Nigel Evans
Main Page: Nigel Evans (Conservative - Ribble Valley)Department Debates - View all Nigel Evans's debates with the HM Treasury
(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 25, page 134, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 138, line 10, leave out
‘in relation to the payments’
and insert
‘equal to 100 per cent of any amounts in relation to which one or both of conditions A and B are met under section 681B of ITEPA 2003’.
Amendment 22, page 139, line 10, leave out
‘in relation to the payments’
and insert
‘equal to 100 per cent of any amounts in relation to which one or both of conditions A and B are met under section 681B of ITEPA 2003’.
It is a pleasure to open the debate on these important amendments. I intend to pursue a theme that emerged earlier this evening—that of fairness to children, families and people who are feeling the squeeze as a result of the Government’s current policies—and also to discuss feedback from people who are concerned about the practicalities of the Government’s proposals on child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, along with points that were raised by Members during that part of the Committee stage that took place on the Floor of the House.
When I spoke about this issue in Committee, I reminded Members that child benefit involved a number of important principles, not least the principle of universality, which Labour of course supports. Because I spoke at some length on that occasion, I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments again now, but I think it worth repeating that child benefit is supposed to benefit—literally—children and families. That fact has been lost at various points, but I hope that we shall be able to keep it in our minds tonight as we consider what the Government are proposing.
As I pointed out in the earlier debate, child benefit was designed to ensure that mothers—at that time, specifically mothers—had money paid into their purses regularly, so that they had a stable income that could be used for their families.
Order. As hon. Members can see, a number of Members are standing and wish to contribute in what is a relatively short space of time, and the Minister still needs to respond, so please be mindful of other Members when making contributions.
I must confess that I support the principle behind the clause but share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) about its practicality. However, I accept that there is an overriding need to reduce the vast fiscal deficit, and all of us who feel that way must look at the provisions, whether in the Budget or elsewhere, and support what is being done to try to get the deficit down. Apart from everything else, it is a moral case: we cannot pass these huge debts on to the next generation. Even now, in an era that the Opposition have identified as one of austerity and savage cuts, the Government are borrowing £1 in every £5 they spend.
There is an absolute crisis in the welfare state and we must wean ourselves off this huge amount of public expenditure at the earliest opportunity. One of the most important areas to look at is that of universal benefits, particularly universal middle-class benefits, which must be up for consideration. Housing benefit, which has been discussed, and child benefit are certainly important. I believe that wealthy pensioners should not get free TV licences, bus passes or winter fuel allowances, although I accept the political difficulty of that, given the promises made just before the general election.
The Minister is an intelligent man and must realise that the practicalities of the system will make it an absolute nightmare. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has made quite clear how she feels about it, but let us for once in politics be wise before the event, rather than after it.