Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I do think that is a very sensible goal, and sometimes that point has been missed in the debate about the transforming rehabilitation programme. My view is that we need to build on those reforms, and that is why on 16 May I outlined the changes we were making. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be ambitious and provide coverage for as many ex-offenders as possible.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the Secretary of State has had a chance yet to see the report published this morning by Crest Advisory on the management of women offenders. It suggests that police and crime commissioners should develop gender-informed alternatives to cautions and thereby keep women out of the criminal justice system. Will he consider that recommendation and the others in the report, and would he or one of his ministerial colleagues be willing to meet me and representatives of Crest to discuss it?

[Mr Gauke]

I confess I have not had an opportunity yet to read the report published this morning, but from what the hon. Lady says it appears to go in a similar direction to the female offenders strategy I set out last year. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matter further.

Legal Aid: Post-Implementation Review

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

To what extent was the review able to consider the concerns raised at the time of LASPO about the impact on the diversity of the legal profession? He will know that in particular younger lawyers, those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and women were more likely to undertake legal aid work; what is the situation now?

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a welcome from Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which said it would look positively at what has been set out and look to engage with it. I share the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that we have diverse legal professions in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Since the last Justice questions, my Department has published an education and employment strategy for adult prisoners. My vision is that when an offender enters prison they should immediately be put on the path to employment on release. To deliver this, we are giving governors powers to tailor education provision to employers’ requirements. We are launching the New Futures Network to broker partnerships with employers, and we are consulting on measures to get more prisoners into workplaces on day release during their sentences. Success will mean more prisoners leaving custody ready for work and more employers ready to hire them.

[Kate Green]

Releasing prisoners immediately before the weekend, when housing offices, benefits offices and other sources of advice are closed, leaves vulnerable individuals without support and more likely to reoffend. Will the Justice Secretary take immediate steps to address this ridiculous practice?

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Lady, because I hear exactly the point that she is making. I have asked my Department for the evidence on this issue. If the evidence does point towards worse levels of reoffending and real difficulties for offenders if they are released on a Friday, we will look at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for his comments. I do want to look at whether we can expand release on temporary licence and provide these opportunities more widely. On his second point, I am keen to ensure that we provide as much support as possible and make it clear that there is a second chance for people who have gone to prison. If they abide by the rules and comply with the system, we want to give them the support to turn their lives around.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State consider what can be done to facilitate prisoners in applying for universal credit before they are released, so that they can receive the support of jobcentre and other staff immediately on release to move into paid work as quickly as possible?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, and rightly so. I am keen to do precisely as she suggests. A lot of work already goes on in prisons with, for example, work coaches providing this support. Part of the challenge is about access to emails. We need to look very carefully at that because it raises a large number of questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Since 2010, we have removed more than 40,000 foreign national offenders from our prisons, immigration removal centres and indeed the community. There is a range of removal mechanisms that enable the return of foreign offenders to their home countries. The Government are now considering future criminal justice arrangements with the EU with the aim of continuing our close working relationship.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that in family law there are mutual and reciprocal arrangements between EU countries to ensure that judgments are recognised and enforced. How does he envisage the interests of children being protected after we exit the EU and are no longer able to rely on those mutual arrangements?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Having satisfactory arrangements with the European Union in that and other matters is important. It is right that we are ambitious so that the interests of children are put at the heart of what we do.

Universal Credit

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We will have that guidance out in December, so we will be moving quickly on that. This is designed for those who have previously been on housing benefit with an alternative payment arrangement. Of course where work coaches, as they engage with new claimants, identify that the right approach is for an alternative payment arrangement to exist—in other words, the money goes to the landlord—they can take that forward.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the announcement about the housing benefit run-on, and I was even more pleased to hear the Secretary of State say it would not be an advance but an award. Can he say why it will not be available to those who have not previously been in receipt of housing benefit? As he will know, rent arrears have been one of the features of UC that has caused the most difficulty and high levels of debt.

[Mr Gauke]

This housing benefit transitional payment is designed for those people who have previously been on housing benefit, so a claim is already there. That is why we have done this, but may I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for this policy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We are engaged in a wide-ranging renegotiation addressing issues about economic competitiveness and the roles of Parliament and so on. This is not explicitly part of that renegotiation, but we are, as a Government, going out making the case to other member states, and we will have the report from the Commission in March and we have made our position very clear.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The funding the Government are putting into services for women fleeing sexual and domestic violence has been described as like filling a bath with the plug pulled out. End Violence Against Women says the tampon tax cannot possibly fill the gap, while across the country refuges and specialist services are closing. Will the Minister commit to a full review of the effect of the Government’s fiscal policies on the availability of services and to publishing the information?

[Mr Gauke]

We have already announced £40 million in funding for domestic abuse services between 2016 and 2020, as well as a £2 million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention. The hon. Lady raised a very broad point, and, in reply I would say the best future for the entire country is to ensure we have strong public finances, a credible economic policy and a long-term economic plan that delivers jobs and growth. That is what this Government are doing.

[Kate Green]

I am afraid that the Government’s economic policies are not protecting women from violence. Research published yesterday by Professor Sylvia Walby of the University of Lancaster shows that violent crime against women has been under-reported and has in fact been rising since 2009. That is a result of cuts to services, cuts in the police, a lack of housing to move into, financial pressures on relationships and difficulties accessing justice. Does the Minister not recognise that the holistic effect of the Government’s policies has been to place women in danger? Will the Government take urgent action to address this?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes the point that domestic violence is under-reported, and we accept that that is a problem, although reporting has increased. Indeed, the number of convictions has increased. She also made the point that there had been cuts in police services. The Chancellor made it clear in his autumn statement, however, that because the economy was performing better than had been the case before, we could afford not to cut police funding over the course of this Parliament. Again, I make the point that Labour can oppose every single cut and every single change that we make to try to bring the public finances under control, but if we do not take those decisions, I am afraid that we will run into a crisis. That was what the 2015 general election was fought on, and the result was very clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As the Prime Minister made very clear in the 2010 general election, it is right that we recognise marriage in the tax system, and that is precisely what we have done. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, it is now possible for people to register to be able to benefit from the transferable tax allowance.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the Minister consider it either fair or socially useful that money is being spent in this way when only one in four of the couples who benefit are raising children?

[Mr Gauke]

This is about recognising marriage within the tax system, but it should also be noted that it will benefit many low-income households, including 1 million households where tax credits are claimed.

Income Tax

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a rare privilege for a Treasury Minister to respond to an Opposition day debate on an economic matter this year. In the course of 2014, we had a debate on banking in January and a debate on the Office for Budget Responsibility in June, and now this. Why the reticence on the part of the shadow Treasury team? Imagine the scene in the shadow Cabinet room. With the general election fast approaching and Labour’s economic credibility at record lows, the pressure is on for the shadow Treasury team to make their big economic argument. So they all sit there, straining to come up with a topic for an Opposition day debate. They could set out their case on economic growth, but having spent years saying that our policies inevitably meant that the economy would flatline—remember the hand gestures—we are now projected to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7. They could talk about unemployment. Remember the predictions of another 1 million unemployed. But employment is at record levels, and unemployment, youth unemployment and long-term unemployment numbers are dropping like a stone. They could talk about the exciting plans a Labour Government might have to make our economy more competitive and dynamic, except that they have not got such plans, only plans to increase business taxes. What about the cost of living? The problem here is that hardly anyone believes that a Labour Government would make a positive difference to the cost of living, because we need policies for growth and jobs to deliver improvements in standards of living. They could talk about how Labour would deal with the deficit, except, presumably, everyone forgot to mention it in the meeting. “We must have something we can say,” someone says in desperation, and after a long and painful silence someone eventually says, “We could always trot out the 50p tax cut again. Yes, that will have to do.” So for the first tax and spend Opposition day debate of 2014, we return to a lazy and populist measure, which, as a former Labour Cabinet Minister has been reported to say today, is incidental to the state of the public finances.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

A moment ago, the Minister commented on employment rates among young people, and across other groups too. Does it not trouble him and his colleagues that while employment rates are rising, in-work poverty is also rising, and the Government have no strategy to deal with this? What will he do about that?

[Mr Gauke]

The way to address that is by improving our productivity, by attracting additional business investment, and by ensuring that we are a good climate for businesses to invest in. That is how we get growth. It is through enterprise, not through punitive taxation that fails to deliver public finances to the Exchequer.

Child Benefit

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

I understand, although I do not agree with, the point that the Minister makes, but why is he singling out to bear the burden those families in higher-rate tax brackets who have children, rather than equivalent-income families with no children?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made that point. The reason is that child benefit is essentially the only item of welfare spending that goes to households with individuals who earn more than £60,000 a year. I understand the argument that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend are making: let us keep on spending and raise taxes. That is a tax and spend approach. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) speaks for her party on that; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does not for ours.

[Kate Green]

I am confident of speaking for my party when I assert our absolute commitment to the universal payment of child benefit.

[Mr Gauke]

I think the corollary of that is being in favour of increasing the rate of tax on higher earners, but the hon. Lady did not quite make that explicit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

If memory serves, the ONS will make that assessment after the policy has come into effect, in January 2013.

As I said, we face a large deficit and seek to reduce it in a way that is both fair and reasonable. It is only right and proper to ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest burden; because of this measure and others announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, that will be the case. Considering the universality of child benefit was never our first choice, but that is the position in which we have been left.

I recognise that many are concerned about the change. Some argue that child benefit must be sacrosanct. However, it is not fair that an individual who earns £15,000, £20,000 or £30,000 should be paying for benefits for those earning £80,000, £90,000 or £100,000. When Government need to raise revenue, it makes sense for them to turn to a measure with a broad base because significant numbers of recipients will not be reliant on the additional payment they receive. Child benefit is just that sort of payment.

The steps that we are taking will raise £1.8 billion for the Exchequer by 2014-15. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in 2010 that we would seek to withdraw child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers. We have always said that we would consider the ways in which to implement the measure, but we made it clear that a new complicated means test is not a sensible way forward. Instead, we should look to the existing systems and processes to ensure that we can achieve our goal.

Let me turn to the changes that we are introducing.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, but I am keen to answer some of the points that were raised in the debate.

[Kate Green]

The Minister thinks that we do not have a new complicated means test, but does he not accept that we have a new complicated tax test—and that from a Government who want to simplify the tax system?

[Mr Gauke]

The alternative method, which would have been to do this on household income, would mean applying the tax credit system to all 8 million child benefit recipients. That would widely expand the tax credit system and impose a burden on a far greater number of people.

We propose to withdraw the financial gain from child benefit from those families where one partner has income of more than £60,000, and reduce the gains where one partner has income of more than £50,000. By applying a tax charge on those on high incomes using existing processes, we are doing it in the most efficient and pragmatic way. The charge will apply to an individual in receipt of child benefit, or their partner, where they are married or in a civil partnership, or living as if they are married or in a civil partnership. I hope that that answers the point about what a household is. It uses the current definitions of partners within social security legislation, and means that other adults living within the household do not affect the liability.

It will remain the case that two earners just below the threshold will not have their child benefit withdrawn. To introduce a new means test for family income would be complicated, costly and confusing—the very things that we wish to avoid. We would need to assess all of the 8 million households receiving child benefit, and we would need to do so each year.

Let me turn to the mechanics behind the changes that we are introducing. First, the changes will not affect those receiving child benefit who have income under £50,000, or whose partner does. That will mean that 85% of families receiving child benefit need not be troubled by the changes—85% means more than 7 million families. Where an individual or their partner has income of more than £50,000, the charge will be tapered depending on their income. The equivalent of 1% of the child benefit award will be charged for every £100 increase over £50,000 in adjusted net income. That means that child benefit is fully withdrawn at an income of £60,000. Furthermore, the thresholds between which the taper operates are not dependent on the number of children.

Those affected—around 1.2 million taxpayers—will declare their liability through the income tax self-assessment process, though just over half are already within the SA system. Although we recognise that the charge will bring some taxpayers into self-assessment for the first time, using self-assessment means that the tax can be calculated on the basis of the amount of child benefit received, and the taxpayer’s actual income. That is preferable to including an estimate in a taxpayer’s PAYE code, only to discover an underpayment or overpayment of tax at the year end as actual income proves to be different from estimated income. Even as small a change as £100 will change the amount of tax due for an individual on the taper. As a third of taxpayers affected will benefit from a reduced liability as they are on the taper, using PAYE rather than self-assessment would generate large numbers of under and overpayments.

The changes will take effect from 7 January 2013, with individuals affected including information relating to the charge for the first time in their self-assessment returns for the tax year 2012-13. The first payments of the charge will be due by 31 January 2014 if a taxpayer chooses to pay in a lump sum. Otherwise, the amount due for 2012-13 will be collected through the tax code in 2014-15.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Amendment 10 would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to report on the revenue raised by the additional rate of income tax. Amendment 14, meanwhile, seeks a report on the impact on inequality of all taxes, and amendment 30 seeks to provide a £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector workers earning less than £21,000.

I deal first with amendment 10. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asked HMRC to assess the revenue raised by the additional rate. As I explained during the extensive debate on this clause in Committee, which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) will well recall, HMRC will consider all the available evidence on the impact of the additional rate, including data from the 2010-11 self-assessment returns, which will become available next year. Data from tax returns are clearly essential in any assessment of the revenue raised, but of course they contain confidential taxpayer information and are best reviewed by HMRC. It already has the expertise in monitoring and evaluating tax measures and is resourced to do so in future. The Office for Budget Responsibility has a different remit in producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, judging policy against the fiscal mandate and analysing the sustainability of the public finances.

[Kate Green]

I understand what the Minister says, but does that not suggest that one useful role that the Office for Budget Responsibility could fulfil would be to take a dynamic look at the effect of the 50% tax rates on, for example, the propensity of people to remain in the country and pay that tax and the longer-term impact on the economy?

[Mr Gauke]

I would not necessarily have put the hon. Lady down as an advocate of a more dynamic assessment of the tax measures, but perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of her views. The purpose of the review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced will be to enable HMRC to see what has happened in the first year. It is right to say that there are long-term effects that will not necessarily be incorporated in that first year’s data, and I think anyone with an understanding of these matters would acknowledge that.

It is perfectly reasonable to make the point that if the 50p rate were to become a permanent feature of our tax system, it could damage the UK’s competitiveness. That is a point that the noble Lord Mandelson appears to support and I believe that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who introduced the 50p rate as Chancellor, saw it as a temporary measure, while Tony Blair has made it clear that he thinks the 50p rate is a mistaken policy—full stop. Our view, however, is that at this time, because of the sacrifices we are asking people to make, the 50p rate does play a role, but we want to analyse what revenue it brings in the short term and to gain an understanding of its long-term effects.

As the additional rate was introduced by the previous Government, I can perfectly understand why the right hon. Member for Delyn is so interested in establishing whether it was a successful policy, but when he talks about public scrutiny of Budget measures I must ask him what public scrutiny was there when the 50p rate was introduced? To what extent was the analysis published then, and to what extent was it published when the 10p rate of income tax was doubled? What information was put into the public domain at that point? As a Government, we have done much more on putting information into the public domain by publishing our analysis. Announcements in this area will be made by the Chancellor at the appropriate time. It is peculiar, however, to hear the Opposition proposing more evidence-based policy making only to reject the notion, it seems to me, that this Government should consider the evidence before making any further commitments.

I turn now to amendment 14, which deals with the impact of tax on inequality. I realise that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has his own views on inequality, some of which may not necessarily be shared by his Front-Bench team. I thank him for tabling this amendment, however, as it provides me with an opportunity to highlight the significant steps that the Government have taken in 13 months to address inequality through the tax system.

First and foremost, the Government are committed to ensuring that the income tax system gives more support to those on low to middle incomes, and rewards the efforts of those who choose to work. That is why the June 2010 Budget announced a £1,000 increase in the income tax personal allowance for those aged under 65. A further £630 increase was announced in Budget 2011. That will make the personal allowance £8,105 from next year. Together, those increases will benefit 25 million individuals, and take 1.1 million low-income individuals out of income tax—an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) highlighted. Basic rate taxpayers will gain by £210 per year on average. That is part of our stated objective to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, with real terms steps in that direction every year.

Income tax is not the only area in which the Government are tackling inequality. All local authorities in England have voluntarily frozen or reduced their council tax in 2011-12 and as a result have qualified to receive additional Government grant equivalent to a 2.5% increase in their band D council tax. We have committed £1.9 billion to ease the burden on motorists, including the 1p cut in fuel duty as opposed to the 6p increase under the plans of the previous Government. We are supporting pensioners through the triple guarantee of state pensions being uprated by earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest. The television licence will be frozen for the next six years.

Clearly, the Government have taken great strides to tackle inequality in this country.

[Kate Green]

What steps have the Government taken to reduce inequality by concentrating on taxation not at the bottom of the income spectrum but at the top?

[Mr Gauke]

As was mentioned earlier, we have increased capital gains tax rates from those that we inherited, and our income tax decreases have been focused on the low paid. That is an example of what we are trying to do. The point is how to ensure that we have a competitive tax system so that we have the growth that the economy needs and that benefits all our constituents.

Let me turn to the report requested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

I draw his attention to the detailed analysis that the Government have published on the impact of direct tax, indirect tax, tax credits and benefit reforms, which can be found in annexe A to “Budget 2011”. The Government have gone further than any previous Government in presenting distributional analysis of how changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits affect households. We have published detailed analysis at Budget 2011, the spending review and the June Budget 2010. That analysis shows that the top decile sees the largest losses from the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced at Budget 2011 and previous fiscal events. In cash terms, the top decile loses more than twice as much as the ninth decile, and 10 times as much as the bottom decile. That is the case if one looks at the overall impact or in cash terms, as a percentage of net income, or across income or expenditure deciles.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and to echo many of his remarks.

I appreciate that it is late, and I will keep my remarks brief, but it would be remiss of me not to speak up on behalf of my constituents to express the genuine concerns about the impact on businesses and families of the Government’s fiscal policies, including, in particular, their policy on VAT.

The impact on families, especially the poorest families, of the Government’s fiscal measures is a cause of considerable concern. The other day, the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us that inflation is having a 60% greater impact on poorer families than on better-off households. The poorest fifth of families now face an inflation rate of 4.3%, compared with the richest fifth, for whom it is only 2.7%, and the higher rate is hitting pensioners especially harshly. I suspect that we all know this from standing on the doorsteps in our constituencies and listening to families talk about the pressures they are facing in managing the rising cost of living and the difficulties they are experiencing in making ends meet. Families across the piece are beginning to feel the squeeze that is resulting from the Government’s policies, and there is no doubt that the VAT increase is a significant element in that.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) is not in the Chamber, because there are one or two important points about VAT that we need to ensure that Conservative Members understand. First, VAT is a regressive tax because it hits the lowest income deciles disproportionately harshly. That is because it is a flat-rate tax that it is taken away from the poorest families at the same rate as from the better-off. All the sleight of hand that looks at expenditure deciles misses the point that families with lower disposable incomes are seeing more of their income eaten up on non-discretionary spend, where costs are rising.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) rightly pointed out that we are talking about spend not on luxuries but on household basics. We recognise that food and children’s clothes are exempt from VAT, but let us remember all the other household basics that families will still have to go out and buy: soap powder, washing-up liquid, shampoo, shoe repairs. These are not items of frivolous luxury but everyday expenditures that families have to meet. In addition, as families rightly seek to enter or stay in the labour market, there are the costs for adults of buying clothes and equipment for work. VAT is a regressive tax that harshly hits ordinary families on tight budgets, and that is an important first consideration for Conservative Members to bear in mind.

Secondly, as many of my hon. Friends have said, we need to think about the impact that the VAT rise is having on the economy as a whole. That is the thrust of new clause 10. Here again, there is a basic lesson in economics that my hon. Friends have been trying to get across. Some Government Members have said that businesses can reclaim VAT. That neglects the fact that VAT, wherever it is applied in the product chain, ends up being charged somewhere. It ends up being charged when the consumer goes out and buys the goods. It does not somehow disappear in the course of VAT recovery, but is charged ultimately to the customer, who is now faced with spending more on essential items and having less to spend on additional items. That is having a damaging effect on business, manufacturing, retail and jobs. That is the point that I and my hon. Friends have been trying to get across.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Redcar has only just arrived as I finish this helpful, if rather basic lesson in elementary economics. You will not want me to repeat it all at this time of night, Mr Speaker, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can read the Official Report tomorrow to gain the benefit of what I and my hon. Friends have been trying to get across.

As I said, I want to make a few remarks about the impact that this policy is having in my constituency. I have talked about the impact that it is having on families in my constituency. Hon. Members have alluded to the impact that it has had on HomeForm, which is a substantial business based in Old Trafford in my constituency. It has been forced into financial difficulties, and I am very concerned about that. I am also concerned about an exceptionally important and large retail centre in my constituency, the Trafford centre, with which hon. Members may be familiar. I am concerned about jobs at the Trafford centre, particularly because of the nature of those jobs. They are exactly the kind of jobs that low-income families and those who can manage only a few hours of work are reliant on: part-time jobs, shift jobs and low-skilled jobs. Those are the jobs that are being put at risk and those are the jobs that do something—not very much, but something—to keep families on modest incomes afloat.

I am concerned that there is an impact on families, an impact on industry, an impact on retail and an impact on jobs. As my colleagues have said, that translates into a fall in consumer confidence and a fall in retail growth. We are concerned therefore about the damaging effect on the economy overall.

As the House is aware, we are asking simply for an assessment of the economic impact of the Government’s VAT rise. I think that that is a reasonable thing to ask for, particularly given the Chancellor’s apparent greater open-mindedness towards the economic impact of the 50% income tax rate introduced by the last Labour Government for those with incomes of more than £150,000. It was interesting to hear him say explicitly in his Budget statement in March this year that he regards that as “a temporary measure” and that he is concerned about what its broader impact may be. We are asking simply that VAT—a tax that affects all families, all households, all businesses and our economy as a whole—be subject to the same degree of scrutiny and review. I am at a loss to understand why a responsible Government would not want to take on board new clause 10 and support us in the Lobby this evening.

[Mr Gauke]

We have had an interesting debate. I must admit that I am surprised that on the subject of VAT cuts I am responding principally to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and that it is he who tabled the new clause calling for a VAT cut. After all, it was only on 16 June that, with much fanfare, the shadow Chancellor announced the Opposition’s flagship policy of a cut in VAT—the first paragraph to appear on the blank sheet that is Labour policy. Yet with an opportunity to legislate for that very policy today, the official Opposition failed to get around to tabling their new clause until the day before the debate—too late for selection.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

That is very clear, and I am grateful for that intervention. Clause 35 will result in a saving to the taxpayer of £100 million per year, because higher and additional rate taxpayers will no longer receive beneficial treatment. That target would not be met if the clause was defeated. The Opposition’s position is therefore very clear: they would spend this money on child care. That is an additional spending commitment that we will add to their considerable total of spending commitments. I understand that all additional spending commitments from the Labour party have to be cleared by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, so I am sure that they have gone through that process. However, we note that additional spending commitment. We believe that we need to get the deficit down. I am sorry that the Labour party does not accept that, or at least does not have proposals to do it. We note also that even in this time of financial crisis in the public finances, it is making additional spending commitments.

[Kate Green]

It is not an additional spending commitment; it is a commitment to moving spending from one group of families to elsewhere in the child care market. However, will the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the long-term economic impact of moving parents out of the workplace because of this cut?

[Mr Gauke]

Because of the crisis in the public finances that we inherited, we have taken a range of measures to provide credibility and to get our deficit down. That is what the country needs, and I am sorry that the Labour party is not willing or able to engage sensibly in that debate.

Employer-supported child care allows participating employers to offer their employees support with their child care costs. The latest HMRC modelling suggests that about 450,000 parents are members of ESC schemes, and that about 40% of them are higher or additional rate taxpayers. This support is offered through tax relief and the associated national insurance contributions disregard, with employers able to offer their employees up to £55 per week, free of income tax and NICs. Most employers offer this support through child care vouchers delivered either by salary sacrifice or flexible remuneration arrangements. Such arrangements can also benefit employers, because they, too, make NIC savings. At present, basic rate taxpayers can receive up to £900 of support a year through ESC, whereas higher rate taxpayers can receive up to £1,200 of support a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

22. What his estimate is of the number of single-income families which will be affected by the decision to end child benefit for households with a higher-rate taxpayer.

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

The withdrawal of child benefit from families containing a higher-rate taxpayer in 2013 will affect around 200,000 single-income households.

[Kate Green]

The Minister will be aware that receipt of child benefit by full-time mothers with no other income triggers national insurance caring credits, which count towards those women’s pensions. Will he explain how the full-time mothers who will lose child benefit under the Government’s proposals can retain their link to the national insurance system and their pension contributions?

Office of Tax Simplification

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we want to ensure that our tax system is an asset to the UK, so that we can go out there and sell the UK as a place to do business. We want one advantage of doing business in the UK to be a certain, stable, predictable and simple tax system.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

When simplification is in conflict with fairness, which will prevail?

[Mr Gauke]

All policy decisions will be for the House and Ministers. The hon. Lady makes the fair point that one cannot take politics entirely out of the tax system, but there are times when it is simply a question of complexity versus simplicity. There is scope for improvement, which is what I hope the OTS will be able to deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kate Green and David Gauke

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We would disagree with the number, as the tax gap estimate produced by HMRC is £40 billion. None the less, that is a significant sum, and it is absolutely right that people pay the tax that is due, and HMRC will continue to pursue matters to reduce tax avoidance.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Is not the general view correct, and the estimated tax gap of £40 billion a significant underestimate? Will the Minister explain how cuts to HMRC staffing and capacity are to be aligned with attempts to close the tax gap?

[Mr Gauke]

Staff in HMRC have been reduced for many years, from 97,000 to 69,000. Any Government will want to ensure that HMRC’s resources are deployed as effectively and efficiently as possible, and we will certainly seek to do so.