Finance Bill

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the measures set out in the Bill. It is a somewhat strange Finance Bill, because many of the most contentious measures announced in the Chancellor’s emergency Budget are not actually in it. Indeed, the Bill is almost as significant for what is not in it as for what is. It is important to reflect on that, and on the fact that the Budget exposed a real difference between the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the reality of what he is delivering, particularly for ordinary working people in our country.

It was certainly not the Budget, and this is certainly not the Finance Bill, that working people needed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us that 3 million working families will be around £1,000 a year worse off. The Budget clearly leaves working people worse off. Despite what the Minister has said about productivity, as a package it fails the test of building a more productive economy to bring down the deficit in a more sustainable, stronger and fairer way.

The Bill does not provide for the contentious changes to tax credits, which the Minister and I have debated several times already over the past week or two, or the reduction in the work allowance and the increase in the taper rate, which will hit working people on middle and lower incomes. We discussed those changes during Treasury questions this morning, particularly the high marginal tax rates that people who earn just above the personal allowance threshold and are currently in receipt of tax credits will be facing. I understand that those changes will be made by delegated legislation, which we expect later this year. They will be hotly debated and opposed, because choosing to make 3 million working families £1,000 a year worse off is the wrong choice, regardless of how the Government try to dress it up.

The Bill also does not set out the changes to the minimum wage. Despite what the Minister and the Chancellor have been saying over the past week or so, what the Government have announced is not a real living wage.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just because the Chancellor calls an increase in the national minimum wage—welcome though that is—a national living wage does not make it “the” living wage. Is she as concerned as I am that the IFS has said that it is arithmetically impossible for the increase in the national minimum wage to match the losses that will result from the changes to tax credits?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been busily trying to claim that the changes to tax credits will result in no real change because the new national living wage, which is effectively only an increase in the national minimum wage, will make up for that. The IFS has made it clear that that is arithmetically impossible. That is a pretty damning indictment of the messages that the Government have been trying to put out since the Budget on 8 July.

[Richard Fuller]

I feel for the hon. Lady, because she has only one Labour Back Bencher here to support her—perhaps because the de facto Opposition are now the Scottish National party. On that specific point about the national living wage, which she calls an enhanced national minimum wage, will the Labour party be supporting or opposing it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is quality that counts, rather than quantity, and Labour Members will show their true quality, as opposed to those sitting to my left—literally to my left, that is—on the SNP Benches. We will of course support the measures that will bring in what is effectively the new national minimum wage, but it is important to expose the fact that it is not, in fact, a living wage. The living wage is calculated on the assumption that there will be full take-up of tax credits, which is exactly what the Chancellor has cut. Given the cut to tax credits, the real living wage will be significantly higher than anything the Chancellor has set out. The effect of his decision is that in 2016 he will be offering the people of this country the 2011 living wage. That is an important point to get on the record. That is why the IFS has said that compensating ordinary working people for the loss of their tax credits with the changes on wages is arithmetically impossible.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that while many under-25s will lose their tax credits, they will not be covered by the national living wage? On the one hand they will have money taken from them, and on the other hand the compensatory element will not be available to them, so work is certainly not going to pay for that group.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Taken alongside the changes to student maintenance grants and other measures, the Budget will leave young people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, worse off. It will have a real impact on their life chances. As those measures are brought forward, it is important that we keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire on the impact they are having on young people.

Changes to the national minimum wage are normally made by statutory instrument, but given the change in the name—the Chancellor’s rebadging exercise—they might need to be done by primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how the Government will go about making those changes. If primary legislation is needed, I am rather surprised that the changes are not set out in the Bill. It would be good to have the Government’s further comments on that.

The Bill contains nothing more on productivity, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. Solving the productivity puzzle is absolutely imperative if we are to experience much stronger economic growth and get the deficit down more fairly. The Conservatives’ record on productivity is one of failure, given the difference between productivity in our country and in our competitors’ economies. I am afraid that the Budget simply offered more of the same.

Despite the Chancellor’s boasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised productivity down next year, the year after, the year after that, and the year after that. His belated productivity plan was simply a patchwork of existing schemes, rather than a substantial reform to boost skills, business growth and wages. The Bill should also have included legislation on big infrastructure decisions, which the Government appear to have ducked.

[Richard Fuller]

To tie the issue of productivity, by which I think the hon. Lady means the record on labour productivity, to that of tax credits, does she feel that there is an argument to be made that the widespread nature of tax credits during the last recession played a significant role in the willingness of workers to job share and accept reduced wages in order to maintain themselves in employment, because they knew that the state was going to top up their income if it fell? Therefore, although I support the changes to tax credits, research is still needed into the beneficial impact they can have on maintaining employment in times of recession.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. When we debated tax credits before the Budget, I discussed, I believe with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the way in which, in the last recession, tax credits assisted people to remain in work—to accept a reduction in hours, knowing that they would have the safety net of tax credits to help them through that difficult time. More research is needed; the Government should have looked at the way in which tax credits have assisted people. There is a real danger in removing tax credit support from people without having already embedded into the economy the high-skilled, high-paid jobs that we all agree are needed. If our economy had been transformed—if the Government had brought forward proposals that meant that vastly larger numbers of people were in higher-paid work—there would be no need for tax credits and it would be possible to move to a system where we could phase out or decrease the support.

A modern economy needs a modern infrastructure, but the Government have pulled the plug on electrification of the railways. They have pulled the rug out from under investment in renewable energy and flunked the decision on airports. I was interested to see that the Home Secretary was very willing to take on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when it came to water cannons. The least the Chancellor could have done was to take on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip when it came to the decision on airports. It would have been good to see this Finance Bill at least start that process.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend knows that several Greater Manchester MPs have already voiced their concern about the pause of the electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds, not least because that is absolutely crucial for the economic growth that we need across the Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire “northern powerhouse”, as the Government like to call it. Does she also appreciate the frustration of Greater Manchester MPs that the only mention under the heading of “infrastructure” in the Budget was a plastic Oyster-style card to use on our Pacer trains?

[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.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Who are you backing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman will be backing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he so loyally sits behind whenever we debate the economy.

The Budget and the Finance Bill have not lived up to some of the most pressing needs in our economy, and instead have actively imposed a work penalty and what can only be described as a living wage con. We will abstain on Second Reading. This is a relatively short Finance Bill, and we support a number of its measures, including raising the personal tax allowance threshold and the increase in business investment, particularly in respect of the annual investment allowance. We will want to scrutinise some of the other measures in much greater detail. We are concerned about the impact of some of the Government’s decisions, so we will return, especially in Committee of the Whole House, to issues on bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing the House that the official Labour party position is to abstain. Will she clarify: is she speaking for her Back Benchers today, because it does not always follow?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was not quite the cutting put-down that the Minister might have envisaged. That is our position, and that is what all our party will be doing today.

[Richard Fuller]

Given that the official Labour party position on the important Welfare Reform and Work Bill yesterday was to abstain and that its position on this Finance Bill is to abstain, can the hon. Lady clarify that it is the intention of the loyal Opposition to abstain on every major piece of legislation in this Parliament?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That question probably sounded more cutting in the development in the hon. Gentleman’s mind than in the delivery. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) chunters from a sedentary position. He is welcome to intervene on me if he so wishes. I will be delighted to give way to him.

I say to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and others that abstaining on Second Reading, as he well knows because he is a veteran of debates on Finance Bills, both in Committee and in the Chamber, does not mean that we will not press matters to a vote later in the Bill’s passage. Indeed, on the second sitting day in September we will be considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, where we will have tabled amendments, on which we will be voting, on other important measures including bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax. We can all have a lot of fun then when it comes to voting on amendments and debating them at great length.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Opposition be supporting the reasoned amendment, opposing it or abstaining on it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We will be abstaining on the reasoned amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. There are measures in the Bill that we definitely support. There are other measures that we wish to return to when the Bill receives detailed scrutiny in Committee of the Whole House and in Public Bill Committee, and we shall return to those issues and press some to a vote. On others, we will table probing amendments to gain greater understanding of the Government’s detailed intentions.

[Mark Durkan]

The Opposition Front Bench were saying similar things yesterday about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but they supported and tabled a reasoned amendment, so it is possible to abstain on a Bill but support a reasoned amendment. What is wrong with the reasoned amendment that would prevent the Opposition from supporting it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat debate with the hon. Gentleman, but the SNP did not support our reasoned amendment last night. In my opinion, the measured and sensible way to take the Finance Bill forward, as we have done with previous Finance Bills in the previous Parliament, is to scrutinise it in detail. There are more opportunities with Finance Bills because we have Committee of the Whole House as well as the Public Bill Committee, and we shall press important measures in the Bill to a vote when we reach the latter stages of the Bill’s passage; but given that there are very important measures that we do support, it is important that we signal that by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.

One issue to which we will return in Committee of the Whole House is bank taxation. The Government will decrease the rate of the bank levy from January 2016 and will at the same time introduce a surcharge on profits of banks over a threshold of £25 million, which represents a switch from a tax on balance sheets to a tax on profits. Those measures are contained in clauses 16 and 17.

We will debate those in detail in Committee of the whole House in September, when we will seek to increase transparency regarding revenues from the banking sector. We will also push the Government for further details about the impact that these measures will have on the diversity of the financial sector, including any disproportionate impact on building societies. That is one of the things that people have been warning about since the measures in the Bill were unveiled.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted, by 2021 there will have been 13 tax rates in 10 years as the bank levy is gradually reduced from 0.21% to 0.1% by January 2021. This measure will cost £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards. Because from 2021 UK banks will be taxed on liabilities in the UK and not worldwide, that represents a fairly significant giveaway that it is important to test further in Committee. In contrast to what is happening to the bank levy, the 8% corporation tax surcharge, in effect, on bank profits from January 2016 raises £1.3 billion. There are a number of questions on the rationale for moving to this form of taxation for banks, as well as on the original intention of the bank levy and whether that will continue to be met in the new regime. It is important that hon. Members have the chance to test this further in Committee. The Minister will know that the bank levy was designed to discourage risky leverage, but whether it has been successful in doing so is a matter for some debate. Moving to a system of having a tax on profits possibly introduces a risk that there may be some discouragement from declaring UK profits. It will be important to analyse what risk that might pose in the banking sector.

There is a particular problem with regard to challenger banks, which were not subject to the bank levy but will fall within the new surcharge. Challenger banks are important for the overall health of the financial sector, because we need them to challenge the dominance of the big four or five banks. The Government will say, rightly, that the £25 million threshold is partly designed to prevent too much of the impact from being felt by challenger banks. Nevertheless, the Government will also be aware that a lot of the commentary since publication of the proposals has focused on the genuine concerns of challenger banks, which are worried that despite the £25 million threshold, they will still be disproportionately affected, with a significant impact on consumer choice as well. We will need to look at those issues further.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s confirmation that she and her party support much of what is in the Bill. Will she confirm that she agrees with its general direction, which is fundamentally towards an economy characterised by higher wages, lower taxes and less welfare?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will shortly turn to insurance premium tax, which is a very significant tax-raising measure that the Government have not been quite as keen to trumpet as other measures in the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber—it is significant that most of the very contentious changes in the Budget, particularly in respect of working tax credits, are not in the Bill but will be made in delegated legislation Committees. I dispute the Government’s characterisation of these measures, because I believe that they will leave working people worse off. That is not necessarily directly relevant to all aspects of the Bill, but it is relevant to the overall package of measures introduced in the Budget.

There is serious concern about the impact that the 8% surcharge will have on building societies. Of the six main building societies—Nationwide, Yorkshire, Coventry, Skipton, Leeds and Principality—only Nationwide currently pays the bank levy. Based on the most up-to-date profit figures from 2014-15, it is estimated that the building societies will pay about £126 million a year through the corporation tax surcharge, equating to about £630 million up to 2020. The building societies point out that the primary way in which they build their capital is through retained profit, so a tax on profit has a disproportionate effect on them. Moreover, they do not have shareholders, unlike public limited companies, so this is, in effect, a tax on the customers who own them—retail savers and mortgage borrowers. It will be important for the Government to explain their thinking on building societies and what analysis there is of how these changes will play out for them in practice.

The next key issue that we will return to in Committee relates to the climate change levy. Clause 45 removes the climate change levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. I am afraid that this is another example of the Government undermining investor confidence in renewable energy. They have already tried to halt the development of the cheapest form of clean energy by pulling the plug on onshore wind, and this continues that trend. It would be fair to say that since taking office they have put placating their Back Benchers’ more strident views about renewable energy generation above the jobs and investment that would be created across our economy if we were genuinely able to move towards a low-carbon economy.

We will particularly seek to push the Government on a suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that they produce a road map, as they have done previously on aspects of taxation policy—in particular, corporation tax policy—setting out their plans for the future of environmental taxes to help the renewable energy industry, and business more generally, to take long-term investment decisions. That could be an important way for the Government to set out their intentions for the life of this Parliament and for us to test whether they mean it with regard to charting a course towards a low-carbon economy for our country.

Insurance premium tax, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), is a significant revenue-raising measure. Clause 43 increases the standard rate of the tax from 6% to 9.5% with effect from 1 November 2015, raising £1.6 billion. There are very important questions about the distributional impact that that will have and whether those on middle and low incomes will bear the brunt of the increases. It is interesting that the Chancellor did not focus on the very significant revenue-raising measures in his Budget. Indeed, the rhetoric and narrative that he has been pursuing suggests that it is a Budget of giveaways. He will not be surprised that we will not let him get away with that characterisation.

Insurance premium tax has been described as a stealth tax. Ministers will be aware that several industry figures have warned that increasing it could prompt policyholders to buy less cover, possibly exacerbating problems caused by under-insurance, particularly with regard to car insurance. Again, we will wish to test those areas further in Committee when we will look carefully at any analysis by Government of the possible impact on under-insurance. The AA has said that insurance premium tax on the average car insurance policy is equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre, so either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the measure’s overall distributional income, what conversations the Government have already had with the insurance industry and what this means for future changes to fuel duty.

As I have said, we support other measures in the Bill, particularly the so-called tax lock both for income tax at the basic, higher and additional rates, and for VAT. I remind Treasury Ministers that, back in 2009, the current Chancellor was very critical about Chancellors passing laws to ensure that they fulfil the promises they make in general election campaigns, and I think that that criticism applies just as much to him now. However, we support the principle of the lock. We have pledged not to raise VAT, national insurance or the basic and higher rates of income tax, so we welcome those measures.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I commend my hon. Friend and the shadow Treasury team, because that particular lock would not have been introduced were it not for the valiant efforts of Labour Front Benchers in the run-up to the last general election in highlighting that the Government would probably have to raise VAT or other taxes. She has already described some of the stealth taxes that have come to fruition since the election.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I wonder whether we would have the tax lock had it not been for the VAT bombshell poster we unveiled or for the exchanges at Prime Minister’s questions ahead of the general election. Ministers were certainly very quick to write such a law, and despite the Chancellor having suggested in 2009 that passing laws to ensure promises on taxation are kept was a very bad idea, he was very quick to convert to that cause. Nevertheless, they are passing a law on the tax lock. It was Labour party policy, and we are very pleased that we pushed the Conservative party into our territory in agreeing that the rates for ordinary people on lower and middle incomes should not go up.

Another change we support is on the annual investment allowance. I am pleased that the direction of travel has been set out for the whole Parliament. That contrasts very strongly with what happened during the last Parliament, when lots of chopping and changing on capital allowances definitely undermined business investment. Even if the deal is less generous, with a decrease from £500,000 to £200,000, it is important that businesses at least know that the deal they are going to get will last a lot longer than it previously did.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned with respect to the expected changes on corporation tax, there is a lack of concrete proposals for business rates. The Financial Secretary has raised expectations and hopes of real change on business rates when the consultation is finally unveiled later this year. We will certainly look at whether the business rates burden will come down for small and medium-sized companies.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady mentioned corporation tax. The Bill includes measures to reduce it first to 19% and then to 18%. Will the Labour party support those reductions, oppose them—after all, that was its position—or abstain?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the Financial Secretary knows because we have already had such an exchange—I feel we are reliving our greatest hits—on a number of occasions in the past couple of years, our policy at the general election was our manifesto commitment not to go ahead with the corporation tax cut from 21% to 20%. We would not have gone ahead with that additional cut to 20%, but instead used all the money to pay for a cut to business rates this year and a freeze next year. It was a direct switch spend. We wanted to make a commitment to small and medium-sized businesses in our country to do something practical on business rates, but we needed to find a way to pay for that, and we chose to switch-spend in respect of the additional corporation tax cut. We of course lost the election, and the Government are proposing a further decrease of the corporation tax rate. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we will ask questions about what that means for the future direction of travel.

Following an intervention, the Financial Secretary mentioned the BEPS project. On corporation tax more generally, it is important—given how some companies seek to shift profits and game international taxation rules—to have international agreement. Concern has already been expressed in some quarters that some of the countries with which we need to do business and with which we need to agree international tax rules might start to see us as a tax haven. I disagree with such a characterisation, but there is such a risk in getting agreement within the OECD BEPS process. I would welcome it if Treasury Ministers could, in Committee, provide further details about what is happening and about how our friends in the BEPS process are reacting and responding to the Government’s proposal on the headline rate of corporation tax.

One measure we have already voted against relates to inheritance tax. Clause 9 introduces an additional residence nil-rate band for inheritance tax when a home is passed to the direct descendants of the deceased on or after 6 April 2017. The provision, which runs to more than 400 lines, is extremely technical, but it in effect allows parents to pass on a house worth £1 million to their children free of inheritance tax. We have made it clear that the focus of tax cuts should be to help people on middle and lower incomes and to tackle tax avoidance. The Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy. Their priority should be to help the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own, rather than a further cut to the rate of inheritance tax at this stage.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I must say that I am listening to the hon. Lady with a degree of sadness. Last night, we saw the Labour party abstain on welfare. Today, Labour Members are yet again failing to provide an effective opposition to this Government. Is it not time that they came across to our Benches and to SNP Members, who are providing the real opposition that Labour Members are failing to provide?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman rather forgets that the Scottish National party is not a national party; in fact, it is committed to breaking up our Union. If he and his colleagues aspire to be an official Opposition, they may wish to stop being a party of only national interest and stop trying to break up our country. We did not merely abstain on the welfare Bill. As he well knows, we voted for our reasoned amendment, which is exactly what his party plans to do today. If that approach was not good enough for us yesterday, why do he and his colleagues think that it is good enough for them today?

If the hon. Gentleman has been listening to my now very lengthy remarks, he will know that I have gone through the Finance Bill and the Budget in detail and made it very clear that the Bill does not contain many of the most contentious of the Chancellor’s Budget decisions. We will debate and oppose such measures when they are brought before the House as statutory instruments, but those measures are not in this Bill. I have laid out in depth our approach to all the different measures in the Bill, including those that we support and those on which we will ask further questions and to which we will table amendments, which we will vote on, as the Bill continues through its stages in this House.

The Government have published further changes to the direct recovery of debts from bank accounts and in relation to carried interest. That has excited some interest in the inboxes of Members’ email accounts with the campaign by 38 Degrees. We had a manifesto commitment in respect of carried interest. I am not sure that the Government’s proposals in the Finance Bill go as far as we were hoping to go, had we been elected. As I say, we will test the detail in Committee.

In short—sorry, I mean “in conclusion”, as I have been on my feet for a while—many of the most contentious elements of the Budget are not in the Finance Bill. It contains a mixture of measures that we support and measures that we will return to in great detail when we get to Committee of the whole House. I look forward to debating with Ministers as the Bill progresses through the House. I hope that in winding up, the Minister will deal with some of the questions that I have raised in respect of bank taxation, the climate change levy and insurance premium tax.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because it fails to address the real economic needs of the country, continues to deepen the social divide between those who have and those who have not, restricts the financial discretion of the Scottish Government over its resources, fails to tackle the iniquity of the Scottish Police and Fire and Rescue Services being unable to reclaim VAT, creates unintended consequences for small challenger banks and building societies whose capital comes from retained profits, removes the exemption from the climate change levy of renewable energy resources and, in combination with welfare changes announced in the Summer Budget 2015 and inheritance tax changes, takes from people on low and middle incomes and gives to the very richest.”

I am proud to lead for the Opposition. I felt sorry, in many ways, for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), as she sat there amidst the gathered masses of five Labour Members, which have now declined to three. I noticed that the Minister managed to attract 12 interventions, only one of which was from Labour.

[Shabana Mahmood]

You should have paid more attention to what I was saying.

[Roger Mullin]

Paying attention? That would be a good idea for the Labour party. You mentioned quality. If you stopped chuntering and listened, you might get a bit of quality.

We are going to do something that the Labour party has refused to do, which is to test the Finance Bill. The hon. Lady spent the first 12 minutes of her speech talking about other things because she said that there was nothing of any great substance in the Bill. I am going to try something rather unusual and talk about what is in the Bill.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hesitate to be mean-spirited to the hon. Gentleman, but it is obvious from his remarks that he was not listening to my lengthy remarks in which I set out not that there is nothing of any substance in the Finance Bill, but that there are measures in the Bill that we support and measures that we have further questions about. That is different from the Budget, which contains measures on which we have a very real difference of opinion with the Government. We will test those when they come before the House in delegated legislation Committees.

[Roger Mullin]

So that, no doubt, explains why you could not think up a reasoned amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the cost of tax credits has ballooned. They had trebled in the 11 years to 2010. To get the country back into the black, it was absolutely necessary to take control of it, but doing so at the same time as taking these other key measures.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

Research from the House of Commons Library shows that the effect of the Chancellor’s decision to increase the tax credit taper from 41% to 48% is that workers earning above the income tax personal allowance threshold will face a marginal effective tax rate of 73% in 2015-16, which increases to a staggering 80% in 2016-17. How does the Minister reconcile the Chancellor’s rhetoric about standing up for workers with the reality of a marginal effective tax rate of 80%, which is a hefty work penalty by any measure?

[Damian Hinds]

The great reforming summer Budget is an integrated package of measures and people cannot just take one element alone. It includes the new national living wage, the increases in the personal allowance and a lot more support that the hon. Lady did not mention on childcare and on skills building. When all those things are taken together, it is a Budget in which the great majority of people will be better off and more are supported into work.

[Shabana Mahmood]

High tax rates are normally loathed by Conservative Members, but obviously not when they affect ordinary working people. The Chancellor has been busy trying to suggest that his national living wage will compensate for this work penalty, but he knows that the real living wage is calculated on the basis of a full take-up of tax credits—the very thing he has now cut. Is it not the case that, regardless of the rhetoric, all that this Budget has delivered for ordinary working people in our country is a hefty work penalty and a living wage con?

[Damian Hinds]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Budget contains a large number of measures to help hard-working families, including the rise in the personal allowance, allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Of course the big reform of universal credit is still to come, and it will further help on incentivising work. Throughout all this it is important to help to support people into work and to see them progressing through the hours, particularly through our increases in childcare support, which are worth thousands of pounds to some families.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

We have had a good debate—today and over the last few sitting days. It is a pleasure to close our Budget deliberations on behalf of the Opposition. I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Members for Kensington (Victoria Borwick), for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on making their maiden speeches today. I am sure all Members will join me in wishing them well as they begin their journey of standing up for their constituents in this place.

Last week, the Chancellor delivered his first Budget of this Parliament. Although his rhetoric might have delivered him positive headlines on Thursday morning, the reality is that his Budget will deliver misery and hardship for ordinary working people because it leaves them worse off, penalised for doing the right thing in working and punished for circumstances outside their control. Not only does this Budget penalise people in low-paid work; it fails the test of building a more productive economy, because the Chancellor has either flunked or ducked the big long-term decisions that need to be made on infrastructure.

What ordinary working people in our country needed was a Budget that would make their lives easier, make work pay and help people not just on to the first rung of the work ladder but on to the next one—into better jobs with better prospects and better pay. Instead, the Chancellor focused his energies on his own bid for a better job, better prospects and better pay. Rather than help the working poor to move up, he focused on his own move next door.

The truth that Government Members have to confront is that 3 million working families will bear the brunt of the Chancellor’s £4.5 billion-worth of cuts to tax credits. These cuts will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, completely undermining the Tory argument that this is a Budget for working people. They penalised the very people in work who are trying to do the right thing and who do not earn enough to make ends meet. As I said only a week ago, it is wrong and unfair to remove tax credits from working people without first creating the conditions that would allow it to be done in a way that does not pull the rug from under people on low incomes—by hitting them with what is effectively a hefty work penalty. We all want to see a higher-wage economy, in which people are less reliant on tax credits to make ends meet, but we need to embed higher wages in the economy before we consider going ahead with any changes to tax credits.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Lady agree with her leader when she said that she should accept the changes to welfare and tax credits contained within this Budget?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was hardly worth the wait. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman should have been paying attention to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) actually said. She came out very strongly against the whole package of working tax credit changes. If he had listened to my remarks, rather than try to intervene with a Whip’s question, he would have realised that that is exactly what I am doing myself.

The Government will say that they have moved on pay. Again, however, there is a big difference between rhetoric and reality. The Government’s cuts to tax credits overwhelmingly outweigh their measures on pay. I welcome the proposed rises in the national minimum wage, which is still what it is. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see that the Chancellor has joined us. He has failed to explain why raising the minimum wage was so wrong only a few short weeks ago during the general election campaign, in view of our manifesto commitment, or how he came to agree with us so soon after the general election. Nevertheless, imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. We are pleased to observe that the party that forced the last all-night sitting in the House in an attempt to block the introduction of the national minimum wage by the last Labour Government now agrees with us not only that it is important and necessary, but that it should go up. However, we should be clear about the fact that it is not a living wage.

There has always been a difference between the minimum wage and the living wage. Re-badging the new national minimum wage as a living wage will not help the Chancellor, because ordinary working people can see a political con for what it is. The Living Wage Foundation was quick off the mark on Budget day in making that very point. The inconvenient fact for the Chancellor is that the living wage—the real living wage—is calculated on the assumption of a full take-up of tax credits, the very tax credits that the Chancellor has just cut. To make up for the loss of those tax credits, a real living wage would have to be considerably higher than what the Chancellor is now promising working people in Britain.

The new national minimum wage rate of £7.20, when it is introduced next year, will be lower than the current living wage of £7.85. In effect, the Chancellor, who says that he stands with working people, will offer working people in 2016 the 2011 living wage, and we will not let him pretend otherwise. In the end, the simple truth is that the wage increases that are on their way are not enough to make up for the loss of tax credits.

Twenty-four hours after the Chancellor delivered his Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies dismissed his claim that increasing the minimum wage would compensate working people. The IFS said:

“the key fact is that the increase in the minimum wage simply cannot provide full compensation for the majority of losses that will be experienced by tax credit recipients. That is just arithmetically impossible.”

The IFS also said that the biggest change, which sounded very technical, was the reduction in the work allowance. It explained:

“The work allowance is the amount that a claimant can earn before benefit starts to be withdrawn. Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of UC”

—universal credit—

“intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work. This reform will cost about 3 million families an average of £1,000 a year each. It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work.”

A regressive Budget with a work penalty of £1,000 a year: that is what the Government have delivered to ordinary working people in our country—and while they hit those ordinary working people, they also fail to address a central economic challenge—productivity. That is the puzzle that it is crucial for us to crack and solve, because getting it right is vital if we are to achieve higher living standards, sustained GDP growth, and effective deficit reduction, but this Budget failed the productivity test.

[Helen Whately]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will not give way for another Whip’s question. I must make some progress.

Productivity has stagnated under this Government, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised its productivity forecast downwards for next year and the three years after that. It has also confirmed that the Chancellor will miss his target of increasing exports to £1 trillion by a staggering £367 billion by 2020. Productivity has been revised down and the current account deficit has widened to 5.9% of GDP, becoming the largest annual peacetime deficit since at least 1830. However, all that the Government had to offer was a damp squib of a productivity plan on the Friday after the Budget—a patchwork of existing schemes rather than a substantial reform to boost skills, business growth and wages, and, in relation to infrastructure, output that is lower than it was five years ago.

There are, of course, some measures in the Budget that we will support, not least those that started life—[Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members are cheering, because the measures that I am about to mention started life on our Benches as our manifesto commitments. I welcome the Government’s new-found zeal in dealing with non-doms and with the so-called carried interest loophole involving private equity managers. Conservative Members were not so vocal on such matters just a few weeks ago, but I am glad that they have had a rethink since the general election, and have found their voices when it comes to our policies.

We will, however. stand against measures that are wrong and unfair. Apart from the overall package of measures on tax credits, we are deeply concerned about the impact of removing student maintenance grants from the poorest undergraduates, about the lowering of the level of benefit for those who cannot currently work and are in the work-related activity group, and about the Government’s strategy on child poverty, which essentially boils down to their changing the definitions because they will miss their target otherwise. Every Budget is about choices. This should have been a Budget to bring the deficit down and help people into work and into better work by creating the high-skill, high-pay jobs needed to boost productivity. Instead, it penalises those already in work. It is people on low and middle incomes, the ordinary working people of Britain, who will pay the price for this Chancellor’s choices, and we will stand with the ordinary working people of Britain by voting against this Budget tonight.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that people should be given support and incentives to find employment and stay in employment; notes that, at a time when the recovery is still fragile for many, the impact of a significant reduction in in-work tax credits could increase hardship and undermine the importance of making work pay; believes that any meaningful effort to address the real causes of high welfare costs should tackle the underlying drivers of low pay, housing costs and insecure working conditions; further notes that the threat of a £5 billion reduction in child tax credits would see 3.7 million working families lose an average of £1,400 a year in income; and urges the Chancellor to guarantee that any assistance in the July 2015 Budget is focused solely on people on middle and low incomes.

I am pleased that we have finally come on to our Opposition day debate. It was postponed last week and has been delayed today owing to the emergency debate on English votes for English laws. It is important that we have this debate ahead of the Budget, because what the Government decide to do tomorrow in relation to tax credits will show up the rhetoric they have been using since the election and prove whose side they are really on. It is not the side of working people. They say that they are now the workers’ party. Indeed, the Chancellor’s op-ed in The Sun this weekend started with the line:

“We were elected in May as a party for working people; that’s how we’ll govern; and that’s who my budget this week is for.”

On reading that line for the first time on Sunday morning, I would have choked on my cereal were it not for the fact that it is Ramadan and I am fasting. Saying it—asserting it—simply does not make it true. It is about what we do and the choices we make. If the decision the Government make tomorrow on tax credits is as we expect, it will prove that their rhetoric is very far removed from the reality.

We know from what the Chancellor said over the weekend that £12 billion of savings from the welfare budget had been found. It is reported that a substantial chunk of that money will come from cuts to tax credits. Certainly, the Government’s attempts to discredit the tax credits regime suggest that they are laying the groundwork ahead of tomorrow’s Budget. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that the Government could cut the childcare element of child tax credit back to its 2003-04 level, saving £5.1 billion per year. The IFS says that a £5 billion cut in tax credits in this way would mean some 3.7 million families losing £1,400 a year on average and would push a further 300,000 children into relative poverty. Those are huge sums of money for working people on low pay—people who are trying to do the right thing, who are at the mercy of a labour market that, at the lower end, is insecure and of high housing costs that keep going up and up. Without tax credits to help them through, those who are working and stuck on low pay simply cannot make ends meet.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for very kindly giving way during her remarks, which are so incredibly important. I am so glad we are having this debate today. She talks about the millions of families who will be affected by the announcement we are expecting tomorrow. Does she agree that behind those millions of families are individuals, such as my constituent Joanne Todd, who is already struggling to feed and clothe her children? If these cuts go ahead, she does not know if she will be able to put the heating on this winter.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point in her customary powerful way. She is absolutely right. Behind each of these statistics—3.7 million families and 300,000 children are shockingly large numbers—are individual stories of hardship and toil: people trying to do the right thing and being punished by the choices the Government will make tomorrow.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that in my constituency the number of jobs has increased since 2010 and that unemployment is down? The people behind those statistics are individuals. Does she accept that they are individuals the coalition Government helped to get into work and get paid to support their families?

[Shabana Mahmood]

And many of those people going into work, I gently say to the hon. and learned Lady, will be in receipt of tax credits. The only way that that work will pay for those individuals moving from unemployment into work is through the tax credits her Government may well cut tomorrow.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: tax credits are also in-work benefits. Has she sensed any intention on the part of the Government to offset cuts to tax credits to working families in my constituency and hers with an increase in the minimum wage, which would have to rise by about 25%?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage would have to rise by 25% overnight tonight if the Government make these changes tomorrow. I shall come later to the difficulties and to the changes we need to make to the national minimum wage.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

To help reinforce that point and in response to the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), was not mark 1 of welfare reform—moving large numbers of people from benefits into work—one of the successes of the last Labour Government and the coalition Government—and is not mark 2 of welfare reform how we now help those individuals to so increase productivity that they can be paid a fair or living wage? Should we not have been relaxed about this, given that we have five years to make these changes and make mark 2 a success? Instead of punishing people in work—the strivers—should we not be encouraging them up the career ladder?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is where I disagree with the tenor of the comments from Government Members in the debates on the economy thus far in this Parliament. For them, a job is a job is a job, whereas we have a better, bolder vision for people moving into work, not just for their first job, which could be any job, but for progressing. We do not do that by punishing people and taking away the support they rely on when stuck in low-paid work. We have to chart a course towards a higher skilled, higher wage economy, but that is not going to happen before tomorrow’s Budget. The support for those on tax credits should not be removed before we have that high-wage economy.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the fact that the personal allowance rose to £10,600 in the last Parliament, putting £800 a year directly back into the pockets of the people on the lowest pay?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that 60% of those in receipt of tax credits do not pay income tax anyway. If someone is working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage, they are below the £10,600 personal allowance threshold.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The last comment and the one earlier from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) amply illustrate Government Members’ failure to understand the impact the proposal will have. It will affect 22,000 children in my constituency alone—children who live in homes of families who work but are on low wages—through no fault of their own.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes her point powerfully, but it is not that Government Members do not understand—I think they know full well the impact of their decisions; they simply want to pretend it is not going to be as bad as everybody knows it will be.

A Resolution Foundation study of these proposals just a couple of weeks ago suggests that

“over two-thirds of the families affected would be in-work”,

that

“almost two-thirds of the cut would be borne by the poorest 30 per cent of households; and”

that

“almost none of the cut would fall upon the richest 40 per cent of households”.

On what basis, then, can the Tories claim to be the party of working people? These are the working people the Government are choosing to hit and hurt. If the Government are happy to make these choices, they should at least admit that, rather than hiding behind the rhetoric of being the party of working people, as if somehow that will get them through the next five years.

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

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Like many others, I have been inundated by constituents who are really frightened by the impact of these cuts. One wrote to me saying:

“Child Tax Credit allows people to get over difficult times which happen despite working hard, and cuts will end up forcing more people into poverty”.

Does the hon. Lady agree that these cuts will be counter-productive as well as deeply cruel?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and I absolutely agree with her. Of course, it was the support available via tax credits that meant that in the recession some people could remain in work even when their employers had to cut back on their hours as a result of the global financial crisis. That is an important point.

The Government’s critique of tax credits over the last couple of weeks has implied that this is a flawed regime that does not work and simply subsidises so-called poverty pay, but a simple examination of the facts shows that the case undermining tax credits is weak. If the Government were serious about tackling the reasons why people have to rely on tax credits, they would come forward tomorrow not with planned cuts or immediate cuts to tax credits, but with longer-term measures to tackle the underlying factors of low pay, high housing costs and insecure employment.

There are 4.6 million households in the UK claiming tax credits. Four million of the families claiming them have children and 2.7 million of those families are in work. There are 5 million children in working families receiving tax credits, and over 70% of all of those, with or without children, claiming tax credits are in work. They were introduced in 2003 to tackle poverty and make work pay. Much of the debate at the time was focused on helping single parents to get into work. We know that the lone parent employment rate rose by 28% between 1997 and 2010, and by a staggering 43% between 1997 and 2014.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I want to make some progress, but I will give way a little later.

A study of tax credits by the Resolution Foundation in 2012 found that the introduction of working families tax credit, which was the predecessor to working tax credit, provided a

“small but direct boost to employment”,

particularly for single parents. The economics editor of the Financial Times recently said:

“Britain’s financial support for low income working families is a key reason why we now have a high employment rate and…the Prime Minister must take care not to put at risk a 20 year success story”.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady cites the Resolution Foundation report. Does she agree with the same foundation’s report which says tax credits have

“a predictably negative impact on work incentives”?

[Shabana Mahmood]

No, I do not agree, and there is a difference between eliminating support from working people in the Budget tomorrow and charting a course that would look more like long-term reform of working tax credits to deal with some of the issues relating to clustering at 16 hours, which Members have spoken about previously. However, that should not be done before tackling the underlying factors that are driving people into low-paid employment and keeping them stuck in that employment.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. She touched on a point mentioned in the motion: dealing with the causes of high social security spending, not just the effects. One such cause to which she adverted and that can be found in the motion is housing costs. We have shockingly high housing costs all around the country, caused by huge housing shortages. Can she indicate what the Labour Front-Bench team thinks should be done to address high housing costs?

[Shabana Mahmood]

In the end, it is about building more houses. That is something that this Government have singularly failed to do over the five years during which they have already been in office. In view of what is being briefed ahead of the Budget tomorrow, it does not seem to me that they are going to come forward with a game-changing plan when it comes to house building in our country.

Tax credits and child poverty are inextricably linked. The same Resolution Foundation study of 2012 found that there was a clear inverse link between spending on tax credits and child poverty rates. The latest households below average income figures show that progress in tackling child poverty has ground to a halt since this Government came to office, with 2.3 million children remaining in relative poverty and 2.6 million in absolute poverty.

The Work and Pensions Secretary spent most of last week trying to distract from the Government’s record on child poverty, first by trying to claim a win on child poverty on the basis that the figures were not as bad as some suggested they might have been—in itself indicative of a shocking complacency—and then by changing the definition of child poverty. The reality remains that too many children in our country struggle with a poor and difficult start in life that directly impacts on their life chances as adults. If not dealt with early, this means that we will all face higher costs further down the track. As I mentioned, the IFS says that cutting £5 billion-worth of tax credits tomorrow will push a further 300,000 children into relative poverty. Tax credit cuts will do nothing to address child poverty; they will simply add to it.

Government Members would have us believe that by cutting tax credits, wages will automatically rise to compensate workers, but that is simply not going to happen. Employers will not give everyone a pay rise on the day the Chancellor cuts tax credits. As I said, the national minimum wage would have to rise by 25% overnight to compensate a lone parent working 16 hours a week for the loss of tax credit, and the wage of a worker on average earnings of £22,000 a year would have to rise by 6% overnight. That would require employers to raise pay overnight by twice the amount by which the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that they will raise pay over a full year, and we know that there is not a chance in hell that that will happen.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

A reduction in tax credits will be not only a kick in the teeth for working people, but be totally counterproductive. A constituent who contacted me this week is a single mum who is struggling to put a roof over her head for her young son and teach him a strong work ethic. If the cut goes ahead, she will no longer be able to afford the childcare that enables her to go to work in the first place.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I agree with all that she has said.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

When Gordon Brown introduced tax credits in 1998, he said that the cost would be £2 billion. It is now £30 billion. Will the hon. Lady tell us whether that is too much, too little, or about right?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think that what we are talking about is the cost of making work pay in the economy that we have at the moment. As I will explain in more detail later, the Government are doing things the wrong way round. As was pointed out by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), we must establish a higher-skill, higher-wage economy before we remove the support for those who are stuck on low pay. I would prefer people not to be in that position.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend is advancing powerful arguments. Does she agree that there is a compelling need for the Government to spell out how they intend to increase pay to a living wage, and increase economic growth, so that people can have more access to jobs in our economy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think that it is for the Government to tell us what they plan to do about the living wage, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us when he winds up the debate. At the time of the general election, we made a manifesto commitment to incentivise employers to pay the living wage. The Government are welcome to steal that policy, but they should steal it—and allow it to embed a living wage, and higher wages, in our economy—before they start messing around with tax credits.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), but then I must make some progress.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady mentioned the Labour party manifesto. Will she be a bit more specific? For example, does she favour the granting of tax credits for training contracts to take people from the minimum wage to the living wage, does she support a requirement for local authorities that commission care to commission it in a way that enables employers to pay the living wage, and does she agree that, given the persistence of zero-hours contracts for less than two years, there should be a requirement for such contracts to carry the living wage?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and important observations about the way in which we can encourage employers to pay the living wage, and I hope that Ministers take up his suggestions. Ours was a clear, straightforward policy to incentivise the paying of the living wage by sharing with employers the benefit that the Government obtain because people are earning more money.

[Alan Mak]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am afraid that the boy-band operation on the Government Back Benches is a little unimpressive. Rather than give way for a further Whip’s question, I shall make a little more progress.

Another argument advanced by Government Members in recent weeks is that tax credits have been subsidising poverty pay. There is academic and expert evidence that they have not depressed wages at the lower end, and that there has been no general slippage in the part of the earnings distribution where they bite. For the sake of argument, however, let us agree that in an ideal world we would not even take the risk that tax credits might depress wages, or subsidise low or poverty pay. Indeed, let us agree that we would ideally want a system in which they were not needed at all, because everyone could earn a high enough wage to manage perfectly well without them. If the Government were serious about that, they would come forward first with proper and realistic proposals for increasing wages and tackling low pay, and then start thinking about reform of tax credits. Instead, they are putting the cart before the horse and doing things the wrong way round, salami-slicing the tax credits budget but without any credible plan to get wages up before the cuts bite. The Government have no plans to ensure working families do not lose out from their tax credit cuts.

Instead of tackling low pay, the Conservatives are attacking the low paid, and they have form: they cut tax credits 14 times in the last Parliament, including cutting the childcare element of working tax credits from 80% to 70% of a child’s childcare costs, costing some working families up to £1,560 a year—an average loss of £570 per year—and increasing the working hours threshold for couples to qualify for WTC from 16 to 24 hours per week, with an average loss of £2,600 for families unable to increase their working hours, according to research commissioned by us from the House of Commons Library. We also know that a number of indicators suggest that the recovery is not feeding through to job security and pay growth for those who have to rely on tax credits.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Has there been an equalities impact assessment of this measure, which will be introduced tomorrow?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we will have to see whether we get any additional information on the impact on equalities ahead of the Budget, but we already know from what we saw over the last Parliament that women are disproportionately affected when the Government start to cut tax credits, as are black and minority ethnic communities.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to make a little more progress.

As I have said, we also know that a number of indicators suggest that the recovery is not feeding through to job security and pay growth for those who have to rely on tax credits. The number of jobs in low-paid sectors grew at twice the rate of those in non-low-paid sectors between the second quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2014. The number of working people paid housing benefit has risen by 400,000 since 2010, because working people are not bringing home enough money to pay the rent. The number of people earning less than the living wage has increased by 1.8 million since 2009. Now it seems that these same people—the strivers, the doers and the workers whom the Chancellor claims to want to put his arms around and hug close—are, having been hit hard over the last five years, going to bear the brunt again.

Labour believes the way into work and off welfare is by tackling the real causes of high welfare costs: the underlying drivers of low pay, high housing benefit costs and insecure working conditions. The Government’s failure to address these underlying causes in a meaningful way over the past five years has meant they have spent £25 billion more than they expected to spend on welfare in 2010. The welfare bill remains higher than expected for the same reason as the deficit remains high: we cannot disconnect what happens in household budgets from the economy overall, and that means we cannot remove tax credits for working people without creating the conditions that allow that to be done in a way that does not penalise workers on low pay.

We want a higher-wage economy where people are less reliant on tax credits to make ends meet. That is why we set out plans to raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour by 2019, and it is why we support the living wage and set out proposals in our manifesto to encourage and incentivise businesses to pay it. I strongly encourage the Government to steal our policy, and if they do steal it they should do so as a first step to embedding higher wages in the economy before they consider going ahead with any changes to tax credits.

The Government should also remember that the way in which the living wage is set assumes that families are already taking up their full tax credits entitlement. The Greater London Authority, which works out the London living wage, says:

“If means-tested benefits were not taken into account (that is, tax credits, housing benefits and council tax benefit) the Living Wage would be approximately £11.65 per hour.”

That is more than £2 higher than it is at the moment. The living wage already has tax credits priced in, and it will not be a living wage in the face of tax credit cuts. If the Government come forward tomorrow with proposals on the living wage, they will have to explain either that they are going to go for a much higher living wage than we have at the moment or why they are going to hit working people again and again.

The proposed tax credit cuts tomorrow have attracted widespread criticism across the political spectrum. Everyone agrees that people should be better off in work than unemployed, but removing or significantly cutting tax credits without having charted a course towards a high-skill, high-wage economy means that this Government are not tackling low pay, but are attacking the low paid. That is wrong; those people will be punished for circumstances outside their control as they try to do the right thing. Hon. Members from across the House should send a clear signal to the Government that that is the wrong approach and vote in favour of our motion.

Productivity

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to support our motion. We have had a good debate with some thoughtful speeches. I particularly want to mention the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). May I also congratulate the hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today? I am talking about the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden)—or indeed for Albert Square—and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham), who made a moving tribute to his predecessor, David Blunkett, and to his constituency. May I welcome them both to this House, and I wish them well as they use the power of their voices to speak on behalf of their constituents and pursue the causes that matter to them?

One such cause and central issue of the day, on which I hope there is consensus in the House, is productivity and the impact of productivity on the performance of our economy. Productivity is the central economic challenge facing the Government and I believe that getting it right is vital if we are to achieve higher living standards, sustained GDP growth and effective deficit reduction.

We must seek to maximise output from the efforts of working people. If workers can produce more, their employers can pay more, tax revenues can be more buoyant, and GDP growth stronger and more sustainable. In short, if we get this right, everyone is a winner. Governments can make choices to pull the levers at their disposal when it comes to the national minimum wage or indeed the living wage, but when it comes to wider wage growth across the rest of the economy and for those on middle incomes, higher productivity is the way forward, as the CBI and indeed the Bank of England have also emphasised.

We should all agree in this House that GDP growth that is driven just by increasing the number of people in work and how many hours they work will not make people better off. As a nation, rather than settling for the current state of things, we should aspire to have more for us all, to be better and to be stronger. We should have a broader vision and ambition for everyone in our country, especially those who are currently stuck in low-paid work.

What has been happening to productivity on this Government’s watch? Seven years on from the global financial crisis—some Tories appear to have forgotten that there was a global financial crisis before Labour left power—productivity is still 1.7% below the pre-crisis peak. Between 2010 and 2014, productivity has grown by an average of just 0.4% a year. In quarter 4 of 2014, productivity growth fell by 0.2% compared with the previous quarter, and productivity growth was also negative in 2013 and 2012, at minus 0.3% and minus 1.2% respectively. UK output per hour is now 17 percentage points below the G7 average and 31 percentage points below that of the United States of America.

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that productivity growth is the

“most important and uncertain part”

of its economic forecast. The Office for National Statistics says that the stagnation of productivity is “unprecedented”. The Bank of England says that this is one of its main concerns about the nature of the recovery going forward.

One response to this productivity puzzle would be to think that this is just how things are—that this is a necessary and inevitable consequence of a changing world—but it does not have to be this way, and we should not settle for things being this way. Despite the post-election pronouncements about a soon-to-be-announced so-called productivity plan, the Tories’ inaction and ineffectiveness on this issue over their previous five years in government suggests that they have been content to settle for things exactly as they are. How else can the Chancellor explain his complete failure even to mention productivity during his March Budget speech, or his failure to prioritise productivity growth over the previous five years? But he and his team can listen today and start to put things right as they look ahead to the July Budget. The Chancellor has choices to make ahead of the first fiscal event of this Parliament, and he should make choices that will boost productivity.

The Chancellor could focus on skills and innovation. We have heard today that jobs growth has been disproportionately focused on lower-skilled work since mid-2013, and we have a persistent trend of insecurity in the labour market and, inevitably, weak wage growth too. The Government are wrong to sit back and watch that happen, because our labour market is changing and the jobs of tomorrow will look very different from the jobs of 20 years ago. Our future workforce is also changing; it is ageing, there are more women and there are increasing numbers of people with high-level qualifications. The Opposition believe that, with so much talent to harness, public spending should focus on enhancing investment, skills and innovation. The Tories have failed thus far to provide any real solutions or strategies to build the productive, high-skilled, high-wage workforce that this country needs, and this must urgently change.

On infrastructure, frankly Labour has already done the heavy lifting with the report that we commissioned from Sir John Armitt, whose proposal, accepted in full by us, for a national infrastructure commission is one that the current Government should also adopt. Indeed, we have even prepared the draft legislation. With all the work done, and given that it is in the national interest, Ministers can have that one for free and they should go ahead and do it.

The Chancellor should also listen to us and allow the OBR to publish an assessment of how the likely options for the spending review due later this year would impact on productivity. I know that we have asked him several times to allow the OBR to do a number of things, such as auditing party general election manifestos or preparing reports to inform the EU referendum debate. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has never taken the opportunity to listen to us before. However, it is important that we have a wider understanding of the big and difficult choices that will be made on public spending, and frankly, he should not run away or hide from having some light shed on the consequences of the different choices open to him, or indeed the scrutiny that will come once he has made his choices.

With no clear plan to boost productivity over the past five years, no significant drive for the skills that are needed for good high-wage jobs, no national infrastructure commission and no long-term funding framework for science, and only now plans for a plan in July, the Chancellor is coming late to this particular party. But if he is going to show up—and today’s no-show does not inspire confidence—he needs to make it count. His party colleagues could help him on his way by voting for our motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

As was made clear by the Foreign Secretary in debate and by the Prime Minister from this Dispatch Box, there are serious issues to address about the current law on referendums, because we believe that it would make the debate on the European Union unworkable and inappropriate. We understand the concerns in all parts of the House about that, and we will come forward with reassurances that enable the proper business of government to continue and allow the Government to make the case for the outcome that is achieved and the vote that we recommend, but that ensure that there is not an unfair referendum and that the Government do not, for example, engage in mass communication with the electorate. Those matters will be discussed later today.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The debate and conduct during the referendum campaign must be, and must be seen to be, legitimate and well informed. He has failed to do so thus far this morning, but will the Chancellor make it clear that he agrees that, in the interests of transparency, the Bank of England should publish full details of its risk assessment, which is codenamed Project Bookend, its terms of reference, its personnel and its timetable? Will he add his voice to our call that any publication of the report must happen well in advance of the vote?

[Mr Osborne]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position as shadow Chief Secretary—long may she continue in it. It is not for me or even, dare I say it, her to tell an independent Bank of England what to do. I have no doubt that it will engage in the debate. Indeed, the Governor of the Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that it will do so. I have no doubt that the Treasury Committee, when it is formed, will want to ask the Bank of England questions about the European Union, because it is central to many of the Bank’s responsibilities. However, as I have said, we have an independent central Bank and I propose to keep it that way.

[Shabana Mahmood]

There is still no clear answer from the Chancellor and he has given no commitment to push for the transparency that the debate demands. He has a clear responsibility to ensure that the economic impacts are debated and fully understood. I know that he has his mind on other things these days, like moving next door to No. 10, but if he will do nothing further on Project Bookend, will he at least step up and lead the debate by agreeing to commission and publish reports by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility on the economic impact of the UK leaving the EU?

[Mr Osborne]

As I have said repeatedly, we are certainly going to take part in the debate. I am sure that the Treasury will publish assessments of the merits of membership and the risks of a lack of reform in the European Union, including the damage that that could do to Britain’s interests. For example, in my Mansion House speech, I talked about the risks for Britain as a non-euro member as the eurozone continues to integrate and about how that needs to be addressed as part of the negotiations. We will take part in the debate. The more that we get on to the big issues that are at stake, rather than focusing on the process details, the better informed the public will be.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I have only a short time in which to speak, so let me start by saying that we have heard some very good speeches today. The debate was opened powerfully by the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). My hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Edmonton (Mr Love) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) all spoke well. The rover from Dover will live long in our memories and trumps, I think, “Dover soul”, which is not really up to the mark in quite the same way.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton who made his valedictory speech today. I am sorry that he had to cut his remarks short, but I wish to put it on the record that he has had a very distinguished period of service in this House. It has always been a pleasure to sit in debates on Treasury matters and to hear him speak. I have learned a huge amount from him. His service on the Treasury Committee has been to his credit, and he has a record of which he can be proud. The House and his constituents will miss him greatly.

As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary said in his opening remarks, the Budget is as fundamental as it gets when it comes to the business of the Government, and the Finance Act—the legislation that enacts most of that Budget—is also fundamental. But, effectively, the vast majority of this Bill will go through without debate. I confess that the negotiations into which I entered with the Financial Secretary last week was my first experience of the wash-up. Although I acknowledge the hard work done by his officials and even by him in terms of the tenor with which he approached those discussions, neither of us can pretend that this is a satisfactory way in which to make very complex taxation legislation. In particular, we know that outside commentators have an eye today on the diverted profits tax. The Opposition have to make a judgment call based on often very little, or last minute.com, information. For example, we have to judge whether blocking something now so that we can do it better later would give a signal that it will not happen at all and so cause uncertainty or whether an appropriate reassurance can be made.

I know about the lively discussions outside the House about the diverted profits tax. Let me just say that we support the thrust of what the Government intend to do, but the Bill was being drafted at the end of last week, when the Minister and I were trying to conclude our negotiations. That is unsatisfactory, because the Bill is complex. In our first Finance Bill when we are in government, we will seek to remedy any defects that prevent that measure from being both effective and strong. I am happy to let it through not because I think that it is a completely 100% foolproof bit of work, but because I fear that the Tories in opposition might not be quite so keen to see the measure on the statute book. I wanted to ensure that we got it passed, and then we could fix any issues later.

Although we will support many of the measures now going through—later we will debate the measures that we think are missing—we think that the Bill is a missed opportunity, as my three hon. Friends who spoke from the Back Benches all said. The Government could and should have taken the opportunity really to start making a difference to the lives of our constituents across the country, but they failed to do so. Only a Labour Government and a Labour Finance Bill immediately after the general election will start putting those matters right.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The previous Government brought VAT back up. We know from his memoirs that the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), believed that a Labour Government after 2010 should increase VAT. A Budget document was even published showing VAT going up to, I believe, 18.5%. I know that that was published by mistake, but it clearly shows that serious consideration was given to that. The previous Labour Government recognised that taxes would have to increase. They had proposals to increase employers national insurance contributions, or the jobs tax. Given that there is such uncertainty about the Opposition’s plans for what they would do in government, the question is whether they would rule out increasing employers national insurance contributions.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I give the hon. Lady an ideal opportunity to do that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. As we have been in the Chamber, he may not be aware that we have ruled out any rise in national insurance.

[Mr Gauke]

Well, there we go. I am struck by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was very reluctant to say that earlier, but I am pleased that he has been bounced into providing that clarification. [Interruption.] I noticed that he did not answer questions earlier today. [Interruption.] Indeed, he will never have the chance to answer questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thought it was 11 but I could be wrong. It may be 12 by now—who knows?—because that money may be being used to pay for Labour’s tuition fees policy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

For the avoidance of doubt, and for what feels like the 278th time in Treasury debates, I should tell the Minister that the bank bonus tax will pay for one policy and only one policy: the paid starter jobs—the compulsory jobs guarantee. Why do the Government not match us on that policy rather than harp on about their failed rhetoric on the bank bonus tax?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government have a very good record in delivering jobs—sustainable jobs—in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015. The Ayes were 277 and the Noes were 33, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. New clause 1 stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). It requests the Treasury to commission

“a report on the impact of the increase in the standard rate of VAT which took effect from 4 January 2011.”

The report must estimate the impact of that increase on living standards, small businesses, the fairness of the taxation system and economic growth.

The House has debated issues relating to VAT on a number of occasions, which the Minister referenced in his opening remarks, and it was, of course, a hot topic of debate at Prime Minister’s questions today. If the Prime Minister or any Conservative Member thinks that they can put the issue to bed today, let me tell them that they will not find it that easy, and I will set out the reasons for that during the course of my speech. Frankly, to believe what the Prime Minister has said today about VAT would be rather like believing what the Deputy Prime Minister said about tuition fees before the last general election. The public are simply not going to buy it, and I think the whole House is well aware of that.

Our new clause asks for a review because Oppositions are limited in what they can call for in amendments to a Finance Bill, but no Member can be in any doubt about our argument about the consequences of the political choices that are being—and that have been—made by the Conservative party and signed up to by the Liberal Democrats, even though they have been desperately trying to pretend that they had nothing to do with the fiscal assumptions given to the OBR, on the basis of which it made its assessments of what is likely to happen in the next Parliament. I welcome to the debate the lone Liberal Democrat on the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). Perhaps if I give way to him he can rule out raising VAT.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I thank the shadow Minister for inviting me to give my views on the fiscal situation. My constituency has seen unemployment fall from 7.5% to 2.5% and has received more than £50 million of Government money. I remember 1959, because I was 16 and had just started work. I canvassed for a guy called Arthur Davidson, who was a Labour Member, and he said the same old things that the Labour party always says: “Vote for us and there’ll be no problems. We’ll have full employment.” Well, I remember what happened after 1959, because I lived through it. It is very cruel of the hon. Lady to suggest that some of the thing we are agreeing to now are wrong—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Order. The intervention is too long.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Thank you, Mr Hood. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, during which he did not rule out a rise in VAT under the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps we will have to wait for others to comment on that.

[David Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give us a bit more detail about new clause 1? I would like the study to look at the impact of VAT on the poorest people in our community, who are hit disproportionately by increases in VAT. The Conservative party has form on VAT, so the poorest people will be very concerned that it will rise again after the election.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what people across the country will be concerned about. The Conservative party has form, about which I will go into in detail during my speech. History proves that what the Prime Minister said at Question Time today should not be believed, because it has all been said before and VAT has always gone up.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I give way to the rover from Dover.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Would the hon. Lady rule out a Labour Government keeping VAT at the same level, or would they reduce it? The hon. Lady ought to tell the Committee.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will come on to what we announced yesterday, but we are not going to raise VAT. That is as clear as it gets, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

I remind the Committee that VAT is the tax that hits everyone, with the same rate paid by the pensioner as by the millionaire. For many pensioners and those on the lowest incomes, it is the biggest tax that they pay. It is also the tax that hits people every single day, whether they are buying a cup of coffee or filling up the family car. Everybody does that every single day. The Government’s decision to raise the standard rate of VAT has, without doubt, hit the living standards of millions of people. According to the Treasury’s own figures, it has cost families an average of £1,800 over the past four years. That is no small trifling sum of money, even if it is averaged over four years.

As I heard from constituents across Birmingham when I was there with the shadow Chancellor yesterday, £1,800 has had a huge impact on their ability to make ends meet and to do the basic things in life—putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their families’ heads, desperately hoping they will not have to go to a food bank, even though they have a job, just to put food in the bellies of their children. That £1,800 is a significant sum of money and, coupled with the other facts of this Government’s record, such as wages being down by an average of £1,600 a year and the combined impact of tax and benefit changes, families are on average more than £1,000 a year worse off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Given that both parties have ruled out an increase in VAT and that the hon. Lady will not commit to a reduction in VAT, it is hard to understand Labour’s position. This debate is a theatre of the absurd.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman and we spend much time debating Finance Bills, but I must say to him as gently as I can that that was an absurd intervention. We have made a clear commitment to the British people on what will happen to VAT on our watch. It will not go up. We know that it will go up if his party wins the next general election. There are no two ways about it. It does not matter what the Prime Minister has said and it does not matter what the hon. Gentleman says now. We know that because of his party’s record and form on VAT. I shall give a lengthy exposition of that history and form very shortly.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

The hon. Lady says that the Conservative party will definitely increase VAT. What proof does she have of that? If she has proof, will she come clean about it today?

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me a few minutes, I shall get on to that point very shortly. He will understand that the past performance and form of the people who sit opposite me today, the Conservatives, is the clearest and surest indicator. Unfunded tax cuts have already been promised and spending plans have been made that require a Government to cut further and faster in the early part of the next Parliament than they have in this Parliament, and that is the clearest indication we can get. They can do nothing else but put up VAT; that is their tax of choice when it comes to raising the tax revenues they are looking for.

As I have said, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the Government’s Budget plans mean that spending cuts after the election will be twice as deep as anything seen in the past five years. The cuts will go deeper and be made faster in the early part of the next Parliament than we have seen during the past five years. In reality, that will translate into extreme cuts to our crucial front-line public services, such as the police, defence and social care. The cuts will be so deep that they will be almost impossible to achieve, first, without putting the NHS at risk, and secondly, without making a further rise in VAT on the Tories’ watch simply inevitable.

Not only do the choices that the Government, and the Conservatives in particular, have made about spending and deficit reduction make such a VAT rise inevitable, regardless of the Prime Minister’s bluster today they are ingrained in their collective DNA. Before the 1979 general election, the then shadow Chancellor Geoffrey Howe said:

“We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT.”

He specifically talked about doubling it. In his first Budget, however, he raised VAT from 8% to 15%. Conservative Members may take comfort from the fact that eight times two is 16, not 15, but they should not be proud of a seven percentage points rise in VAT or show off about its not being the eight percentage points rise that it might have been, given that such a rise had been absolutely ruled out and that there was no intention to double VAT. [Interruption.] Such a point brought no comfort to people who ended up paying the 15% rate of VAT, despite what the Financial Secretary, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to think.

In 1991, Chancellor Norman Lamont increased VAT from 15% to 17.5%, claiming that his approach was “consistent” with the “strategy for tax reform” first set out by Geoffrey Howe in the 1979 Budget. Chancellor Lamont was correct that the approach was consistent: it was consistent with the approach of raising VAT rather than doing anything else. It seems that that approach may have slipped his mind, because just a year later, before the 1992 general election, Norman Lamont told Parliament that he

“again made it clear that the United Kingdom has no intention of changing our VAT rate.”—[Official Report, 13 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 627W.]

That promise was reiterated by the former Prime Minister John Major, when he promised Parliament:

“There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them.”—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

He also said that year that he had

“no plans and no need to raise extra resources from value-added tax.”

The arguments then are almost exactly same as those we are hearing now.

Will Government Members remind us what happened after the 1992 election? There are no takers, because they know the answer: the Conservatives remember their consistent approach to raising VAT. The then Chancellor introduced VAT on domestic heating and fuel in the 1993 Budget, phasing it in at 8% from 1994. When he became Chancellor in 1993, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) refused to reverse that increase saying that

“no one is going to die from VAT on heating.”

That is a very bad way of making a point, because people have in fact ended up dying from the cold. We know that people, the elderly in particular, often have to choose between heating their home and eating. Had it not been for a Labour defeat in the House of Commons, under the Conservatives we would have seen VAT on electricity and gas bills increase to 17.5% in April 1995.

Twenty years later we find ourselves listening to a familiar story. Before the last general election, the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, said:

“We have no plans to put up VAT, it’s not part of our plans.”

I like the double emphasis: say it twice, and that might make it true. The Chancellor, the then Shadow Chancellor, said:

“The plans we set out involved around 80 per cent of the work coming from spending restraint”—

cuts—

“and about 20 per cent from tax increases. The tax increases are already in place, the plans do not involve an increase in VAT.”

So such a rise was ruled out by the Prime Minister and by the Chancellor when they were in opposition. However, just weeks after taking office, like all the former Conservative Chancellors before him, the current Chancellor increased VAT to achieve his plans of 20% consolidation coming from tax increases and 80% coming from spending cuts. He said:

“To achieve that additional tightening while maintaining the right ‘four-to-one’ balance between spending and taxation means that I have to announce further tax rises today. On 4 January next year, the main rate of VAT will rise from 17.5% to 20%.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 177.]

There is no doubt that such a rise has hit family budgets hard. Despite knowing that that would happen, and that there would be a huge impact on the economy as a whole, the Chancellor chose to do what every Conservative Chancellor has always chosen to do—put up VAT. That is why we can say so emphatically—I say this to Liberal Democrat Members in particular—that if the Tories are elected at the general election in just a few weeks’ time, they will do it again. It is in their collective DNA, and ruling it out but then doing it is precisely what they have form on. That is their history, and I believe that they will honour their history if they are elected.

Analysis produced by the Treasury in July 2010 showed the estimated impact of a one percentage point rise in the standard rate of VAT. That analysis means that we know, for instance, that in the past four years the Government’s VAT rise has cost a single pensioner £500, a one-parent family £900, a pensioner couple £1,100 and a couple with children £1,800.

[Ian Lucas]

I do not want my hon. Friend to be too charitable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so may I remind her that in addition to the 2010 increase in the standard rate of VAT, the Chancellor made proposals in 2012, in the middle of his disastrous economic policy, to extend VAT through the pasty tax and the caravan tax? Not only did he increase VAT in 2010, but he went back to the well in 2012 when the policy was collapsing.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was just about to make exactly that point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in 2012, having already done what all Conservative Chancellors do and put up VAT, the Chancellor sought to expand it by applying it to pasties and caravans in the so-called omnishambles Budget. I have always thought that it was a bit of a shame that that term from “The Thick of It” was used, because if the sequence of events that unfolded following that Budget had been presented to the scriptwriters of “The Thick of It”, they would not have touched it. They would have said that even for “The Thick of It” it was an unbelievable series of events. Yet that is what the Chancellor delivered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Chancellor tried to expand the scope of VAT, yet today the Conservatives wonder why nobody will believe what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions.

We do not have to go back over the past 20 or 30 years. We can just look at the record of the current Chancellor and Prime Minister on VAT. They like to put it up, and they sought to expand its application. I noticed that earlier the Financial Secretary appeared to rule out an expansion of VAT, but I was not entirely sure whether he had done that deliberately. Will he intervene on me to confirm that not only will VAT not go up—that is according to the Prime Minister, although I do not believe it—but it will not be expanded? I wonder why the Financial Secretary is not biting my arm off to intervene and confirm that.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful.

[Mr Gauke]

The Prime Minister has been clear: we do not need to increase VAT or put VAT on essentials such as food and children’s clothes.

[Shabana Mahmood]

So basically, both those things are definitely going to happen if the Financial Secretary’s party is elected in a few weeks’ time.

Where are we today? The same old Tories and the same old story. Whatever the Prime Minister has said today simply will not answer the justifiable charge against the Government about why they should be trusted if we look only at their record and at what they have delivered in this Parliament. They broke their promise after the last general election and they will do the same after the next one. At the end of each Parliament since 1979 in which the Tories have been in government, they have raised an average of £13.5 billion from VAT changes. The electorate know that when it comes to VAT and the Tories, actions will always speak louder than words. People know that they cannot be trusted because they break their promises again and again. They broke their promises in 1979, 1992 and 2010, and they will break them in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

This debate seems to be based on a false premise. The Government have been clear that a rise in VAT is not necessary to balance the books because we do not have a hole in our plans for public finances. The Labour party does have a black hole and it cannot be trusted on anything it says about the jobs tax.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will answer that by posing a simple question back to him, and then I will give way so that he can answer it. Where will the £12 billion of cuts to welfare come from? How will the £5 billion for tax avoidance be found? If he can answer those questions he will go further than those on his Front Bench have managed to do while making those promises. Perhaps he can shed some light on the issue for the British public.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Government have been clear in setting out their plans in the Red Book, and they have been audited, considered and reviewed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. What are not clear are the plans of the Opposition, although it is increasingly clear that there is a black hole in those plans and that they consistently make it up as they go along. I suggest to the hon. Lady that Labour’s so-called pledge on the jobs tax cannot be believed at all.

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was not even a valiant attempt to try to answer my questions, but the hon. Gentleman is not on the Front Bench and I suppose I am being a little uncharitable in suggesting that he cannot answer a question that his own Chancellor is not prepared to answer either.

We have numbers of £12 billion, £13 billion and £5 billion from the Chancellor, yet with all the might of the Treasury behind him and lots of officials to do the numbers we have no detail on how those figures will be found. The Government spent a whole Parliament trying to talk up their record on tax avoidance and they are saying that they will get £5 billion in the next Parliament, yet there is no detail on how those amounts will be made up and no guarantee that they will be delivered. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer those questions if those on the Government Front Bench will not either.

The Conservative party’s plans for what they would like to do if elected in a few weeks’ time are extreme and go much further than deficit reduction. They are trying to deliver a surplus of £7 billion. That had to be changed from the previous desire to get a surplus of £23 billion, because the Government got spooked by recognition across the country of what that would mean for the size of the state. They have now come down to £7 billion, which still means that they have to go further and faster in the early part of the next Parliament than they have in the previous five years.

Those choices have to be paid for. Given that some budgets are protected and that commitments to international development and aid spending will not change, and given the scale of what the Conservative party wants to achieve with the country’s finances, it is physically not possible to do such things without putting the NHS at risk of cuts or potentially of charging, or without raising VAT. That is the charge being made—it is not just about the history and the record. The hon. Gentleman could have resiled from the Conservative party’s record, but he chose not to do so. The combination of the Conservative party’s history on VAT and its figures for the next Parliament tells us that if it is elected a VAT rise is coming. There can be no doubt about it, given the combination of those two factors.

The hon. Gentleman attacked our plans and commitments, but for every commitment that involves raising revenue, we have highlighted where that revenue will come from and we have made the figures public. It was the Labour party that called for the OBR to conduct an independent audit of all parties’ manifesto commitments. We could have avoided this debate if we had allowed the OBR to do so. I was very happy to submit my party’s plans to an independent audit. I wonder why the Government chose not to do so. Perhaps they had something to hide. Perhaps they did not want to be robbed of the ability to have a “tax bombshell”-type poster. The needs of the Conservative party’s election marketing material should not have trumped the responsible thing to do: to allow the OBR independently to audit all parties’ manifesto commitments. I was very happy for that to happen.

The bankers bonus tax would pay for one policy and one policy alone: the compulsory youth jobs guarantee. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks the stubbornly high rate of youth unemployment is a laughing matter, he is mistaken. The Conservatives stole a few of our policies in last week’s Budget. Rather than laughing off the idea of the bankers bonus tax, I would have been happy for them to have stolen that policy, as it would have delivered jobs for the young people in my constituency who could find themselves on the jobs scrap-heap for many years to come. The Conservatives should have adopted it; it would have made a real and practical difference.

[Stephen Pound]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her innate generosity in giving way. Does she not agree that new clause 1 would provide transparency and openness, and that the report would be immensely useful? Does she honestly think that any true democrat and believer in fiscal transparency could do anything other than support the Labour amendment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been debating whether VAT will go up, but new clause 1 is pretty innocuous. It calls only for a review and an assessment of the impact the rise in VAT has had on living standards. If the Minister wanted us to believe what the Prime Minister said today in Prime Minister’s questions—that he is ruling out a rise in VAT—then what is the problem? Adopt the new clause, add it to the Bill and let us have the assessment. He would be able to show how VAT has had an impact and why the Conservatives are doing such a good job, if they are elected again, in not letting it go up.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Given the lack of a response from Government Members, may I suggest that seeing the impact of the increase in VAT written down might make it harder for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats to break their promise the second time around?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the only conclusion we can draw from what the Minister and the Prime Minister have been saying today. If the Minister really wanted to back up the Prime Minister’s claims, and to give us a hint that he might be believed, he should have just accepted our new clause. It is straightforward, and adding it to the Bill would shine some light on the impact of VAT. We are very clear that we will not raise VAT. It may be that the Government do not want the facts out in the public domain because they plan to do so.

[David Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am going to finish now, because I want to give time to everybody else who wishes to speak in the debate.

We all know what is coming if the Conservatives are elected at the next general election: VAT will go up. That is what their record tells us and that is what their plans require. If the Minister wants to be even a little bit believable—even 1% believable—he should at the very least accept new clause 1 and set the cat among the pigeons, but I do not think he will take that opportunity today.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

It is pleasure to speak in this debate—I hope it will have been worth the wait—and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I hope that we both have the opportunity to repeat the experience after 7 May.

I rise to support this excellent improvement to the Bill proposed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because I would like to better understand the impact of the VAT increase in my constituency. The Tory long-term economic plan is a marketing con and a rebranding of a five-year failed economic plan—five years of broken promises on borrowing, the deficit and VAT. I do not know if Government Members have been watching a new programme—on ITV down here, but on STV in my constituency—in which hypnosis is used to shift people’s perception of reality. I am not sure if that is what they are doing, although there does not seem to be anyone asleep in the Chamber. We all seem to be wide awake—certainly Labour Members are wide awake to the impact of the Government’s failure to deliver on their economic promises. Simply saying, “We’ll now call it a long-term economic plan, because it has not quite worked out in the short term”, is not going to fool anyone.

On the increase in VAT, I remember meeting my local chamber of commerce. In East Lothian, we do not have large-scale manufacturing or large employers, apart from in the public sector, so the private sector is largely made up of small and medium-sized enterprises. When I asked them how they were coping with the changes in the economy they said that the single-biggest factor for them was the VAT increase. It had done the most damage to their businesses. Other Members have spoken about its impact on the poorest in our communities, but in East Lothian it has also had an adverse impact on entrepreneurs and businesses—the people who should be creating the jobs that could eradicate unemployment in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

Charge and rates for 2015-16

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.

(4) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—

(a) £150,000 per year; and

(b) £1,000,000 per year.”

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 1 stand part and clauses 2 to 5 stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Amendment 1 stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It calls on the Chancellor to produce within three months of the enactment of this Bill a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50%. The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45%—the current higher rate—and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by people with a taxable income of £150,000 and £1 million a year.

As we all know, the 50p rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 was reduced to 45p by this Government in 2012. That was hotly debated at the time and it has been hotly debated ever since. The Minister refers to a debate on the additional rate of tax as an annual event whenever we discuss a Finance Bill. Government Members may groan that the debate is rearing its head again, but I am, if nothing else, an optimistic person and I continue to hope that Government Members will be swayed by my arguments and be persuaded to accept our eminently sensible and reasonable amendment.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to shake his head at such an early stage of my speech. He should at least give me a chance to develop my arguments.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects is the massive loss to the Revenue? Am I right in recollecting that the projected annual revenue loss to the public purse in 2011 was some £3 billion?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The measure has a static cost of £3 billion a year, and behavioural changes also have an impact. That is the hot debate in which the Minister and I have been engaged ever since I have been in the shadow Treasury team.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the static and behavioural effects. She will be aware that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:

“We have a choice about a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

Does she believe that putting the 45p rate back to 50p would raise £3 billion for the Exchequer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Minister is tempting me to go further than I want to at this stage, because I am going to develop exactly those arguments about the costing, what the measure is likely to raise, and the inherent uncertainty in the Government’s work and the report that they produced. The Minister will be welcome to intervene once I have reached that point in my speech.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

As always when it comes to talking about the 50p tax rate, my hon. Friend is incredibly persuasive. Does she not find it strange that the Government are projecting a £7 billion tax cut but refusing to raise tax in this way, so the only conclusion the public can come to is that they must be looking to break their promise and raise VAT?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is both generous and correct. Members who were here for the last debate will know that Government Members utterly failed to meet the charge levelled at them, which was that the combination of their history on VAT and what they wish to achieve in the next Parliament means that a VAT rise is inevitable if the Conservative party is elected to government in a few weeks’ time.

We know that the Government’s decision to reduce the top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 is as much at the heart of the current political debate today and in the next few weeks as it was in 2012. The debate is about where we raise revenue from and who we ask to shoulder the burden to help bring down the deficit further.

[Ian Swales]

I know that the shadow Minister was not a key part of the previous Government, but does she believe that the right shoulders to bear the burden were those of people on minimum wage, who were paying £1,000 in tax? The highest rate of income tax was 40% for every single day but one that Labour sat on the Government Benches.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was not a Member at that time, so I was not a part of that Government at all, but I am proud of the previous Government’s record over 13 years. The hon. Gentleman will know that we raised the top rate of tax to 50p in response to the global financial crisis, and that was the right thing to do—[Interruption.] He asked about the minimum wage and mentions it yet again from a sedentary position, but we were the Government who introduced the minimum wage in legislation. That was one of our proudest achievements, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) told me last week that the last all-night sitting of the House of Commons was when the Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage. Labour Members were in the House at eight in the morning to vote it through and they were absolutely right to do so.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the importance of the national minimum wage to many people in this country. Of course, tax changes are one side of the equation, and the other has been the changes to tax credits, which benefited many people under the previous Government. Is it not the case that we have seen a £3 billion cut for the very richest with the cut in the 50p rate, at a time when average families are £1,100 worse off as a result of the tax and tax credit changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was coming on to exactly that point. This is a question about living standards: what is happening to the poorest in our society and where the burden should ultimately rest for sorting out the nation’s finances after the global financial crisis.

At the Budget last week, the Chancellor would have had us believe that people are on average £900 better off as well as more secure as the result of his policies. I have to hand it to him—he has been highly innovative in using a new measure of living standards to try to back up his claim, but it includes income to universities and charities. I do not blame him for trying, but he knows the truth, as do Members and the public, which is that people say time and again that they are worse off. A poll of 5,000 consumers’ responses to the Budget showed that three quarters of people have seen no improvement in their living standards. A Populus poll before Christmas found that only one in seven adults said they were feeling the benefit of recent economic growth.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said, wages after inflation are down by £1,600, and the combined impact of tax and benefit changes has left families on average £1,127 a year worse off. That was the context in which it was decided to reduce the additional rate of tax to 45p, giving millionaires a tax cut worth an average of £100,000, which is a huge sum of money by any standards. As I have just said, wages are down by £1,600 a year, tax and benefit changes have left people £1,127 worse off, and, as we heard in the previous debate, higher VAT has left people £1,800 worse off over four years. For people at the bottom end of the income spectrum, such sums are the difference between being able to put food on the table and to put clothes on their children’s back or not, while the choices for those at the other end of the income spectrum, who are benefiting from a tax cut to the tune of £100,000, are probably about the poshness of the car on the forecourt of their home, not the basic necessities of life and of survival. That is the important point for struggling families across our country.

[David Wright]

Is my hon. Friend interested, as I am, in the line developed by the Liberal Democrats that the 50p rate was in place only at the end of the previous Labour Government for a very short time?

[David Wright]

Indeed. This is all about the choices made to bring down the deficit. We made a choice—a forward offer or plan—to use a higher top rate of income tax to bring down the deficit, and the Liberal Democrats decided to vote against that strategy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) always takes part in Finance Bill debates, and he always makes one point in exactly the same way. I sometimes wish that he would listen to the answer he gets when he does so. The answer is that the top rate was increased as a specific response to get down the deficit after the global financial crisis. It was the fair and right thing to do then. It was unfair and wrong to decrease the rate from 50p to 45p, which he, as a member of one of the parties of government, supported. It will be right for the next Labour Government to raise it to 50p again.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that rate of tax should have gone up to 50p during the downturn and that it should not have been cut. She is equally right to compare the tax cut for millionaires with the poverty of ordinary people, so why did Labour Members sit on their hands when we had the one opportunity not to have a tax cut for millionaires?

[Shabana Mahmood]

One of the things about the annual debate on the 50p rate is that the usual suspects make the same points in exactly the same way. We have heard that point from several members of the hon. Gentleman’s party. I say to him what I have always said—that we have had a consistent approach to the top rate of tax. There has been no change to that, and we will put it up to 50p if we are elected in a few short weeks’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is not one example of how the burden is not being shared fairly the fact that, as we were reminded earlier today, there was one food bank in Scotland when Labour left office, but there are now 50? I am sure that example could be repeated throughout the entire country, and it emphasises the inequitable nature of the Government’s policies.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, when I was talking about VAT in my constituency yesterday, I was struck by the number of people I met who were in work but using food banks. They are trying to do the right thing and working as hard as they possibly can, yet they still cannot put food on the table. How must it feel for them to find themselves in that situation and to know that under the current Government, a millionaire is better off to the tune of a hundred grand a year? I would say that it feels pretty rubbish, and that is what my constituents are telling me every day.

[Lyn Brown]

I was on the phones canvassing the other week, and a man from a neighbouring constituency said that he felt the Government should be more Thatcherite in their attitude towards taxes. I did not really know where to go with that, but I listened on. He said that it was because Margaret Thatcher had had a 60% tax rate for some years, only getting rid of it in 1988. He said that the current Government, who seem to idolise Margaret Thatcher, might take a leaf out of her book. He had been a Tory voter, but stopped being one simply because of the unfairness of the rate going down from 50p to 45p. I never thought that I would stand here urging Conservative Members to be more Thatcherite, but to represent such views fairly I think it is my duty.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend has acquitted herself of that duty in her usual brilliant way. We may not be able to persuade the Conservatives to be fully Thatcherite, but getting them part of the way there would be welcome. If they cannot bring themselves to support bringing back the 50p rate, which of course they will not, they should at least support our amendment. As I said, it comes down to a simple question: is the burden of deficit reduction and dealing with the fall-out from the global financial crisis being shared fairly across all parts of our society? The amendment is genuinely intended to shed some light on that.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. She is always incredibly generous, especially in Committee debates on Finance Bills.

If the Government are correct in their assertions about tax take and behavioural change—that a 45p rate generates more than a 50p rate and is fairer—does my hon. Friend share my surprise that they object to bringing forward a report that would tell us exactly that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is exactly the point. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to fear from all the data being out there for us to interrogate, they should accept our amendment and get on with the review that we have called for. They should have got on with it when we first called for it, immediately after they made the change to the rate. Our amendment genuinely seeks to shine light on what has been happening to people’s incomes and the impact of changes to the top rate of tax. When the Government commissioned their report, the data were not extensive, and the report has been contentious from the minute it came off the printer. The reasons for that go to the thrust of what the Financial Secretary was asking me earlier, and I will come on to those points shortly.

As we have heard, the Labour Government introduced the 50p rate. It came into effect in 2010-11 and was a decision made after the financial crisis as we sought to get the deficit down. There was nothing in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 HMRC was asked to look into it and the yields it produced. It did not take a genius to work out that the Chancellor was thinking about cutting the top rate of tax, and in 2012 with HMRC’s report, the Exchequer effected a 50% additional rate of income tax to back up the Chancellor cutting the rate to 45p.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend talks about the work done by HMRC. Is that almost the same piece of work that the Labour amendment would require the Government to do, in that it would show an analysis of how much money the 45p rate is bringing in and how much the 50p rate would bring in? It would also allow hon. Members to have a proper debate about the proportion of taxes that should go towards deficit reduction as opposed to spending cuts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is precisely to get that additional data that we have tabled this and similar amendments ever since the change was made. Why would the Government go through the process of looking at yield and getting HMRC to produce a report in 2011? That is important, because everyone knew—both at the time and ever since—that there were not enough data to come to an accurate view about yield as the rate had not been in place long enough. To put it bluntly, the Chancellor probably felt that some people might not agree with his decision to give people earning more than £150,000 a massive tax cut, given the state of the rest of the economy and the crushing of people’s living standards on his watch. What he needed to back his decision was a report that said that the 50p rate hardly raised anything at all, which is precisely what the HMRC report said. After analysing a host of facts and figures, the report concluded that a cut that would, by the Government’s initial estimates, cost £3 billion— the so-called static cost, excluding all behavioural changes— would cost only £100 million.

The trouble with the report is that, as everyone acknowledges, there are too many uncertain variables to be anywhere near sure that the figure of £100 million is even close to reality. The report was based on only one year’s worth of data relating to 2010-11. That is a significant weakness, since we know that some incomes were taken earlier to avoid the extra tax. Further detail is now available, including for the tax years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 when the 50p rate was still in place. The writers of the 2011 report did not have those data available, so their report is therefore lacking. That could be remedied were the Government to accept our amendment.

The report attempts to quantify behavioural change. The scale of behavioural change is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—basically the extent to which taxable income changes when the tax rate changes. The IFS says that there is a margin of error within calculations for the 2011 report, and that staying within that margin of error one could easily say, depending on taxable income elasticity, that cutting the rate of tax could cost the Exchequer £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives an idea of the range of figures we are talking about and of how uncertain such projections are.

I return to my central point: more data are now available and could help to calculate a truer picture of the yield of a 50p tax rate as opposed to a rate of 45p. If Conservative Members are so certain that their position on the abolition of the 50p rate is true, why will they not agree to the scrutiny that the amendment suggests?

[Mr Gauke]

I come back again to what the hon. Lady’s colleague, the shadow Chief Secretary, said from the Opposition Dispatch Box, when he referred to the 50p rate as

“a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

Does she stand behind the statement that the 50p rate would raise £3 billion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was here for that debate and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary was recognising that the first thing we start with is the static costing. That is the only certain figure we have and that starts us off at £3 billion. We have, of course, to make an allowance for behavioural change and that will impact on the yield, but the calculation for how we get to understanding the behavioural change is the bone of contention between the Financial Secretary and me.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is making a perfectly sensible point now, but it is a very different point to that made by the shadow Chief Secretary. He did not say, “The static cost is this, but then there is the behavioural cost” and so on. He said that it was

“a tax rate that would raise £3 billion”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

It sounds to me that the hon. Lady does not agree with that. She is not claiming that it would raise £3 billion. Is my interpretation of what she is saying correct?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My interpretation of what the Minister is saying is that he is making a valiant attempt at trying to create something out of nothing. As I said, I was here for that debate and I remember that exchange very well. The Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary had a bit of to-ing and fro-ing over the static costing, but the rest of the debate and everything my hon. Friend said was absolutely clear. It has always been our position that we start with the static costing and that is not in doubt: it is £3 billion. The question then is: what happens when we allow for the impact of behavioural change? My contention—it has always been our contention; it is exactly what the shadow Chief Secretary said in his remarks in that debate on that day—is that the extent of behavioural change, as envisaged in the 2011 report, was based on an uncertain set of figures and that we have much more data now to be able to get to a certain point.

[Mr Gauke]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not going to give way again, because I have very little time. The Minister can pick the point up again in debate and I am sure he will do so.

It is not sufficient for Government Members simply to point at the increased yield following the rate cut to 45p and deem that their point has been proved. Just as people brought forward their incomes before the rate was introduced, so people held off taking income until the rate was lowered. We know the increase in yield at 45p was due primarily to record bonuses, which were up 80% in the year after the rate was reduced. If the truth is what is sought, then rigorous analysis is what is required. The blunt truth, however, is that the truth is not what is being sought here by the Government. The decision was taken for ideological reasons. There is no other justification. The abolition of the 50p rate was nothing other than a huge tax cut for the very richest, while ordinary families continued to struggle, and struggle for longer.

There is growth in the economy and that is welcome, but it has been a long time coming. It is ordinary families who have ended up paying the price. That is why we have continued to press home the point about the top rate of tax. While ordinary families are paying the price, we have let the very wealthiest in our country have a huge tax cut. That cannot be right. A top rate of tax at 50p will play an important role towards fair deficit reduction under the next Labour Government. If the Government have absolutely nothing to hide or fear in the facts and figures behind the cut from 50p to 45p, they should accept our amendment to clause 1.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

First, I shall say a word about the clauses in this group. Clause 1 provides the charge and sets the rates for income tax for 2015-16; clause 2 relates to limits and allowances; clause 3 sets the personal allowance for 2015-16 at £10,600; clause 4 relates to the basic rate limits; and clause 5 sets the personal allowance for 2016-17 at £10,800 and for 2017-18 at £11,000. That is a dramatic increase on the rate we inherited in 2010, when it was below £6,500, and makes good progress towards the target that my party and the Liberal Democrats have set of £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are a number of behavioural effects. Sometimes when we have this debate, there is a tendency for Opposition Members to say, “Ah, behavioural effects. You are just talking about tax avoidance.” Tax avoidance can be an element, but it can also be behaviour that is clearly compliant both with the letter and the spirit of the tax system yet will reduce yield. Increasing contributions to pension schemes, for example, could result in a reduction in revenue. It could be that somebody decides to relocate out of the United Kingdom. It could be—an important point that gets to the heart of why we reduced the tax— that international businesses in deciding where to locate staff might conclude that the costs of doing so in the UK are greater than elsewhere, and that there are better climates and environments in which to locate highly paid staff.

Those are some of the behavioural impacts that are a consequence of having an uncompetitive rate of income tax. That is one of the challenges that Governments have to face. To be fair, the previous Labour Government, for the vast majority of their time in office—this point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)—did not increase the 40p income tax rate. Tony Blair was very clear that in his view increasing the rate above 40p would be a mistake. We have taken the view that it was right to reduce the rate down to 45p, but the important question remains of what is the purpose of having a high rate of income tax. Is it to raise revenue or is it simply about sending a signal? If it is to raise revenue, we have to ask ourselves how much it will raise.

This is why I return to the comments—I cited them accurately and in context earlier—made by the shadow Chief Secretary on 5 November:

“We have a choice about a tax rate”—

he is clearly talking about the 50p rate—

“that would raise £3 billion, and it is important that we take that opportunity to tackle our deficit, rather than giving that money away to those people who are already in an extremely privileged position.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 849.]

He is talking about raising £3 billion. I pressed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on two or three occasions because she was making a different argument. She was saying that the static cost is £3 billion, and then it is a question of working out what the dynamic and behavioural effect will be so that we have a true and accurate position on how much this tax will raise. That is a perfectly reasonable point—it is not possible to disagree with the fact that there is a static number, but that is not terribly helpful in guiding us towards a sensible policy, because we have to know the behavioural effects. Let me be clear. The hon. Lady is clearly stepping away from the suggestion that this will raise £3 billion—

[Shabana Mahmood]

Not at all.

[Mr Gauke]

Given that the hon. Lady has said that, I will certainly give way to her. If she is not stepping away from how much this would raise, I would be interested to hear what she is saying and how much she thinks it would raise.

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the Minister was listening to my speech, he would know that I am asking for a report to give us a better idea of what this measure will raise—including all the data to hand from the additional years in which the rate was in place but not included in the 2011 HMRC report. All I can say to him on the figures is that the only certain figure we have is the £3 billion static cost. I accept that behavioural change will bring that down and decrease the yield, but neither he nor I can say, with hands on our holy books, that we know the exact number. That explains what I have asked for in the amendment. I believe this could be a revenue-raising measure to get the deficit down in a fairer way. The extent to which we can do that is the thrust of my amendment.

[Mr Gauke]

We are making further progress. The hon. Lady has now explicitly said that the 50p rate will not raise £3 billion. [Interruption.] She has explicitly said that, because she has accepted that there will be a behavioural effect that will bring the amount down. I do not know why she is complaining and chuntering, because she has just made the unarguable point that the amount raised will be less than the static cost. That is not the point that the shadow Chief Secretary was trying to make.

Labour politicians are generally very good at saying, “It is a £3 billion giveaway”, in an attempt to give the impression that it will be a £3 billion increase in revenue. I accept that the shadow Chief Secretary probably misspoke, and that when he said that the 50p rate would raise £3 billion, he was getting a little carried away. Labour politicians usually avoid saying, “It will raise £3 billion”, for the very good reason that that is a completely unsupportable position. To be fair to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, she is not making that case today. However, I wish to point out that even the Labour party does not believe that the 50p rate will raise £3 billion, which it clearly will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review, within six months of the passing of this Act, of the impact of a cut of one per cent to the main rate of Corporation Tax for financial year 2016, with particular reference to—

(a) the impact on businesses with fewer than 50 employees;

(b) the impact on investment by businesses with fewer than 50 employees; and

(c) alternative tax measures, including non-domestic rates, which would have a greater benefit for businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.”.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The review proposed in amendment 2 would give us a better understanding of the factors that are helping small businesses to grow and those that are limiting their expansion. Most small and medium-sized businesses with a smaller number of employees tend to be run from premises that have a rateable value of below £50,000. I should say at the outset—the Minister and I have had this debate before—that Labour does not oppose the recent changes to the rate of corporation tax that have so far come into effect. That is in keeping with our party’s policy over the past 15 years. When Labour left office, Britain had the most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G7. The rate has been cut several times over the past few years. The small business rate for companies whose profits are less than £300,000 now stands at 20%, and the rate for companies earning more than that will be 21% from April—in just a few days.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is not a theme developing today: the extent to which tax cuts and spending cuts should contribute towards deficit reduction and, with regard to tax cuts, who should benefit? As with the debates on VAT and the 50p tax rate, we are arguing for greater consideration to be given to small businesses, because larger businesses have already benefited from corporation tax cuts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. This comes back to the impact of the choices being made—who is being prioritised and who is not, who is bearing the greater share of the burden and who is not. That is the material point.

We know that the Government’s impact assessment prepared for the 2014 Budget estimates that the cost to the Exchequer of the corporation tax cut would be some £400 million in 2015-16, £785 million in 2016-17 and £865 million the following year. In the 2015 Budget Red Book the estimates are revised upwards: for 2015-16 £550 million, for 2016-17 £1.045 billion, and for 2017-18 £1.1 billion. Those are not insignificant sums for a policy that affects a relatively small number of businesses. That is exactly my hon. Friend’s point.

The Government estimate that some 40,000 businesses pay the main rate of corporation tax and a further 41,000 businesses pay at the marginal relief rate. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that the UK has some 5.2 million private sector businesses, the majority of which—3.9 million—are sole proprietorships, and 1 million have fewer than 10 employees. Clearly, if about 81,000 businesses benefit from the corporation tax cut, the opposite is also true—5.1 million businesses do not benefit in any way from that rate change.

The Government believe that a further cut in the corporation tax rate makes UK plc a more attractive place to invest and a more attractive destination for business to locate. The Minister and I have often debated the importance of the headline rate of corporation tax when that judgment call is made by businesses. It is important—a point that I have made on several occasions—but it is worth noting that on the former point it is far from clear that this is the case. We know that business investment fell from 8.2% of GDP in 2010 to 7.8% in 2013. That should not come as a big surprise.

Businesses tell us that they face a range of issues and that their decisions about where to locate and where to remain and invest are not based only on the headline rate of corporation tax. They take many other factors into account, such as infrastructure and the skills available in the labour market. Businesses often say that these factors are very important to their decision making, but they worry that under this Government those areas of policy have not gone in the right direction.

[Ian Swales]

This is one point on which I think we can agree. Does the hon. Lady share my worry that investment is threatened partly by the uncertainty about the UK’s place in Europe, and that evidence is growing that that is already having an impact?

[Shabana Mahmood]

This might be the one time during a Finance Bill debate when the hon. Gentleman and I have been in complete agreement. The uncertainty caused by the Conservative party’s positioning over Europe and the Prime Minister giving in to the needs of his party, rather than the national interest, have caused a huge amount of uncertainty. In every conversation that I have had with businesses ever since the Prime Minister made his announcement, that has been the No. 1 issue that they have raised when talking about their future in our country, their future ability to invest in our country, and their future ability to employ more people in our country. It has caused a huge amount of consternation and uncertainty, and the Conservative part of the coalition has been wrong to put its party interest ahead of the national interest.

Our amendment seeks to put flesh on the bones of what is happening to corporation tax by assessing the impact on and the benefit to smaller companies with 50 or fewer employees, which make up the vast majority of private companies in our country. At a time when there are still difficult financial choices to make and a relatively limited number of ways to raise revenue and help support businesses to grow, the evidence suggests that now is the time to give much more support to smaller businesses, and to prioritise smaller businesses for some change in their circumstances, ahead of larger businesses, which have, with the support of all parts of the House, fared pretty well when it comes to cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax.

There is general agreement that small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of growth in our country, employing more than half the private sector work force and contributing to 50% of UK GDP, but times remain tough and they face wide-ranging challenges. They struggle with high energy costs that do not seem to be getting much better despite wholesale price cuts of 20% in the past year, and with late payments and charges. According to the Government’s own figures, 44% of SMEs had a problem with late payments last year, with the average small business owed over £30,000—an astonishingly high figure.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we assess what the larger corporations do with their extra income as compared with small businesses? Small businesses in my constituency are more likely to create jobs, while larger companies are more likely to give the money to their shareholders.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. This is not only about how we how we make choices that prioritise help for those who particularly need it—my case is that SMEs need particular help with business rates—but the impact of the choices we are making and whether they are leading to the change that we hope to see. My case—I know she will agree—is that additional support for SMEs will yield greater gains for UK plc.

This is not about pitting one type of business against another. Government Members have tried to argue that the rise in corporation tax from 20% to 21% that we advocate is an anti-business move, but every single penny of the money from that change will be spent on SMEs, and I defy them to try to imply that they are not true businesses.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

If my hon. Friend wants to intervene, I will give way again.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was enjoying her contribution so much that I was going to desist. Does she agree that in the Consumer Rights Bill the Government missed an opportunity to give small businesses consumer rights, and that is often leaving them open to abuses by larger organisations?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. I am glad that she has put on record the interplay between the Consumer Rights Bill and small businesses. That was a missed opportunity. The Government should have taken the opportunities available to them during the passage of that Bill to offer a further boost to these struggling businesses—all 5.1 million of them. The vast majority of businesses in our country could have been supported.

Small businesses struggle not only with high energy costs, late payments and charges, but with access to finance. Every time we discuss these issues, the problem of access to finance comes up. I am afraid that the Government have failed to get a grip on this. Since 2010, lending has fallen by a colossal £56 billion. Even in the most recent quarter, net lending to small business fell by a further £1 billion. Research has shown that some 85% of small businesses are locked into the big five banks alone. It has also shown that most SMEs will approach only the larger banks when looking for finance, and that even then the rejection rate is about 50%.

Then there is the pressing issue of business rates. Business rates are levied on the estimated market rental cost of most non-residential properties, and currently based on 2008 rental values. In 2012-13, they raised £26.1 billion. Relief on business rates exists for low-value properties—those with a rateable value of below £6,000—which are subject to a 100% discount. Since April 2013, local authorities in England have been able to retain between a quarter and a half of the rates raised from new developments.

For many small businesses, business rates are a significant overhead that they need to factor in. More than one in 10 small businesses say that they spend more on business rates than on their rent. The only choice for many of those shops, workshops, start-ups and others that pay business rates is to pass the costs of the rates on to their customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting small businesses, developing skills and apprenticeships and cutting tuition fees, which is what a Labour Government would do, would also benefit large corporations? We need broader measures that work in the interests of the whole economy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and her point takes us back to our earlier debate about the value of the headline rate of corporation tax and the policy environment that supports it.

Clearly, more needs to be done on the business rates regime. We back the announcement of a review of business rates. There are problems in the system. For example, a factory investing in a new piece of equipment will find that its bill will go up next year because property is now worth more, which could be a disincentive to invest. Although our corporate property tax system needs to be fundamentally rethought, small businesses need urgent and immediate relief. Our proposal for a cut in business rates in the first year of the next Parliament, followed by a freeze in the second year, will make a genuine difference. I hope that Government Members will today take the opportunity that they have failed to take previously, support our amendment and thereby show their support for small and medium-sized businesses.

[Ian Swales]

This might be my last contribution in this place, so I would like to say what a great privilege it has been to represent the people of Redcar for the past five years. I thank colleagues for making my time here such a vivid experience. I would struggle to apply the word “vivid” to the many Finance Bill Committees and finance debates I have taken part in, but overall I have had a terrific time.

I support the lower rate of corporation tax. When opponents of such things talk about lower tax rates, retaining profit is often described as some kind of evil, but what happens to that money? The characterisation is that it will probably end up in high pay for the people at the top, but companies with money have lots of choices and do lots of different things. They might pay more money to their shareholders, the vast majority of which are institutions such as public sector pension funds. They might invest the money or employ more people. They might spend the money on innovation or on building skills, and they might spend more money with SMEs, because all big companies have supply chains that involve small companies.

Tourism Industry and VAT

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate and on his work to highlight the issue. We have heard some excellent and important contributions that have reminded us of the importance of tourism to UK plc, and the case has been passionately made for reducing VAT below the standard rate of 20% on services supplied to tourists, in order to improve the sector’s international competitiveness.

As we have heard, member states’ discretion to set lower rates on goods and services is limited by European VAT law, but there is a special dispensation for a lower rate on certain supplies associated with tourism, specifically including hotel accommodation, certain restaurant services and some types of admission charge, including charges for entry to amusement parks. Some member states have made use of that dispensation to charge lower rates, including the Republic of Ireland, which introduced a lower rate of 9% in July 2011. We heard a bit more about that from some hon. Members in their contributions.

The campaign is long-running. This is the second debate on the topic in which I have taken part; the previous one took place almost exactly a year ago, ahead of last year’s Budget, and was secured by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), from whom we have just heard.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion made a powerful opening speech focused partly on his constituency and the impact that a VAT reduction could have on the Welsh economy. He also made the point about a potential link between a VAT cut and economic growth. I take slight issue with his assertion that the Labour Opposition have not been robust in our approach to this matter; we have been robust, but unfortunately the answer that we have arrived at is similar to the Government’s rather than being the answer that he and others hoped for. Those hoping for a different answer from us and the Government include members of our own party; I acknowledge the role of Labour Back-Bench Members in the campaign, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for—is it Ynys Môn?

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend. I hate to get people’s constituency names wrong, so I am glad to have got it right on this occasion. He made the point that it is Welsh tourism week, and Welsh Members of Parliament from various parties have been well represented in this debate. I recognise his long history of campaigning on this issue, and particularly his focus on the number of jobs and the amount of economic growth that such a change could create in his constituency and the Welsh economy as a whole. I fully expect him to continue lobbying Labour colleagues and a future Labour Treasury on the issue, as he has done alongside others throughout this Parliament, but I am afraid that I will disappoint him and other hon. Members throughout the House once again by not making a commitment that the next Labour Government will reduce VAT for the tourism sector in the way that they envisage.

[Jim Shannon]

If the shadow Minister is giving us a blanket no, can she give us an assurance that whatever happens after 7 May, if Labour is in power, it will consider it? If the Government applied to Europe, they could get a reduction. At least if we knew that it would happen, a move would be made. Let us see what happens.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was just about to develop a point about the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate, and how we will react to it if we form the next Labour Government and Treasury.

I start by recognising that cutting VAT is a significant monetary challenge. The Opposition are clear that we will put no unfunded promises in our manifesto, the basis on which we will seek election from the public in the coming weeks, and we will not borrow any more money for day-to-day spending. We note the evidence presented by hon. Members in this debate from notable academics who have considered the issue in detail. It has been cited in support of the argument by the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. From opposition, I am not in a position to assess that evidence in the same way that the Treasury can, as it has access to data sets that we do not, but I note the Minister’s answers to hon. Members in written parliamentary answers and oral answers during departmental question time in the House. He has said, on the basis of analysis undertaken by the Treasury, that a VAT cut for the sector would not produce sufficient economic growth to outweigh the consequent revenue shortfall. It would be helpful if in summing up, the Minister put more of that evidence on the record, if the position is the same as before.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I apologise for coming late; I was involved in the debate in the main Chamber. The hon. Lady says that the Opposition are unable to examine the figures, but during this Parliament the Opposition have posited that an overall decrease in VAT would encourage consumer spending on all sorts of important consumer goods. Does she not accept that there is evidence to suggest that the measure would at least help trap the multiplier in a more targeted way in areas that depend on the tourism economy?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the early part of this Parliament, we proposed an alternative package to the Government as an immediate measure to stimulate the economy. It envisaged a temporary VAT cut, which at the time could have made a difference across the whole economy and might have meant being in a different position today. I note, though, that the previous Labour Government, when lobbied on the issue, felt that targeting the cut in the way then envisaged would not necessarily have produced the effects anticipated by hon. Members.

That is why it would be helpful to hear more from the Minister about current Treasury thinking and analysis of the available evidence. An incoming Labour Treasury would certainly want to consider all that evidence and see the analysis at first hand. In particular, we would want to understand the relationship between different measures that could be taken, including a potential VAT tax cut compared with, for example—the Government have also cited this in defence of their position—the employment allowance, a £2,000 rebate on employer national insurance contributions introduced by the Government earlier in this Parliament. I would also want to be convinced that we would achieve as close to 100% pass-through of such a big change if we were to start considering seriously the case for making it.

However, we return to the fact that if we cut VAT in that way, the most recent Office for National Statistics data from 2012 suggest an annual cost to the Exchequer of £11 billion to £12 billion. Those sums would have to be found elsewhere, and we as an incoming Labour Government would not be in a position to make that choice. So I cannot commit to a VAT cut of the nature called for by the campaign, although I can of course commit, if I become a Treasury Minister after the election in May, to assessing the analysis and all available evidence. I will also work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to examine what else can be done to assist the tourism sector and ensure that it plays its full part in encouraging sustained and balanced economic growth. I am sure that the Cut Tourism VAT campaign will continue to make its case in full heart in the life of the next Parliament; it is certainly made up of doughty parliamentary campaigners. I look forward to engaging with them in much the same way that I know the Minister has engaged with them thus far in this Parliament.

Tourism is a hugely important sector to the UK. It is our fourth largest service industry; it employs 9.6% of the UK work force, or 3.1 million people; it generates 9% of the UK’s entire GDP; and in 2013 it contributed £127 billion to the economy. So, it is in everybody’s interests to ensure that the sector grows, thrives and continues to provide the jobs necessary for UK plc.

As I highlighted in our debate on tourism last year, there are other policy levers that can be pulled, without the cost implications that a VAT cut on tourism would entail, which would still be of real benefit to the sector. One of the most effective of those levers could be around immigration policy, particularly given the complexity around fees, visa applications and the monitoring required to make sure that people do not overstay their visa. The Government have made particular changes with respect to some countries, such as China. However, it is the case that other countries are deemed to be a high risk for potential overstaying but whose genuine visitors are often locked out. I see that in my own constituency with visitors who want to come from the Indian subcontinent, but the immigration officials almost take a first view that those people are more likely to overstay than not. Often, that is not the case. People want to come to the UK to see the land that their forefathers left their countries of origin for, and they wish to come and celebrate family events such as weddings. They will spend money here, and their British citizen relatives will spend money showing them a good time and showing them what Britain is all about. We should assist that process and not hold it back.

Therefore, although I cannot agree for the cut that has been called for, I commend the work of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign and the work of its supporters in the House. We will continue to work closely with the tourism sector and we look forward to hearing more from the campaigners in the future.

[John Pugh]

I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me. She says that she does not agree to the cut, but would she agree to the concept of having independent research commissioned by the Treasury? Has she any fundamental objection to that, which would be a lesser commitment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful for that intervention. I do not have a fundamental objection, in principle, to that idea, but I am not in a position to commit to a formal review of some kind. Nevertheless, as I have said, if I was in the Treasury I would happily look at any additional evidence and at the Treasury’s analysis of the data at first hand, rather than hearing it from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shabana Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Our record across the piece shows that we take tax evasion and criminal activity in this area very seriously. This is a complex matter, but the hon. Gentleman will know that considerable efforts have been undertaken to address fuel laundering. This is a matter we take very seriously.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Minister must acknowledge the significant damage that the recent HSBC tax avoidance and evasion scandal has done to the public’s confidence in the Government’s willingness to pursue tax avoiders and evaders, thereby reducing the amount of uncollected tax in the UK. In the Chancellor’s absence, will the Minister now answer the question that the Chancellor failed to answer six times on the “Today” programme? Did the Chancellor ever discuss tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green—yes or no?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have pointed out, the Government’s efforts and success in dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion are a huge step forward from what we inherited. On the appointment of Lord Green, the proper processes, as put in place by the previous Government, were undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary looked at Lord Green’s tax affairs, and just as the previous Government appointed him to their business advisory council, so he was appointed as a Minister—an appointment that was welcomed by the Labour party.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Still we have no answer to the simplest and clearest of questions. If we cannot get a straight answer from the Chancellor or his Ministers, we should at least hear from Lord Green—the man who was in charge of the bank and was then made a Conservative Minister—either in front of a parliamentary Committee or through a statement in the other place. Why are the Government parties so desperate to silence Lord Green? What are they so afraid he will reveal?

[Mr Gauke]

We are not afraid of anything. The Government have been more successful at prosecuting criminals involved in tax evasions, more successful at closing tax avoidance loopholes and more successful at getting money in. That is a record we can be proud of.