Amendment of the Law

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The central issue on which this Budget—and, indeed, the coalition Government—will be judged is how we cope with the fallout from the massive financial collapse and the destruction of wealth, with the loss of approximately 10% of our national income, and put the economy back on a sustainable path.

The shadow Chancellor made some very kind and considerate remarks, and I thank him for his concern about my personal finances. Perhaps I can take him back to a toe-curling interview he gave a few days ago, when he described his two-decade relationship with his former boss, mentor, guide and friend as “unbelievably debilitating”. That is relevant to this debate, because it gets to the heart of the problem of who is responsible for the legacy that we are having to manage. We inherited not merely a large fiscal deficit, but the largest in the G20 and the largest amount of household indebtedness of any developed country.

We inherited an economy in which the share of the banking sector—the banking assets—had doubled in Labour’s period of government, to become the largest of any major economy, and in which, simultaneously, the share of manufacturing had contracted by almost a half, from 18% to 10%. We have heard a long speech about equality and fairness, but we also inherited an economy in which, throughout Labour’s period of government, the share of income of the top 1% and the top 10% of the population inexorably rose, and in which wealth became progressively more unequal.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Vince Cable]

I will take the intervention in a moment.

A narrative has developed in which one man was responsible for this fiasco, but it was a genuine team effort, and the shadow Chancellor was an absolutely key member of that team. Being lectured now on how to manage an economy is a little bit like being given a talk on seamanship by the captain of the Costa Concordia—another believer in light-touch steering.

[Vince Cable]

It was actually on the back of an uncontrolled housing boom. Personal indebtedness as a share of people’s incomes doubled in the period of the last Government. Of course the process of deregulation beforehand did not help, but the core increase—the fundamental problem of indebtedness—arose when the shadow Chancellor was a key decision maker in that Government.

I want to talk about the Government’s basic economic strategy, but before I do, I want to address the issue of unfairness and distribution. There were two allegations. One was that the policies have had a damaging effect on the so-called squeezed middle; the other was about the millionaires. Let me deal with each in turn. On the squeezed middle, if hon. Members look at the distribution charts, they will see that the squeezed middle has been squeezed a great deal less than the squeezed top. The major cash impact of the Budget was on low and middle-income families, as a result of lifting the threshold to over £9,200, with £220 for more than 20 million taxpayers. That was right, not just because of the fairness involved, but because it gives a significant economic stimulus, and at the margin—the 1 million people being lifted out of tax—it is a major incentive to work. The policy also contrasts favourably with the strategy that the Labour Government adopted in office—which we discussed many times—of using tax credits. By increasing tax allowances in the way we have, we are giving people the freedom to choose how to spend their own money, not taking it from them and then giving it back to them, through a complex, means-tested system, with high marginal rates of withdrawal.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is the Secretary of State disappointed that he lost the battle to rescind the cuts to working tax credit for couples working 16 hours, given that they do not benefit at all from raising the tax threshold, because they already do not pay tax? Did he lose that battle or did he not fight it?

[Vince Cable]

The shift from a system based on tax credits to one based on tax allowances obviously benefits the middle and low-income population as a whole. The impact on particular groups depends on a variety of things, including the minimum wage, which we have just uprated, and the complex interaction of tax and tax credits.

However, let me turn to the point about pensioner income. I find it quite extraordinary to hear the shadow Chancellor expressing such alarm about the impact of the Budget on pensioners. I do not know whether he has looked at the scorecard, but it is clear. In 2012-13, the effect of the increase in the basic state pension and the pension credit minimum income guarantee will be to transfer £1.75 billion to pensioners. The impact of the changes on age-related allowances is £360 million—one fifth of the additional funding going to pensioners as a consequence of this Budget. When we look at the pensioner population, we of course see big differences. There are 5 million pensioners who do not pay tax, many of whom are poor, and who are not, of course, affected by the changes at all. There is a small group of people—frankly, my contemporaries—who have high retirement incomes and considerable asset wealth, and it is right in principle that they should pay a bit more. There is a group in between, as the shadow Chancellor rightly said, of people who are not wealthy and do not have particularly high incomes, but who could be affected to a limited extent, as a result of inflation eroding the value of the allowances—inflation is currently estimated at 2.5%. Those people will benefit enormously from the increase in the basic pension.

Let us just remind ourselves what is happening. We have an increase of £5.30 in the basic state pension for a single person. On top of the increase last year, we are talking about a £10 increase in the basic state pension, as a result of the protections that this Government have introduced. For many years, the pension steadily fell behind earnings as a result of de-linking, and, despite numerous promises, the previous Government did absolutely nothing about the problem. More and more pensioners were sucked into means-testing. This Government have corrected that problem. We have a triple lock system and, as a result of that, and of this Budget, the vast majority of pensioners on low and middle incomes will be considerably better off than they were before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Unlike Government Members, I am not in a rush to gush about how much this Budget does for families or firms in my own or anybody else’s constituency. However, I am also not here to pretend that everything in this Budget is bad, as it contains measures that will help some sectors and areas. Moving on general anti-abuse rules to deal with tax avoidance is good in principle and welcome. Obviously, we have to see the exact detail to know whether the effects will match up to the stated intent. Similarly, tax simplification for small businesses is a good thing in principle, but again the devil will be in the detail, as it will be in respect of removing borderline anomalies. Many of us have been lobbied by our local chippies and others about removing some of those anomalies, but of course there is always the danger that we end up redrawing the margins in particular businesses or sectors.

The Budget makes new provisions for the carbon price floor. Coming from Northern Ireland, I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to open a window to relieve the serious competitiveness and investment problems that will be caused to our generating industry, because, in the context of the single energy market in Ireland, the carbon price floor will, in effect, incentivise investment to go south of the border and not stay in the north.

There are other issues to address, such as fuel duty. Again, I regret that the Government have not done more to help firms and families, who have both been affected deeply by these problems. The Government have boasted greatly about the measures that they have taken to date to protect people from the price surge, but that surge protection is still needed and now is not the time to let it go on the assumption that the other tax changes that the Government have announced will somehow carry people through or forward.

Obviously, not least in the context of Northern Ireland, I support the further moves in relation to “above the line” research and development tax credits and the tax reliefs in the creative sector, not least in film and high-end television, where Northern Ireland has recently been doing well.

On corporation tax, we in Northern Ireland are faced with the highly competitive corporation tax rate on the other side of the border and we have been looking for reductions and modifications there. I have no argument in principle with moves to reduce corporation tax, but I wonder about the Government’s measures on the control of foreign companies and the full reform that is there. Previously, I have asked about the impact that that would have on the moves to restrict the incentives towards using tax havens, and I remain concerned that while the Government have perhaps redressed some of the concerns that have been raised about the possible loss to business and revenue in the UK, there will still be a loss to developing countries’ revenue, which they absolutely need, as a result of the measure.

The Government are making much, not just in the Budget but more widely, about what they are doing for business lending. We have all heard this before. All the measures that are made relying on quantitative easing and now credit easing depend on the banks. We are told about the £20 billion guarantee, so that some banks—those that opt into the scheme—might give businesses credit at 1% less than they would otherwise have given. If yet more billions are being spent just to make that marginal difference, one has to wonder whether that is the best way of gearing support towards growth and the economy. More direct uses of that money could yield a much readier growth impact.

On the tax side, we have the hit on pensioners, with the move in the allowance and more people being brought into taxation. At a time when we are again encouraging people to save towards pensions and we again have a reform and recasting of the pension system, for the Government to come along and make another tweak that appears to hit pension provision and pension plans sends the wrong signal. It gives people the idea that the Government engage in jiggery-pokery—that they encourage people to save pensions but that then when they do so they will be clobbered. It is just a bad and unnecessary measure at a time when we are trying to encourage people to save more for pensions. Other people whom we are asking to save for their pensions are middle-income earners: we are asking them to make strong provision for their pensions and to make provision for their children’s third-level education. Many of them are still being hit by the change to child benefit. That will hit some of those people’s capacity to save for their own pensions as well as to support their children.

The Chancellor has told us of the Adam Smith principles of tax being simple and predictable, supporting work and being fair, but the tax charges being introduced in relation to child benefit go completely against that. It is a very complicated and clumsy system that is going to cause problems, and not just for those families who are affected—it will cause serious problems for employers. It will not be long before employers’ bodies will be coming to Government and saying, “You have created a very serious problem here”—a much bigger problem than the 50p tax ever created for those firms in how they could incentivise rewards and repay people. The Chancellor also mentioned the £10 billion cut in welfare coming after the next election, which he has been framing as necessary if other cuts are to be sustained.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the initial speculation in today’s edition of The Times, which is hardly a bastion of left-wing politics, that those cuts might affect attendance allowance, means-tested disability living allowance or mean the taking away of carers’ allowance?

[Mark Durkan]

Of course, these cuts could affect anything. We were told when the Welfare Reform Bill went through Parliament that that was the final destination of welfare reform. Now it is clear from the Chancellor that it is simply a staging post for further cuts. We were told about the spoonful of sugar—the extra money going into making universal credit work in the transition period—but is it the Chancellor’s plan to remove some of that, and to pull back the extra investment that has gone into making universal credit work and more acceptable, or will other benefits such as those for people with disabilities be affected? We know that families with disabilities are already being squeezed. Are they going to suffer more?

In the light of people in the Chamber teasing others about what they will put in their next manifesto, will the Government parties tell us what they will be putting in their manifestos about the £10 billion-worth of further cuts in welfare? Who will be hit? There is no point in people asking one party what they are going to put in their manifesto unless others are going to follow through. The Government are saying that such cuts will be needed after the election; will they say during the election campaign where those cuts will be made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am proud to be a socialist, although hopefully not such an old one.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer—the Tory party has very clearly reverted to type, putting the needs of the wealthy first while abandoning the poor, whether they are working or not. Even the Chancellor’s favourite red-top newspaper, which today portrayed him as Wallace, agrees and says that he has put money in “The Wrong Trousers”. Yes, Mr Speaker, women wear trousers! The Prime Minister, himself a man with young children and a working wife, once promised that he would make this country the most family-friendly in Europe, but this week’s Budget will make life even more difficult for ordinary, hard-working families—not that he knows what it means to struggle to feed a family.

Yesterday, I met Terry Fullerton from Holme House prison immediately after the Budget. He pointed out that the tax cut for many of the super rich, such as bankers, celebrities and others, is about the same as the starting salary for a prison officer. It is also several thousand pounds more than the average annual wage in my constituency. That is not fair.

Brendan Cox, director of policy and advocacy at Save the Children, said that some had called it a Robin Hood Budget. He said:

“Robin Hood was known for hitting his target. If help to the poorest was his aim, the Chancellor will be known for missing his.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that an average family will be £530 a year worse off after the Chancellor’s tax and benefit changes. On top of that, the poorest 20% of households will see their incomes fall by about 1.5% in 2012-13, scuppering any chances of meeting coalition targets of reducing child poverty.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, as detailed in the Budget, the cut in the 50% rate will mean the Exchequer forgoing £3 billion of income, whereas it would cost £500 million to reverse the cut to working tax credits for people about to lose it because they only work 16 hours a week? Which does he think is the better choice?

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows exactly what my choice would be—it would be on the part of working families.

I have mentioned the 1.5% cut. It might sound paltry, but even if it represents as little as £1 or less per week, it is still worth a lot for those on a low income who need to feed a family. It will also be the poorest families who are, or will be, hardest hit through the uprating of benefits in line with the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, through higher food and fuel costs, through the freezes to child benefit and working tax credit, and through the time-limiting of employment and support allowance.

We must not forget that for low-paid workers inflation is not 3.4%, as it was yesterday, but nearer 10%, because they spend proportionately more on food, fuel and transport. The Government’s raising of the personal tax allowance is welcome but sadly does nothing to help the one third of the adult population, including part-time workers and pensioners, who are too poor to pay income tax, yet still have to face those same challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend; unemployment already stands at 2.67 million, and youth unemployment is at a record level.

Despite the Chancellor’s predictions a year ago, things have turned out very differently in the real world. As we enter spring 2012, it is clear that the British economy is flatlining, and the OBR is forecasting just 0.8% growth for 2012.

In effect, the economy will continue to flatline. The Government have conceded that they will overshoot their borrowing target by £150 billion. Consumer confidence is also at a record low. As people see their income squeezed while VAT increases push prices up and inflation runs ahead of wages, many are fearful for the future. VAT costs a family an average of £450 a year, and while the increase in personal allowances reduces tax for the low paid, that is completely outweighed by the VAT rise, cuts to tax credits and higher fuel duty—again, smoothed over by the Chancellor yesterday.

The major beneficiaries of this Budget are, of course, those 14,000 people earning £1 million or more, who are receiving a tax cut of more than £40,000 a year. Some 300,000—just 2% of earners in the UK—will benefit overall from the cut of the top rate to 45%, yet just 4,000 houses a year are sold for more than £2 million. That means that the vast majority of those who gain from this tax cut for the richest will be totally unaffected by the rise in stamp duty to 7%.

[Sheila Gilmore]

What we hear from the Government is that if people are avoiding those taxes, we should just give up on it. Is there are any reason, however, in my hon. Friend’s opinion, why we cannot bring in measures to clamp down on tax avoidance while retaining the 50p tax rate?

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to the point a little later.

To put the tax reductions for top-rate earners in context, we need to understand that these are people who earn £2,900 a week—that is right, each week. That is more than an average worker in Sheffield earns in a month. It is quite ironic, is it not, that this Government should believe that the best way to make the poor work is to cut their income, while at the same time believing that the best way to get the rich to work harder is to boost their income. The reduction is also a massive gamble. As Jonathan Freedland points out in The Guardian, today, it is built on

“a hoped-for influx of returning top-rate taxpayers: to most people that looks like giving up hard cash in return for a wish.”

Since when has tackling tax avoidance qualified as a tax increase for the rich?

Pensioners are also hard hit. The granny tax—the £3 billion raid on pensioners by freezing their personal allowance—will mean that people who turn 65 next year will lose out by £314. On average, 4.5 million pensioners will lose £84 a year from next April.

One has to ask what influence the Deputy Prime Minister has had on this Tory Budget, when the personal allowance increase delivers less than the recent increase in VAT, so it amounts to a tax cut for the rich. Let us not forget that the Chancellor has pencilled in more tax increases for after 2014 and a further £10 billion cut in welfare costs. To people out there, that means even further potential cuts to child benefit, pension credit and tax credit.

In difficult times—and these are difficult times for many families—a Budget needs to be fair, and it needs to give people hope. Is it fair that a one-earner family on £55,000 will lose much of their child benefit, while a couple on as much as £99,000 can keep every penny of it?

As for jobs and growth, as the Business Secretary has said, this Government do not have

“a compelling vision of where the country is heading”.

For once, I agree with the Business Secretary. There are no measures of substance in the Budget to help rebalance our economy, either geographically or structurally.

Last year, the Chancellor told us he had put fuel in the tank of the economy. Unfortunately, he put the wrong fuel in the tank and the economy has stalled. If he does not do something soon for the many in this country, the economy will not only continue to splutter along, failing to fire on all cylinders, but will continue irreparably to damage the lives of those who need jobs and growth to improve their life chances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The altruism of the high-paid is remarkable. If they are not paying tax because of successful avoidance measures, their delight at the rate reduction requires some explanation. Perhaps they agree with the Chancellor’s statement that they will pay more tax as a result; if so, their delight is clearly because they are ready to pay more tax than they were previously.

[Mr Bain]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to consider what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said this afternoon—that there is a one in three chance that the Treasury will recoup only 30% of the £2.9 billion in the Red Book that relates to behavioural changes and to people moving from the 50p to the 45p rate. Does not that bear out her point?

[Sheila Gilmore]

It definitely does.

Of course, that may not have been what people were cheering. They may have been cheering in relief at not having to do tiresome tax avoidance planning all the time. If the HMRC’s calculations are correct, high-paid employees are a bit like highway robbers who are holding a musket up to the rest of us and saying, “If you tax us, we are going to take our ball away and not play any more.”

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the Government seem to pay little attention to HMRC’s informed views?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Clearly, the Government see tax planning as a perfectly rational and sensible reaction to tax changes. However, if a working couple who are about to lose £3,000 in tax credits make a sensible and rational decision to stop work because that will make them better off, will they be seen as merely making a sensible and rational decision, or will they be seen as lazy, as scroungers, and as people who prefer to watch daytime television than hold down a job? If they make that decision, which is rational for them, the outcome will be wholly irrational for the Government, because it will cost the Government more if that family stop work.

I have still not had a satisfactory response from the Government to a question I asked in an earlier intervention. I also asked it of the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this week, because he is fond of telling us that Government can do two things at once. Why can we not retain the 50p tax rate and deal with tax avoidance? Apparently, in the previous year, when people were expecting more tax, they brought their income forward, so presumably this year, knowing that the measure has only a year to run, they will be able to put their income back to the following year so that they do not have to pay more. If we know that such things are happening, why are we unable to find a means of stopping it? Perhaps people’s incomes should be looked at over two or three years to ensure that they cannot engage in these blatant tax avoidance games, which many people on lower incomes cannot do.

When we had the discussions some months ago about bankers’ bonuses and executive pay, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills told us, “Well, these people are paying 50% tax.” Either they are paying it or they are not. One moment we are told that we do not need to bother doing more about bonuses and high pay because the tax rate is dealing with it and the next we are told, “It’s not bringing anything in, so we shouldn’t bother.” There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

It is clear from the Red Book and it is even clear from the Daily Mail—I am hardly a friend of that paper—that the Exchequer plans to forgo £3 billion in making this change to the tax rate. It hopes to get that back through people willingly paying more tax in various ways and through the relatively small amount that is expected from the changes in stamp duty.

Since May 2010, we have been told regularly by the Government that the way to achieve economic growth is to cut the public sector, which has been stifling the private sector, and then the private sector will spring to life and replace the jobs that are lost. Two years on, we are still asking where those jobs are. Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister told us yet again how good it is that so many private sector jobs have been created. The figure that he used was 600,000, which was repeated a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman).

More than a year ago, we were told that 500,000 jobs had been created since the election. Many commentators have made it clear that most of those jobs were created in the first six months of the financial year that started in 2010, and that the likeliest cause for their creation was the previous Government’s economic stimulus. The Government cannot keep recycling the figures. The number of times that the Prime Minister has talked about those 500,000 jobs is incredible. I accept that it has gone up slightly and he is now talking about 600,000 jobs. He should get a prize for recycling, even if he does not get a prize for job creation. If those jobs were created as a result of the economic stimulus, the Government should look again at whether they should continue to rule out such a stimulus.

Do we even know that those private sector jobs are completely new jobs? In my city, there has been a lot of outsourcing and people have moved positions through tendering processes. For example, 2,000 care workers in Edinburgh will now be in the private sector because of the decisions that the council has taken. No doubt those jobs will move from the public sector side of the equation to the private sector side, but they are not new jobs that are driving economic growth. Once again, this is smoke and mirrors and there is no economic growth. That is the important point. If we do not get jobs and growth, we will not get out of the recession.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—