Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Christopher Chope(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am delighted to be regarded as the true face of the Conservative party, but I am also very pleased that there are lots of other true faces of the Conservative party present to listen to this debate. Not everyone recalls the great excitement that there was in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches back in 1989 when the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the Justice Secretary, said that he was going to introduce tax relief for health insurance premiums. That policy, which was announced in a health White Paper and then put into practice in the 1990 Budget by Nigel Lawson, was the action of a self-confident Conservative Government. That same self-confidence carried on through the years when John Major was Prime Minister, and right up to 2001, when a proposal to restore the relief, which had been taken away by the mean Labour Government, was in our manifesto. Since then, we seem to have rather lost our way.
Mr Kevan Jones
I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of losing his way, but can he remember why the Labour Government did that? It was not just because the relief was unfair but because they went on to use part of the money to reduce the VAT on heating fuel.
Mr Chope
That was the excuse put forward at the time, but I doubt whether it was the real justification. I suspect that the real justification was a feeling on the part of a lot of socialists—people on the Labour side of the House—who resented the idea that the health service should in any way be funded by the private sector. The problem we have in this country is that although our health service is funded by taxpayer money to the extent of most health services across the G7 or G8 countries, we lag behind those other countries in that we do not have enough private sector contributions to the health service. That is why the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is brilliant, because it sends out a very strong signal to people that we want to encourage them to participate in and contribute to the cost of their health care.
It is good for people to contribute to the cost of their health care, and that of their family, if they can afford so to do. Some people who can afford to do that pay for their health care outright: in a sense, they pay as they go. Others who can afford to do that pay through insurance policies. Yet others who can afford to do that do not make a contribution at all, because they believe that it is in the national interest that the whole cost of their health care should be borne by other taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than they are. Those are the three categories, and we should try to move more people from the category of those who could afford to pay for, or contribute towards, their health care but do not, into the category of those who do contribute.
Mr Jones
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand where he is coming from. However, the scheme introduced in the 1980s did not do what he wants. It basically just gave a tax cut to about 500,000 people who already had private plans, so it did not work the last time it was tried.
Mr Chope
Obviously, the Treasury will always say that there is what is described as a dead-weight cost associated with such initiatives, in that people who would be paying for health insurance anyway would get the tax relief—but that is looking at only part of the issue. What I am trying to do—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in his new clause—is to encourage more people to come into that category, so that we grow that cohort of people. We certainly do not want to allow that cohort to be reduced, as it inevitably is when people who were on schemes provided by their employers retire and lose that provision. Taking on that burden, or responsibility, for themselves is a significant expense; my hon. Friend’s new clause would not eliminate that cost, but it would reduce it by a useful amount.
Mr Chope
Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a lot of resentment about the fact that people who arrive in this country can latch on to the health service, at no cost to themselves, when they have not made any contribution at all. The new clause would give people who have been making a contribution, either through their employers or by paying insurance premiums themselves, a bit of help in the form of tax relief when they retire. We are talking about modest sums, but that would send a useful message and be an incentive.
Mr Kevan Jones
If we were designing a system to increase the number of people with private health insurance, would not this proposal be a very inefficient way of doing it? I must draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Institute for Fiscal Studies and King’s Fund report, which showed that when the scheme was abolished, 0.7% of people—4,000 people—gave up their policy. It strikes me that for most people, the scheme was a not a great incentive to buy health insurance.
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman quotes figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that go back, I think, to 2001—10 years ago. What concerns me is that there has been no update of those figures. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench, comes forward with up-to-date statistics that show that the Government have been considering the issue seriously, obviously I will listen to his arguments, as I always do.
I am concerned that the issue has become one that the coalition Government do not want to discuss, and they are not prepared to commission research into it. They are not prepared to consider the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that our proposal would generate more private sources of income for the health service. The Government are going for the simplistic version and concentrating on the idea that there would be an up-front dead-weight cost. There might be, but that would be outweighed by the other benefits.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I think, and some of the research suggests, that when people contribute directly to the cost of their health care they take a greater interest in outcomes and hold the health service to account to a greater extent than when they can be told, “It’s all free, so what do you expect?” We talk about the health service being free at the point of delivery, which of course it is, but I want a health service that is available at the point of need, and the two things are very different. That is the gap that exists at the moment. A little more private sector resource, which would relieve some of the burden on the taxpayer or complement taxpayer resources, would be a good thing.
Mr Kevan Jones
Where is the evidence for that? The old scheme that the hon. Gentleman says was so great clearly did not do that, for example in relation to waiting lists. It would cost £140 million, and it would be far better if that money went into the health service to improve care for all, rather than to the small section of society that he is trying to benefit.
Mr Chope
Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The proposal is not subtle at all and his personal example is a good one. Why should someone who loses a spouse in an accident or through natural causes be penalised because, through no fault of their own, they have lost their spouse? That is the problem with trying to use tax in relation to marriage. As I have said, the measure is very different from what was put forward in the Conservative manifesto because it does not include civil partnerships. It clearly is not what Conservative Back Benchers have read in their own manifesto.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are always winners and losers in any tax system. I am very surprised at him because I know that he has very libertarian views on a whole host of subjects, which we have heard on many occasions in the Chamber. Is he really suggesting that we should use the tax system socially to engineer society by saying that people should marry rather than cohabiting or, as has been mentioned, becoming single through separation or bereavement? I am surprised at him because I thought he was very much against the state doing anything, but the measure has the state wanting to determine or influence exactly what an ideal society should be. I am sorry, but the statistics just do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman proposes. If such tax measures worked as a way of bolstering marriage and keeping families together, we would have expected marriages to rise with the married man’s tax allowance through the 1960s and 1970s, but they did exactly the opposite—we had record levels of divorce and separation. Hon. Members should look at the facts. Tax measures have not succeeded in doing that in the past, and I doubt whether they will in future. They certainly will not encourage anyone to get married for a small financial benefit.
It is important to dispel one myth, which has been put forward again by the Conservative party—the fact that a wicked Labour Government somehow did away with the married couple’s tax allowance and that Labour is responsible for the degeneration of society that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions describes in his report. It is important to recognise what the previous Conservative Government did on this. It was Chancellor Norman Lamont in the 1993 Budget who proposed that the married couple’s tax allowance should be restricted to 20% from April 1994. That was the first time that happened for the basic MCA, which for a couple under 65 was then £1,720, so it was worth something like £608 for those who were on marginal rates of 40%, but only £344 for those on marginal rates of 20%. We then had the argument that it was unfair to have different amounts for people on higher tax rates than for those on lower tax rates. The then Chancellor said:
“There is no good reason why an allowance intended to recognise the responsibilities of marriage should give least to those on low incomes and most to those right at the top of the income scale.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 182.]
In the November 1993 Budget, the current Justice Secretary confirmed that change and went on to announce that the MCA would be further restricted to 15% from April 1995, so there was a slow change in the system. The provision restricting the MCA was made in section 77 of the Finance Act 1994. When this was debated in Committee, there was general support for the idea that the MCA should be the same across the board.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a key point and I understand why she makes it. This goes right back to when income tax was introduced in the 1790s, when a spouse’s income was the property of the husband. That was the basis on which income tax was brought in and it continued for centuries. There was no recognition that even within marriages people might have separate tax affairs or sources of income that needed to be recognised.
It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place about the MCA. Baroness Maddock, who was then a Member of this House, argued that the MCA was
“a relic of the days when a husband was taxed on his wife’s income as well as on his own. It contravenes the principle that marriage should be tax neutral.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 344.]
Mr Jones
I am very pleased to hear that but I am not sure that that is very good news for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to whom I understand the Baroness is now married. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Interestingly, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, concurred with Mrs Maddock’s view. The then Chancellor, who is now the Justice Secretary, recognised that and announced in his Budget speech that there would be a two-stage restriction of the MCA, stating:
“Now that husbands and wives are taxed independently—one of the best taxation reforms in recent years—the married couple's allowance is a bit of an anomaly.”—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 935.]
The important thing that this demonstrates is that change was taking place under a Conservative Government, and that it was not the wicked previous Labour Government who came up with this idea. However, the change did set off the forces who were arguing that the changes were wrecking marriages. In 1995, a major paper called “Farewell to the Family” appeared. It made much of the fact that the measure would change families and discourage people from marrying.
Mr Chope
In making a brief contribution to this very important debate, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on getting it going. It came as a bit of surprise when my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) did not speak to the new clause, but I am delighted that she subsequently joined the debate to speak in support of it.
I come at this subject on the basis that the Prime Minister supports exactly what I support: recognising marriage in the tax system. He promised that the Government would recognise marriage in the tax system after the general election, and this debate rightly puts the focus on how that commitment will be implemented. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say exactly when that is going to happen. Over a year ago, on 2 June 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]
Those were excellent words from my right hon. Friend. Then, some three or four months later—
Mr Chope
No, I am not going to allow anybody to interfere with the words of the Prime Minister.
On 5 October 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I have always supported the idea of supporting marriage through the tax system, specifically supporting the idea of a transferable tax allowance. The idea of a transferable tax allowance is in the coalition agreement.”
That is where my hon. Friend’s new clause comes in, because it calls for just that. One is entitled to ask why, having had two Budgets since the general election, we still do not have proposals to implement that very important pledge.
Labour Members are misrepresenting this proposal as an attempt to build new privileges for those who are in a marital relationship, but, as has been brought out time and again during the debate, the question is what we are going to do to prevent those who are married from suffering disadvantage under the tax system. That is what we are trying to put right with the new clause.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking a route towards a destination. The Prime Minister set out the clear destination, but so far we do not seem to have made any progress towards achieving it. What was set out in detail on the Conservative website at the time of the election was a very modest proposal, which talked about a small proportion of the tax allowance being transferable, with quite a tight maximum income threshold in order for people to be eligible. Even that modest proposal has not yet been put forward by the Government in the Finance Bill so that we can support it and implement it.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Prime Minister’s support for this proposal. Does he recognise that the Prime Minister included civil partnerships in what he said? If we agreed to this proposal tonight, civil partnerships would be excluded, which is clearly at odds with what the Prime Minister wants.
Mr Chope
If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.
Business of the House
Debate between Lord Beamish and Christopher Chope(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
Actually, I agree with programme motions, because any idiot in opposition who argues that Government legislation can somehow be got through without programme motions should be taken out to the nearest lunatic asylum. What we are talking about here, however, is House business, which is a different issue.
I find the situation facing us a little bit galling. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, if we divide on the programme motion he may well join me in the No Lobby, and if so it will not be the first time he has voted against his party because he is an independent soul; and I am sure he will cause havoc to his party on many more occasions in the coming months and years. The important point here is that insufficient time is available to us tonight to examine in detail the complex measures that have been proposed.
It appears that we are being asked to agree to measures that raise questions as to whether we will be able to debate the issues involved again. For instance, motion 10 on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, is on September sittings and it states:
“That this House reaffirms the importance of its function of holding the Government to account: and accordingly asks the Government to put to this House specific proposals for sitting periods in September 2010.”
Some of us were Members when the House last had September sittings, and they were a complete disaster in that there was never any business to debate. Frankly, it was just a public relations stunt, which might have made some people feel good—[Interruption.] There is no need to worry, as I am not going to debate September sittings; I shall return to the subject under discussion shortly.
There is a question to be asked, however. If we agree to this motion tonight, will the Government then allow another debate on what is being proposed, because the motion seems to give them carte blanche to impose September sittings? If we agree to the motion tonight, we will need to have a debate on September sittings in Government time. If that is not allowed, we will be denying something that is stated in the motion, in that we will not be reaffirming the importance of the
“function of holding the Government to account”.
Instead, we will in effect tonight be giving the Government a blank cheque to do exactly what they want in September, and that cannot be right.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recall the business statement of, I think, the week before last, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said he would propose the first two weeks in September this year as September sittings for this House, and that he would bring forward a motion to that effect for the House to vote on? Motion 10 does not seem quite to do what was suggested on that occasion.
Mr Jones
No, I think that first of all we need to have a debate on whether we should have September sittings at all, because some of us think they are a complete waste of time. Last time, they descended into farce, in that we had two weeks of basically Opposition day after Opposition day and endless pointless debates.