thought they would not have wanted to remind people about the 10p tax rate and the fact that they doubled taxes on the lowest paid in this country, but by reviving it, they revive those memories. It is pretty irrelevant, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, because we can simply raise the minimum threshold by half as much and achieve the same effect, or a very similar one. So that proposal is something of a red herring and a grim reminder of how Labour ignored the low paid in the previous Parliament.
The amendment also refers to energy bills, and that reminds me of what we often see from the Opposition: writing the headline first and then filling in the detail afterwards—at least that is how it appears. They say that they want to freeze energy prices and they must be pleased at the recent Scottish and Southern Energy announcement, but they should examine the small print, because they would see that it involves the company cancelling investment. Of course, that was highly predictable when the price freeze was first announced. Everyone from the OECD to uSwitch has rubbished the policy, because the price freeze will also freeze investment and freeze the position of the big six. The idea that it will somehow damage the big six is nonsense because, as all observers say, it will freeze out investment by new players. I have six power station projects live in my constituency right now and I can tell hon. Members that this price freeze announcement is totally spooking the financial investors for those projects. Labour’s policy will lead to lower investment, less competition, more risk to supplies, and, ironically, higher prices. If it wishes to persist with this policy, it needs to produce some independent experts who think it is sensible, but I have not yet found one who does.
Despite the fact that the shadow Business Secretary has put his name to the motion, it does not contain a single word about business, which tells us something about Labour’s stance. It also cements its reputation as an anti-business party and shows that it has learned nothing from the fact that, on its watch, manufacturing halved as a proportion of the national economy.
The Budget is good for business. It has been welcomed by the North East chamber of commerce, the Chemical Industries Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others. As a north-east MP, I had a lot of sympathy and empathy with what the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said.
I welcome the £100 million extra for apprenticeships—the number of which has doubled in my constituency. Despite the unemployment position in the north-east, we have, believe it or not, a skills shortage, so those amounts are especially welcome.
I welcome the support for manufacturing. The doubling of capital allowance to £500,000 will help those who wish to invest. As a joint founder of the all-party group on energy-intensive industries, I especially welcome measures to support those industries. We have been congratulated on them by the steel industry, although it would like to see the measures implemented more quickly. I also welcome the support for low-carbon technology in the Budget.
In the end, we must generate jobs, particularly in areas such as the north-east. Over the past year, unemployment in my constituency has come down 22%, youth unemployment by 31% and long-term unemployment by 14%, and they are all significantly lower than they were in May 2010.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South about the EU. There was a large inward investment project heading to my constituency last year. We expected it to be signed, but suddenly, on 18 September, it was switched to France. I am certain that the uncertainty over our position in the EU was a factor. That was disappointing, but it just shows that all this talk is damaging the economy now and not just in the future.
I am pleased that the Finance Bill includes another round of tax-avoidance measures. The Government have taken many steps in that regard, but there are many more still to take. I welcome the publication a couple of weeks ago of the base erosion and profit shifting paper. I hope the Government will act on that, and look in particular at the shifting of profit through interest payments. Of concern was the fact that the paper mentioned the possible exemption of infrastructure industries from any measures in that regard. In particular, there was a mention of the private finance initiative industry, which ballooned under the previous Government. For example, junctions 1A to 3 of the M4 is 50% owned in Guernsey, 50% of schools in Redcar are owned in Jersey and, most absurdly, the whole of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices are owned in Bermuda. The exemption of those companies that have put in place those structures and the suggestion that they are not shifting profits out of the UK needs to be looked at again. At the very least, we should consider how PFI business cases are assessed, as it seems to be the norm to move the profits out of the country.
Labour has very little to say about this Budget. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say. The Opposition do not seem to have a coherent plan, although some of their measures are at least interesting. They appear to be using the same statistician as the leader of the UK Independence party for some of what they do. Although there is a long way to go, this Finance Bill will produce a stronger economy and a fairer society, which is what my party wants to see.
Mr Bain
We remember the tooth-and-nail opposition of the Conservative party to the minimum wage and the lack of support for it from Scottish nationalists—none of whom are present—when the previous Labour Government legislated on it.
The Government are all at sea as to how to reverse the decline in living standards over which they have presided. Under this Prime Minister, living standards have fallen more sharply and for longer than under any Prime Minister since the second world war, including Heath, Thatcher, Wilson, Callaghan, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Churchill. If this Government were a football club, the team would be at the bottom of the league, facing relegation at the end of the season, with rising clamours for the manager to be given the sack. Some have even called for the return of the special one to come and lead the blues—no, not José Mourinho, but Boris Johnson—and speculation is rife as to which Government Member will be sent to the subs bench in order to let him get back in the team after the next general election.
Ian Swales
I agree that the minimum wage was one of the great achievements of the previous Government and I think that more should be done to police its implementation even today. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my regret that his Government took more than £1,000 a year in tax and national insurance away from people on the minimum wage? The reduction of £700 a year in their tax bill has given them a real-terms net increase.
Mr Bain
I hope the hon. Gentleman will use his undoubted influence to speak to the Business Secretary, whose Department has presided over a 10% drop in the real value of the minimum wage since 2010. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman wants to build on the success of the minimum wage, he ought to speak to the Secretary of State about how he is going to reverse that trend, because the small rise announced by the Low Pay Commission simply will not do the job. How on earth will there be a £7-an-hour minimum wage by next October? That was the Chancellor’s pledge at the beginning of the year, but it is hard to see it happening, given the remit involved and without this Government taking firm action on enforcing and improving the national minimum wage.
I welcome some aspects of the Bill, such as the tax concessions for participants in the Glasgow grand prix. I believe they will attract a world-class field for that athletics meeting and ensure that those athletes stay on for the Commonwealth games. That will add to the economic growth of my city, Scotland and, indeed, all of the United Kingdom.
I am sure that any hon. Member who has witnessed the scourge of the rise of fixed odds betting terminals on high streets up and down the country will support the increase in machine games duty. Anything that discourages people from spending their hard-earned wages on those machines—I am sure that every hon. Member is aware of this issue—should be welcomed. The Government should be going much further, of course, in regulating the way in which those machines operate. They take a terrible toll on some of the poorest communities in the country, including in my constituency.
Ultimately, this Finance Bill is soft on the banks and hard on ordinary working families. It fails the national economic interest in three main ways. First, it does nothing to boost growth. According to the OBR, its measures and the Budget that it will enact contribute nothing in terms of an uplift in growth and, in relation to trade and exports, there will be no contribution to growth from net trade over the next five years. The Budget also fails to raise levels of business investment, which are currently among the worst in the EU and the G20.
Secondly, this Finance Bill does not meet the challenge of our times in that it fails to tackle our growing crisis of long-term youth unemployment—up by 50% since 2010—and it takes no measures to deal with under-employment. The Institute for Public Policy Research has today identified that as a growing crisis for our country, with more than 1 million people going to work for low wages and seeking more hours, but unable to get them in this weak economy.
Thirdly, this Finance Bill entrenches the inequities of its predecessors in this Parliament by failing to repeal the hated bedroom tax, which has devastated 2,500 people in my constituency and 600,000 people across the whole country. It fails to reintroduce a 50p rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year, or to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax, which would benefit 24 million taxpayers.
All that at a time when the Bill offers banks a further tax concession in the bank levy and when the Government are failing to get to grips with the skills revolution that is needed if we are permanently to earn our way to higher living standards. At an event in London only today, the IPPR has said that Britain’s performance on skills has been worse than that of our leading competitors since the beginning of the economic crisis. If we are to get people into better-paying jobs, fill in our hollowed-out jobs market and repair the losses of jobs in construction and manufacturing, this Government and their Labour successors next year will clearly have to do much more on skills. The lack of any incentives in the Bill to improve skills in the workplace or to improve apprenticeships is a serious omission that does not serve the national interest well.
The conclusion one has to reach on examining the entirety of the Bill—all 295 clauses and 34 schedules—is that it is long on detail, but short on real action. It does nothing to raise the incomes of people in the rest of the country, while it perpetrates a recovery simply for those at the very top of society. If the International Monetary Fund—those well-known crypto-leftists—and President Obama get the point that cutting the gap between rich and poor is vital to having a recovery for every one of us, it is a matter of regret that this Government do not seem to get it.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman is making a point about inequality, but does he not welcome the fact that the Red Book states that
“inequality is at its lowest level since 1986”?
Does he regret that inequality widened under the 13 years of a Labour Government, which is a truly shameful record?
Mr Bain
I hope that when the hon. Gentleman speaks to his constituents in Redcar, he will remind them of the entirety of the record of the previous Government, who of course oversaw a dramatic decline in pensioner poverty and a huge fall in child poverty. Those policies did work. The inheritance we were left on both counts in 1997 was a disgrace that should have shamed Conservatives who were Members of that Parliament.
David Rutley
Certainly, very important steps are being taken, such as raising personal allowances, which will help all our constituents who are facing challenging times. However, there are also measures in the Bill that will help businesses to create more work and more wealth, and help us to achieve greater growth and prosperity.
Returning to clauses 39 to 43, the Chancellor has championed the consumer’s right to take decisions in accordance with their own life circumstances, over and above the procrustean desires of the state. Much has been said about these reforms, and no doubt plenty more will be said in the days and years ahead, but I want to focus today on how other clauses in the Bill are equally supportive of consumers by bolstering competition and lowering barriers to entry for British enterprise—clause 10, on capital allowances, clause 6, on corporation tax, and clause 73, on air passenger duty, to name but a few. Encouraging new entrants—those first-time entrepreneurs, employers and exporters—is vital in increasing choice for consumers and in keeping established businesses on their toes and responsive to their customers. This Government have slashed barriers to entry through deregulation initiatives—an ongoing process that I have been involved with on the Deregulation Bill Committee—and there is also the red tape challenge and the one-in, two-out regulatory arrangements. These are important steps in creating much-needed supply-side reforms.
I hope to contribute further on the Finance Bill Committee—if I can catch the Whip’s eye—because the barriers to small new businesses, new employers and new exporters have been kept far too high in the previous decade or more. We need to get on and finish the job and create a real enterprise pathway. There is little point in trying to address the problem of firms that are too big to fail if we do not also seek to address that of new businesses that are too small to succeed against barriers to entry that have been in place for far too long. This Bill helps us to take significant strides forward. In the words of the British Chambers of Commerce:
“By making a better business environment his top priority, the Chancellor has recognised that successful and confident companies are the key to transforming Britain’s growing economic recovery into one that is felt in homes and on high streets.”
It is the economics of strong, long-term measures for long-term growth.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. As somebody who represents the north-east corner of north Yorkshire, which is part of the north-east region, I am sure I can join in the north-east theme this afternoon. He talks about the drive to improve businesses. Does he agree that it is only through successful wealth creation that we can provide the public services that Opposition Members—and all of us—want to see?
David Rutley
Absolutely. Real growth and true wealth creation have to come from the private sector: that is how we generate the wealth needed to provide the public services that Members on both sides of the House welcome and want to help our constituents.
The Institute of Directors has described the Budget measures in the Bill as “responsible and imaginative” ones that will
“promote growth, exports and investment”.
It says that
“doubling the annual investment allowance…will bring forward a significant amount of investment…with knock-on effects across the economy”,
while
“increasing the cash value of Research and Development credits…will benefit many new businesses immediately”.
That will create the jobs we want to see and tackle the challenges of youth unemployment that Opposition Members have mentioned. Yes, we have had to consolidate the nation’s finances, but we have also signposted clearly the future direction of lower taxes. Although cutting air passenger duty, for example, has not been affordable in recent years, the Bill will very generously cut the two highest rates from 2015. This Government do not shirk from the difficult decisions that need to be taken to restore order to the national balance sheet. It is precisely this approach of taking long-term decisions that has allowed us to double investment allowances to £500,000 and to cut APD, which we have been able to do responsibly and affordably. I hope that business will respond by investing in export potential and taking advantage of lower flight taxes to get out and sell to the world. The barriers are down, and the pathways to achieving export potential are getting clearer. That is a clear priority of Members on this side of the House.
We are moving forward with corporation tax, too. Cutting it to the lowest level in the G20, the Bill will further improve our competitiveness in the international market. The new employment allowance will slash the cost of taking on a first-time employee. These are pro-enterprise, pro-competition measures that will create long-lasting benefits for the economy, for jobseekers and for our consumers. By making it easier and less expensive to deal with the state and to pay its taxes, the Bill also makes it easier for first-time entrepreneurs to become first-time employers and first-time exporters.
The Chancellor has promised to do all he can to boost our export performance. The CBI has noted that the increasing export finance stream announced in the Budget should “strengthen our armoury”, although it also agreed with something that Lord Young and Lord Green have already acknowledged, when it stated:
“The Government must now work much harder to promote these schemes, since many fast-growing firms are unaware of the support available.”
I know that the Government are acutely aware of that fact, but it is critical, now that we have the plans in place, that we do a better job of communicating with SMEs and telling them what support is available.
When customers are free to choose, businesses are required to innovate, to offer better service and to control their prices. When the state stands in the way of that market competition, prices are skewed and, in the longer term, the economy deteriorates. We have only to look across the channel to see where that path could lead—to plan B, as we might say—and to see what that strategy has delivered for France: rising unemployment and a budget deficit higher than had been predicted. We do not need to look across the channel to learn who would bring similar economic woes to Britain; we need only to look across to the other side of the House. Thank goodness that we on this side of the House chose to stick with the right plan. We now want to finish the job.
I was fortunate to attend the British Chambers of Commerce annual conference this morning. It was a positive start to what I am sure has been an excellent day for chambers of commerce across the country. The theme was “State of the nation—good to great”, highlighting the need for what was called “great growth”— growth that is sustainable and for the long term. It was a timely reminder of the most pressing economic priority facing the country. I am proud that this Government are firmly committed to meeting that challenge head on. The Budget and the Finance Bill are both further evidence of that commitment, and that is why I will support the Bill tonight.
Mr Jones
I would not put anything past the new Conservative party, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is part of the ancient—even prehistoric—Conservative party. It is clearly part of the Conservative party’s strategy to try to give the impression that we have turned the corner and that the sunlit uplands are now before us. The public are neither so stupid nor so naive as to believe that, however, because they are living the reality of what this Government are doing to this great nation of ours.
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The North East chamber of commerce said recently that its members’ business outlook was the most positive since 1995. Does he disagree with that? I accept that business is not everything, but surely he can welcome that.
Mr Jones
I have great respect for the North East chamber of commerce, but it represents only a certain section of the business community—it does not represent all the business community—and I have never seen it disagree with any Budget, because, understandably, it likes to keep in with the Government of the day. The “Conservative” Member for Redcar is clear in giving an upbeat assessment of his own constituency, but it is not one that I recognise and neither do many Members representing north-east constituencies.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that the Government had a clear sense of direction and the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that they had a clear plan, unlike the Opposition. Let us look at this clear plan and sense of direction. The narrative goes as follows, and before any Government Member says differently, these things are not invented by the Opposition; they are what this Government did when they came to power. We should recall that in 2010 our economy was actually growing. Why did it go into recession? It did so because of what happened during their first few days, including the measures on investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) mentioned. What the Government did sucked money straight out of the economy, so demand went down. We have had the longest recession and recovery in history. On the Conservative party’s and the Chancellor’s own figures—these are not my figures or the Labour party’s—by now we should have seen 8.4% growth, whereas we have actually seen 3.8% growth. We were supposed to have got rid of the deficit by 2015, but we are actually borrowing another £190 billion more than we were planning to borrow.
That is the Chancellor’s supposedly successful plan. People would think that he would apologise for that, but that is about as likely as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) walking into the Chamber wearing a pair of Wrangler jeans. The fact is that the Chancellor’s plan has not been working, with the root cause—the Liberal Democrats have been going along with this—being an ideological Conservative party, which is not just about deficit reduction, but is actually about small state Conservatism. The headlines in last week’s Budget were clearly designed around things such as the pension measure, which I will discuss in a moment, but tucked away were another £1 billion of cuts, which the Chancellor made permanent for future years. So that is more pain for Departments across Whitehall and communities across our country.
The Budget headline was clearly on pensions, and much has been said about the freedoms that the measure is going to give. I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), but he made some interesting points in his contribution and I share his fear about people’s ability to get proper financial advice about what to do with their pensions. I take his point that we are dealing with relatively small sums in terms of pension pots of £20,000 to £25,000 and the costs of giving that advice would be astronomical. Are we, however, going to avoid the chaos we had—many of us remember seeing it in the 1990s—when the vultures descended on workplace pension schemes, advising people to take money out and put it into all sorts of products, which led to people making bad investment decisions?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who is responsible for pensions, says that he is not really bothered if someone wants to go and blow it all on a Lamborghini. Hon. Members might not be surprised to learn that I do not know a great deal about Lamborghinis, but I was a bit disappointed that he did not use an example of a British car, because it would have been a good idea to boost the British economy if he really wanted to give an example of an expensive car. Today, I looked up the cost of the cheapest Lamborghini and found that it is £300,000—that represents quite a big pension pot. The problem arising out of that policy is that the Government have not published the modelling on what the effects will be on the public purse. They need to do that because hidden issues need addressing. It is right to give people choice and freedoms, but the Chancellor did nothing at all to affect the charges, fees and so on that small pension pots are attracting, which can be substantial, not only at the time of buying an annuity, but over the lifetime of the pension. That would be a thing to do.
I have serious concerns. For example, if a pensioner uses their £300,000 plus to buy a Lamborghini—or possibly a Bentley, which would at least boost jobs in this country rather than in Italy—what do they do when they have no money left? The Pensions Minister says, “Well, that’s fine because it has all been taken care of by the new generous state pension.” He forgets that there are other things. There is no mention, for example, of care costs or of housing benefit. Those things need to be explained. It helps the Chancellor; he has a figure in the Red Book for the amount of tax he will raid out of pensions in the short term. There will clearly be a boost if people spend their money in the economy. I am not usually a great fan of the Association of British Insurers, but a serious issue has been raised about the future of the annuities market. Insurers do not just get in money and sit on it; they invest it, so we are talking about long- term investment that is being taken out of projects and businesses. To make a full assessment of the effects of this move, we need to understand the modelling of the scheme, and that has not been forthcoming. It will be interesting to see whether the Government will produce it.
The other issue is the increase to £15,000 a year in the allowance for individual savings accounts. Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I speak to my constituents. It is laughable to suggest that they may have £15,000 lying around to invest each year. I think that most people are in the same position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said, people are not investing the money; they are actually spending it to live in their old age. Some 8 million people in this country have no savings whatever, and another 32% have less than £1,000 in savings, so the proposal will not help anyone. It may help some who have £15,000 to invest. Should we welcome that? Possibly, but the idea that it will help most of my constituents, or most of the constituents of my hon. Friends, is frankly not right. On Saturday, when I was out at an event in Chester-le-Street in my constituency, someone said to me, “Who’s got £15,000 lying around to invest in that type of savings plan each year?”
When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury opened the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said that he was suffering from Stockholm syndrome, because he has actually become part of the Conservative party. Indeed, having heard the speech and the comments of the hon. Member for Redcar, I think that he also has a very bad dose of the syndrome.
I asked the Chief Secretary at what point in the previous Labour Government did his party say that spending was too high. I then gave him another chance and asked him whether the Liberal Democrats had called for reduced expenditure in any area—whether it be in the NHS or anywhere else. There was not one single area. At least the Conservatives could say that they ditched the pledge around 2008-09. The Liberal Democrats kept going right into the last general election. To hear the hon. Member for Redcar now, we might think that he had long been there calling for fiscal responsibility and less expenditure. The Liberal Democrats may trumpet it now, but that was not the case back then.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that he was proud that the increase in allowances was straight from the last Liberal Democrat manifesto. It might have been, but the commitment on VAT—he was challenged about what happened to that—went the same way as the commitment on tuition fees. Remember the VAT bombshell? It was the first thing they did and the Liberal Democrats could not even claim at that stage that they had been affected by Stockholm syndrome, as they were only in the early days of captivity. And what did they do? They increased VAT. The hon. Member for Redcar says that the increase in VAT is a progressive form of taxation. I am sorry, but it is not. All the indications show that it is a regressive form of tax that hits some of the poorest in our communities, including in Redcar.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The calculation from the removal of exchange controls is not one that I know or would be able to make. The effect of their removal has been to create a much larger economy for the United Kingdom, so we are talking about 37% of a larger pie rather than getting a higher rate in a closed economy. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in the years before exchange controls were lifted in 1979 we still were not getting a tax take of more than 38% of the economy. The series goes back longer than the abolition of exchange controls.
I part company from the Government to some degree on the question of tax avoidance and tax evasion. It is measurably important not to elide the two. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal—indeed, the Government come up with schemes in every Budget to encourage it. One example is saving for pensions—that is tax avoidance on people’s income. ISAs are a form of tax avoidance, as is duty free. In the Budget and the Finance Bill there are schemes for investing in films and television programmes that actively encourage tax avoidance. Such schemes become part of Government policy for growing the economy.
Governments then get very upset when people use the tax avoidance schemes, which the Government themselves have put into legislation, for purposes that the Government had not thought of. That strikes me as a fault of the legislative process and an incompetence of the legislators—I am sorry to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is our fault—for allowing such loopholes. It is not the fault of the taxpayer for using them. Any sensible, intelligent taxpayer will pay the minimum amount of tax that is legally required. To elide avoidance and evasion is, I think, against the rule of law: it undermines the rule of law by pretending that something that is innocent is nefarious.
It is important to crack down on tax evasion, which is rank criminality, but the Government should not take excessive measures against that which is legal. Instead, they should write simple tax law because, to go back to the point I was making, Governments manage regularly to raise 37% of GDP in taxation almost regardless of the taxes they levy—they change a tax here and a tax there, but still get roughly 37% of GDP. Simple tax laws can probably get us to that level without the need for complex anti-avoidance legislation that undermines the rule of law. That is the one part of the Bill about which I have my doubts.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically fascinating speech. Does he agree that the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance needs to be made very clear? For example, those who pretend to be second-hand car dealers in order to avoid tax are actually evading tax.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
This Budget represents another step in dealing with the economic mess left by the Labour party. Everybody at home knows that if they live on borrowings and max out their credit card, they will one day have to cut their standard of living. It is completely disingenuous of the Labour party to pretend otherwise. The Liberal Democrats want a stronger economy and a fairer society. We are proud that our No. 1 manifesto commitment to cut income tax for 25 million people by raising the threshold to £10,000 will be met next month, and that the Chancellor has gone further in this Budget by raising the figure to £10,500.
We hear a lot from the Opposition about tax cuts for millionaires, and they are now complaining about tax rises. Since April 2010, millionaires have paid higher taxes on their income, on their capital gains, on their pension contributions, on their spending and on their private jets, and they have had to engage in less tax avoidance. We know that the Chancellor in the previous Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), put the higher rate of income tax up from 40%—they kept it at that level throughout their time—to 50% on 6 April 2010. That was an important day for two reasons: first, the higher rate went up to 50%; and secondly, Parliament was dissolved. Labour Members were on the Government Benches only for a few hours while the top rate was 50%, so we should not take any lessons from them.
All the Budget documents show that the rich are paying a lot more. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) shouts from a sedentary position about VAT, but VAT is on spending, and I have news for him: millionaires spend the most, and they therefore pay the most VAT.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
When the hon. Gentleman sought the votes of the people of Redcar, he assured them that he would not support a rise in VAT, so why did he do so when he went in with the Tories?
Ian Swales
When I stood in Redcar, I had not seen the note left by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), saying that there was no money left.
I am pleased that the Government will give further support to apprenticeships. There have been 1.5 million of them in the country, with more than 4,000 in my constituency, and I welcome today’s news about an extra 100,000 apprenticeships. I welcome the cut in beer duty, and I pay tribute to my hon.—he ought to be right hon. one day—Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for his relentless campaigning on the issue. I also welcome the cut in fuel duty, which will help hard-working people all over the country. We would certainly have paid a lot more under the Labour party’s plans.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend also welcome the scrapping of the duty escalator for wine? Certain Liberal Democrat Members like a glass of wine, but that is beside the point. The wine industry has suffered, but it will be much better off under the new move.
Ian Swales
I am well aware that my hon. Friend enjoys a glass of wine. It is clearly good news for the wine industry that taxes will be frozen.
Players at Beacon Bingo in Redcar—they had to endure my calling the numbers a few weeks ago as part of the Boost Bingo campaign—will be delighted not only that their campaign to cut the duty from 20% to 15% has been successful, but that the Chancellor has gone further by cutting it to 10%. Bingo is a harmless social form of gambling and, from having talked to many players that day, it seems to me exactly the kind of thing that we should not penalise too heavily, as opposed to the high-stakes fixed odds betting terminals visited on us by the Labour party. I totally support the rise in taxes on those machines, of which we would like to see less.
I have a race course in my constituency and have campaigned in this House for the past three years for offshore bookmakers to be charged the betting levy. I am delighted to see that that is in today’s Budget. It will be a huge boost to the racing industry.
Other speakers have mentioned the measures on savings and annuities. I will not say much on those, except that the measures on annuities will be warmly welcomed. I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents who feel locked into products that have a very poor return. In some cases, they are not able to draw down the amounts that they want. Loosening all that is the right thing to do. As the Chancellor said, people should be able to access their own money. I welcome the safeguards in the small print to avoid people spending all their money and becoming dependent on the state. There is a threshold in the detail.
There is a lot of manufacturing in my constituency. We must remember that manufacturing supports many of the service industries. If one looks at the classification of industries, one will see that industries such as logistics exist mainly because of manufacturing. Those who say that the manufacturing industry is only a small part of the economy forget all the service industries that depend on it. The previous Government had a shameful record on manufacturing. It halved as a proportion of the economy and my constituency felt that particularly badly. I am pleased to see the growth that is happening.
I am pleased about the measures on energy-intensive industries. My constituency has not only a steel industry, but a large chemical complex. The employers will welcome those moves. I also welcome the moves on combined heat and power plants, which are relevant to my constituency. All those measures will help Britain to be more competitive and they are certainly needed.
We worry about the amount of money that sits on companies’ balance sheets and is not invested, so we should all welcome the increase in capital allowances. They were raised from £25,000 two years ago to £250,000 and are now being increased to £500,000. That is a huge incentive for people to invest in new equipment, plant and facilities. I have a special reason for welcoming the £60 million for new technology to support carbon capture, which is mentioned in the Red Book, because it is extremely relevant to my constituency.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Lib Dems used to pride themselves on their green policies, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is equally happy that the Government are hell-bent on getting every last drop of oil out of the ground, as the Chancellor said? While I am at it, does he agree that, although the £140 million for repairing flood defences is welcome, it is well short of the £500 million that we need?
Ian Swales
I am disappointed that, having given way to the hon. Lady, she took quite a lot of my time. I will see her outside the Chamber with the answers to those questions.
There are many further measures in the Red Book on corporate tax avoidance, about which the Chancellor did not go into detail. It is good to see that further steps are being taken on electronic services and the shifting of profits. There is more to do, but there are some good things in the Red Book about that.
I was interested to hear what the Labour party had to say. I must say that I was hoping for a lot more. We heard about the bankers bonus tax—the gift that keeps on giving. I was thinking about this the other day. If the Labour party wants to put income tax up to 50% and to tax bank bonuses at 50%, I have news for it: 50 plus 50 is 100. How many banks will keep on paying bonuses if the entire amount goes to a future Labour Government? They will find different ways to reward their staff, as they already are doing.
That policy does not hang together at all, and neither does the electricity price freeze, which is criticised by everybody, from large energy companies down to organisations such as uSwitch and Age Concern, for being completely impractical. I was at an event last week about the price freeze, where even a Labour shadow Energy Minister failed to defend it. I think that we will hear the end of that one quite soon.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about social housing, but made no apology for the fall of 421,000 homes under the Labour Government—a truly shocking record.
The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), who is not in his place, made some powerful points about inequality. I was listening very carefully. I do not necessarily understand how it is calculated, but the Red Book states that
“inequality is at its lowest level since 1986.”
That is because we are taxing people with the broadest shoulders, despite what the Opposition claim. I know that we have a long way to go, particularly in my area in the north-east, which has stubbornly high unemployment and many social issues.
I welcome the child care credit and, in particular, the 85% for people who are on universal credit. That will certainly help people get into work.
Overall, this is a Budget for a stronger economy and a fairer society, and I commend it to the House.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
For one hour, I listened very closely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—during the past few hours, I have had a chance to look through the Red Book to check that I did not miss anything—and I desperately waited for any acknowledgment that millions of people up and down our country are really struggling to get by.
Despite the Chancellor not wanting to hear it and Government Members laughing at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he suggested it, there is a cost of living crisis. We know that working people are £1,600 a year worse off under this Government. Real average earnings are more than £1,600 a year lower today than in May 2010. Prices are going up faster than wages, and the OBR has confirmed that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010.
Not a week goes by when, at my surgery or on the doorstep, I do not meet a constituent who is really finding it tough. As my hon. Friends have said, such constituents have to make very real choices about having a hot bath or putting food on the table, with mums having to decide whether to go without food in order to feed their kids. A constituent at my surgery last week said that he was reduced to brushing his teeth with salt water and growing a beard because he could not afford toothpaste or razors; not very long ago, he did not have such challenges. Every week, numerous constituents come to my surgery because they cannot pay utility bills and have no answers for the people who come knocking on their door, which is the reality for too many people.
My local food bank will be celebrating—if we can call it a celebration, which it is not—its third year in a few weeks’ time. The number of people in my constituency who have to access emergency food aid has gone up from 2,126 in 2011 to 8,600 in this financial year, and that is not even the final figure. Nationally, more than 500,000 people are having to access emergency food aid, and that is a very conservative estimate.
I raised that point at Prime Minister’s questions the other week after I visited Ilkeston. I raised the case of a young person I met who was called Billy. Billy had been in employment since he left school, but was made redundant at the age of 23. He was making 70 job applications a month on average and could not feed himself. I learned the term “skipping”, which I had not heard before, and raised it at PMQs. Skipping is when people wait for supermarkets to throw food out at the end of the day in order to feed themselves, because they cannot afford to buy food. People wait to forage in the bins of Iceland to feed themselves and their families. The fact that people cannot afford to feed themselves in the seventh richest nation in the world is a national disgrace. I am ashamed that we have a Government who will not acknowledge the impact of their policies, such as people having to turn to food banks.
It is not just families and pensioners on low incomes who are being affected. I held a “what women want” session the other week to celebrate international women’s day. I had a discussion with mums from all different backgrounds at one of my local children’s centres. One of them told me that although both her and her husband have what she described as good jobs—management jobs—they can no longer afford a holiday. Every month, they struggle to make ends meet. That experience was repeated by many people during the discussion. Where is the help for the millions of people on middle and lower incomes who are not feeling any recovery at all? Those people are angry that the Government have given a £3 billion tax cut to people earning more than £150,000, while they and everyone else are worse off.
In the same discussion with women, another concern that was raised was the cost of child care. I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). Many of the women said that the cost of child care was making the move into work impossible. The Chancellor’s announcement today does nothing for parents who are suffering eye-watering increases in the cost of nursery places, which has gone up by 30% since 2010. That is compounded by the fact that there are 35,000 fewer child care places. That is unsurprising from a Government who will have taken £15 billion out of support for children by the next election. Parents need support with child care now.
Ian Swales
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying about child care. I wonder whether she is going to mention the 85% of child care costs that will be paid for people who are on universal credit.
Luciana Berger
Oh, goodness! As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, I was very generous in giving way. I come back to the point that one in three councils do not have enough places to deliver the Government’s promised child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds. Today’s announcement will not come into effect until next year. I reiterate that parents need help now, because child care costs are putting parents off going back into work. I am very disappointed as a result of what we did not hear from the Chancellor today.
I listened closely to the Chancellor’s announcements on energy bills, but the best deal in a broken market is not a good deal. Energy bills have gone up by about £300 since 2010. As I said before, my constituents are facing the choice between heating their homes and eating. The Liverpool Echo, my local newspaper, carried out a special investigation last week that highlighted the experience of Merseyside pensioners, who are being plunged into fuel poverty by rocketing energy bills. Under the Government’s new definition of fuel poverty, my constituency is among the top three in the country for that challenge. Where was the help for those people with their energy bills in the Chancellor’s Budget? There was none.
We need proper reform of the energy market. We need to freeze bills so that we can do what needs to be done to ensure that we know the cost of the energy that is generated by the six companies that generate 70% of the energy in the UK. At the moment, we have no idea of the true cost of that energy. We need to create a transparent pool, so that we are all fully aware of what the companies are generating and the cost of that energy. We also need a regulator with teeth, which we do not have at the moment. There needs to be a means by which people can properly compare and contrast prices, as they can for mobile phone bills. That is not possible at the moment because we do not have single standing charges and unit prices that can be compared. Again, there was nothing from the Chancellor to help not only households and individuals but businesses that are struggling to pay their energy bills.
On the day of the Budget, we have also heard the unemployment figures. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) just talked about the statistics, but when we talk about long-term youth unemployment, we are talking about young people in my constituency who do not have employment, which will have long-term effects—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman gesticulates that the number has come down. In my constituency, the number of long-term unemployed young people—those who have been out of work for more than a year—has gone up by more than 60% since 2010. That is a waste of the talent of our young people and has long-term implications not only for them but for the wider economy. The young people who are not employed at the moment bring a cost to our economy of £3.2 billion over their lifetime. In my constituency, 835 young people are out of work, and I wanted more from the Chancellor to address that situation properly. We know that the current schemes are not working, and that less than 20% of young people locally are getting into work. We need to do everything we can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
A good way to help those on low incomes is to take less money from them in tax. Next month, the Liberal Democrat manifesto target of a £10,000 income tax threshold will be achieved. Will the Minister help the low paid further by increasing that threshold to £10,500?
Sajid Javid
This Government are proud that we have been able to cut taxes for the lowest paid in society. In fact, people working full time on the national minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill more than halved because of this Government, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that policy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I would prefer it if those resources were used to fund further increases in the personal allowance. However, the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that the Government are saving thousands of people in his constituency £700 a year in income tax that they would be paying if his party had stayed in office.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 is putting more money into the pockets of the low-paid, and their spending is helping to drive the recovery. Will the Chief Secretary consider increasing the threshold to £10,500 in the forthcoming Budget?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to say that this policy is helping people on low incomes, as well as working people up and down the country, many of whom have household budgets that are under pressure. I would like the income tax personal allowance to be higher. As a party, we have set the goal of a £12,500 personal allowance in the next Parliament. In the same way, the £10,000 goal for this Parliament was set by the Liberal Democrats.
Banking
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I naturally share many of the concerns expressed today, but a common theme seems to be emerging from these Opposition day debates about business and financial issues, whether they be on energy, gambling or banking. The Labour party makes a mess of things in government, realises there is a problem when it is in opposition and then proposes the wrong solutions, although they help it with its headline writing.
Let us look at some of the issues, the first of which is competition. I checked this morning and right now 55 different companies are offering current accounts; there are even 11 different types of account. It is now so competitive that many banks are paying people to have current accounts. Therefore there is a real question as to how restricted the competition is. A quarter of people already do not bank with the big four, and TSB has just been demerged to form a new high street bank. But high street banks are only part of the story. It is not in the motion, but we see from the press that the Labour party will try to force banks to demerge their branches. In fact, a lot of banking is not done that way at all. I have not had a bricks and mortar branch, for business or personal reasons, since 1989, when I took out the First Direct telephone banking service. How would that proposal work anyway? A banking analyst speaking to the BBC today asked:
“What makes anybody believe that there’s a queue of people willing to buy these branches? New and smaller banks—they don’t want more branches, they want more apps.”
There is an important point that we need to recognise about technology, which leads to the concerns expressed by some Members about what will happen to rural banking systems. Clearly, not everybody has access to apps and the internet. I assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) that the scheme for cash machines in deprived areas is still in operation, as I know from my constituency.
We know that everything in the banking sector is far from rosy. Many hon. Members have spoken about business lending, and I am particularly concerned about the manufacturing industry, which is important in my area. The banks are lurching from one scandal to the next: payment protection insurance, LIBOR, foreign exchange fixing and interest rate swaps. A business in my constituency, Python Properties, specialises in refurbishing iconic commercial buildings, which it has done in South Bank, also in my constituency. It now has tenants waiting for the next floor of a building that it has been refurbishing, but it does not have the cash to do the work, because HSBC is still holding out on paying it compensation for an interest rate swap. I hope Ministers will urge the banks to get on and pay out money for those swap arrangements.
The Government have done good work in tightening up on tax avoidance—it is still far too high, but was rife before this Government took office—to the point where HSBC and Barclays have now effectively disbanded their tax avoidance advice teams. We are seeing some progress, but there is a lot more to do. The culture of the banking industry is still not what it ought to be.
The Government have been taking action, of course, partly through frustration, by setting up new banks. The Business Secretary says that he is the first person to set up new state banks since Victorian times, as the green investment bank and the business bank are now operational, but let us not forget the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, the Financial Services Act 2012 and, as I have mentioned, the agreement on tax avoidance. There is also now a permanent bank levy, as well as inquiries into LIBOR and the banking inquiry itself.
Bonuses are now more directly linked to performance in what are, after all, commercial businesses. I know that the Business Secretary is taking steps on executive pay, for example by giving shareholders binding votes on a company’s pay policy. The Government cannot run away from their responsibilities for RBS or Lloyds, as many Members have said, because they are a major shareholder in those organisations. They have a role in the decision-making process under the new rules. As the Minister said, the Business Secretary is taking steps on executive pay, unlike his predecessor, the one who said that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
Under the previous Government, capital gains were taxed at 18%, but this Government have increased the rate to 28%. People were allowed to put up to £250,000 a year into pension schemes and still get full tax relief on it, but that figure has now been reduced to £40,000. The higher income tax rate was 40% for the whole period that the previous Government were in office except the last month, and it is 5% lower now. As Members have said, we should take no lessons from the previous Government on that.
However, setting up a bank is still not as easy as it could be. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is no longer in his place, because I was very taken with his speech. As a north-east MP, I vividly remember what happened with Northern Rock, and not just the things he spoke about, but the loss of the Northern Rock Foundation, which put a lot of profit back into the local community. We need a greater emphasis on regional banking. It is not as easy as it should be to set up a regional bank. I hope that Ministers will talk to Dave, who runs Burnley Savings and Loans—known as the “Bank of Dave”—who I think would like to do more but feels constrained.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying about regional banks. In America there are thousands upon thousands of community banks. Would he like to see a development towards community banks, which are even more local than regional banks?
Ian Swales
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only should we see that trend here, but the Government should encourage it. To that end, I hope that Ministers will meet a consortium of people from the north-east who are busy trying to set up a north-east bank.
Setting up banks needs to be made easier. The uncertainty that some of the Opposition’s proposals create for what are, after all, commercial organisations is extremely unhelpful. They are now talking about imposing market shares on commercial operations in the banking sector, making them get rid of parts of their operation and dictating how much they can pay their staff. That is a dangerous precedent, because ultimately we have to ensure that competition deals with those things. That is why I welcome the steps that the Government are taking.
The Government have a permanent bank levy. I am surprised that the Opposition want to reduce bank bonuses further, because taxing bank bonuses seems to be the main source of finance for most of what they want to do. It reminds me of a story I used to read to my children, “The Magic Porridge Pot”—it never stops producing porridge.
Today the shadow Chief Minister could not bring himself to apologise for what happened under the previous Government. We have had apologies from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the former Prime Minister. History has taught us that we should never allow the Labour party to be in charge of the economy again and that we should continue with the further steps that are needed to improve our banking sector.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do not know what was in the Government’s mind, but in Committee the Bill was very thin. We raised the matter on a number of occasions, but the Government resisted every attempt to amend the Bill in Committee, apart from on one minor detail. In retrospect, that is not the way to produce the best possible legislation. The Bill will undoubtedly have been improved by the end of the process—I do not detract from the work that has been done—but it would have sent a stronger message to the general public and the financial services industry that this place took the matter seriously if the Government had accepted amendments at an early stage.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
As a member of an accountancy body that deals with police professional standards and continuing professional development, I understand this issue. I also understand that the financial services industry is diverse, with many different roles. Has the hon. Lady tried to list all those roles and thought about what professional qualifications and standards are appropriate to each and every one?
Cathy Jamieson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our approach has been to suggest that that responsibility lies, rightly, with the Financial Conduct Authority. It would not be for me, as a shadow Minister, to list those roles. In relation to the definition of a professional, it is important for people to have professional development, with qualifications, on a continuous basis. One fundamental issue for professions is an adherence to a code of conduct. We tabled amendments on that consistently because we believe strongly that that is important. The wider world wants to know that the banking industry culture has changed and that malpractice, which unfortunately is still coming to light, is being dealt with.
Ian Swales
As I expected, the hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly thoughtful and powerful speech. We have used the expression “culture change” a few times in the debate today and he talked a few minutes ago about failures causing serious harm to an organisation. Does he believe the banks now pay due regard to reputational harm as well as purely financial harm?
Mr Tyrie
I think the banks have discovered that the scale of the damage done by the revelations and the scale of the fines that are now being imposed are systemic in implication for their institutions and that has shaken them up a lot. But I do think the culture at the top of our banks is changing. The task of our legislation is to entrench that change for a generation. We have had this crisis. The horse has bolted. What we have got to do now is devise a stable door that can keep the next horse in.
Ian Swales
I will keep my remarks relatively brief. Neither of the two major parties has too much to crow about in this area, because the regulatory system is a product of both their Governments over time. However, at least this is one area where the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have said sorry for something they have left behind.
I am pleased with the work done by the Banking Commission, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and my colleague Baroness Kramer for the work they have done on it. I am delighted that the Government have, perhaps kicking and screaming, at last agreed to adopt the vast majority of the proposals. I am particularly delighted that the Bill puts in place powerful measures on ring-fencing, as the Liberal Democrats have been arguing for that for years. Not only was it in our 2010 manifesto, but it was on the front page, so I am pleased to see it happening.
The background to this is clear: taxpayers should not be held to ransom by these giant organisations, particularly for high-risk activities—casino banking, as it is sometimes called. We must also remember that a lot of these institutions are highly international, so the UK taxpayer is having to stand behind organisations that have a lot of activities overseas—that, too, does not seem right. So it is good that all these measures are being introduced.
We have seen banks that used to be on the side of customers, both individuals and businesses, increasingly behave very much on the side only of themselves. We have seen scandals involving payment protection insurance, LIBOR, foreign exchange and interest rate swaps, which is the one I particularly wish to highlight. I made a speech on that a few weeks ago in this House. I said that the banks appeared to be moving at a tortoise-like pace when we were not having debates and suddenly acted like hares for a few days when we did have them. I can report that they have become tortoises again since that debate a few weeks ago. Constituents of mine who were expecting repayments in very quick time are still waiting, so I hope the Minister will keep the pressure on, although that is not strictly relevant to today’s debate. We have also seen the Co-op bank scandal and predatory activity by banks in the corporate restructuring area—that is the current scandal and I am sure we have a lot more to hear about it.
The Government have been acting on matters such as transaction levies, and making sure that fines for institutions leave the industry and do not just go around in a magic circle. The current round of fines is being used to help pay for the military covenant, which has to be a great idea. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) is trying, although it is sometimes a lonely furrow, to do something about high pay: shareholders are being given binding votes on their company’s pay policy; companies are being forced to publish single figures for executive deals; and companies are being encouraged to inject more diversity by hiring non-executives from a broader pool of academics, public servants and lawyers. So, to a limited extent, the Government are trying to do something about that.
I particularly wish to discuss Lords amendment 41, which deals with professional standards. A joke doing the rounds when the banking crash happened named the four chairs of the big banks and asked which of them and Terry Wogan had a banking qualification. Of course, the answer is Terry Wogan and none of the others. That illustrates that for too long we have had under-qualified people in important positions. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is not in her place, was talking about the legal, medical, pharmaceutical and accountancy professions, which have professional standards of the type she would like to see. However, it is important to note that those standards are not set and regulated in this place; they are set by the professions themselves, which have a huge vested interest in ensuring their own high reputation. Those professions also carry out much more specific and autonomous work in terms of knowing whether an individual has transgressed or not. It is much more difficult in large organisations with long decisions chains to say who is actually responsible for each individual activity. However, I urge the banking profession to think a lot more about how it can enhance its reputation, which, let us face it, is pretty much at rock bottom at the moment. It should think, “How can we have professional standards which are enforced? How can we ensure that people are kept up to date with continuing professional development and that people will be struck off?” However, that is increasingly a role for professional bodies such as the Chartered Banker Institute to be thinking about; it is not something for legislation in this place.
I welcome the work of the Banking Commission and the Government’s response to it. I welcome the extra powers that regulators are going to have as a result of this legislation, but the onus is on them to use those powers. I would like the Minister to say, at some point during today’s debate, how we are going to scrutinise the regulators to make sure that they use their new powers to their full extent.
Emily Thornberry
It has been said that one of the great innovations of this Bill is the introduction of the offence of reckless banking. It is not beyond our imagination to think that in 2015 the measure will be promoted on many a doorstep by people who perhaps do not fully understand what it is that is being introduced. It is one of those proposed offences that promises a great deal, but delivers very little indeed. There is nothing like it in existence in English law, and I will go on to explain why that is in a moment.
Sajid Javid
The second group of amendments introduce substantial changes that will ensure that consumers get a fair deal. They will drive up competition and improve outcomes for consumers. Amendments 63 to 134 introduce a new competition-focused, utility-style regulator as a separate legal entity established under the FCA.
The Government have concerns about the payment systems market, with particular problems in three main areas: competition, innovation and responsiveness to consumer needs. Under the current arrangements, there is nothing holding big banks, payment scheme companies and infrastructure providers to account for consumers. The regulator will therefore have strong powers and objectives: to ensure that the operation of payment systems promotes fair and open competition in banking; to promote innovation in payment systems, for the benefit of consumers; and to support the interests of end users.
The regulator will have bespoke objectives and powers to address problems particular to the market for payment systems, allowing for the benefits of close co-ordination with the FCA. Once a payment system is brought into scope, the regulator will have powers over the system’s operators, infrastructure providers and providers of payment services using the system.
The payment system regulator will be equipped with a broad range of regulatory powers, enabling it to address the significant issues causing problems in the market for payment systems. To open up access and encourage greater competition, the regulator will be able to intervene and require changes to any anti-competitive fees or terms and conditions of an agreement for access to regulated systems. It will have powers to require the provision of access to payment systems. The regulator will also have competition powers exercisable concurrently with the Competition and Markets Authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is in her place, will be pleased to know that the regulator will examine the case for full account number portability within 12 months of its establishment—although, with the successful seven-day switching service, which was launched by banks in September, hon. Members should know that they do not have to wait until then if they want to switch their account quickly.
Ian Swales
With regard to account number portability, is the Minister concerned that in the period between now and spring 2015, when the regulator will come into force, work might slow down, rather than speed up, because of the unpredictability of the regulator?
Sajid Javid
I have listened to my hon. Friend carefully, and others have made that point previously, but I do not share those concerns. I think that the regulator will move on that swiftly. The changes that have so far been made to payments, such as the switching service, are already making a real difference.
Ultimately, if the payments system regulator determines that the current ownership structures need to be broken up to achieve adequate competition, it will have the power to require disposals of interests in operators of the regulated systems. It will also have the power to enforce Competition Act 1998 prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance and to make market investigation references to the Competition and Markets Authority.
The amendments create a competition-focused regulator in this key market.
Cathy Jamieson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, whose comments were slightly more supportive than I expected them to be. He made a good point about his beloved football club. I am sure that he agrees with what I said earlier about the amount that is spent on advertising, and the worrying way in which it is normalised by being associated with football clubs and similar organisations. That particularly affects children and young people, as well as perhaps those on lower incomes.
The Minister referred to the challenges that would be faced if amendment (b) were passed and the date of implementation were brought forward. I am well aware that Martin Wheatley of the FCA set out those challenges even before writing the letter from which the Minister quoted earlier. He said that the Minister was
“aware of the challenges that we face in bringing a price cap into force by January 2015.”
The Minister said in response:
“The Government is…committed to ensuring that you can access the information you need to design the cap. The Government will bring forward secondary legislation to allow you to collect information to support your new duty as soon as possible.”
I heard him say that those regulations have now been laid. However, this strikes us as a matter of political will. If he wants the price cap to be introduced, and if he is willing to make the necessary resources available, it seems reasonable for us to press the case for the introduction of the cap by October 2014 rather than January 2015, especially as that would help us to prevent even more families from falling into the clutches of the high-cost credit market this Christmas.
Will the Minister tell us what will be done to speed up the process of the secondary legislation to which he referred? He described January 2015 as a “backstop”, but it was not clear to me whether he genuinely believed that the cap could be introduced earlier, and I think it reasonable for us to press for that to happen.
The Minister will be aware that organisations such as Which?, while welcoming the introduction of a cap on the cost of credit, suggest that it should apply to all credit products. Members have already raised the issue of authorised and unauthorised overdrafts, which, according to research findings, are often just as expensive as payday loans. It has been reported that borrowing £100 for 31 days costs £30 with a Halifax authorised overdraft and £20 with some Santander accounts, and that borrowing the same amount for the same period from a payday loan company costs between £20 and £37. Some of the banks may not feel particularly comfortable about that comparison. An unauthorised overdraft is even more expensive. I am told that in the case of the Halifax reward account and the Santander everyday account, a £100 unauthorised overdraft can cost £100 in charges. I wonder whether the Minister has taken that into account during his discussions with the FCA.
Ian Swales
Is the hon. Lady aware that some of those charges apply even if the overdraft lasts for only a day, let alone a month?
Cathy Jamieson
The specific examples that I cited had been reported to me, but I understand that in many instances high charges are applied even if people slip into an unauthorised overdraft for a very short period.
Let me ask the Minister another question. In a letter to the Minister, Martin Wheatley said:
“In designing the cap we will, as far as possible, seek to minimise potential avoidance measures. It is possible for firms located in other EEA Member States to provide a payday lending service through the internet to UK consumers within the Electronic Commerce Directive. This is not something that the FCA can mitigate.”
What assessment has the Minister made of the extent of that problem, and what can be done to reduce that? As we take things forward, it will be important that we do not simply move people from one payday lending system on to something else that could be equally difficult.
I want to say a few words about the relationship between the banks and the payday lending sector, and to focus on the question of the banks lending to the payday lenders. During the consideration of the Bill in the other place, Lord Mitchell raised this issue, and his understanding was that Barclays lent Wonga over £250 million. When he investigated that further, he discovered that the sum was apparently much higher. He raised concerns about the mission and the guiding principles of the bank and asked whether lending money to the payday lenders so they can then lend it at higher rates to people who need loans is the right thing for the banks to be doing. That raises the question of what the banks’ responsibilities are to those on lower incomes, and also the issue of the banks’ relationships with the credit unions, for example.
I feel that we must press the amendments we have tabled to a Division. I hear what the Minister has said and I have heard the comments and concerns raised by the FCA about the timetable, but I think it is reasonable to press for this to be done as quickly as possible. The Minister has said that January 2015 is the backstop date—the latest point when it could happen. I think it is reasonable for us to bring that forward and to press the amendments on data sharing to a Division.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to congratulate the Minister on the excellent introduction of an independent payments regulator. I am amazed that this absolute game changer has not received more press attention, because our banking system still, on today of all days, faces the threat of being undermined in the eyes of consumers by its appalling behaviour. Today, Lloyds bank has been fined £28 million for its appalling treatment of retail customers—that is the biggest fine for retail misconduct ever. I stress that the reason for that, as the investigations by the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards showed, is a profound lack of competition in the UK banking sector. Even worse, we even have the last great remaining closed shop, because the Payments Council regulates the banks, yet the banks own the Payments Council, and the banks both clear through and own the payments infrastructure. So there is no incentive to innovate and no self-regulation, and there is a deliberate suppression of competition. What the Minister has done by introducing an independent payments regulator is open that can of worms. The regulator will be a real game changer for the competitive outlook in the UK in future, and I wish to explain why that is.
The proposal is for the payments regulator to look at access to the payments system. As we know, the big clearing banks access the payments system directly, but challenger banks such as Virgin Money, Metro Bank and Aldermore have to go through an agency clearer. If its systems break down, those banks cannot serve their customers. Not only that, but because these banks have to go through the clearer to access the payments system, they get charged up to 10 times or 20 times as much as the clearers have to pay for one payments transaction. It is an absolute closed shop and it is appalling.
The payments regulator’s first job will be to examine access to the payments infrastructure and to say to the big banks, “You have to give direct access to every player.” The big banks argue, “You can’t do that because we all mutually underwrite one another’s payments.” As with any other clearing system, however, it is perfectly possible to leave a deposit up front and then to be called for more margin should you be running out of money, so the reason given for not allowing other banks direct access to the payments system is a completely spurious one. That will be item No. 1, and dealing with it will, in itself, create a completely different playing field for all those who want to come into the banking sector.
Ian Swales
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. Does she agree that a parallel situation would be having the big six electricity companies owning the grid and not allowing any other supplier on to it?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are huge parallels between the banking closed shop and the energy closed shop. That is something I have been picking up, and I was recently in the media with him addressing this very subject.
Giving direct access to the payments infrastructure to all banks will reduce the barriers to entry, so I want further to congratulate the Minister on accepting the Treasury Committee’s recommendation that the PRA should have a specific competition objective. That is key, because the barriers to entry do not just relate to access to the payments system; there are regulatory barriers to entry. In other words, “If you are small, you cannot become a bank. Until you become a bank, you cannot become big. Therefore, you cannot ever become a bank.” We have created an environment where there are massive barriers to entry, so the payments system changes will really start to unravel that closed shop.
Importantly, I wish to put in one plea for full bank account portability. I know that the Minister has absolutely agreed that one of the first jobs of the new payments regulator will be to undertake a full cost-benefit analysis of account number portability. That would mean that if I want to switch banks in future, instead of waiting for even seven days, having to change all my direct debits, standing orders and bank account details, and having to be issued with new credit cards and cheque books and so on, I would simply be able to have my bank account details re-pointed at a new bank and so everything would remain the same. It would be instantaneous account switching.
When we move our mobile phone account number now, we can take our phone number with us. In a world where we had full number portability, we would also be able to take our bank account details with us. That would be a radical game changer for competition. New entrants could come in and attract new business on the promise that if a consumer does not like them they can always move somewhere else tomorrow. Banks would lie awake at night wondering how to retain their customers through excellent customer services rather than what next they can fleece them with, which happens all too often now.
Competition is not the only issue. There are two other items I wish to mention. The first is about resolution. We have put in all this effort to try to ensure that, in future, a bank cannot fail. We have increased capital requirements and changed the regulatory structure, which is all to the good. None the less, we know that in future, as sure as eggs are eggs, a bank will fail. What bank number portability will do is to give an instant means of resolution to avoid ever seeing again queues of people down a street trying to get their money out of a bank that they are concerned about.
If we in the UK become the first country to introduce full bank account number portability, we will be leading the world. By creating a shared infrastructure for payments, we will create a massive business opportunity for UK plc. I congratulate my hon. Friend, the Minister, but urge him to go even further and to support, when the time comes, the prospect of full account number portability.
National Insurance (Contributions) Bill
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The details of the costings can be seen in the autumn statement document published last week. The initial cost is £460 million and that then increases beyond that. All those working who are under the age of 21 will be able to benefit from it, although there is one caveat that I wish to make in a few moments.
This is a step in the right direction. It is striking that this Government came to office inheriting an increase in NICs and we have not only increased the thresholds for paying employers’ NICs, but we have introduced the employment allowance which gives £2,000 off for businesses in respect of employers’ NICs, and now we are exempting those under the age of 21. All this will help to create employment.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Will the Minister clarify whether the years in which employers do not pay contributions for people under 21 will still qualify under the pension arrangements as years worked?
Mr Gauke
Yes; this will not make any change in that regard. It is worth bearing in mind that the changes relate to employers’ national insurance contributions, and that employees’ contributions will remain unchanged. There is no change in terms of contributory benefits.
The new clause contains regulation-making powers to vary the age group and the rate of secondary class 1 NICs for that group, and to reduce the rate of secondary class 1 contributions for a previously specified age group. For example, the Government could allow for an increase in the age bracket of employees falling into the zero-rate band of secondary class 1 contributions. I want to reassure hon. Members that that power is capable of placing an employee only in a lower percentage bracket, and that it is therefore a relieving power only.
There is also a regulation-making power to ensure that the benefit of the zero rate or reduced rate of secondary class 1 NICs will be enjoyed only in respect of earnings below a certain level. In other words, the power will provide a means of introducing an earnings limit. As the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, this will be set initially at the level of the upper earnings limit, which is expected to be the equivalent of about £42,000 a year in 2015-16. I would be happy to take the House through the new clause, subsection by subsection, although all that information is provided in the explanatory notes. Perhaps, instead, I will respond to any questions on those subsections that arise during the debate.
Let me turn to the Opposition’s amendment (a) to the new clause. It proposes:
“The Treasury shall publish a review of the level of youth unemployment as at December 2013 and the effect on the level of youth unemployment if the amendments made in this section were required to be brought into force on 6 April 2014”—
rather than in April 2015. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) will not mind my anticipating some of her remarks, but I want to take this opportunity to explain why the amendment is unnecessary.
The Government are committed to increasing employment levels for all, and employment is now at its highest ever level, while unemployment is lower than when we came to power. I recognise the challenges posed by youth unemployment, and dealing with them has long been a priority for the Government. For example, about 370,000 young people have been supported through the Work programme since June 2011. Furthermore, the Youth Contract provides almost £1 billion in funding to support up to 500,000 young people into employment and education opportunities. The autumn statement announcement on abolishing employer NICs for under-21s builds on those policies and has been widely welcomed by industry. Indeed, the director-general of the CBI, John Cridland, has said that the policy
“will make a real difference and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.”
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to set this in the context of a range of Government measures, including the introduction of the employment allowance and the measures on business rates that we announced last week, which I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge will help retailers and small businesses in particular. All those measures will help to put in place the conditions that will encourage firms to take people on and to increase employment and wages. This is all about achieving sustainable growth in living standards. There is no short-cut to achieving that, but measures such as these will help us to ensure that the economy is on a strong footing and that we are in a position to improve the living standards of the British public.
Ian Swales
This might be a trivial drafting point, but will the Minister explain exactly what age he is talking about? The new clause refers to people “under 21”, which suggests that it would apply to people before they reach their 21st birthday. Is that correct?
Shabana Mahmood
I will repeat exactly what I said to the hon. Gentleman when we had this debate in Committee: we have been unequivocal in our support for employment allowance since it was introduced in the Budget earlier this year. We have taken every opportunity to say to the Minister and his colleagues in the Treasury team that it should be introduced sooner. We could not have been more unequivocal in our support.
The purpose of the review is not to put the employment allowance at risk. The regional national insurance employers’ holiday scheme had problems with take-up from the start. They were raised with Ministers in this House at every available opportunity—in oral and written questions—yet we had to wait for the full three years of the scheme to run before the Government brought forward a proposal without the same problems. That is the context for tabling new clause 1. We want employment allowance to succeed and not suffer from low take-up—we want it to be taken up. The Government say that it will be taken up by 90% of eligible employers. I am sure that all Members want to see 100% take-up, and there seems to be no real reason why 10% should be missed off. We want to ensure that take-up is not affected by any unforeseen issues during roll-out.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Lady accept that she can comment on the previous scheme precisely because the Government keep all such schemes under review? Neither scheme needs a review to be in the Bill.
Shabana Mahmood
It would be helpful for the review to be in the Bill, as it would concentrate the Government’s mind in ensuring that it works. We had to wait the full three years for the previous scheme to finish before we had a change of course towards something that will not suffer the same problems. Both points are good reasons to include a review in the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister remarked on take-up and geographical location. I am sure all Members want the scheme to be taken up nationally, and for it not to be skewed by region because promotion is not good enough in some parts of the country and employers do not find out about it. We had a good debate on whether the review should consider the impact on the overall number of jobs and wage levels. I included both in the new clause because they are worth considering.
The Minister and other members of the Committee said that they hoped the £2,000 made available to employers through employment allowance will be passed on to employees, either by increasing wages or taking on more employees. There was also the hope that employers would be encouraged to reinvest that money in the business, in research or innovative practices to help productivity. It is worth trying to measure the impact of employment allowance on job levels and wage levels. I take on board the point made in Committee by the Minister, and by members of the Committee on both sides of the House, that the decision to either increase wages or take on new workers is, for any business owner, based on a number of factors, and that employment allowance may be one of them. The policy is not being introduced in a vacuum. There is a clear intent and desire for it to stimulate employment and, hopefully, an increase in wages.
It seems sensible at least to consider the relationship between the employment allowance and job and wage levels. The new clause does not envisage a methodology, but I remind the Minister and hon. Members that when the Bill was introduced, the Federation of Small Businesses carried out a survey asking its members what they expected to do with the £2,000 allowance, and many said that they would increase job or wage levels or reinvest in their business. Employer surveys and other stakeholder engagement methods would be useful means of interrogating the impact of the employment allowance on job and wage levels. It is worth putting that in the Bill.
Ian Swales
The hon. Lady makes an interesting argument, but who would be responsible for carrying out such a survey? Would the FSB, for example, be the best people to carry it out or does she envisage some kind of Government process?
Shabana Mahmood
In evidence to the Committee, the FSB said it would survey its members again anyway. The Government could look at that survey and work with the FSB to see how it surveys its members. They might want to take a representative cohort of people who have taken up the employment allowance; discuss with them its impact on their businesses; and then extrapolate lessons for national take-up. I do not seek to prescribe exactly how they should carry out the review—I am sure there are clever bods in the Treasury whose job it is to think of these things—but given what has happened already in this Parliament on national insurance, it is important that we concentrate the mind of the Government. The House expects and wants this policy to succeed and not to suffer the problems of the previous policy. It also wishes to continue pressing the Government on this point.
The last element of new clause 1 concerns the effective promotion of the employment allowance to all who are eligible. In particular, I have in mind the FSB’s evidence to the Committee about the effectiveness of that communication. It is worth considering that in a review, particularly if there is a problem, such as a geographical inequality, with overall levels of take-up. How the allowance is promoted will clearly have an effect. Charities and sports clubs are rightly eligible for this £2,000 reduction in their national insurance bill, but there is a risk that they might miss out and that we promote the allowance to businesses more effectively just because they have more stakeholders and larger bodies getting the message out. The new clause seeks to ensure that we keep across that concern and that not only eligible businesses but other groups that rightly fall within its scope take up the employment allowance.
New clause 2 seeks a short administrative and compliance costs review six months after the Bill comes into force. It is motivated by two things in particular. First, as I mentioned earlier, the Government expect 90% of those eligible to claim the employment allowance. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others—we heard this in the Committee evidence session—have asked about the other 10%. The system for claiming the employment allowance is straightforward and everybody expects the running of it to be smooth. However, one wonders why 10 per cent. are always assumed to miss out.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the Government on bringing forward this important Bill. It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee. I believe that the measures it contains will make a vital contribution to helping a cause that I believe in passionately: helping more people take on employees for the first time.
We have to get more of the growing band of self-employed people in this country to want to take on an extra employee and we have to overcome the barriers to that. Some 4.2 million people in this country are self-employed, which is 14% of the population, up from 12% at the turn of the century. The good news is that part-time self-employment is down and full-time self-employment is up, which is a good thing, because people are finding that it is a worthwhile form of employment and are making a contribution to the economy. The push factors in driving people to that form of employment are on the way down and the pull factors are clearly on the way up, and more young people want to get involved in self-employment.
However, the real challenge and opportunity that the Bill addresses is that of encouraging more of the self-employed to want to take on their first employee and helping people to see the benefits of working in that environment. Sadly, the pace of improvement in that area is not keeping up with the increase in self-employment. We need to help the self-employed to nudge open the barriers to becoming first-time employers and feel confident to take on employees, whether they are tangible barriers in IT, legal matters or human resources, or perceived, more psychological barriers such as their concerns about dealing with HMRC or about getting rules wrong in employing somebody.
In the Adjournment debate I held on this subject at the beginning of November, I talked through a whole series of options that we could consider to help address this challenge, but the most important thing to do today is to acknowledge that this Bill takes some vitally important steps in doing so. It will be a boost to first-time employees, whether they are apprentices, long-term unemployed, those who are economically inactive, or those who are looking for their second, third, fourth or even fifth careers.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Does he agree that the businesses he is describing find it difficult to find the time to apply for complex reliefs, and does he therefore join me in welcoming the simplicity of these proposals?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am not going to comment on individual cases, but as I have said, there are a number of protections in the UK system to stop abuse in this area. We have strengthened the capacity of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and it is also worth pointing out that the UK has led the way in the OECD’s work on base erosion and profit shifting, which is also looking at interest deductibility.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The previous Government left a system that encourages offshore ownership of UK business, with highly geared structures and foreign interest rates as high as 16%. Many countries limit allowable foreign interest deductions; will the UK look at doing the same?
Cost of Living
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The Opposition do not have a monopoly on understanding the pressures on people or on wanting to do something about the cost of living. I represent the fourth poorest ward in the country, and I am well aware of the pressures that my constituents face. They know that they will not cut their cost of living by borrowing money and running up interest costs. They also know that shutting their eyes, going into denial and spending £4 for every £3 of their income will lead to tears. Sadly, the Labour Government did not understand those things, and everything did end in tears. This Government are now having to clear up the mess.
As we have heard, the way to deal with the cost of living crisis is to get the economy moving and to get manufacturing going again, and I welcome all the steps that the Government are taking in that direction after the catastrophic halving of our manufacturing industries under Labour. The Government can do two things about the cost of living: they can take tax and spend measures and they can interfere in industry and business. On tax and spend, I am proud of the Government’s action to scrap Labour’s fuel duty escalator, saving £7 on a tank of fuel, to scrap Labour’s beer duty escalator and to give free child care to 260,000 two-year-olds and, from next year, to three and four-year-olds.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fuel duty escalator, but I wonder why he omitted to mention the rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20%, which also affected the price of fuel.
Ian Swales
The £7 that I mentioned is net of the £1.50 VAT increase.
Interest rates are being kept down, and council tax has been frozen for three years in many areas. Sadly, my Labour council has preferred to take money out of people’s pockets rather than taking Government money to keep the council tax down.
Tom Blenkinsop
As a fellow MP in the Redcar and Cleveland borough council area, the hon. Gentleman will know that, between 2003 and 2007, the coalition Lib Dem, Conservative and independent council raised council tax by more than 25%, which was more than during the previous four years or the following four years under Labour.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman has an excellent memory. I think that people will judge the council on how it is spending the money that it raises.
This Government have also scrapped Labour’s national insurance hike and, above all, implemented the Lib Dem policy of raising the tax threshold to £10,000.
Ian Swales
I am sorry; I have taken two interventions already.
We hear a lot from Labour about wages, but it is what ends up in people’s pay packets that really counts. When Labour left office, people on the minimum wage were paying a massive £35 a week in tax and national insurance. Since then, the minimum wage has gone up by £20 a week, but the national insurance bill for those people has gone down by £9 a week, with a further cut to come in April.
Angie Bray
In my constituency, there are fewer people unemployed, and employers welcome the cut in national insurance contributions because it helps to create more jobs. Also, nearly 5,000 people there are now paying no tax at all. That is the way to help people who are finding life tough: more jobs and less tax.
Ian Swales
I certainly agree with that. I wish that my area was as fortunate with employment, but my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the direction we should be taking.
I helped to launch an event for the Living Wage Foundation two weeks ago. It has stated that it
“supports moves to increase the personal allowance for the low-paid”—
because they—
“could make the Living Wage easier to attain.”
The living wage is about net pay, not gross pay.
I have talked about tax and spend measures. I also mentioned interfering in industry. I welcome today’s announcement on payday lending, following an amendment tabled by a Lib Dem peer the other day. The Government have stepped in quickly to do something about the problem. We interfere in industry at our peril, however. The Opposition motion mentions an “energy price freeze”. I worked at a senior level in business, finance and industry for more than 25 years, five of which were spent working as an accountant in the electricity industry. I could scarcely believe Labour’s proposal for a price freeze. In three and a half years in this place, I have never heard a policy announcement so guaranteed to achieve the opposite effect to the one intended.
It has been obvious from the start that any business faced with having its prices fixed but its costs varying dramatically, as they do in the electricity industry, would have real problems. Prices would increase before the freeze and after it. Prices that had been frozen could not decrease if the costs reduced. Above all, less investment will take place, especially from new players. So what has happened since Labour’s announcement? We have seen huge price hikes, which I am sure include hedging just in case the public are stupid enough to elect a Labour Government.
Ian Swales
I have already given way and I am in my own time now. Two weeks ago, National Grid said that half of proposed investment in energy was now on hold because of political uncertainty. This week, RWE abandoned the Atlantic array. This is what is happening in the real world of business as a result of the irresponsible announcement from Labour. At Dod’s energy lunch a Cross-Bench peer described how this policy was disastrous for commercial confidence, and he is absolutely right.
As the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the irony is that the policy protects the big six. When I mentioned that before, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), said from a sedentary position that we were protecting the big six by challenging the policy, but that is not true. In my constituency, three new energy investors want to invest—two in fossil fuels and one in renewables. There are US, Japanese and Korean investors behind these projects, but the projects are now in danger because their bankers are wondering what on earth is going to happen to this country’s electricity industry. So this irresponsible announcement by Labour threatens investment and security of supply, and, above all, it will raise prices, both in the short term and the long term. So I urge the Opposition to withdraw the policy as soon as possible to avoid more damage to consumers and to the electricity industry.
We do need to do things about our energy future. One key thing that must happen is that we must have genuine competition, based on more players. The fact that pay levels are too high in many industries, including the electricity industry, is clear. However, at least this Government are taxing capital gains at a higher rate, taxing pension contributions at a much higher rate and taxing income at a rate 5% higher than under the previous Government.
A few weeks ago, the shadow Health Secretary made a point about Front Benchers of all parties—I think he was thinking partly of his own. He said that we now see policies developed by people who have been trained—this is about career politicians—to write press releases rubbishing the opposition. We can tell the lack of strategic thinking behind that announcement. The Opposition have shown that they know how to write headlines, but they do not understand business and finance. As always is the case, we cannot trust Labour with the economy.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the energy price scandal has been going on for some time, and that the Government have done nothing to deal with it.
I welcome any growth and any new jobs in the economy, and I hope that any positive movement in the economy will help people in my area address the massive drop in earnings since this Government came to power. However, I caution that illusions are simply not good enough. The Government repeatedly fail to answer questions about how many new jobs are part-time and, of those, how many are on zero-hours contracts. They also do not say in what sectors those jobs are being created. The truth is that half the new jobs are in low-paid sectors, and that the minimum wage is not always being enforced.
When I hear the Chancellor crowing about recovery, I am always tempted to ask, whose recovery and what sort of recovery. Is it a recovery benefiting my constituents who are struggling to find well-paid jobs, to pay those soaring energy bills and to put food on the table for their children? Is it helping those who are struggling to cope with the bedroom tax? One well-known local Liberal Democrat member in Cardiff recently said in a tweet that she knew that it was difficult for some people, yet many Liberal Democrats proudly voted for the bedroom tax in this House the other night. It is not just difficult but increasingly impossible for many families across my constituency.
Let me share with the House three stories that I have come across recently. First—I hope that the hon. Member for Redcar is listening—one of my constituents came to me saying that his monthly direct debit to npower had been increased from £197 to £254 just after he had been reimbursed an overpayment. I contacted npower and found that that was on top of the price rise of 10.4%. For him, the rise is 28.9%, which is extraordinary. That is the sort of issue that is affecting people in the country. How will that man make ends meet over the next few months? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Redcar is chuntering from a sedentary position. As he does not seem to be interested, perhaps he would like to intervene and respond to that sort of example.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the likelihood of a price freeze in 20 months’ time will make prices go down or up between now and then?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will know that we called for a price freeze now, but it was the Government who voted against it. He should look at what is happening on his own Benches before making such comments. How is the recovery helping constituents who are being slammed by energy prices?
Let me give another example. A single father in the east of Cardiff with a 12-year-old daughter who lives with him full-time has just been sanctioned for two weeks for not providing enough evidence of his job search. He has actually provided a lot of evidence. He has been applying for multiple jobs, even in the bar and restaurant industry, despite having a history of alcohol abuse and being advised not to work in that sector. He has always worked and has never claimed social security before. He is not computer literate and has only been given limited assistance with his job search and he is not allowed to submit handwritten evidence of his job search. He is not in receipt of any other social security benefits, so the only money that is coming in is child benefit and tax credits. He has been struggling to manage over the past few weeks. After paying all of his bills, he was left with £3 to feed himself and his daughter. The real tragedy is that his daughter is trying to help the family by bringing home her school lunch because she is worried that she will not get fed at home. He is absolutely distressed and mortified to be in that position. Where is the recovery for him and his daughter?
My last example is of a gentleman who came to see me at my surgery the other week. He was being sanctioned for being unwilling to travel far away from home. He does not have a car and it was extortionately expensive to travel to the area to which he was asked to go and it would have left him out of pocket. As a result, he did not take that job, but he is willing to take any other job that he is offered. None the less, he was sanctioned and his money was put down to just £40 a week. I am fighting on his behalf with the jobcentre. The reality is that he has very little on which to live. He told me that he was not able to put on the heating and electricity. He said that it was not that cold, despite the fact that the weather outside was freezing. He was putting on extra jumpers just to try to cope and to get by—he was in an absolutely awful position. He has worked all his life and now he is not putting on the heating or the electric, so where is the recovery for him?
Those are the real stories of people living under this Government. They simply do not recognise the rosy picture that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other Ministers have been telling us about over the past few days. The story across Wales as a whole is equally concerning. More people are hit by the bedroom tax in Wales than in any other area in the UK. Even the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), despite some of his more outrageous comments the other day, has admitted, as Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, that significant challenges are caused by its impact in Wales.
We have some of the highest energy prices in the country and 1 million households would benefit from Labour’s price freeze. Wales has the biggest increase in those in energy debt compared with anywhere in the UK, up by 24% in the past two years. People are now consistently falling into arrears with the energy companies as a result of those price rises. We have seen one of the biggest falls in real wages across the UK and one of the largest increases in under-employment—that is, people who want to work more hours but are unable to do so because of the types of jobs that are available. They do not recognise the fantasy of the 1 million or so jobs that the Government keep citing.
I have described some heart-rending cases, but we also heard earlier about food banks. The use of food banks in Wales has trebled in recent times and in every part of my constituency, from Penarth to Splott to Llanrumney, I am seeing increasing numbers of people accessing those food banks. That is why I was so disappointed to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is no longer in his seat. He attempted to suggest earlier that I had somehow misled the House on his views about food banks. Let me put on the record the reasons for people using food banks that he gave to his local paper, the Barry & District News, on 5 September. He said, and I quote directly, that the reasons were
“inability to manage money and to budget, addiction to alcohol or substance misuse, bullying at home, neglect by the benefit recipient and a range of other reasons.”
He did not recognise or comment on the real reasons people are going to food banks: energy prices, low wages, the social security changes or delays that the Trussell Trust says are the biggest reason for people going to food banks, the low incomes that the trust also points to as another such reason, and the debt that many people are getting into with payday lenders, loan sharks and others. I believe that it was right for him to be criticised by local Labour councillors for a local Labour council that is doing an immense amount to help people in very difficult times, including working with Cardiff on a collective energy buying scheme to help reduce the pressure from the energy companies, which are ripping off consumers across the country.
The figures for the whole of Wales tell an even greater story. Some 400,000 people have been hit by the Government’s squeeze on tax credits and social security overall; that can be compared with the 4,000 richest in the country, who got a handout from the Government with the tax cut for millionaires.
My constituents and people across Wales are asking again and again: whose side are the Government on, who is benefiting from this so-called recovery and who will stand up for them? Time and again, they are left wanting by Tory and Lib Dem Members. They will get a much better deal if they vote for Labour at the next general election.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Swales Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with that number. Let us be clear: the Labour party and the shadow Chancellor said it was a complete fantasy that private sector job creation would outstrip the loss of public sector jobs required by fiscal consolidation. That is complete nonsense and we have not yet had an apology from the shadow Chancellor.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Companies up and down the country have been investing in manufacturing capacity for the green infrastructure of tomorrow. Those in the north-east Energi Coast consortium have already invested £400 million. Will the Chancellor confirm the Government’s commitment to support the renewable energy industry?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, and I congratulate him on his new appointment in this House. I can reassure him on his point. We are, of course, looking at the range of support that exists in terms of people’s energy bills, but we will not compromise on our commitment to renewable energy and green infrastructure investment. That means we remain absolutely committed to the renewables obligations and the contracts for difference, and that will not change as part of this process.