Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I do not accept that at all, because the revenue in the previous year was very similar to the figure for the year before that, which was before people knew that there might be a cut in the tax rate. I suspect that next year will also see good levels of revenue. I do not expect a sudden reduction of £9 billion in revenue in the financial year we are just starting. As always, the hon. Gentleman is peddling misery for no good reason. Labour Members should rejoice and accept the fact that if we cut a rate, we sometimes get more money. They always want to spend other people’s money, so surely they should listen to how we can maximise the amount we get out of people.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where, following the rate change, this money has suddenly come from if it is not re-phased income? Is he suggesting that people have somehow avoided tax or that people have suddenly come into this country to pay it? He must have some reason for the increase, if he does not accept the one given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love).

[Mr Redwood]

We are talking about people who are a serious amount richer than any of us on MPs’ salaries, and if the hon. Lady meets such people occasionally she will discover that they have many more freedoms than other people on when and where they earn income, what they invest in and where they organise their affairs. Some of them were not in this country before and came here when the rate was lowered. Some have some money in one country and some in another, and they can quite legally shift their money around and decide where they are going to earn more income. That is what companies do, as she has discovered and sometimes complained about. Rich people have a lot of flexibility, which means that a country that sets sensible tax rates attracts and keeps more of them and gets them to do more things.

There is also a disincentive effect, because someone who is legally here and keeps all their money here might not do extra work—why should they, when they are going to be taxed at too high a rate? Or they might not take an extra risk with their investments—why should they? If it works they will get taxed, and if it does not work they will take 100% of the loss. We can therefore change the climate by setting a competitive rate to encourage more confidence and action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

We must review constantly what we do to get it right. The suggestion is that a review in itself causes uncertainty, but there are many uncertainties in business. The constant discussion about the EU, Britain’s place in it and whether there should or should not be a referendum is an uncertainty. I am sure that many people who feel strongly about that nevertheless feel it is so important that they are willing to risk that level of uncertainty.

[Mr Redwood]

The Labour Front-Bench team made a great deal of the need for banks to lend more money to small businesses being crucial to their future. How would an increase in the corporation tax rate and a special bank levy on payroll help? Would not that mean that the banks had less money to lend?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We still see high levels of remuneration and bonuses at banks while small businesses are told that there is no money to lend. Sometimes, of course, we are told the opposite is the case: banks allege that it is not a lack of money, but that businesses are not coming forward and do not want to expand. For a lot of small businesses who want to borrow, it is galling to find that banks are still seemingly able—despite all the difficulties they allege they have—to pay out so much in bonus payments.

To review these matters and to make a genuine attempt to provide additional help for the small businesses we all say we want to help would be useful. The terms of the amendment would enable us to get details of the impact of the cut in corporation tax to see exactly what the impact has been and what the impact of the suggested minor and very small increase might be before a decision is made.

Pensions Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the issues that has come up in the course of all the debate about the single-tier pension is the decision that the Government have taken to bring to an abrupt end to the provisions that previously existed for women in particular—I shall talk primarily about women, although men could be in this position—to be able to derive a pension or years towards a pension from the contributions of their spouse. That dates back to a different world. When the state pension system was set up in the post-war period, there was an assumption that the standard pattern for married people was that one person, normally the man, would be the main breadwinner, and the woman would spend considerable periods out of the labour force, and perhaps not even work at all after marriage. Indeed, although they were about to go, there were still marriage bars on certain types of employment, so time out of employment was not just a question of choice; it was sometimes a question of necessity.

Things have changed and, although it can still be a necessity, for many women the amount of time out of employment can be very short. The arrangement in the original proposals was that a woman could receive a derived pension from her husband’s contributions—currently approximately 60% of the full state pension—or receive benefit if she was widowed or divorced. For someone widowed after retirement who was receiving only the 60% pension—sometimes referred to as the married couples pension when both bits are put together—it would be increased to a full single person’s pension, regardless of whether she had made contributions during her working life. For those who are divorced, there is currently provision in the system to inherit and carry over a spouse’s contribution record if it is better than one’s own. That can be beneficial to women, and some men, in building up a pension record.

Other changes that have taken place include crediting certain types of contribution that are not entirely financial. As well as the credits people receive during periods of unemployment when they are claiming benefit, successive Governments have introduced credits for periods of child care and for caring for other relatives, and that can make up some gaps. There are still some people—a decreasing number, without a doubt—who will end up in a position where they do not build up sufficient contributions in their own right. If the right to obtain these so-called derived benefits is taken away, there will be a group of people, primarily women, who, post-2016 when the new arrangements come in, will have less than they would have expected to get before that date. They will be in a worse position than they would have been previously, and that will have all sorts of consequences.

People have reasonable expectations of the rules. Age UK gave an example of someone who had specifically asked the Department for Work and Pensions for advice on whether she should start making contributions relatively late in her working life. She was told not to do so, because she would not be able to work to receive nearly as much as she would be getting in any event. That advice was given in good faith and at the time she accepted it in good faith, but it is now too late for her to make up the difference.

The Government estimate that there are 40,000 women in this position. I am not sure whether there is certainty about that figure, because I do not know whether a full survey has been carried out. However, 40,000 is not a huge number. New clause 5 asks for a full review to ascertain how many women are in this position and what the cost would be of allowing them to continue to benefit from derived rights for a transition period—it would not be for ever.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady have any idea how much money, on average, these ladies might be losing?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not know off the top of my head, which is why I am asking for a review. We might be talking about 40,000 women who clearly will not be getting a full pension, but certain of them will have made some contributions; it is not that they will have no contributions. The Work and Pensions Select Committee looked at this and recommended transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of the state pension age when the new arrangements came into force. It is not for ever, it would not go on and on, with a very long tail; but it would provide for those who quite reasonably made plans on the basis of particular expectations.

I have heard two arguments from the Government. The first was a generalisation about how the world had changed. Yes, of course it has changed, and we are not talking about most or all women doing this for ever. Just saying, “Well, the world’s changed”, is not a good enough answer to the fact that some women will suffer detriment if transitional arrangements are not put in place. The second argument was that apparently—I am not sure any figures have been offered up—an increasing number of these women were living abroad. It conjured up images of women much younger than their husbands and living abroad—I do not know whether the Minister had Filipino brides in mind. Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the DWP to ensure that people do not take undue advantage. Like I said, these arrangements would not last for ever.

There are a variety of reasons why somebody might not have contributed. They might have made a positive choice not to contribute or they might have been doing voluntary or care work before credits were allowed or without appreciating that they were allowed—we know that a lot of people are eligible for carer’s credits who have not claimed them. There are a variety of reasons. Others will have been in very low-paid or short-hours part-time work and earning below the level of contribution, and they might have concluded that it did not matter too much because of the derived right.

We debated this matter in Committee and I hope that the Government will this time be prepared to accept my new clause. Then, when we have carried out the review, a decision could be made about whether to proceed with transitional arrangements.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree absolutely. I saw clearly, in my city, the follow-through of that financial stimulus. It was followed through to the Scottish Government, and I give them credit for bringing forward some of the construction spending at that stage. We had more affordable homes built in 2009 than we had had for some years. I believe that the figure was 900 affordable homes, which is high for Edinburgh, but that has now plunged right down again. This was not sustained and we are back in the same cycle as we were in before. Such an approach can work, as we get the homes and the jobs, and we ensure that unemployment is not rising as fast as it otherwise would.

When Labour Members suggest stimulating the economy, Government Members invariably ask how we would pay for it. They say, “Oh, you are going to borrow yet more. That is absolutely shocking.” When we make any proposal on how we would fund it, we are immediately told, “You cannot possibly do that. You should not do that.” We are making a genuine proposal here. We have talked about it for several months, but it has not yet been taken up by the Government. The economy is still flatlining and we are seeing all the results of that in our local communities. So, yet again, we are justified in tabling this amendment.

We are constantly told about all the people who are going to go abroad if we do such and such a thing—we hear that banks are going to disappear off, to wherever—but there is not a great deal of evidence of that happening. It feels very much as if we are being blackmailed and as if powerful people are trying to say, “We will take our ball away. We are not going to play.” We have to be very clear that a lot of this does not actually happen in practice; indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the bankers did not leave the country during the period of the previous bonus levy. There is no evidence to suggest that they suddenly swanned off somewhere else. If we are serious about building and growing our economy, as we have to be, this measure will be one small part—it is not suddenly the answer to everything—of enabling us to get this economy going again. It will stop us from sitting on our hands and expecting that somehow to happen, because it will not.

[Mr Redwood]

I remind hon. Members that I am an adviser to an industrial company and to a small investment management business. I am not a tax adviser, so I feel able to participate in this debate.

I was interested in the Opposition amendment and it turns out to be rather disappointing, for a number of reasons. It asks the Government to produce a report

“on how the additional revenue…would be invested to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.”

As phrased, it does not actually ask for a report on how a bank payroll tax would work, although that is perhaps what Labour Members wanted, too. Interestingly, the Opposition have shifted from wanting a bank bonus tax—a tax originally described as a “one-off” and clearly aimed at very high earners in certain kinds of investment bank, which everybody loves to hate at the moment—to wanting in this amendment a general bank payroll tax. I ask them to think about what that means, because most of the people on the payrolls of our leading large banks are, of course, modestly remunerated. This payroll tax would give a further incentive to bank directors and managers to try to get rid of personnel they are employing, because if we tax something, we clearly do not like it. The Opposition say that they do not like payroll, so they are trying to tax payroll.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I have just given the figures—they are taken from past and current Red Books—and the hon. Gentleman must make his judgment. I am giving the House my interpretation. Most people who see spending going up by £90 billion and revenue going up by £174 billion will say that the increase in revenue is doing the job of bringing the deficit down. If he compares that with Labour’s plans for even bigger increases in public spending, he can make a case. He may also have in mind—we have debated this in the House before—whether the cuts are real or not. Some programmes will experience real cuts. We know that because there is a much slower rate of growth in cash spending than anything this country has been used to for a very long time.

If debt interest takes too much of the extra money, and if welfare benefits take too much, other things will obviously be squeezed more, which could lead to very unpleasant consequences. That is even more reason why the Government are right to try to get the deficit down, so that we do not keep on increasing the debt at such a huge rate, and why they are right to keep official interest rates low—that helps with the cost of the deficit. It is also why they are right that we need to earn our way out of the situation by getting many more people back into decent jobs, so that they are paid more in work than they are paid on benefit. Surely the whole House can agree on that and share that aspiration.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We obviously want to get more people into jobs, but will the right hon. Gentleman comment on something the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions? He said that 600,000 new private sector jobs had been created since the election, but a year ago he said that 500,000 new private sector jobs had been created since the election, and three months before that he said that 500,000 new jobs had been created since the election. Is not the rate of creation of new jobs slowing down massively under this Government?

[Mr Redwood]

We all know from the output and jobs figures that the economy did not do as well at the end of last year as it had done at other times since the Government were elected, but we also know that the forecasts are that growth will now pick up. I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome that and join me in having a serious debate on what this Parliament can do to make it more likely that my constituents and hers have jobs, and more likely that they are better-paid jobs.

The question whether real public spending is falling or not depends on the rate of inflation in the public sector, so I urge again that we take advantage of the tough times. There is a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers, and the Government say that they are buying things more cheaply throughout the public sector. In addition, there are recessionary conditions in Europe and other parts of the world. If we take advantage of those things, it should mean that we do not have to have big real cuts in spending, because we will have that £90 billion per annum to spend by the fifth year of the strategy.

However, we should focus today on taxation, which is clearly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to focus on. I do not think he listened to the Budget speech or the numbers he was told, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it very clear that he had come up with a series of targeted measures to tax the very rich more than if he had not made the changes. That is fine by me, and I would hope it is fine by the Labour party, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to say that it was not fair, because some rich people would still get away with it. However, if we get enough or more out of them overall, is that not worth while? Surely even Labour would accept that if we raise rates too high, the very rich go away—they find ways around paying the tax or do not pay.

Labour in opposition does not take that seriously enough, but the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), took it very seriously when he was in office. As Chancellor, he had the option of putting the 40% rate up to 45% or 50%, or the 83% that Labour had when previously in office, but he never chose to do it. I wish he were here today. If he were, I would ask him, “Why not?” I think his answer to Labour groups around the country is, reportedly, that had he raised it above 40%, he would have raised less money in taxation rather than more. Naturally he wanted to get more out of the rich—on that I agree with him entirely—but the way to do that was to keep the rate at a sensible level.

The Opposition should study the figures for tax receipts. If they look in the new Red Book, they will see that self-assessment income tax is plunging this year. That is exactly the problem that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to tackle. Under Labour, self-assessment taxation at 40%—the then rate—brought in £22.5 billion at its best, before it made a mess of the economy. The forecast for 2010-11 out-turn is £22 billion, and the forecast for the 2011-12 out-turn—soon to be seen—is only £20 billion. That means that the Treasury now expects a 10% reduction in self-assessment income tax receipts, which is where many of the high earners congregate with their complicated tax affairs. Those, then, who think that a 50p rate raises a lot more money have a lot of explaining to do given that we are in the middle of this collapse.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

No, I like representing my constituents and I suspect that the two jobs would not be compatible. I am very grateful for the kind offer, however, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman prefers the name Ofcap to Doffcap. As Labour has not yet put forward proposals to deal with the people it describes as fat cat landlords, I think it might well be a case of Doffcap to the landlords, as we seem to be discussing how much money we will route to the landlords through the housing benefit mechanism.

I suspect that if I strayed into the subject of proposals for the housing market and landlords, you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. There might be common ground on how we can get better value for the public money being spent while ensuring that we do not cut off the supply of housing, which would be a very stupid thing to do by clumsy intervention. We need more housing at an affordable level for people on modest incomes.

We are talking about a group of people on very modest incomes, and it ill behoves people on decent incomes, such as Members of the House, to be too mean about it. We have the conundrum, however, that we always want to make it worth while for those people to work. We all accept that there will be a cap, but, if it is to be a regional cap, before deviating from the Government’s proposal to the Labour proposal we would need to know what Labour has in mind for the total costings and how the proposal would work fairly within an area as well as between areas.

[Sheila Gilmore]

One thing that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned is that when we compare the working family with the non-working family, all too often in this debate we are not comparing apples with apples. The working family would have child benefit for their children on top of the wage that is constantly mentioned and, depending on the number of children they have, they might well qualify for child tax credit. We are not comparing properly, so simply saying that the situation is unfair to those working families gives the wrong impression. Does he not agree?

[Mr Redwood]

I thought it was now common ground that for a large number of people on certain kinds of benefit, work is not worth while. We are trying to solve that problem, so despite all those things that the hon. Lady truthfully reports to the House, we still have that problem, with which both parties are wrestling. That is why the Labour party is not here today saying, “There is no problem: we are going to vote against the whole thing,” but is here with an alternative proposal at the 11th hour—the last possible chance to consider this.

Let us go back to Labour’s argument on the regional cap. If it had come with a properly costed and working proposal, I might have been sympathetic to it, but we do not yet know from Labour what is the total package of money available. We have not even been told whether it wants to live within the budget that the Government have come up with for the proposal or whether it thinks the overall proposal is too mean. If it wants to spend much more, it will not solve the “Why work?” problem because provision will become too generous again and it will have a public spending problem.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One thing that I have not understood—I have not understood it from either the debates that we had in the Public Bill Committee, on which I served, or the responses to the various parliamentary questions that have been asked about the video games industry and tax relief—is whether the objection is to the detail of previous proposals or this proposal, or whether there is a more fundamental objection about giving such a relief at all. At times, it seems to be suggested that it is not appropriate to give such a relief, but it would be extremely helpful to know which it was.

If the issue is the detail or exactly how the proposal is to be implemented, that could be discussed further. However, targeting such an industry—or indeed any industries—might be felt to be inappropriate. In one answer given in the Chamber last week, the suggestion seemed to be that a lower rate of corporation tax generally would be sufficient, without targeting specific emerging industries. However, a tax relief is important to a growing industry in that it allows it to get off the ground and develop in the way that it needs to. People have already spoken about the cash-flow difficulties for sectors such as the video games industry, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify where the Government are on this issue and what their future plans might be.

[Mr Redwood]

I am delighted that the Opposition have highlighted the example of the video games industry. However, I fear that it is only one example among many of how we are at risk of losing talent, enterprise, jobs and business development in a number of areas because our rates of taxation are now not internationally competitive. It is interesting that the Opposition, who do not normally favour lower rates, have identified lower rates—or a lower tax imposition—as the answer in this case. I hope that they will think on these things more widely, because the combination of a high marginal rate of income tax and what is now quite a high rate of corporation tax by international standards is not a good combination in an intensely competitive world, where there has been a shock to overall demand and where we are having to fight for our commercial lives in world markets.

From my point of view, there are a couple of problems with the proposals before us. The first is that going for 25% British content is a low ambition. I would have thought that one would want a rather higher rate of British content if we were formulating some special treatment for the industry. There is also a problem with concentrating on the profits that a company generates, because some companies will be small businesses with talented entrepreneurs. They might have just one good game in them that earns them an awful lot of money in a short space of time. That is when high marginal rates on apparently high earnings—they become genuinely high earnings where it is possible to sustain them—could become quite an imposition, because those entrepreneurs might get caught in the year or two of their success, but find afterwards that they are no longer able to achieve that.

The issue is therefore not just about corporation tax or profits tax; it can also be about income tax. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by saying something about how he sees our overall tax regime developing, in both corporation tax and income tax, because we have a general problem and we need to show the way to lower rates as quickly as possible in this very competitive world. I would also repeat to my hon. Friend the simple point that the evidence from the American and the British experiences is that when countries have been bold enough to cut rates on enterprise, income and profits, they have usually found their revenues increasing. It is quite obvious that the Government need a lot of extra revenue, so I would recommend that proposal to him.