Equitable Life Payment Scheme
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government announced today that the Equitable Life payment scheme (“the scheme”) will be extended to 2015.
The Government are taking this action to make sure as many Equitable Life policyholders as possible receive the payment they are due for the injustice they suffered. The scheme’s latest progress report confirmed that policyholders have already received £734 million in payments, and since then payments continue to be made.
Despite this good progress, the Government want to maximise the number of people who receive their payment. This has been our aim from the start of the scheme, but because the address information received from Equitable Life can be up to 20 years old, or non-existent in some cases, the scheme has been unable to trace a number of policyholders.
We will shortly launch a national advertising campaign to encourage eligible policyholders to come forward and claim their payment. This work will complement the ongoing work the scheme is doing to trace policyholders. By extending the scheme we are giving this work a greater chance of success.
Any policyholder who believes themselves to be eligible for the scheme, but has not yet been contacted, is encouraged to call the scheme directly on 0300 0200 150 where they will be advised of the next steps to take.
Opening up UK Payments
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
In March 2013 the Government published a consultation, “Opening up UK payments”, which set out the Government’s proposal to introduce a new, competition-focused, utility-style regulator for retail payment systems in the UK. This proposal reflected the Government’s concerns about the market for UK payment systems, in which strong network effects and vertically integrated ownership structures give rise to problems in three main areas: competition, innovation and delivery against end-user needs. The consultation presented a set of questions identifying the key issues on which the Government sought views. The consultation closed on 25 June.
The Government are publishing their response to the consultation today. The Government are introducing amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill to establish the new payment systems regulator as a separate body under the FCA. The payment systems regulator will have objectives to promote competition, innovation and the interests of end-users. The regulator will be able to oversee any payment system operating in the UK that is brought into scope by being designated by HM Treasury. Once a payment system is designated, the payment systems regulator will have a range of powers over its participants—operators, infrastructure providers and payment service providers that provide payment services using the system—in order to advance its objectives.
The payment systems regulator will have powers to make requirements regarding rules for the operation of designated systems, and to give directions to participants in such systems. It will also have specific powers to require direct and indirect access to designated systems, and to vary agreements relating to such systems, including fees, charges and terms and conditions. The payment systems regulator will also have enforcement powers to publish details of compliance failure, to impose financial penalties in respect of a compliance failure, and to require owners of payment systems to dispose of their interests in them, subject to HM Treasury approval. The regulator will also have concurrent Competition Act powers to enforce the Competition Act 1998 prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, and to make market investigation references to the Competition and Markets Authority.
I am placing copies of this document in the Libraries of both Houses.
Loan to Ireland
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I would like to update the House on the loan to Ireland.
Ireland completed the 10th quarterly review of its International Monetary Fund and European Union programme of financial assistance on 9 May 2013, following which, the utilisation period for the final instalment of the UK bilateral loan began. HM Treasury and Ireland mutually agreed that the utilisation period would conclude on 30 September 2013.
Upon request, the Treasury disbursed the last instalment of £403.37 million on 26 September 2013, with a maturity date of 26 March 2021.
The interest rate charged on the loan is calculated as set out in the loan agreement as the UK’s cost of funds plus a service fee of 18 basis points per annum, creating an effective per annum interest rate on this tranche of the loan of 2.740%. The UK more than covers its cost of funds.
HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to Irish loans as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2013.
A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report on the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on the 25 April 2013, Official Report, column 60WS.
The Treasury will provide a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010 as soon as is practicable following the end of the next reporting period, which ends on 31 March 2014.
The Government believe that it is in our national interest that the Irish economy is successful and its banking system is stable. The Government continue to support Ireland’s efforts to improve its economic situation.
Public Sector Debt
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Malcolm Bruce
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all property and other chattels that have been bequeathed to the nation over the last decade for the purpose of reducing the national debt where the sale has been overseen by the Treasury Solicitor and from which the proceeds have been handed over to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and if, for each item bequeathed, he will give (a) a description and (b) how much was raised and handed over.
[Official Report, 11 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 384W.]
Letter of correction from Sajid Javid:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on 11 July 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
Sajid Javid
A search of the Department's records has disclosed one case in which the Treasury Solicitor oversaw the realisation of property, with proceeds handed over to the Commissioners. That was a bequest which was realised in 2011 with the sale of property in Cambridgeshire. £45,900 was realised from the sale of the property.
The Treasury Solicitor will generally only become involved in bequests where it is executor. Generally, in cases where a bequest is made for the reduction of the national debt, HM Treasury will ask the executors of the will to realise the property themselves before transferring funds to the Commissioners. Over the last decade, sales of those properties have included property in Leicester (sold for £452,000), Leeds (£275,000), East Sussex (£240,000) and Merseyside (£143,000). Those bequests also included some chattels with a total value of £11,995, but further information on chattels would require a detailed search of paper files, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The correct answer should have been:
Sajid Javid
The Treasury is not aware of any incidences in the last decade where the Treasury Solicitor oversaw the realisation of property for the purpose of the reduction of the national debt. The Treasury Solicitor will generally only become involved in bequests where it is executor. Generally, in cases where a bequest is made for the reduction of the national debt, HM Treasury will ask the executors of the will to realise the property themselves before transferring funds to the Commissioners. Over the last decade, sales of those properties have included property in Leicester (sold for £452,000), East Sussex (£240,000) and Merseyside (£143,000). Those bequests also included some chattels with a value of at least £10,455, but further information on chattels would require a detailed search of paper files, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Aggregates Levy (Investigation)
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
On 1 August 2013 the UK Government received notification from the European Commission that it had decided to open a formal investigation in relation to certain exemptions, exclusions and tax reliefs from the aggregates levy.
The Commission has raised no objections to most of the exemptions, exclusions, and tax reliefs from the levy and has made it clear that the levy in its entirety is not in question. Businesses commercially exploiting aggregate in the UK therefore have a continuing legal obligation to pay any levy due on their activities.
The Commission has, however, decided to open a formal investigation procedure to give further consideration to certain aspects of the exemptions, exclusions and reliefs provided under sections 17(3)(e), 17(3)(f)(i) and (ii), 17(4)(a), 17(4)(c)(i) and (ii), 17(4)(f), 18(2)(b), 18(3), and 30(1 )(b) of the Finance Act 2001, as amended. A copy of the Commission’s decision is being published on the HM Treasury website www.gov.uk/government/publications/aggregates-levy-european-commission-formal-investigation.
The Commission has raised a number of questions and has asked the Government for further explanations and evidence in relation to the exemptions, exclusions, and tax reliefs that remain under investigation but it has not made a final decision on whether any of those exemptions, exclusions and tax reliefs give rise to state aid. The Government are strongly of the view that the exemptions, exclusions, and tax reliefs in question do not give rise to state aid, and will provide further information to the Commission to support that view as part of the formal investigation process.
The Government are therefore only taking steps to suspend the application of those elements of the levy that now form the subject matter of the formal investigation because they are obliged to do so under article 108(3) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. A further announcement will be made as soon as reasonably practicable as to the details of the measures to be put in place to discharge the UK’s obligations under article 108(3).
Payroll Giving
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), with responsibility for civil society and I, are pleased to announce that following a consultation undertaken earlier this year, the Government are today publishing their response and outlining a package of measures to improve the operation and increase awareness of payroll giving. These measures demonstrate the Government’s continuing commitment to increasing the amount raised through payroll giving.
The Government have provided strong support to the charitable sector since 2010, having introduced a number of measures including the gift aid small donations scheme, the cultural gift scheme, measures to simplify the process for charity shops to claim gift aid on donated goods and introducing a reduced rate of inheritance tax for estates that leave a significant donation to charities.
As part of this continuing support, the Government ran a consultation between 24 January 2013 and 19 April 2013 on how to increase the amounts donated to charity through payroll giving. Payroll giving is a tax efficient means of donating and a valuable source of income for charities. The Government were delighted to receive over 100 responses, and thank everyone that responded.
Payroll giving provides an important platform to those who actively promote charitable giving in the workplace. Donors have already given well over £1 billion through payroll giving since it began in 1987 and the Government believe there is scope to see yearly donations increase further.
Having listened to respondents, and considered the options available, the Government will be taking forward a package of reforms targeted at four key areas. The Government have targeted the areas that can make the greatest difference, while avoiding placing additional burdens on those involved, or risk increasing the cost of payroll giving. These include improving the process for charities and payroll giving agencies, making it easier for employers and employees to use payroll giving, raising awareness of payroll giving among employers and incentivising employers with non-financial measures. Further details on these reforms can be found in the response document published today on: www.gov.uk.
Taken together this package of measures reflects the Government’s determination to unlock the potential payroll giving has to become an even more important source of support to charities and the fantastic work that they do.
The Government recognise that payroll giving works best when championed passionately from within an organisation and the Government will empower and encourage those who do this.
The Government will work closely with charities, payroll giving agencies and the payroll giving supporters in businesses up and down this country to implement these changes. With their help, payroll giving will continue to grow across workplaces, providing even greater support to the vital work done by charities.
Blanefield (Landfill Tax Liability)
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) on securing the debate and representing her constituents with such passion and eloquence. The households she has referred to have come into very difficult circumstances though no fault of their own, as she has said. I am sure that every Member present can appreciate the pressures and stress that the situation is causing everyone involved. It is absolutely right that the right hon. Lady has brought this issue to the Chamber’s attention and allowed us to give it the consideration it deserves.
I will begin by reiterating some of the facts of the case. I will then provide some further background about the current legislation in this area. Finally, I will suggest what I believe is the best course of action for the right hon. Lady and her constituents.
As the right hon. Lady has explained, the residents under discussion live in properties that were built on the grounds of a former Victorian printworks. Following a recent inspection by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the land on which those properties were built has been deemed contaminated. The law now requires that this land be remediated.
As the right hon. Lady has explained, the liability for that remediation is laid out in the contaminated land regime. In the first instance, it is right that the polluter will be held liable to cover the cost of remediation. However, as we have heard, in this instance the original polluter—namely the Victorian printworks—is no longer in existence. In the absence of the original polluter, the responsibility for carrying out the remediation works, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, falls to the current landowner.
It is worth making it clear that in about 90% of cases involving contaminated land, the land will be remediated when the site is redeveloped for future use, as stipulated under planning policy. In most instances, the liability will fall on a company or business, which will be better placed to cover the costs of remediation. In the small percentage of remaining cases, however, the costs of remediating the land will fall on owner-occupiers.
Of course, in most circumstances the value of the land will rise once it has been decontaminated. In this respect, the logic of the law is to ensure that the landowner, who will be set to gain from the increase in the value of the land, should also be the person liable for the costs of the clean-up. Unfortunately, in the instance under discussion, this means that the liability is set to fall on 13 households, to which absolutely no blame can be attached.
As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the landfill tax aims to reduce the environmental damage caused by sending waste to landfill. In increasing the cost of landfill, the tax also aims to encourage more sustainable waste technologies, such as recycling. At a national level the tax has been successful in achieving those goals. Waste material is increasingly being diverted away from landfill towards reuse or recycling. The tax has also been successful in ensuring that the environmental damage associated with the disposal of such waste is properly reflected in the landfill price.
As the right hon. Lady acknowledges, the tax is designed to ensure that the polluter pays, and she is right to point out that in this particular instance the original polluter will not be paying. I am sympathetic to the argument. However, it will not be possible for the contaminated waste in this instance to be exempt from landfill tax, as the right hon. Lady proposes. It may be useful, in explaining why such action is not possible, to set out how the landfill tax currently operates.
Under the current system, the tax liability falls on the landfill operator, not the person delivering the waste. Those landfill operators must check the content of the waste to determine what rate of tax to apply. There is, however, no requirement on the site operator to satisfy themselves as to the origin of the waste or the type of business, local authority or private individual that has delivered it to them. Therefore, introducing an exemption, as requested, would require a fundamental change to the structure of the tax. It would also place an excessive future burden on all landfill operators, who would be forced to check and verify the origin of each item of waste that had been sent for disposal at their site.
It is also worth remembering that a change such as that suggested by the right hon. Lady would be legislatively complex. It would require amendments to primary legislation. That would mean, first, that it could not be made with the haste required for the right hon. Lady’s constituents to benefit; and secondly, that it could create a more complex law on landfill. As hon. Members will unfortunately be only too well aware, complexity in any tax can increase the opportunity for evasion. While she has suggested changes to the current legislation, for wholly the right reasons, certain unscrupulous individuals or businesses may well seek to use such an exemption for wholly the wrong reasons to reduce their own tax liabilities. So while I acknowledge and sympathise with the real difficulties that these households, in particular, are facing, it would be extremely difficult for the Government to alter national policy to benefit her constituents without creating unintended issues for landfill policy as a whole.
I therefore believe that this is an issue that would be best resolved at a local level. As the right hon. Lady may know, the national legislation sets out the framework that explains how responsibility for covering the costs of remediation should work and how they are determined. As she said, it is the local authority’s responsibility to apportion the liability. It is my understanding that in this instance the issue of determining who should bear responsibility for remediation of the land was performed by Stirling council’s legal services department.
Mrs McGuire
I do not think that anybody is disputing the role of the local authority in this. It has carried out that role and within its responsibilities it has made a substantial and significant contribution to the costs. The issue that I wish to raise with the Minister lies directly within his jurisdiction. It is about the liability of individuals to bear the responsibility of this—an unintended consequence of previous legislation. I would have hoped that he would be able to be creative in thinking of ways in which these individuals would not have to be liable.
Sajid Javid
I can assure the right hon. Lady that I have looked at this very carefully. She will already have heard some of the reasons why it is extremely difficult to make such a change, even if it were desired, because it would require a change in primary legislation within the time needed to benefit these individuals.
I understand that, as the right hon. Lady said, Stirling council has put forward a £125,000 grant towards the remediation costs. I also understand that it has promised to consider any additional hardship in accordance with the statutory guidance. On top of that, my officials at the Treasury have recently been in touch with their equivalents at Stirling council, and it is their understanding that loans secured against the property’s resale value may also be offered to affected households. I therefore urge the right hon. Lady to continue to pursue this issue with Stirling council on behalf of her constituents. I have asked my officials to explore what additional support the local authority may be able to provide. She asked whether I would meet her to discuss this issue in further detail, and of course I would be happy to do so.
I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration about this issue, and I entirely sympathise with all the households involved. This is not a situation that any home owner would want to go through, nor one that any hon. Member would want any of their constituents to go through.
I hope that both the right hon. Lady and the home owners involved will understand why I do not believe that an intervention at national level is the answer. I also hope that with her help, and that of the local authority and Treasury officials, those home owners will be able to resolve the issue locally.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on family incomes.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government have published distribution analysis for all our fiscal policies at each fiscal event, and we are the first Government to do so. The most recent assessment was at the 2013 spending review, and the analysis showed that the richest 20% of households continue to make the greatest contribution to reducing the deficit, both in cash terms and as a percentage of their income.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that reply, although he completely failed to talk about the real issue that I was hoping to raise: the extent to which ordinary families are being hit incredibly hard by the Government’s policies. We are hearing from Citizens Advice that inquiries about food banks have risen by 78% over the past six months, and one in four families is having to borrow to provide school uniforms. What are the Government doing about those real issues affecting real people?
Sajid Javid
I must say that if the hon. Lady is genuinely interested in the challenges that families face, she should recognise the causes: Labour’s recession, the deepest in our post-war history; Labour’s record budget deficit, the deepest in our post-war history; and Labour’s bank bail-outs, the largest the world has ever seen.
Stella Creasy
With working families’ incomes on average 1,500 quid down and millionaires taking tax cuts, does the Minister really think that we are all in this together?
Sajid Javid
As the hon. Lady has already heard, all millionaires will be paying a higher tax rate under this Government than they did for the whole 13 years that the Labour party was in power. She should also welcome the tax cut we provided for the lowest income families, 25 million people, with 2.7 million taken out of taxation altogether. I note that the Labour party has recently talked about reintroducing the 10p tax rate, which they abolished. Well, I have news for it: all those people are now paying a 0% tax rate on that income.
Pat Glass
The Times leads this morning on yet another banking scandal that has cost savers in this country billions of pounds. At the same time, bonuses in the financial sector have risen by 90% and ordinary families are really struggling. It is simply not working, so when will the Government step in and do something about the regular obscenities in the banking industry?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady should look up the facts. Bank bonuses reached their peak when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister; today they are almost one seventh of what they were at that time. The hon. Lady should welcome the measures we have taken to help working families. They have helped reduce interest rates and keep mortgage rates low, meaning that the average family with the average mortgage are paying £2,000 less per year than they did under the previous Government.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
If it had not been for the Government’s council tax freeze, and if council tax had continued to rise on the trajectory set under the previous Government, the average bill would now be £200 higher. Does the Minister agree that the steps taken by the Government are helping hard-working families keep their council tax bills down?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That council tax freeze is helping families up and down the country, as are many other measures we have taken, such as the cap on rail fares.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Household debt peaked in 2008 at 170% of household income. Since then it has come down, but households are still very vulnerable to rising interest rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that any fiscal policy must give comfort to the bond markets in order to help the Governor of the Bank of England keep interest rates low and mitigate the effect of rising rates on households?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is obviously referring to the fact that when this Government came to office, we had the biggest deficit in our post-war history. The previous Government were borrowing £5,000 a second—£300,000 each and every minute. We have reduced that deficit by a third and, as my hon. Friend suggests, that has brought confidence, investment and jobs.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that the worst outcomes for children are in those families where nobody is working? If so, is he as delighted as I am that our economy has generated 1.25 million new private sector jobs since 2010, thereby improving the prospects of millions of children?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend correctly highlights that the best way out of poverty is through work. As she says, the private sector has generated almost 1.3 million jobs over the past three years. In fact, it is the fastest rate of job creation in the G7.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
17. The Chancellor said recently that he knew that times were tough and that family budgets were being squeezed. Why, therefore, did this Government choose to prioritise a tax cut for those on the 50% rate?
Sajid Javid
Perhaps the hon. Lady missed it, but we have made sure that the people who earn the most in our society are making the biggest contribution to the necessary measures we have to take to make sure that the country lives within its means. In each year of this Government, the richest will pay a higher tax rate than under the Government she supported.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, come next April, a family where both parents earn wages will be £1,400 better off than they were in 2010, and that a child of theirs who works on the minimum wage—perhaps in the city centre of my constituency—will be lifted out of income tax altogether?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a big boost to family incomes. In fact, someone on a minimum wage who is working full time will find that their tax bill is more than halved as a result of this Government’s policies.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The reality is that, because of this Government’s warped priorities, women are paying three times more than men to bring the deficit down. Will this all-male Treasury team explain how that is helping families manage the cost-of-living crisis?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady knows all about unemployment, because she is probably thinking about the record rise in unemployment that took place in her constituency during the last term of the Labour Government. That record rise included men and women. In all categories it has fallen under this Government, and today more people, including more women, are employed in Britain than at any time in our history.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the single most important contribution to household earnings is having a job? Has he seen the latest data that show that the claimant count is now lower than in May 2010, that there are 500,000 vacancies, and that five jobs are being created in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector, leading the ManpowerGroup to say that this is a “game-changing year” for the UK jobs market? Is it not the truth that plan A is working and plan B is redundant?
Sajid Javid
As always, my hon. Friend speaks the truth very eloquently. The economy is growing. Of course there is a lot more work to do, but there is plenty of evidence that we have turned a corner.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
3. What recent estimate he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of child poverty.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
11. What recent estimate he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of child poverty.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government have protected vulnerable groups as far as possible while urgently taking action to tackle the record deficit we inherited. Work remains the best and the most immediate way out of poverty, and the Budget took action to support families and make the tax and welfare system simpler, including further increases in the income tax allowance to take 2.7 million people on low incomes out of tax altogether.
Yvonne Fovargue
The chief executive of Citizens Advice, commenting on the huge rise in inquiries about food banks, said:
“The combined impact of welfare upheaval, cuts to public spending, low wages and the high cost of living are putting unbearable pressure on many households, forcing them to seek emergency help putting food on the table.”
Is the Minister concerned by this evidence, which is backed up by the recent statistic showing that 300,000 children have been pushed into absolute poverty since this Government took office?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady did a lot of good work with Citizens Advice before she came to this House, so I think she shares with me a genuine interest in child poverty. If that is the case, she will recognise that the existing measure for child poverty is flawed. It is based on relative incomes and it produces perverse results. For example, according to that measure, during the previous recession—Labour’s recession, the deepest in our post-war history—child poverty fell by 300,000. The hon. Lady knows that that cannot be right, so if she wants to work with me to help develop a measure that actually works, I would welcome that.
Gavin Shuker
Despite the Minister’s divisive rhetoric about benefits, two thirds of all children living in poverty have one or more parents in work, not out of work. Does he not accept that his inaction on prices and wages is not just hammering those young people but hammering the rest of us as well?
Sajid Javid
Work remains the best and the most immediate way out of poverty. The hon. Gentleman will be concerned that his constituency saw a 72% rise in unemployment during Labour’s last term in office. It has now fallen under this Government. He is rightly concerned about workless households, so he should welcome the fact that the number of children living in workless households is at an all-time low—the lowest since records began in 1996.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Thirty-two per cent. of Nottingham children live in poverty compared with a national average of 20%, and we have the worst affected local authority in the east midlands. For all the Government’s warm words on early intervention, the city’s early intervention grant has been cut by £2.8 million. Is it not the case that across the country this Government’s policies are making child poverty worse?
Sajid Javid
I have taken five questions from Opposition Members so far, and not one of them has mentioned plan B; I wonder why. It is not very nice for Mr B. The best way to deal with poverty is by tackling the causes of poverty, and work remains the best way out of poverty. The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that jobs are growing at a record rate in our country, with 1.3 million jobs generated in the private sector in three years and more people employed than at any other time in our history.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
By any modern measure, my childhood was one of poverty, and strictly speaking I was homeless. The route out of poverty was provided by the creation of a sound economic environment and a belief in economic optimism. Does the Minister agree that that is as pertinent today as it was 30 years ago?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the many things we share in common, apart from both being west midlands MPs, is that by the official measure I was also homeless as a child. I agree with his assessment that the best way out of poverty is through work and a growing economy.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Another excellent way out of poverty is giving children from disadvantaged backgrounds the best education possible. How many children are benefiting from the £2.5 billion that has been put into the pupil premium, which will, in the long term, boost their educational chances and their chances of obtaining work?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise education as another way of tackling the causes of poverty. Thousands of children up and down the country are benefiting from the pupil premium and the further educational reforms that are taking place, not least the focus we put on apprenticeships.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is not the real truth about child poverty the fact that median hourly pay rose by only 0.3% a year between 2003 and 2008? The only real answer for the United Kingdom economy is for it to be a high-skill, high-value-added economy. Our school reforms, and in particular our poverty-busting university technical colleges, are the answer to the problem.
Mr Speaker
The question is about fiscal policy, so a very brief reply will suffice. We are grateful to the Minister.
Sajid Javid
Despite taking action to ensure the country starts living within its means again, the Government have found money in their budget, because of their fiscal policy, to spend on schools and education, and ensure we increase skills. That includes building more university technology colleges and pledging more funding to do so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
21. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, by 2020 an additional 1.1 million children will be living in poverty, which will completely wipe out the reduction in the number of children living in poverty made under Labour. Why do the Government’s choices give tax breaks to millionaires and send more children into poverty?
Sajid Javid
I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the best way out of poverty is through increased pay and employment. I therefore do not understand why she does not welcome the fact that jobs are being created at a record rate throughout the economy, including in her constituency where I note that during Labour’s last term, youth unemployment rocketed by 120%. It is down by 14% under this Government.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to say that the way out of poverty is to work. Does he agree that by reskilling people we can ensure that British people fill highly skilled jobs, and not rely on mass immigration to fill the skills gap?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to get more British people into British jobs is to ensure they have the skills to do those jobs. That is exactly what the Government are focused on.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Families up and down the UK who are struggling with the cost of living simply will not recognise the rosy picture that the Minister is painting. Is the reality not shown in a recent report from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which states that changes brought in by this Government mean that families on low wages now have less than they need for a minimum acceptable living standard? That failure is on this Minister’s watch. Is it a record he is proud of?
Sajid Javid
It is not clear what the hon. Lady is proposing. Is she saying that she is against some of the changes we have made on welfare? Is she pledging more spending, more borrowing, and more debt? The Labour party need a policy on those issues. Our policies are clear: to deal with poverty we are focused on trying to generate even more growth. The economy has turned a corner; there is more to do but jobs are being generated in Britain at a record rate.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
4. Whether he plans to introduce a land tax.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
16. What recent progress has been made on implementation of the national infrastructure plan.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
The Government will invest £300 billion over the next Parliament on infrastructure projects, including a pipeline worth more than £100 billion, and covering investment in transport, schools, science, housing and flood defences.
Emma Reynolds
Since the Government took office, tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I am deeply concerned that more than 80% of the Treasury’s infrastructure projects have not yet even started. Can the Minister explain to the House why there has been such a delay and what he will do to kick-start the process?
Sajid Javid
It is interesting that the hon. Lady did not mention the Armitt review, which was set up by the shadow Chancellor. Perhaps it is because Mr Armitt concluded that there was an economic crisis when this Government took office and she does not want to draw attention to it. However, she will be reassured to know that the Government take infrastructure investment very seriously. It is a top priority, which is why public investment under this Government is higher in each year of this Parliament than under the previous Government’s plans, as well as being higher as a percentage of national income.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
A crucial part of our national infrastructure is broadband for the 21st century. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Worcestershire county council on its excellent plans to put 90% of homes and businesses on superfast broadband?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is a hugely important plan for the residents of Worcestershire, which includes my constituents in Bromsgrove. We are right to make that investment, because it will make a real difference.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
18. What estimate he has made of the annual value of the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45% to a person earning £1 million per annum.
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
As of 31 August 2013 the scheme has made payments totalling £734 million. The scheme has also published a further progress report, which can be found at:
http://equitablelifepaymentscheme.independent.gov.uk/.
The scheme has now contacted all the eligible individual policyholders it can trace. Any holders of an individual non with-profits annuity or with-profits annuity who have not been contacted by the scheme should call the scheme on 0300 0200 150 to confirm the eligibility of their policy and be advised of the next steps they should take.
The scheme has also started making payments to those who bought their Equitable Life policy through a company pension scheme, with circa 148,000 payments already made to this group. All the traced company pension schemes have been written to by the payment scheme to begin the process of data exchange. As a result of this, agreements have been completed that cover circa 95% of policyholders, with data covering 65% sent to the scheme. Trustees who have not yet provided data have been asked to do so as soon as possible. On receipt of data from company pension scheme trustees, payments are being issued by the scheme.
The process of identifying, tracing and contacting the estates of deceased policyholders has been completed. Payments to all those estates that have responded to the scheme will continue over the coming months.
Alcohol Fraud
Sajid Javid Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
I can inform the House that the Government are today publishing the response to the 2012 consultation on legislative measures to tackle alcohol fraud.
Alcohol fraud is a serious problem which HMRC estimates leads to revenue losses of approximately £1.2 billion a year. It also has a detrimental impact on the legitimate businesses attempting to compete in this sector. This is why the Government consulted last year on potential measures to deal with this problem. Measures covered by the consultation included beer fiscal marks, supply chain legislation and a registration scheme for alcohol wholesalers. The consultation also explored alternatives to these options that could assist HMRC’s enforcement strategy.
The responses to the consultation highlighted the potential anti-fraud benefits but also some considerable impacts the proposed measures might have on legitimate alcohol supply chains. After fully examining the case for and against the proposed measures, the Government have decided not to proceed with beer fiscal marks or supply-chain legislation at this time.
Compelling evidence was provided on beer fiscal marks to show that, although it could be a useful tool to counter trade in illicit products, the costs of affixing stamps to goods could be significant for the UK brewing industry and particularly for legitimate importers and exporters. Therefore, the Government will not be proceeding with the introduction of beer fiscal marks at this time to allow exploration of other, less burdensome options to address alcohol fraud.
Regarding supply-chain legislation, the consultation highlighted issues regarding the practicality and cost of introducing new “track and trace” systems across the brewing industry, as well as concerns regarding the likely effectiveness of the measure. The Government do not therefore intend to legislate for this measure at this time, but wishes to continue to explore available and emerging technologies that could help to secure alcohol supply chains. The Government will also consult shortly on new proposals to strengthen due diligence obligations of excise businesses throughout the supply-chain.
The Government note the positive response across all sectors towards the option to register alcohol wholesalers and can also see that there could be benefits in authorising this part of the supply chain, which is frequently the point at which illicit products are distributed. The Government wish to consult further with relevant sectors informally over the summer of 2013 to refine the design of a registration scheme, and fully understand the costs, benefits and implications if it were introduced. This will also include seeking views on the specific powers and sanctions that would be essential if the scheme is to be effective. The outcome of this further work will inform the Government’s future decision on whether to proceed with wholesaler registration.
The consultation also considered a large number of alternative measures, including many proposed by industry. The Government intend to progress a wider programme of change to policy and enforcement to strengthen the current “Tackling Alcohol Fraud” strategy. Full details of that programme, will be published shortly but will include steps to increase collaboration with industry and between enforcement agencies; measures aimed at tightening controls in the existing excise regulatory system; dealing more robustly with those found holding or moving illicit goods, and increasing co-operation with other EU member states.
A copy of the full response to the consultation will be available online on the GOV.UKsite at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publication_filter_option=consultations.