Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

One thing we have seen as a result of launching the second phase consultation is the first properly informed debate on how we should be funding schools and what the relative balance of investment should be for different children with different challenges. The consultation finishes later this week, and I thank the House and colleagues for their engagement with it. We will respond to the points that people have made in due course.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Vera Lynn was a pupil at Brampton Primary School in my constituency and, along with every other school in my constituency, its budget is going to be cut under the Secretary of State’s proposals. Ministers often tell us that the schools budget as a whole is not being cut. Should not that guarantee apply to individual schools such as Brampton Primary School as well as to the system as a whole?

[Justine Greening]

I pay tribute to Dame Vera Lynn, who has been an iconic and amazing figure. She is a fantastic female role model for many young girls and women growing up in our country.

We need to make sure that, for the first time, our country sees consistent funding for all children, wherever they are growing up. We have seen significant rises in the overall schools budget over the years. Indeed, this Government have not only protected the overall schools budget in line with inflation but have made sure that the cash amount per pupil is protected, too. That is important, but we now have to make sure that we fund children in our schools fairly, wherever they are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

We believe that they can play a significant role. As part of the “Schools that work for everyone” consultation, we have had excellent discussions with the independent schools sector, and we look forward to bringing those to a conclusion.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T9. Research shows that when a pupil joins a school at a different time from all the others, the cost is between £250 and £600. I welcome the inclusion of the mobility factor in the new formula, but putting a 0.1% weighting on it means that the amount per move will be less than £70. Will the longer-term formula take a more realistic view of the costs of mobility to schools?

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue. In fact, it was the additional factor that we put into the working formula on which we are now consulting that was not in the original phase 1 consultation. There is £23 million against that, but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will have put in his own consultation response, for which we would be grateful.

School Funding

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I do agree. We want every child to have the same chance to do as well as possible no matter where they grow up in our country or, indeed, where they start from academically. That is why we must ensure that the resources going into the system reflect our high ambitions for every child wherever they grow up, and that they are distributed to that effect. It is because of this Government’s economic policy, which has seen jobs, growth and the careful management of public finances, that we have been able to protect the core schools budget in real terms over the course of this Parliament. In fact, our core schools investment is the largest on record.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

David Cameron promised that the funding per pupil would be protected but, as we have heard, that is not happening. In my constituency, funding per pupil is being reduced further as a result of the formula. Why is David Cameron’s promise being broken?

[Justine Greening]

It is not. We are protecting funding per pupil as well. On apportioning funding fairly between schools, we know that it is time to look at the school funding formula to ensure that we rectify the current unfair and outdated system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out. At the moment, funding is not distributed evenly across our country and does not take account of pupil needs. For example, a school in Sutton receives £75 in extra funding for each pupil with English as a second language, but in Tower Hamlets that figure is £3,548. We know that a primary school pupil who is eligible for free school meals and who has English as an additional language attracts £4,219 in East Sussex, but just down the road in Brighton and Hove, that same child would attract £5,813 for their school. We know that a secondary class of 30 children with no additional needs attracts £112,100 of funding in Staffordshire, but £122,500 of funding in Stoke-on-Trent. That is a difference of £10,400 for one class.

We know that parents and families see that unfairness playing out for their children, and it is simply untenable to say that these historical imbalances and differences in how we fund our children across the country are something that we should accept. No parent should have to put up with such disparity. I hear the shadow Secretary of State say that she does not like our proposed funding formula, but it is subject to consultation. I have actually extended the consultation period from 12 weeks, which was the longest period ever for such a consultation, to 14 weeks, because this is complicated. It is important that we have a measured, proportionate debate around the right way to proceed with the funding formula. What is absent from Opposition Members’ speeches is any suggestion of a better way of doing things. When the shadow Minister wraps up the debate, I will be interested to hear whether Labour has any alternative to the national funding formula—or any other education policy for that matter. We are right to be taking action.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think it can. Obviously, my hon. Friend will want to look at the detail in the consultation, but under this formula we will put £23 million into supporting children who move in-year and their schools. As a London MP, I know that has been an issue for some London schools. But it is not just an issue for London; there was a general response to the phase 1 consultation document saying that we needed to put the issue into the phase 2 consultation and that it should be made part of the formula. That is why we have done so.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for schools for listening to the case for adding mobility to the school funding formula and to the Secretary of State for her announcement; I will look carefully at the details. Should she not have secured the Chancellor’s support to make sure that no school sees a cut in its funding per pupil, given the cost pressures that she has referred to?

[Justine Greening]

I make two points. In spite of the need to reduce the deficit over time, which the Government have set about doing, we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. In addition, I recognise that there is a need to reduce the year-on-year reductions schools faced, so those will be no more than 1.5%. Indeed, the overall reduction for any per-pupil amount will be no more than 3%. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Schools that work for Everyone

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

As we have seen in many parts of the country, including London, what actually made the difference was schools working together, having outstanding headteachers going into what were underperforming schools, turning them around and then working with other schools in neighbouring areas to ensure that best practice was disseminated. Grammars need to play their role in doing that, hence these proposals.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the Sutton Trust and it points out that 18% of pupils are on free school meals but only 3% of grammar school pupils are, so the fact that that tiny group does well does not support her policy, as she has claimed. Opening new grammar schools inevitably means creating new secondary modern schools, however it is dressed up. How can that possibly be a good idea?

School Funding

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises the important issue that alongside many of the reforms we have introduced, a demographic shift is taking place which means we simply need to scale up our education system to keep pace with the number of children who need it. We have created 600,000 school places, but we need to do more. I assure him that the funding formula statement that I am setting out today means we are in a better position going forward as we introduce it to make sure fair funding follows the child, including in Kettering.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment, and she is absolutely right not to rush this, because getting the new formula wrong would be a disaster. The previous Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), offered at the Select Committee to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is in his place, to discuss the case for a rapid pupil turnover factor in the new formula. Will she confirm that that offer still stands and let us know which member of her team that meeting should now be with?

[Justine Greening]

That offer does still stand. I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman when we have worked out which Minister will attend the meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right and that is why the second phase of High Speed 2 will see a spur to Heathrow. It is also wise to point out that the first phase will see Birmingham airport effectively connected to High Speed 2, too.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I hope that we will see direct trains from Scotland to Paris and Brussels. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the current proposal is for only a single-track interconnection between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 and is she open to imaginative ideas to make better use of existing capacity to allow a proper two-track link between the two future high-speed links?

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have plans to connect those two high-speed tracks in part of the first phase and his question demonstrates the opportunities for growing that capacity in future years. I think it shows why high-speed rail is so vital to the future of not just the capacity of our rail network but our economy.

High-speed Rail

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I thoroughly agree. I have had a clear priority to look at how we can minimise the impact of this project on people, but in addition to that I have been careful to look at how we can minimise the impact more broadly on both the environment and of course wildlife, and I will continue to do that. The environmental impact statement process that we can now begin will enable us to do that in a far more detailed way. That is very welcome.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement. Greengauge 21 has pointed out that if some commuter services that currently run into Euston could be diverted on to Crossrail when High Speed 2 opens, that would create new through-services, which would be very welcome, could significantly reduce the demand for extra platform capacity at Euston, addressing one of the problems that has been raised in this exchange, and would also open up the possibility of a much better interconnection between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 than the single-track proposal that is on the table at present. Is the Secretary of State looking at that idea for improving the position?

[Justine Greening]

We have reached a conclusion on phase 1, which I have announced, and we have looked at such proposals. Network Rail is now able to look at the possibilities arising from the released capacity on conventional lines. That has the potential to address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

Finance Bill

Debate between Justine Greening and Stephen Timms

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a chartered tax specialist, as was acknowledged at a reception last night, so I defer to his understanding of these matters.

The Bill is different from the IPSA scheme on a couple of points. The IPSA rules say that when Members are required to be at the House of Commons after 11 pm, non-London areas MPs who claim the London area living payment may claim for the cost of an overnight stay in a hotel, subject to an upper limit. Any MP, including London MPs like me and the Minister, may claim for the cost of an overnight stay in a hotel if it would not be reasonable to return to any residence, where they are required to be at the House of Commons because the House is sitting beyond 1 am. I do not understand the different tax treatment of those two situations. Under new section 292, liability for income tax is avoided only if the House sits beyond 1 am. That is fine for London MPs like me. If I made a claim for a hotel stay under the IPSA rules, the new section would exempt me from income tax on that payment. However, it seems a bit unfair to non-London MPs, in that the IPSA scheme allows them to claim for the cost of an overnight stay if the House sits after 11 pm, but the new section gives them an income tax liability on that claim unless the House sits after 1 am. I wonder why the rules have been drawn up in that way.

A second area where I am puzzled relates to travel expenses for children. I have no children, so I hasten to say that this has nothing to do with my personal arrangements. The IPSA scheme provides for travel and subsistence expenses in respect of travel for dependent children aged under 16, limited to 30 single journeys per child between the Member’s London area residence and the constituency residence in each year. The new section would exempt from income tax the cost of journeys by spouses or partners but not—as far as I can see—the cost of journeys by children. Why is tax payable on those expenses but not on the others?

[Justine Greening]

I shall briefly talk about what we seek to achieve with clause 7 and schedule 4, and then try to answer the specific issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause 7 introduces schedule 4, which provides for the income tax treatment of certain expenses paid or reimbursed to Members of Parliament under the new MP expenses scheme introduced and administered by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. For the main part, the changes introduced by the provisions are necessary to reflect the fact that expenses are no longer paid under a resolution of the House but instead are paid by IPSA under the authority of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

As we are all aware, expenses paid to Members have come under close scrutiny over the past year, not just by the media and the public, but also by IPSA. In developing its new scheme, IPSA has taken account of the requirement of MPs to perform their duties both in their constituencies and in Westminster. It has decided that the expenses covered by the exemptions introduced by the schedule are necessary for the performance of an MP’s parliamentary functions.

The key provisions will broadly maintain the long-standing statutory exemptions for overnight accommodation and EU travel expenses that were introduced in recognition of the particular role of MPs. The provisions will codify elements of concessionary tax treatments that, because MPs are required to carry out their duties both in their constituencies and in the House, have applied for many years to certain UK travel expenses paid to MPs. Additionally, they will reflect IPSA’s decision to continue to reimburse some UK travel for MPs’ spouses and partners, albeit in more restricted circumstances. The schedule therefore puts the previous concessionary treatment on a statutory footing to allow those payments to continue to be made without tax being due. Finally, the provisions reflect IPSA’s decision to deal with payments for evening meals separately from general expenditure connected to overnight accommodation, and the schedule now introduces a specific exemption for the costs of meals reimbursed under IPSA’s scheme. Again, that maintains the previous tax treatment.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two issues—about late-night sittings and accommodation. He is right: there is indeed a difference. The IPSA and tax treatment is different for sittings that end after 1 am and for sittings that end between 11 pm and 1 am. For sittings that run after 11 o’clock, there is tax exemption for expenses incurred for overnight accommodation, because that is deemed by IPSA a necessary expense incurred in the MP role.

Non-London MPs who decide to take the London allowance—the London expense regime—are able to charge overnight accommodation if the House sits after 11 pm, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. However, that charge is not tax-exempt; it is deemed subject to normal tax treatment for any employee. A normal employee would not be able to claim a tax exemption if they chose to stay in a hotel because they had been working late. The rules for the House sitting past 1 o’clock are agreed with IPSA as necessary for the fulfilment of the MP role, so are tax-exempt. Before that, although MPs from outside the London area can get reimbursement for overnight costs, they are not tax-exempt. I hope that I have clarified the situation, even though some people might not agree that the tax treatment set out in the clause and schedule 4 is fair.

Children’s travel was not tax exempt under the previous scheme, and clause 7 and schedule 4 merely maintain the same tax treatment of children. However, the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the tax exemption for spouses will continue, albeit with some more restrictive conditions. Again, I hope that I have clarified the position.

As IPSA continues to develop its expenses regime over the coming months and perhaps years, we will obviously have to keep an eye on any changes and ensure that we determine whether we need to reflect them in tax law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 8

Amounts not fully recognised for accounting purposes

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

[Stephen Timms]

Clause 8 and schedule 5 amend the corporation tax rules on loan relationships and derivative contracts that apply to amounts not fully recognised for accounting purposes. This is a good example of the way in which the obligations that the previous Government introduced in 2004 on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes are bearing fruit by revealing forms of avoidance that represent loopholes that need to be closed, which is what the clause does. The intention behind the clause was announced by the previous Government at the time of the March Budget. The provision is tightly targeted. I am not aware of any adverse reaction, and I certainly support the clause, but will the Exchequer Secretary give us his assessment of how much tax avoidance will be prevented by blocking the loophole?

I was pleased that the coalition agreement included the commitment:

“We will make every effort to tackle tax avoidance”.

Clauses 8 and 9 are the first concrete signs of that commitment being delivered. However, will the Exchequer Secretary tell us a little more about how those efforts will be pursued and what is meant in the coalition agreement by the commitment to

“detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals”?

If I understand correctly, Liberal Democrat proposals in this area include: changing the taxation of benefits in kind; increasing the proportion of HMRC time spent on income tax evasion; a new general anti-avoidance provision for corporation tax, with companies paying a commercial rate for HMRC pre-clearance—I imagine that that is being subsumed in the wider discussion about a general anti-avoidance rule; and legislating to establish the beneficial ownership of property that is sold to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty land tax. Will the Exchequer Secretary confirm what the coalition agreement meant? Are all those initiatives—