Finance (No. 2) Bill

Martin Caton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

We hear so much in this House about how little money there is and how hard it is, yet certain members of the Government support this measure. It appears that not all do—the Lib Dem part of the coalition may or may not support it; it said it did not previously. We are talking about only a small amount of money, but let us see what it is equivalent to. Many people in this country have been outraged by the Government’s bedroom tax. Even if that makes the savings the Government claim it will, which I doubt, it will save less than the amount this measure will pay out. That is the problem: the Government say that the issue that has to be addressed all the time is saving money, but clearly when it comes to some things saving money is not quite so important. There are priorities, and the Government have chosen to make this policy one of them.

I believe we should be giving particular help to families with children, and not just to couples because they happen to be married. Apart from in respect of the very poorest, I have not noticed any great appetite to do away with the couple penalty that probably does apply in terms of people in the benefits system. But if two people choose to marry, we have an independent taxation system here and they can choose to work or not work, so I do not see where any great penalty is being applied to marriage. For those who have children the situation may be different.

If the Government wanted specifically to help parents who are staying at home with children, perhaps that is what they should have done. This measure does not do that; it helps couples where one person is not working, but it has no relationship with the needs of any children they may be raising. If our main aim is to help people with children and make sure that children are brought up in stable relationships, I cannot see what this measure has to do with that. The reason many relationships break down, whether or not they are marriages, has to do with financial insecurity and the difficulties that causes. Those struggling through a cost of living crisis and those who have lost out because of many of this Government’s policies particularly include the low paid. We can all pick and mix our experts—some hon. Members have cited views of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—but if we really want to help low-paid people, we must examine things such as the proposed tapering for universal credit. We need to examine the structure in place for working people who will be in receipt of universal credit—the replacement for tax credits. Under the current structure there is a serious lack of support for second earners in the family who want to start building up their earnings. We could be looking at such things, including child care help for low-paid families.

Very briefly, let me tackle something that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). He did not take my intervention, so I will deal with it now, and, as he raised the matter, it must be relevant to this debate. One statement that Government Members are always keen to make is that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrived, but it is not true. In 1946 unemployment was 2%, and in 1951 it was 1.3%. In 1951, at the beginning of the Tory Government, unemployment was 1.3%, and in 1964 it was 1.7%, so it went up under a Tory Government. Between 1979 and 1997, which was again a Conservative Government, unemployment went up from 5.2% at the beginning to 7.4% at the end, but for 13 of those 18 years, unemployment was above 10%. Therefore, the statement is not true, and it also completely distorts the appalling unemployment record of the Government between 1979 and 1997. I will now sit down and allow others to speak.

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

Order. I wish to call the Minister by 3.45 pm at the latest, so I ask the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to ensure that he has sat down by then.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful, Mr Caton. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I was at the Council of Europe. I wanted to come back here to speak on this measure especially, because I have campaigned for it for many years. This is a very proud moment for our party. We are fulfilling an election manifesto, and I am delighted that at last it will happen. I have no doubt that the party will unite today at 4 o’clock to vote through the measure.

There is no doubt that marriage is the fundamental institution of society. It is the one that contributes the most to the cohesiveness and sustainability of society, and I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. But for too many families, the tax system simply punishes marriage. Why do we have a tax system that does that? It should facilitate marriage. The system has led to numerous social problems that, aside from the obvious human cost, create an undue financial burden on the state. Ultimately, if we promote marriage and support it in the financial system, the state saves money, and we create a happier society. Creating a transferable allowance will strengthen the institution of marriage—that may be only a message, but it is a strong one. It will provide benefits for adults, children and society as a whole.

I am afraid that marriage rates are at an all-time low. The scale of family breakdown as a social problem is increasing all the time. It is estimated that it has cost us between £24 billion and £41 billion to deal with it every single year.

The absence of a transferable allowance obviously makes marriage less attractive to prospective husbands and wives and more costly than it should be for some people. However, that is not the main point. The main point is that we are creating a powerful message that marriage works and it is good for children. As I said in an earlier intervention, a married couple where one partner stays at home is uniquely disadvantaged by the tax system. That cannot be fair.

I agree that policy must be based on evidence, and the evidence is absolutely clear. Regardless of socio-economic status and education, co-habiting couples are between two and two and half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. The 2004 Blanchflower and Oswald study in the US and UK shows that the effect of marriage on mental well-being is estimated to be equal to that of an extra $100,000.

A 10-year study of British households found that the health gain from marriage may be as much as the benefit from giving up smoking. The Centre for Social Justice found that those not growing up in a two-parent family were 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to become addicted to drugs and 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem. We should pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative party, for constantly expressing his support for the institution of marriage.

Marriage is even a predictor of survival rates in patients with lung cancer, according to The Independent newspaper. The transferable tax allowance will be in line with international best practice. This is not some way-out wacky idea from the Christian right, but what most countries do. Of the biggest countries in the OECD, it is only the UK, Mexico and Turkey that do not have a transferable allowance. It is only 24% of the population of all the OECD countries that are not benefiting from this transferable allowance for married couples. It is a common idea that is widely accepted all over the world. It works; it is normal; it is good.

The UK is one of the only countries in the OECD not to recognise marriage in the tax system. The comparison between the United Kingdom and the OECD average is telling. The tax burden on the single earner married couple with two children on the average wage in the United Kingdom has increased from being 33% greater than the OECD average to now being 42% greater. Clearly, the problem is growing. Introducing a transferable allowance for married couples will disproportionately benefit poorer families and those in the lower half of income distribution. I am proud of what we are doing and I am proud that at last, this afternoon, we are recognising marriage in the tax system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 112, page 94, line 1, at beginning insert—

‘(1) Before bringing forward any further reform of the bank levy rates system, the Chancellor shall lay before Parliament a report considering the impact on the total receipts paid to the Exchequer since 2010 by—

(a) UK banking groups;

(b) building society groups;

(c) foreign banking groups; and

(d) relevant non-banking groups.

(2) The report will pay particular attention to receipts from—

(a) corporation tax;

(b) the bank levy; and

(c) bank payroll tax.

(3) A copy of the report in subsections (1) and (2) shall be laid before Parliament.’.

Clause 112 stand part.

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to continue what have been interesting debates, as they always are on Finance Bills. I notice that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is no longer in his place, but I thought I ought to declare my interest, given his comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about tofu-eating, Guardian-reading, sandal-wearing people. If I say nothing other than that I am a vegan, perhaps Members will see that those comments would have been more aptly aimed at me rather than my hon. Friend, who I am assured is not a tofu eater.

The new clause and amendment build on points that the Opposition have made before, both on previous Finance Bills and in various other debates. New clause 5 would require the Chancellor to review and report on the feasibility of reintroducing a bank payroll tax, otherwise known as a bank bonus tax, and on whether the additional revenue could be used to fund a job guarantee scheme for people in long-term unemployment, along the lines that we have proposed. The new clause and amendment are reasonable and relatively straightforward, and there is no hidden agenda behind them. The Exchequer Secretary will know from previous Finance Bills and other debates that I always make reasonable suggestions, and I wish to explain why we believe that the new clause is the right approach at this time.

To put the matter into context, nearly 1 million young people are unemployed, and the time is right to do something about that by repeating the tax on bank bonuses to fund a compulsory jobs guarantee for every young person who has been out of work for more than 12 months. We have been clear that they would have to take that job, or they would lose benefits. The bank bonus tax would help to fund the first year of such a guarantee. As I have said, there are a large number of long-term unemployed people, and the guarantee would help to ensure that not just young people but those over 25 who had been out of work for two years or more got back into work. I will come on to why that is so important, but we believe that the bank bonus tax, coupled with our plan to change pension tax relief, would ensure an annual revenue stream to fund that policy throughout the next Parliament.

I was expecting that Government Members might raise a particular query at this stage, but I will save them the trouble of intervening by saying, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the compulsory jobs guarantee is the only policy that we intend to be funded by the bank bonus tax and the proposed changes to pension tax relief.

Let me give the context of the previous bankers bonus tax—the bankers’ payroll tax, as it was called at the time. Despite comments that Government Members often make, it is generally acknowledged that the banking system survived the financial crash in 2007-08 largely due to the significant support that it received from the taxpayer. Even today, according to the New Economics Foundation, the banks deemed too big to fail continue to receive pretty generous taxpayer support. Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Lloyds enjoyed combined savings of £37.7 billion in 2012, because the financial markets deemed them to big to fail. Arguably, that has left some smaller banks and new competitors at a disadvantage, because they cannot enjoy the subsidised borrowing rates of the big four. Notwithstanding the changes that have been made, about which I will say more, the banking system arguably remains too concentrated and potentially risky. The reality—the Minister and others will be well aware of it—is that, if there is another problem in any of the banks, or another financial crisis, taxpayers would bear the costs of the bail-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I should like to make a quick point about the evidence that links entry-type jobs to future career progression. That evidence is weak, so my hon. Friend is right to say that a sustained approach needs to be taken. Is she also aware that a Prince’s Trust report on long-term youth unemployment shows that one in five young people who are long-term unemployed feel that they have nothing worth living for? Long-term unemployment has a direct effect on finances, but it also affects how young people view themselves in society. The implications of that are—

[The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)]

Order. This is an extremely long intervention.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend was making a valuable point. I am well aware of the excellent work being done by the Prince’s Trust. Many young people who felt that they had very little hope have been given hope through their involvement in that work. It has given them confidence, skills, training and, in many cases, an opportunity to get their first job, so that they can start earning and contributing to society. That should be our aim for all our young people.

I therefore hope that the Government will agree to our proposal for a report. We believe that the scheme would cost about £1.9 billion. As I have said, the cost would be met in the first year by the tax on bonuses and by the reduction in the rate of tax relief available to those earning more than £150,000 a year. Those measures should generate more than £2.5 billion, and the annual revenue generated by the changes to pensions tax relief would fund the jobs guarantee throughout the next Parliament.

We have consistently argued for the reintroduction of the bankers bonus tax, to ensure that the banks fulfil their obligation to the taxpayer by supporting jobs and growth in the economy. That is why we are calling on the Government again today to stand up for the taxpayer, and for those people who are desperate to get into work, including young people and the long-term unemployed. We are calling on the Government to send a clear signal to the banks by supporting us today.

Amendment 1 to clause 112 relates to the bank levy. This, too, involves a request for a report. In this instance, we are requesting that the Chancellor, prior to implementing any further reforms to the bank levy, should lay before Parliament a report that considers the impact on the total tax receipts paid to the Exchequer since 2010 by UK banks, building societies, foreign banks and relevant non-banking groups. We want the report to pay particular attention to receipts generated from corporation tax, the bank levy and the bank payroll tax.

It is important to set this proposal in context. In the recent Budget, a consultation was announced on the proposed changes to the bank levy. We are concerned that those changes could lead to the bigger banks paying less as a result of the introduction of a band-based system in which the tax of an individual bank would be capped at an upper limit of £375 million. I know that the Government have said that this measure would be cost neutral, but we are not convinced that it would be of benefit. We have made it clear in the past that, when we are in government, we will put in place a bank levy and use the additional funds raised to expand free child care for working parents of three and four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week. Perhaps that is a debate for another day, however. I shall focus on the bank levy.

We have made it clear all along that a bank levy is not a bad idea in itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has argued in Committee and on the Floor of the House, however, the proposal was unambitious and has been poorly implemented. When the Chancellor announced its introduction in May 2010, he confidently asserted that it would generate more than £2 billion of annual revenues. That is the assertion he has made on several occasions and it has been enthusiastically backed by the Prime Minister.