Tax Credits

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes her point incredibly well. It is those who are working so hard to support us in every sphere—in our public services and the economy—who will be hit the hardest by this move. I hope that the Government will change their mind today. I will make some more progress before I take further interventions.

The Chancellor says that he wants a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy—this may come as a surprise, but of course we all do—but what he says and what he does are two different things.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will give way in a moment.

The Chancellor decides to cut tax credits at the same time as cutting income tax and inheritance tax for some of the wealthiest in our society. His failure to grow wages in the last Parliament not only led to a drop in living standards, but meant that tax receipts were lower than they would otherwise have been. In addition, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted, welfare spending was virtually unchanged during the last Parliament because of the growth in tax credit payments and the explosion in housing benefit payments caused by his low-wage economy. Indeed, the number of people earning less than the living wage has risen by 45% since 2009. The Government may seek to hide what they are doing and to make this a debate about the Labour party, but it is a debate about the quality of life for millions of families who are working hard to make ends meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her comments. Perhaps she will say what she is doing for the 6,300 families in her constituency who will be affected by these changes. Perhaps she should speak to those in her party who have raised serious concerns about the changes, including Lord Tebbit.

Before the debate on the statutory instrument in September, the Government chose either not to perform or not to publish an impact assessment of these changes, so one was not available for the debate in the Commons. The Exchequer Secretary seemed to suggest that they had done that, when clearly they had not. The distributional analysis that the Chancellor finally submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place last week has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, as a “sleight of hand” and an attempt to “bamboozle”.

[Maria Caulfield]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make a little more progress first.

It is worth reminding hon. Members exactly what the Government propose to do with these changes. First, they will effectively halve the threshold at which claimants start to see their tax credits award tapered away, from £6,420 a year to £3,850. Secondly, they will increase the rate at which the award is tapered away to zero. That means that for every pound that is earned above the threshold, their award will be tapered away by 48p. Previously, the rate was 41p. House of Commons figures show that a family with two children and two parents who earn the minimum wage will see a fall in their income of more than £1,800 next year. By the end of the Parliament, that family will lose a devastating £7,700.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to speak on this difficult and contentious issue. It is important to consider all the arguments, including economic ones, for why these changes are necessary. Only last week we debated the charter for budget responsibility, and there was unanimous support among Conservative Members for running a surplus in normal times, so that if we again strike a period of economic slowdown, we will have money for our vital services. Many Labour Members acknowledged and agreed with that. We must tackle the country’s deficit and debt, and to achieve that we must reduce public spending.

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not. Tackling welfare spending is key to achieving that reduction, and we cannot tackle the country’s deficit and debt by leaving welfare spending as it is. The UK is currently home to 1% of the world’s population, yet it accounts for 7% of the world’s spending on welfare. That is clearly not sustainable. If we do not save £12 billion a year by reducing the welfare bill—including £4.3 billion from changes to tax credits—where will we find those savings? From the NHS budget? By cutting social care spending or reducing the education budget? Labour Members could not give one answer when asked how they would reduce the deficit. There is no easy answer—if there were, we would be doing it.

Currently, taxpayers—many of whom earn just above the tax credit limit—are subsidising employers who pay low wages, and that must end. It cannot be right that someone who gets up early, goes to work, works long hours and comes home late does not earn enough to do without welfare in the form of tax credits. Instead of fighting to preserve tax credits, perhaps Labour Members should fight harder to increase wages.

I dispute many of the figures that have been distributed by opponents of these changes. If we look at the facts and take into account all the changes in the recent Budget—including the increase in free childcare, the freezing of fuel duty, VAT and national insurance, the increase in tax thresholds, and the reduction in social housing rents—a typical family will be about £2,400 better off by 2020. As we have heard, pay is already up by 3% this year, and more than 200 firms have committed to paying the living wage. Having come from a poor background and struggled through hard economic times, I firmly believe that the way out of poverty is through work—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I could not have said it better myself. Can we move on?

The Chancellor may not appreciate these economic points, but I believe many of his advisers do. That is why there is a sizeable get-out clause for the charter rules not to apply outside normal times when there is a significant negative shock to the UK economy. Not only are the social consequences of this programme devastating, but the scale of the cuts we are witnessing represents a false economy. They jeopardise the long-term economic prosperity of our country. It is a false economy to cut adult social care when the burden is shifted on to hospitals and accident and emergency departments. It is a false economy to pursue an ideological sell-off of council housing eventually to put up the rents and eventually increase housing benefit. It is a false economy, ironically, that when this Government came to office there were 70,000 people at HMRC and within the next year that is planned to fall to 52,000—a cut of more than 25% in the number of tax-collecting staff, when HMRC says that tax evasion is as high as £10 billion a year. But the worst—

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

If the hon. Lady does not mind, I have taken a large number of interventions. The debate is time-limited. If she has any points that she would like to raise with me, I am happy to meet her separately or write to her. [Interruption.] I am doing my best to be nice. It is the new politics of the Labour party.

The worst false economy is the failure to invest. This will be a direct result of Government policy embedded in this charter, with its limits on all public sector borrowing. Economists from across the spectrum have written and commented on the need for investment for the future. The World Economic Forum ranks the UK 10th for the quality of our infrastructure, behind Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain. This Chancellor’s strategy has given us investment as a share of GDP lower than all the other G7 countries, falling even further behind the G7 average in recent years.

That is why business leaders, trade unions and a host of others are calling for investment. It is incomprehensible for the Chancellor to rule out the Government playing a role in building our future. For him to constrain himself from doing so in the future, no matter what the business case for a project, has no basis in economic theory or experience.

We also face an uncertain medium-term future for the global economy. In recent weeks there has been mounting evidence of a decline in global demand, particularly in the emerging markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I shall be supporting the charter this evening and I urge colleagues on all sides of the House who want a long-term fiscally responsible country to do the same. My reasons for doing so are that we have just come through a period of record peacetime deficit left to us by the previous Labour Government, while we have had to clear up their legacy of rising unemployment, rising taxation and unsustainable public spending. It has been this Government, first in coalition and now as a Conservative majority Government, who have had to clear up the mess. It is therefore our duty to put in place this charter, so that no other Government have to face a similar situation again, with a post-it note left for Ministers saying there is no money left.

Like many households up and down the country who have tried to put money aside for a rainy day, the Government, with this charter, are trying to do just that. By spending less than the taxation we collect and reaching a point of surplus, we too will have money left for a rainy day, so that if we, as a country, ever face a global recession or another period of economic slowdown, we will have the money left to pay for vital public services. To households up and down this country who manage their own bills in this way, this makes perfect sense: to ensure first and foremost that you do not spend more than you earn, and, where possible, you save where you can.

If this set of economics makes perfect sense to the ordinary man and woman in the street, why are the deficit deniers on the Opposition Benches so confused? The Labour party is too weak to take the difficult decisions needed to cut the deficit, and by voting against this charter Labour Members are proving again that the deficit would go up if they were in government, with more borrowing, more taxation and more debt. The great British public did not trust or vote for Labour in May, and if Labour Members vote against this charter tonight, they are never likely to vote for them again.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

As someone from a healthcare background—I was a nurse—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South about how vital staff are, but surely if there are cost issues, we must find ways to meet the cost pressures elsewhere. Paying the living wage is absolutely fundamental. Yes, it puts pressure on budgets, but not paying the living wage is not the way to address those issues.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. She makes a very good point.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked what would happen if inflation is higher than the increase in the national minimum wage. The Government’s aim is to have a national minimum wage that helps as many low-paid workers as possible without damaging their employment prospects. We welcome the fact that the Low Pay Commission shares our aim of seeing progressive real increases in the national minimum wage. It is because we have a strong economy and high levels of employment that we are seeing increases in the national minimum wage and that we now have the flexibility to introduce a national living wage.

On those who do not benefit from the increase in the personal allowance, we believe that in our income tax system someone working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. These changes will ensure that those individuals will be taken out of income tax. We want to create incentives to encourage those who, for example, wish to increase their hours if their circumstances permit them to do so. They should be able to do that without finding themselves paying income tax.

Tax Credits

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Let there be no mistake: this statutory instrument will mean drastic cuts in the incomes of families with parents in low-paid work. Across the UK, about 7.5 million children live in about 4 million families that are in receipt of tax credits, and the vast majority of those families are in work. The key impact of the measure will be to reduce the incomes of more than 3 million working families by an average of more than £1,000 a year. We have a very short time today to debate a statutory instrument that will, at a stroke, make dramatic cuts to the incomes and life chances of millions of our citizens, and it deserves a lot more scrutiny then we are giving it today.

The Government have tried to argue this afternoon that their changes to benefits and tax credits are part of a plan to encourage people into work, but this measure overwhelmingly affects people who are already in work. Far from providing incentives for parents to enter the workforce, it actively reduces work incentives and makes it harder than ever for parents in low-paid work to support their families.

This is a hugely regressive measure. Our poorest working families are set to lose a dramatic proportion of their income. If we pass the regulations today, tax credits will start to be withdrawn from any family earning more than £3,850 a year rather than from those earning more than £6,420 a year, as is currently the case. More than half a million families earning less than £6,420 a year will lose out disproportionately because of these cuts to work allowances. That is a massive reduction in the amount that families can earn before tax credits start be withdrawn. Combined with the lower level at which universal credit will be withdrawn it means that, for example, a single parent earning £6,410 a year—roughly 20 hours’ work a week on the minimum wage—will lose 48p in tax credits for every pound they earn above the new threshold, which will leave them about £1,200 worse off a year.

One hundred pounds a month probably does not sound like a lot to Conservative Members—[Interruption.] It might not be a lot to them, but for those on low incomes a drop in income of that magnitude will almost certainly mean very difficult choices about very basic things, such as the quality and quantity of the food they eat and how to heat their home. Many poorer families already struggle with heating costs in winter, especially in my part of the world, but it is not only people’s health that is affected by living in cold and damp conditions. This is also about whether children have an adequately heated place to study and do their homework and the long-term consequences if they do not.

I recognise that disadvantage takes many forms, and we have heard a lot of rhetoric lately about social mobility, but the harsh fact is that income poverty is the single biggest driver of long-term disparities in children’s outcomes. Children who grow up in income-poor households are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives. They attain fewer qualifications at school, end up in lower-paid jobs and die younger than their peer group.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that income-poor families have much poorer physical and mental health as well as educational attainment, but is that the case? The fact is that someone on benefits or welfare has poorer outcomes, so the route out is by gaining work and earning a decent wage.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady is making a ridiculous argument and once again trying to pretend that there are people on welfare and people in work whereas in reality—as illustrated by the tax credit system—many thousands and millions of working people are dependent on benefits because of low pay. That is the key issue in this debate. The Government are attacking low-paid workers, just as they have over the last Parliament, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society. The deep cuts to the incomes of the poorest families that the Government are trying to enact today will only exacerbate the inequalities we already have in our society and push opportunities even further out of the reach of those who already lag behind.

The most bizarre claim that has been made for the Government’s austerity measures is that they will encourage people to work harder. I think that we should reject the rather insidious implication that people in low-paid jobs somehow do not work as hard as people in better paid jobs, because that is simply not the case. We must remember that those low-paid jobs are often far more physically demanding, and many people who are set to see their incomes cut under this measure are already working very long hours in exhausting and often pretty unrewarding roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I support the proposed changes to tax credits, but I acknowledge that it is a difficult and sensitive issue. I wish to make a few points to explain my reasons for supporting the measure.

While I acknowledge that tax credits were introduced to support low wage workers, it cannot be right in this day and age that people who work long hours, often doing difficult work, are reliant on benefits to supplement their wages because they do not earn enough to live on. The perpetuation of the tax credit system of topping up wages lets employers off the hook when it comes to paying a decent wage. As we have heard, even Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor, has said that tax credits are

“subsidising lower wages in a way that was never intended.”

The proposed changes to tax credits deal not only with the economic issues of reducing public spending, but aim to address the inequalities faced by those who find themselves on welfare despite being in work. Life on benefits can have a huge negative impact on life outcomes, even affecting length of life. Living on welfare can have negative outcomes on physical health, on mental health and on educational attainment, to say nothing of the dignity of living on benefits.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not, I am afraid.

It is very important that we make work pay. I have met many constituents who are on tax credits because they are paid so poorly. We are subsidising employers unwilling to pay a decent wage, but relying on the taxpayer to subsidise low wages. Currently, taxpayers, many of whom are earning just above the tax credit limit, are subsidising employers to pay low wages. This must end.

Change to the tax credit system is more than an economic argument to reduce public spending, but reduce it we must. I have heard nothing from Opposition Members on how they would do that if there are no changes to the tax credit system. To facilitate the changes to tax credits, the Government have not just introduced the national living wage but are providing free childcare for 30 hours a week, freezing fuel duty, freezing VAT, national insurance and income tax for five years, and increasing the tax threshold to £11,000 as a step towards raising it to £12,500, thereby keeping more money that people earn in their own pockets.

Changes to tax credits are needed to reduce public spending, as we are accountable to the British taxpayer who is currently subsidising low pay. What message is that to low-paid workers? If people get up early, go out to work, work long hours and come home late, they deserve a decent wage, not a life on benefits. We should, in this place, be pushing the agenda for better wages, instead of accepting that a life on benefits is inevitable. I will be going through the Aye Lobby tonight.

Finance Bill

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The northern powerhouse has very clearly got a power cut, and it remains the case that with changes to local government funding, we cannot empower local government and local people if we impoverish them. At the same time, there remain important critiques of the Government’s policy making in this area. He is absolutely right that the Budget, the Finance Bill and all the attendant documents that were published on 8 July certainly did not go far enough on infrastructure, and the example that he gives powerfully highlights that.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady confirm that it was put on record during the election campaign that if Labour had formed the next Government, they would have cut infrastructure projects in my area, such as funding for the A27?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Infrastructure projects must be proceeded with on the basis of an economic case, and that was the underpinning of the announcements that we made during the election campaign, but it is also the case that under the hon. Lady’s party, infrastructure spending is down compared with 2010, and she should accept that the record of her Government and her party on infrastructure post-2010 is certainly nothing to write home about. A Government who were really serious about narrowing our productivity gap would be majoring on infrastructure. They certainly would not be kicking big decisions into the long grass for party political reasons and because of leadership ambitions, especially when it comes to airport expansion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I promise not to take as much time as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), but I enjoyed his take on things.

I rise to speak in support of the Bill because the recent Budget set out clearly a better future for this country. In the last Parliament the coalition Government had to turn around the economy that they inherited by turning around a record Budget deficit, public sector net borrowing at a high of 10.2% of GDP and a benefits system which accounted for nearly a quarter of all public spending, which left less money for public services such as our NHS, our schools and our infrastructure. The Budget and the Bill build on that progress. This is a Budget for ordinary people up and down this country, despite what others might say. This is a Budget for workers.

Four key elements support that claim. The Bill reduces personal taxation, so that people can keep more of the money that they earn. It ensures, again despite what others may say, that work actually pays; it is crazy that we inherited a system in which people are better off on benefits than in work. The Bill delivers on housing, and will make it easier for many people to have a place of their own. It also helps businesses, so that we have a thriving economy to pay for our much-needed public services. The Bill supports all those aims.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady said that she would like work to pay. Is she saying that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is wrong when it says that the bottom four, five or six deciles of earners will actually be worse off as a result of the Budget? Surely if work is to pay, it should be paying more, not less.

[Maria Caulfield]

I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday. I take his point, but what has been missed from the argument is the raising of tax thresholds that will benefit people, especially those on the lowest wages. I shall come to that in a minute.

The Bill will make important differences to ordinary families. First, it will reduce personal taxation. During the last decade, under the Labour Government, more than 1.6 million people were dragged into the higher rate of tax, including hundreds of thousands of nurses, teachers, police officers, and other public sector workers. Our measures to raise the higher-rate threshold to £43,000 will make a difference to those people and their families. All in all, a basic rate taxpayer will be £905 a year better off. The families who will benefit from those changes are not wealthy; many of them work long hours and commute long distances, and deserve to keep more of the money that they earn.

The Opposition parties believe that the way to reward hard work is not to increase wages or reduce the tax that people pay, but to increase benefits in the form of tax credits. That is what Labour did in government, to such an extent that the welfare bill rocketed, accounting for about a quarter of all public spending. That meant that there was less money for our hospitals, our schools and our infrastructure.

Why are Opposition Members so adamant that the only way to improve people’s lives is to increase their benefits? I will tell you why: because they do not believe in aspiration. They do not believe in the fundamental principle that if people work hard enough, no matter what their background, they can achieve anything in life. A life on benefits is not inevitable, nor should it be the only way forward for working families. Conservative Members support workers by not only increasing the national living wage, which I cannot believe Opposition Members actually—

[Carol Monaghan]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that using language such as “national living wage” is sinister mischief-making? It is also hugely disrespectful to the Living Wage Foundation, which has set the living wage at £9.15 in London and £7.85 outside.

[Maria Caulfield]

I disagree. By 2020, the living wage will be £9, because that is the level at which we have set it. For the lowest-paid workers in the country, that has to be a huge advantage. I cannot believe that Opposition Members are actually disagreeing with a proposal to increase the wages of the lowest earners.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is imputing various motives and feelings to Opposition Members, and is not doing so reasonably. May I point out to her that a living wage that took full account of the take-up of tax credits would be well over £11? The level set by the Chancellor is not that level, which is why this is not a national living wage.

[Maria Caulfield]

I assume that Opposition Members will support the wage increase for the lowest earners. I am pleased to see the hon. Lady nod in agreement.

However, we are doing more than just increasing the national living wage. We are also reducing the tax that people pay, not only by raising tax thresholds but by freezing national insurance, VAT and fuel duty levels for this year, to ensure that they have more money in their pockets.

Let me now say something about housing. It is, again, the Conservatives who are helping those on low incomes to reduce their outgoings by lowering social housing rents by 1% a year for the next four years. Opposition Members feel that they cannot support that move, and will either oppose it or abstain. That, I think, shows their true measure. However, the Bill goes a step further by ensuring that social housing occupied by people who have done well, and are earning more than £30,000 a year outside London or £40,000 inside London, will no longer be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers who may be earning less than that themselves. Instead, those people will pay market rents—the same market rents that others in the same position pay in the private housing sector.

In addition, to increase the supply of affordable housing, the Chancellor has announced an increase in the rent-a-room relief, which will enable people to rent rooms without having to pay tax that acts as a penalty. The tax relief for buy-to-let landlords will be reduced, too. That will level the playing field for ordinary families trying to get on the housing ladder, who have been in competition with buy-to-let landlords who have previously been at a significant advantage.

[Alex Salmond]

I represent what is on paper one of the most prosperous constituencies in Scotland, yet more than 3,000 children in Gordon are in working families who will be worse off as a result of the Budget, and I doubt whether there will be fewer children in Lewes similarly affected. What does the hon. Lady say to the children of working families in her constituency who will be worse off as a result of this Budget?

[Maria Caulfield]

There are lots of hard-working families in my constituency and if the right hon. Gentleman visits us he can see for himself that they are fed up with having to go out and work long hours often on low pay to subsidise a benefit system that historically has not been there to help such people.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not give way; the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I am almost at the end of my speech so I will continue, if I may.

There are some great measures in this Bill to support businesses, small and large, which have been the engine-room of our economy over the last few years. Cutting corporation tax from 20% to 18% by 2020 will be a huge help to many of them, and the ability to employ four people full-time on the new national living wage and pay no national insurance at all will be a real incentive to them to take more people on. There is also the increase in the annual investment allowance so that companies can grow their business more easily. All this means employers, not the state, will be increasing people’s incomes, so that Government money can be used to fund essential public services instead.

This is a Budget that not only deals with our deficit, but tackles the country’s debt in a way that supports those who work hard and do the right thing. This is a Budget that says to the ordinary person in the street that if they work hard, get up early and come home from work late they deserve a decent wage and a home. They should not have their wages topped up with benefits, but instead earn a decent wage in the first place. With the breaks that we are giving to employers, we expect them to invest in their workforce in return.

This is a Budget of aspiration not just for the individual, the family and businesses, but for the country as a whole, and that is why I support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have two fundamental objections to the Bill. First, it continues the Government’s cruel and counterproductive austerity agenda, which is both socially destructive and economically illiterate. Secondly, it flies in the face of the Government’s own rhetoric about the threat of climate change to our economy, society, security and wellbeing. Not only does it ignore the public interest in mitigating climate risk, but it fails to realise the economic benefits to the UK of being at the forefront of the global transition to a zero-carbon, resource-efficient, sustainable economy.

Over the past few months, hundreds of leading UK businesses—not just environmentalists—have repeatedly called on the Chancellor to prioritise green investment and climate action, warning that the UK’s green economy is at a crossroads without clear policy direction. It is astonishing that, this year of all years, when the Government say that we need a bold agreement at the climate summit in Paris, the Treasury is undermining both the UK’s reputation and, more importantly, the chances of meeting our own emission targets. It is hard to see how the Government really do think that “Do as I say, not as I do” demonstrates any real leadership.

One such backward provision in this Bill is the change to vehicle excise duty. The Government claim that

“the new VED system will be reviewed as necessary to ensure that it continues to incentivise the cleanest cars.”

Yet once again there is a gaping chasm between the spin and the substance, because while zero-emission vehicles still pay nothing—so no change there—high-polluting cars will pay far less tax than at present. Again, it is not only those concerned with air pollution and climate change who are pointing out the idiocy of this measure. Once more the Chancellor has managed to unite industry and environmentalists, with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders saying that

“the new regime will disincentivise take up of low emission vehicles. New technologies such as plug-in hybrid, the fastest growing ultra low emission vehicle segment, will not benefit from long-term VED incentive, threatening the ability of the UK and the UK automotive sector to meet ever stricter CO₂ targets.”

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways: she is either anti-austerity or she is not. The measures on VED that the Chancellor introduced in this Budget were to help low-income families who cannot afford a new car. Under the previous system, people who could afford to change their car were paying less VED than those who could not afford to do that. What does she say to the hard-working families in her constituency who will benefit from this measure?

[Caroline Lucas]

I say to the hard-working families in my constituency that I do not see why they have to choose between austerity and a greener world. We can have both if we have a bit of leadership, which this Government have been so conspicuously failing to provide. Why should only richer people be able to afford greener cars? No, we want to make greener cars the norm, because it is the poorest people who suffer from the air pollution that is caused by the cars that this Government are happy to have all over our roads. The hon. Lady’s question was wrong and misguided. I am very proud to say that I am standing up for some of the poorest people in my constituency, who should be able to have decent air quality as well as not suffering from the horrendous austerity that her Government are rolling out in front of them right now. In case the Chancellor has not noticed, air pollution in the UK is a serious public health crisis that is leading to 29,000 premature deaths every year. I would love to hear what the hon. Lady says to her constituents when they are facing that degree of air pollution and health imbalance as a result of her Government’s policies.

[Maria Caulfield]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I would love to hear it, but not that much, so I am going to continue.

Then we have the senseless proposal to tax renewable energy as if it were a fossil fuel by removing the climate change levy exemption for renewables.

Productivity

Maria Caulfield Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham) for his moving speech about a part of the world I know well, having spent two and a half years fighting you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in North East Derbyshire; my productivity was not as high as yours. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for a fantastic, polished speech. I would like to follow in the same manner, but I may fail.

I am reminded that the concept of productivity requires the measurement of the quantity of goods and services produced per unit of labour input. Although many Conservative Members would maintain that it has indeed been Labour input that has caused a lack of productivity, via the party’s role in government during the economic crisis of 2007, I wish to explore the performance of my Government since 2010. In short, I contend that our success in creating 2 million new jobs in a difficult economic climate may have had some impact in the ratio of goods and services produced per unit of labour, but increased employment will ultimately cause the increase in productivity that I believe we are on the cusp of enjoying if we remain on the course we have plotted since 2010.

In reaching that conclusion, I am indebted to the excellent article “The UK productivity puzzle”, published by the Bank of England. The report explores the various factors at play in explaining why productivity has not behaved as one would expect following a recession. Again, I consider these reasons to be grounds for reflection or optimism in that, first, the UK electorate has been protected by the Government’s macro interventions since 2010; secondly, companies have focused their output on matters, such as research and development, that are not measured in productivity figures until unleashed on the market; and, thirdly, that we have new entrants to the workforce—some of whom are economic migrants, who have the potential to increase our productivity as they excel up the career ladder. I will briefly take each point in turn.

First, on protecting the UK electorate, unlike in previous recessions UK plc has not shed its workforce, but has retained its staff. Companies have kept going and kept workers employed and they deserve our thanks for doing so. These positive survival rates for businesses can also be put down to the increased forbearance of banks with respect to SMEs.

In previous recessions, banks failed to stand by businesses, which experienced falls in profitability. Thanks to the pressure applied by this Government since 2010, companies have been able to ride out the recession because banks have been forced to stand by them. Additionally, the Treasury, the Bank of England and HMRC have played a part by providing incentives to employ, keeping interests low and granting time-to-pay schemes for staffing levels to be maintained and for recruitment to occur.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share the view that the Labour party’s aim to raise taxes from businesses would have put people out of work and put job security at risk?

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree. These decisions and the extra 2 million new jobs created might have had some impact on productivity in a statistical sense, but we have done what a one nation Government should do. It is markedly different from the behaviour of other Governments during past recessions. It is different, too, from measures taken by countries such as France. French productivity may be higher, but France created fewer jobs between 2010 and 2015 than did Yorkshire. The French labour market is so regulated and expensive that French companies opt out by failing to hire. Higher productivity can mean lower employment and vice-versa.

A second cause of optimism about increased productivity is the output to come. Companies have had to work harder to win or maintain a stagnant order book, perhaps moving labour to roles such as sales and marketing, which would not count as “output” in the national accounts until the product was sold. As this effort bears fruit, the productivity rates will benefit. A similar argument can be put for research and development. Thanks to this Government’s programme of incentives to increase R and D, investment has proved strong. The output from R and D is not apparent, and not included in the GDP data, but as these returns filter through, R and D will, as the Bank of England reports,

“bring about a relatively prompt and significant improvement in productivity growth”.