Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will take that as a Budget representation. The point is that the 50p rate was not effective in raising revenue—my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point—and it was damaging to our competitiveness. There are better ways in which we can get more money from the wealthiest, and that is exactly what this Government have done.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister could explain how the changes in child benefit have simplified the tax process in this country.

[Mr Gauke]

A moment or so ago we heard lots of shouting about the 50p rate, yet the Labour party is the first to defend the idea that those very people should continue to receive benefits. Ensuring that child benefit is targeted best meant either looking at this on a household basis—which would have meant putting 8 million households into the tax credit system—or adopting the approach that we have chosen, but the Labour party is always there, ready to spend taxpayers’ money where—

Corporate Tax Avoidance

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

From the beginning of this debate until the point when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who is not in his place, spoke, I wondered, given that we were all so agreed, whether there was any point in our having a debate. That prompts the question why we, collectively, have not dealt with the issues sooner if we are in so much agreement. However, we have different views about tax and they underlie many of the issues.

One such view is whether there should be tax at all. There is a tendency in Britain and, I suspect, a lot of other countries, but not all, to see tax as inherently a bad thing. If that is the case, it then becomes legitimate, according to many people, to find ways to minimise either one’s individual personal tax burden or a business tax burden. I believe, however, that tax is inherently a good thing and that it is right that we as a society pay in what we can afford in order to provide the kind of social and other services that we want in a civilized society. It would help if we took the view that tax is not inherently bad, because once that stance is taken all kinds of things flow from it.

Another issue that we have come up against is tax simplification, as if that is the answer to a lot of the problems we face. I briefly studied tax law—it was not my favourite law subject, although I did win a class medal in it, somewhat to my surprise. As I understood it then—this did not happen yesterday; it is not something new—much of the reason for having a lot of complexity in tax law was precisely because people were constantly finding loopholes.

If the answer is simplification, can we be satisfied that complicated ways around it will not be quickly found? The law, perhaps, follows clever tax lawyers and accountants—not the idea that we have made our tax book and tax code so complicated—and that is why people get to the point of saying, “Well, we’ve got to have complicated tax avoidance.” It is a question of where we think the starting point should be. There appears to be a view that the starting point should be that the law is too complex and that if we somehow made it simple, people would no longer seek to avoid tax.

There is a clear legal distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion, but perhaps the time has come to think about where we place the line. I agree with those Members who have said that it is important that we and the law are clear and that people know where they stand. We cannot have a system that allows people to say, “I don’t particularly like this or that kind of scheme.” The other side of that coin seems to be to allow companies to decide how much they want to pay, rather than how much they should pay. We might need to think, at another time, about drawing a line with regard to what constitutes tax evasion and tax avoidance. Aggressive tax avoidance, which has been described, might actually be tax evasion and not just a very clever way of avoiding tax.

It is interesting that many of the companies that we talk about a great deal have bad practices in other respects. Only a few months ago, we heard not only that Starbucks was not paying a great deal of corporate tax, but that it was seeking to reduce the working conditions of its own employees here in the UK. Usually, we are told that that is necessary because companies are not making a profit. In this case, Starbucks appears to be making a profit, although it is not always accountable here, yet it wanted to reduce the conditions of its own employees. Bad practices, therefore, go beyond tax.

In a global economy we need to look at things internationally. The Government have said that they will use the next few months as an opportunity—in the G8, for example—to try to make some progress. I hope that that will be the case. If we need international clarity and transparency and proper accounting, we should do it. It cannot be right that it is possible for companies that are clearly profitable here—they are not unprofitable—to be able to siphon profits away through schemes such as brand purchasing and loans, which mean that they are paying interest rather than making a profit. If those are avoidance schemes and if we cannot deal with them in our country, we must do so internationally.

If we are all able to sign up to a certain level of consensus—it may not be universal in this place—we need to introduce the necessary legislation for the UK in this year’s Finance Bill. We should all sign up to that. It is not good enough to come back from international conversations and say, “We had some discussions and made some progress.” We need to set some clear targets to end some of the practices. If the UK does that today, other countries might take note and do so tomorrow.

That leads to another international dimension—the problems that many developing countries face with regard to tax. They, too, suffer deeply from the way in which income profits are manipulated and moved out of their country so that, despite the fact that production is taking place in the developing country, the profit appears to be made elsewhere, usually a tax haven with a much lower rate of taxation. Developing countries probably suffer from that more than we do. They are trying, as they have been asked and told to do, to raise themselves up, not rely on aid and get going with their own businesses and industries, but if so much tax is not being paid in those countries, they will probably end up not making the progress that they need to make and we might end up having to give them further aid. Those developing countries also need us to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman will support the benefits uprating Bill. He is shaking his head, so I take it that we have finally got an answer on the Labour party’s position.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the funding arrangements which he agreed with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the Work Programme.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Work programme is the biggest single payment-by-results programme Great Britain has ever seen. The funding arrangements I agreed with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ensure that providers are paid to find sustained job outcomes for those who are or are at risk of being long term unemployed. For the very first time, providers are paid in part through the benefit savings that they generate.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The Chief Secretary wants us to look at the cheapness of the scheme to providers, but buying cheap can be a false economy if the product does not work. The price here is being paid by people staying in long-term unemployment, not getting jobs and still being on benefit. Is not the Work programme a failure?

[Danny Alexander]

No, I do not believe it is. The hon. Lady refers to costs, and she will know that the flexible new deal, which the Work programme replaced, cost £7,495 per job outcome; that compares with costs of about £2,000 under the Work programme. It is a great deal more cost-effective. The hon. Lady will also be aware that 56% of those first Work programme starters have come off benefits and that up to September this year, there have been 200,000 job entries, as reported by providers, so there is a sense of progress in the Work programme, too.

The Economy

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with her on one point: everyone should pay tax, but more of that later.

May I pay tribute to those who made their maiden speeches, and welcome them to this place? I remember mine all too clearly; it is a nerve-wracking moment for all of us.

In the eight minutes that I have, I do not want to look back or play the blame game with the Opposition, other than to remind the country of their profligate years, but enough said: we have to look to the future and how we get ourselves out of this mess. Let me go back over some basic principles which, it seems to me—maybe I am getting this horribly wrong—many in the House have forgotten. Baroness Thatcher, a lady for whom I have huge respect and admiration, was brought up, as the House knows, in a grocer’s store. Her economic principles, like most of her principles, were very simple and on the whole they were sound: “You spend what you earn. You borrow too much and you go broke. Eating into capital is the road to ruin.” She believed in a light-touch, low-tax Government.

We had the chance to be radical when we came to power, but regrettably, linked to the Lib Dems as we are, that was never going to be a reality. Taxes, both business and personal, remain at punitive levels. They curtail incentive, reinvestment, aspiration and jobs. Employers’ national insurance contributions are a classic example. I run a business, albeit a small one, and pay nearly 15% for each person I employ. That is madness, and it is certainly not based on Conservative or free-marketeer principles. My advice to those on the Government Front Bench is to scrap employers’ national insurance contributions if they want to see unemployment fall and businesses thrive.

The deficit is down, which I welcome, but borrowing is rising, as we have heard, and state expenditure remains unacceptably high, with savings in real terms at negligible levels. So we print more and more money—it is called quantitative easing—tons of it, in fact, and down the plug it has gone. But at some stage it will spill over into the bath and we will start to spend it. Inflation will rise and interest rates will inevitably have to rise to combat it. At that stage, we will see pain on an unprecedented level in this country.

In the meantime, we pile more and more taxes on the better-off, who already face punitive rates, while those at the bottom are taken out of tax altogether. Why? The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said that everyone should pay their taxes fairly. If we take those on the lower end out of tax altogether, what incentive do they have to put away their rubbish or to contribute to their fire or police service?

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s view of economics seems to miss the fact that when Governments invest, jobs are created, more money comes into the Treasury and less goes out by way of wasteful benefits. What has gone wrong in the last two and half years is that the Government have pulled the plug on investment, which now, rather belatedly, they are trying to put back in a small way. By the way, some people might not be paying income tax, but they are paying council tax towards the very services he has just mentioned.

[Richard Drax]

Unfortunately, the Government have invested; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. Governments, particularly during Labour’s 13 years in office, invested to such an extent that we are now in the mess we currently find ourselves in. It is not for Governments to play economics; it is for business men and women, entrepreneurs, small businesses and retailers to generate our economy. I hear again and again from people on all sides that the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest load and that we are all in it together. We are not, and we never will be, and we fool ourselves and do a disservice to those struggling to make ends meet if we think otherwise. Let us not forget that the better-off, whether businesses or individuals, play a useful role in our economy. Except for a few notable occasions, they pay tax. They create jobs and buy goods, which generates jobs, and in many cases they take their wealth responsibly and give back in countless ways, so let us stop killing the golden goose.

The simple fact is that we must cut state expenditure. The EU is a classic case. Some £51 million a day goes to that unaccountable, Soviet-style bureaucracy, the same EU that mislays €5.2 billion every year, according to the European Court of Auditors. Yet they want more, and we give it to them. We boast about giving 0.7% of our GDP in overseas aid. Do not get me wrong: I am all for charity, but charity should start in this country, particularly now that so many of our constituents are struggling. Let me give an analogy, the farming analogy, as I call it. If a third-world country needs to learn how to farm, we do not send it millions of pounds that go into the pockets of some genocidal maniac; we send a farmer and we teach them how to look after themselves. How many apprentices, nurses, doctors, hospitals and schools could be looked after if we had all the money that is going abroad?

Let us not forget the defence of our country and our armed services, which are being slashed to an unforgivable level. We have a bloated welfare bill; it has been discussed in this place again and again. Then there is the NHS, where all sides bury their heads in the sand. That bill will go on rising and rising to unaffordable levels. There may be—I am sure there is—another way, but no, we do not do that; we ring-fence it instead.

We need a country where the entrepreneur—the business man and woman—can fly free of red tape, punitive tax rates and burdensome regulations from the EU. In South Dorset, I have a young Marine who has set up a company called Ovik Solutions. He makes armoured vehicles based on old Land Rover chassis. Riot-proof and bomb-proof, they are currently serving in Northern Ireland—120 of them. One can see the white vehicles—they are his. The company is going from strength, from employing two people to 15. Ovik will provide British jobs, based on British engineering and ingenuity, in Britain. How ironic that its inspiration, Jaguar Land Rover, is now owned by India and production is moving to China.

What lessons have our Government learned? Here we are, on our knees, and what do we do? We appoint the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) as the Business Secretary. This man is no friend of business; he is a friend of those who say “Tax, and tax, and tax, and tax.” We do not need a man of that ilk in charge of our business.

Another crazy move, brought in by the Opposition when in government, involves our brewing industry. I am of course talking about the beer duty escalator—it is absolutely mad; jobs are going in their scores every year—and it is possible for no other reason than that people like to drink beer. This is a home-grown industry that we are singularly doing an awful lot to destroy.

What must we do? We must deregulate, we must lower taxes, and we must cut state expenditure. Yes, there will be pain—of course there will—but I am convinced that in the longer term, if the private sector is allowed to flourish, as it has done, much to this Government’s credit, with the creation of 1 million new jobs, then we, and it, will create the wealth and the jobs that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is pleasure to rise and to prove the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) wrong through my passionate defence of the Chancellor, not that he needs it, and my welcome for the autumn statement.

I am old enough to remember the 1970s and when the economic history of that period is written, I think it will be rather simple: in 1979 a Conservative Government inherited bankrupt public finances and put them straight with an enterprise economy. A Conservative Government sorted out the mess of the European currency-inspired recession of the early 1990s and gave the future Labour Government a golden legacy in 1997. After two years of sound public finances following the previous Conservative Administration’s public spending commitments, the previous Labour Government embarked on an unprecedented spending spree—a boom disguised under various labels, such as cool Britannia—that left this generation with an historic debt legacy for which we, our children and our grandchildren will be paying the bills for many years to come.

[Sheila Gilmore]

One of the problems with the hon. Gentleman’s retelling of history is that the Labour Government paid down national debt so that it was lower after the first few years of that Government than it had been at the end of the previous Tory Government.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful for that intervention. If the previous Labour Government paid down the debt, why have we inherited this historic debt legacy—a legacy, it is worth reminding the House, that sees us paying debt interest payments that are set to rise to £76 billion a year, which is more than the amount spent on more than three Departments? This is a historic legacy, for which the Labour party should be ashamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My point is that we could not continue in that way. The difficulty with the Labour party’s record is that it believes most problems can be solved by throwing money at them. We have run out of money and cannot afford to do that. That is why we are taking difficult decisions and the welfare uprating will be 1%—we now know that the Labour party will oppose that. We must get welfare spending under control. That measure will save £2 billion, and if one looks at other measures introduced in the autumn statement, one sees that working households—including those in the lowest decile—will gain in 2013.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will press on because we are running out of time. If all measures to be introduced next April are taken into account, all working families gain, including those in the lowest decile. It is the right thing to do. We have raised the personal allowance yet further and cancelled Labour’s increase in fuel duty next January. Each time the average car is filled up, the motorist will pay £5 less fuel duty than they would have done had we implemented the Labour party’s plans.

As the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said, we face a global race and must make ourselves more competitive. That means moving from current spending to capital spending, which is why we will be spending £9 billion more on capital in this Parliament than the Labour party would have done. Do Labour Members support that switch from current spending to capital spending? That is why we can afford—and why it is necessary—to reduce corporation tax from 28% to 21%. The Labour party allowed our tax position to become uncompetitive.

There is competition for investment. Businesses can choose where they locate and invest. To ensure they choose this country, we need improved infrastructure and to control public spending. We must reform welfare and public services and we need competitive taxes. The Government are prepared to take difficult decisions but the Labour party consistently ducks those decisions and opposes every spending cut and reform. It opposes getting to grips with welfare spending and panders to every group, and the country will recognise that at the next election.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of the economy.

Financial Services Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

There is a large number of amendments in this group, that focus on consumer credit and the best interests of consumers. I want to concentrate on two in particular—Lords amendments 25 and 78.

Lords amendment 25 was extracted from the Government and we are glad that they gave way on it. The amendment will henceforth make it clear that the new Financial Conduct Authority will have a requirement to ensure basic access to financial services particularly in deprived areas and neighbourhoods where some of our banks and financial institutions do not necessarily think that they can make millions and millions of pounds. That is the hope placed on the shoulders of the FCA. The key question is whether the regulator will roll up its sleeves and use the full extent of the powers that the Bill should provide. I, for one, will be seeking a very early meeting with the new chief executive of the FCA to extract commitments on how it intends to use the new powers.

It should not have taken months of persuading and cajoling Treasury Ministers for them to accede to the changes. Perhaps it was the fresh air provided by the new broom, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, sweeping clean with perhaps more of an open mind than his predecessor on some of these issues. If that is the case, I commend him for it. We need to begin to look at the detail, so I have a series of questions for him, starting with Lords amendment 25.

There are already what some people call lending deserts. In some communities, bank branches are not as readily available as they are in other, more affluent areas. In some deprived areas of the country, it is hard for consumers to access affordable credit. The key word—affordability—is of course now well known. If people want to be completely ripped off, they can pay for high-cost credit, often on a very short-term basis, with immense interest rate charges that can accumulate and get them into severe jeopardy. That will lead to further financial exclusion if they cannot keep up with the repayments, and to them being trapped in a spiral of poverty.

It is important to hold the big five banks to account. As large institutions, they are not just private companies with no obligations beyond and above those that rest on the shoulders of any other private company. In this day and age, they are a social utility and have a duty to the community to ensure that all parts of the country have access to basic banking facilities. The work of the financial inclusion taskforce, under the previous Administration, sought to ensure that basic bank account facilities were available. With the onset of universal credit in April 2014, it will be even more important for everybody to understand and have access to those facilities. However, I am increasingly worried about the fragile deal put together under the previous Administration to support and extend those basic services. There are signs of a creeping onset of charges. As banks come out from the era where the taxpayer was essentially keeping them going, they are now starting to look to the consumer to extract more charges. I do not want a situation where banks get together and think about introducing basic charges on current accounts, especially for those who are taking care to ensure that they are in credit. There are worrying signs that that might be in the air. Even the regulators have started to say, “Well, let’s start charging a little bit for in-credit current accounts. It might be a way of ensuring we don’t have to charge such high costs for unauthorised overdrafts.”

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about regulating to ensure that these bank accounts remain available. Sometimes, if people find themselves being charged for an account, they simply give up, because it is too expensive, and sometimes they cannot open another account, because they have got into difficulty. That has been the experience in the past few years. I hope that the regulators will be alive to those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

This excellent debate has covered a number of issues that colleagues from all parts of the House feel passionately about, and correctly so because they are of huge importance to all our constituents, especially the most vulnerable in our society.

In the short time available, I wish to address some of the points that have been made directly by hon. Members. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), asked how the powers would be exercised by the Financial Conduct Authority. The powers come directly from the FCA’s remit, and he will be aware that the Bill establishes a far-reaching consumer protection objective. The overall objective is

“securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.”

The Bill goes into detail to require the FCA to consider the following: the different degree of risk to be tolerated by different types of consumers; the different needs of different types of consumers for the provision of information; and the general principle that those providing financial services should be expected to provide consumers with a level of care appropriate to their needs. I think that colleagues would recognise that this is a far-reaching objective which gives quite general powers to protect consumers, and it is right that that should be so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned basic bank accounts, on which some progress continues to be made. There is no universal legal right to a basic bank account, but the industry guidance still stands. It states that if a consumer asks to open a basic bank account and meets the qualifying criteria, the firm should offer them an account and that banks can refuse to open an account for a customer only where the customer has a history of fraud or is an undischarged bankrupt. Those provisions continue.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The previous Government had proposed creating exactly such an obligation, but the Minister’s predecessor, in a debate I had with him in Westminster Hall, refused to contemplate any such provision. Has there been any change of mind on the part of the Government?

[Greg Clark]

I did not have the privilege of participating in that debate, but I can tell the hon. Lady our policy. I also wanted to talk about the very important matter that the hon. Member for Nottingham East and several others raised about the transparency of the information that should be provided, as is the case in the United States, on the actual practice rather than just the intentions of lenders. This is a particularly important point, and what we have said in public—I mentioned this to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee earlier—is that the Government are working with the industry to get a commitment from the banks that they will publish granular data on their lending, particularly in deprived communities. We are meeting the British Bankers Association shortly on that. We have been absolutely clear that if we are not satisfied with that information we will use the forthcoming banking reform Bill to legislate to that effect. That will concentrate minds and I think everyone will be aware of the importance of that question.

It is important to address the context in which we are operating. The Financial Conduct Authority must not regard itself simply as a regulator of incumbents, although it has important responsibilities in that regard. It also has the important objective that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned, which is to promote competition. I regard the degree of competition in retail banking as unacceptable. I would like to see more new entrants and I would like them to concentrate, in particular, on reaching those parts of the market that existing incumbents find it difficult to reach. I have made it absolutely clear in the meetings I have had with the shadow Financial Conduct Authority that the competition objective is to be taken extremely seriously, and I and my colleagues in the Treasury will be looking for progress on that.

--- Later in debate ---

The UN has done some work, and some academics around the world think there is a problem with derivatives based on commodities, and that just as sub-prime markets were an unseen problem for too long, there may be problems now that we cannot see. That is what makes benchmarks and indices so important. We need verifiable, trustworthy numbers that we can investigate to ascertain what is happening in global food markets. As I have said, this is not a techie, dry subject that matters only to economists and those who pore over numbers; the reality is that it matters to every one of our constituents, but most especially to those with the least money to spare.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that trading in commodity derivatives can skew investment and whole industries if not properly regulated? For example, I visited the jute museum in Dundee, where one display made the point that the jute lords made more from trading in futures than they made from production. That might have made them less interested in diversifying their manufacturing industry, which has completely died.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that highly appropriate intervention. When the history of Great Britain is written, it will show that that part of the east coast of Scotland has had a great influence on economics throughout. The example from Dundee is a good one.

All hon. Members look back at global financial trading and markets and wonder how we got to the situation we found ourselves in. When the shadow banking market and complex derivatives and products were created, people became much more interested in them than in the real economy and the fundamentals of our economy. They saw the financial system as a servant to the rest of the economy rather than the other way around. I hope that view is shared broadly on both sides of the House. The Minister is nodding, but I am not entirely sure he agrees with that specific point. I will live in hope and imagine he does.

When the Minister is consulting on whether to broaden the Bill’s reach from the indices that I have mentioned to commodities, will he consider the impact of escalating food and oil prices not only on his constituents and mine, but on those who live closest to the extreme poverty line in the poorest countries? Will he consider the price of maize and wheat in very poor countries, where there is no social support system and no welfare state security net of the sort we have in this country? Will this country take a leading role in properly understanding what is happening in that market?

Autumn Statement

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I will certainly look at the application if one is put forward by the Humber enterprise zone. I know that this benefits people across not only east Yorkshire, but north Lincolnshire, which my hon. Friend represents, and I know that the enterprise zones have some exciting ideas. There is, as I say, additional money in the Book which I did not mention in my statement, but it is there for additional infrastructure in the enterprise zones, and I will take a close look at the bid that he makes on behalf of his constituents in relation to the local enterprise zone.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Job creation is vital in order to reduce public spending and increase the tax take. The words the Chancellor used in his statement were very interesting. He said specifically that when counting his 1 million private sector jobs he started from the beginning of 2010. Half of those jobs were created in the first year of that period and arose from the Labour Government’s financial stimulus, so the rate of growth has in fact been decreasing, not increasing. Does he not agree?

[Mr Osborne]

First, unemployment had gone up under the Labour Government and they, like all Labour Governments in history, left office with unemployment higher than when they came into office. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at the employment forecasts she will see that, as I was saying to her hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), 1 million jobs are forecast to be created over the coming period. As I have said, we are in a tough economic situation—I am not trying to disguise that from the House today—but I think that the decisions we have taken to help businesses and working people will be warmly welcomed.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Even though the quality of the scheme has been eroded, as we saw with the unilateral imposition of the average 3% increase in employee contributions—that might even have been before Lord Hutton reported—they are still good defined benefit schemes and we encourage public sector members to stay in them. We have debated our concerns elsewhere over whether the viability of the schemes will be jeopardised by employees being deterred from joining or deciding to opt out. However, we encourage members to stay in the schemes. Unfortunately, the 3% additional contribution is not part of this legislation, so it would be outwith the scope of the Bill to table amendments on that or to debate it. That is a great shame.

It is important that annual benefit statements include not only the employee’s contribution, but the employer’s contribution, as set out in the new clause. If the defined benefit schemes are good, there is no reason not to have that level of clarity and transparency. I have no problem with accepting that that should be part of the information that is given to scheme members. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

New clause 3 is one of the most important proposals in this group. The Government promised to implement what is known as the new fair deal, which is one of the most important aspects of the agreement that was reached in the negotiations between the employee side and Government or employer side of the scheme. The new fair deal would ensure that all public service workers who were compulsorily transferred to an independent contractor, be it a private company, a charity or another third sector body, would be entitled to remain an active member of their public service pension scheme. That is a basic requirement and it was a core part of the agreement. We were glad that the Government committed to it.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed the Government’s commitment to the new fair deal in a written statement in July, which stated that

“the Government have reviewed the fair deal policy and agreed to maintain the overall approach, but deliver this by offering access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. When implemented, this means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from the public service under TUPE, including subsequent TUPE transfers, to independent providers of public services will retain membership of their current employer’s pension arrangements.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 54WS.]

That is an improvement on the current fair deal arrangements, which ensure that outsourced staff receive broadly comparable arrangements to those under the public service schemes. The Government’s promise to implement the new fair deal was central to the rationale and at the heart of why many public service workers agreed to support the new proposed pensions reform, even though aspects of it were detrimental to them.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A few months ago in the Open Public Services White Paper, the Government expressed enthusiasm for transferring services to voluntary organisations and social enterprise—we have not heard so much about that recently. If that is to work, however, is it not particularly important to have the proposed provision on pensions?

[Chris Leslie]

Many public service workers whose services have been transferred to independent providers, whether they have been outsourced, find themselves in the voluntary sector or wherever, still want to ensure that their deferred wages—that is what pensions are—will be protected in a particular way. That was a positive development in the negotiations, but to what extent has such protection found its way into the Bill? That is why the Opposition are concerned and have tabled new clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Of course, that is an assertion by the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that crushing of confidence. What the Government had to do when they came into office was tackle a huge public sector deficit of £156 billion, and they have done that. As a consequence of the difficult decisions the Government have taken, the capital markets have been assured that the Government are getting the public finances under control. That itself should assure beneficiaries of public service pensions that the Government will put the public finances in a stable condition and so avoid the need for the sort of draconian changes to public service pensions being implemented in other European countries as they seek, rather belatedly, to tackle their public deficits.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a comfort, given that, as far as we can see, the Government’s deficit reduction plans are failing and debt is rising? In the light of that, many public service workers might well expect another bite at the cherry.

[Mr Gibb]

I fear that we are straying slightly from new clause 3 and the group of amendments, but I believe that the Government’s economic strategy is right. It is a judgment call, but one that I believe has been proven right by the fact that the Government’s borrowing cost for 10-year bonds, as they seek to fund the deficit, which has been reduced by a quarter over the last two and a half years, is 1.8%. That is a tribute to the difficult judgments Treasury Ministers have made, and they should be given credit for their achievements. As a consequence, however, there have had to be increases in the contribution rates of active members of public service pension schemes. In addition, Lord Hutton believes that even if there was not a deficit, major reform of public service pensions would still be needed, if they are to be sustainable in the long run.

The Government’s commitment to sustainable public finances is of more concrete value than a proposal from a party with a track record of undermining the public finances. Ultimately, in a pay-as-you-go public service pension scheme, the quality and assurance that members want will depend on the ability of the Government to maintain stable public finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. After our debate, I may have to check whether I have said something that I cannot remember saying, and I apologise that I cannot respond to that point at present.

The House spends a huge amount of time regulating. The Food Labelling (Nutrition Information) (England) Regulations 2009 spell out in considerable detail the information that must be on food labels. The labels specify for consumers the fibre content, edible carbohydrate polymers, synthetic carbohydrates, salt content, kilojoules and calories, sugar content, fatty acids of trans fatty acids, yet when we ask people to make choices about their pensions, which is one of the biggest decisions of their life, we give them no information at all. I urge the Economic Secretary to go further by ensuring accurate information is included in our pension statements.

[Sheila Gilmore]

At least with regard to new clause 2 and the need for good communication and good information, it appears that there is a fair degree of cross-House agreement. Members may have different motives for wanting such information to be given, and may hold different views about what behavioural change that might drive. Some Members might also hint that they want this information to be given so that public sector workers are properly and humbly grateful for retaining better pensions than the absolutely dreadful pensions of many in the private sector. I hope the Economic Secretary will respond positively, however, and agree that this is an important step. It will be deeply ironic if better and more thorough information is given to people with private sector pensions than to those with public sector pensions.

We all want to avoid too much information being given, of course, with people receiving many pages of information, much of it hard to understand. We do not want to over-egg that pudding. There is a parallel debate happening in the world of private sector pensions on giving good, accurate but still efficient information, so that people can look at a single page of information—that is preferable—and understand what their likely pensions are going to be. On that matter I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate in Committee and again today, will be happy to make some changes to the provisions. I cannot see why new clause 2 should not be in the Bill, as it deals with such a major issue.

I wish briefly to discuss new clause 3, which deals with the issue of a fair deal. Again, there would appear to be a substantial degree of agreement across the House on the substance of the issue. Nobody is saying, “We don’t think these should be the provisions.” The question that has been raised is whether they should be in the Bill. Some Government Members have suggested that accepting what the clearly stated view of Ministers has been at various points should be good enough, because it is on the record and we should be confident that that is sufficient. However, as far as I am aware, it is not possible to litigate on the basis of what people simply said, rather than what is in legislation. People have attempted to say in the past, “But that was the intention”, even doing so in respect of debates in this House. However, legal disputes about rights or obligations turn on the much narrower construction of what is written in the Bill.

I am not suggesting, in any way, that those who have spoken during our consideration of the Bill do not intend what they have said, but many public sector workers are genuinely concerned. As I said in my earlier intervention, the matter becomes a great deal more important if the Government continue, as they presumably will, over the next two years to do what they say they want to do: outsource more of what we would regard, or have traditionally regarded, as public sector activities. That has already happened to some extent. Some people have explained how this could be very positive, with employee mutuals and all kinds of social enterprises springing up to provide public services. If the Government are genuinely serious about wanting current public sector employees not just to have to do this, but to be enthusiastic about doing it, these safeguards have to be in place. If this is the road that is to be pursued, it is even more important to have these provisions than it may have been in the past. Saying, “You didn’t do it before so we don’t need to do it now” is not a particularly good argument; some of us might disagree about what had been done previously. Even if we do not, the argument is still not particularly good, as we have also to learn from experience. I hope that the Government will seriously consider legislation on this matter, because if they genuinely have no intention of departing from the promised arrangement I cannot see what the problem is. When people begin to say there is a problem, that is when those paying into these schemes—the employees likely to be affected—begin to smell a rat. There may be no rat there, but why not make things absolutely clear?

That is also true of what we are trying to achieve in amendment 12, which deals with an apparent possibility arising from clause 7. Again we were given assurances in Committee that we should not be reading into this something that the Government do not intend. Clause 7 says:

“Scheme regulations may establish a scheme…as

(a) a defined benefits scheme”.

It then goes on to talk about

“a scheme of any other description”.

It is not at all clear what is actually meant. We were told that one or two specialist defined contribution schemes are in existence, but people are clear that the promise that was made as part of this negotiation is that the defined benefits schemes would remain in place. They will, however, be changed, and during the negotiation employees in various parts of the public sector accepted substantial changes in the kind of pension because they accepted the imperatives. In moving from final salary pension schemes to career average schemes, changes are being made in accrual rates. All sorts of changes have been made—for example, the forthcoming changes to pension age—but they were made on the basis that the scheme will remain as a defined benefit scheme.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and sounding a clear warning. She mentions that clause 7(1) refers to

“a defined contributions scheme, or

( c) a scheme of any other description.”

Would she like to point out to the House that this potential change in clause 7 could in theory, under subsection (5), be brought in by way of a negative resolution—by a statutory instrument that would not allow a debate in this Chamber or even a 90-minute debate in a Committee upstairs?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is an important point. If the rest of the clause did not give rise to the possibility of substantial changes, that provision might be acceptable. However, where we are talking about much greater changes, it is particularly important that the full debate takes place.

Again, there appears to be a difference between giving an assurance and a reluctance to see that assurance embedded in the Bill. Various people have mentioned that the whole debate we have had, particularly since 2010, has eroded some of the public sector workers’ trust. I do not generally seek to be overly alarmist in these matters, but even in Committee—I am pleased to say that this has not happened today—there were points when we could see exactly why many public sector workers are apprehensive, There were those, admittedly not at ministerial level but on the Government Back Benches, who clearly still feel that public sector pensions are too generous. The underlying thinking is that at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, further attempts will be made in that regard.

I fully accept that even with the changes that come through this Bill and through other negotiations that have taken place, public sector pensions remain far better than private sector pensions. However, we always have to remember that the comparator we now have is absolutely dreadful private sector pensions, regardless of where we place the blame and how that has happened. One thing that politicians should be doing in the next few months and years is trying to improve private sector pensions.

Finally, I wish to discuss amendment 11, which relates to the local government scheme in Scotland. Generally, the arrangements for many public sector schemes in Scotland have been that Scottish Ministers could make regulations, but that they were subject to Treasury approval. For the most part, whether because of that need for Treasury approval or because until relatively recently there has been no reason to depart from the UK-wide arrangements as doing so might create various anomalies that would not always be helpful, the regulations for schemes—all those that are not funded, at least—have lain with Scottish Ministers but have been made in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making another powerful point about amendment 11. She is right that the Scottish Government are not normally backward in coming forward to demand new powers and for decisions to be taken in Scotland for Scotland. Would she care to speculate about why they have not chosen to apply for a legislative consent motion that would allow them to make these decisions in Scotland? Could it be that they are looking to allow the broad shoulders of the Economic Secretary to take the blame and responsibility for the changes to the local government pension scheme in Scotland?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was going to come to that point, because I am surprised that that opportunity has not been taken, given the context. As my right hon. Friend will know, this is a difficult and sensitive subject, but—this point might well be speculative and I am sure that people will wish to deny that it is the case—it is no secret that we are in a particular stage of politics in Scotland, and it would—

[Dr Whiteford]

I think I might be rescuing the hon. Lady from the point she was trying to make. Earlier, she stressed the importance of considering what is actually in the legislation rather than the world as we would like it to be. Does she welcome the fact that John Swinney has not exercised his flexibility to increase contributions to the local government pension scheme?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) will comment on that point only if it is relevant to the amendments we are considering. I remind hon. Members that we are not yet on Third Reading. The debate is going rather wide of the new clauses and amendments, so perhaps the hon. Lady could return to them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am more than happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we will have further debate on that topic.

If amendment 11 were agreed to, considerable and greater power would be available for the Scottish Parliament than the current Scottish Government appear to want. Within the context of the politics at present, I do not think it would be idle speculation to suggest that that might be convenient.

[Cathy Jamieson]

With reference to the amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) earlier, notwithstanding the comments I made at that stage, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government is complaining that there are only some 28 months to conclude negotiations on pensions when a great deal of the Scottish Government’s effort appears to be going on other things at the moment? Perhaps some of that resource could be used to resolve these issues.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I suspect that it might also be outwith the terms of the new clause, so I shall refrain from commenting.

Finally, there is a risk that we are missing something in Scotland and are not getting—or even trying to get—the powers we could have. That decision might be for purely party political reasons, so that people can lay blame, saying, “There is nothing we can do; we cannot make life better for you because we do not have the power to do so. It is all because of that nasty Government down in London and your only way out of this is to make that amazing leap so that with one bound we are free. Then, everything will suddenly be wonderful,” in the hope that that will persuade the people of Scotland that they should vote for separation. I am confident that the level-headedness of the Scottish people will mean that they will not be taken in by such proceedings.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for her speech. For the short time for which I have been a Minister so far, in every debate and in every Bill Committee in which I have been involved, no matter what the subject, she has spoken. I can always rely on her to quiz me and keep me on my toes, so I thank her for that.

Let me also thank all other hon. Members who have contributed to the discussions we have just had: the shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). I shall try to deal with all the points that were raised.

I am glad that we are starting with new clause 2 and that we have started our debate discussing annual benefit statements. It is right that scheme members should be kept informed of their pension rights and provided with an annual update. I fully understand the case for doing more in that area and find myself in agreement with the arguments that Members on both sides of the House raised today and in Committee.

I agree that information should be provided for some members, without request, in one format or another. However, I cannot support the precise wording of the new clause. For example, it does not distinguish between active, pensioner and deferred members but we would need to take that distinction into account. I would also wish to ensure that any change was future-proof—for example, we should not inadvertently mandate paper statements when it might be easier and cheaper for schemes to implement online and perhaps mobile technologies in the future.

Although I respect and understand the spirit in which the new clause was tabled, and although I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, I would not propose to use its exact wording. I am now persuaded that there is a case for going the extra mile to ensure regular updates are provided for scheme members. That is why we will consider the matter further and propose an amendment in the other place to deal with annual benefit statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly about amendments 29, 30 and 31, which stand in my name and which would exempt Scottish schemes from the requirement that new schemes should link pension age with state pension age. Amendment 33 is simply a definition of what is meant by “Scottish scheme”—namely a scheme relating to those in local government, teachers, NHS workers, firefighters or the police—for the purpose of clarifying the other amendments.

On Second Reading, it was clear that the linking of normal pension age to state pension age was a central bone of contention. It has certainly been the main topic of concern mentioned to me by constituents who will be affected by the proposed changes, including teachers, NHS workers and prison officers. It has also been the top priority for unions and other staff representatives taking part in negotiations. It has been the key sticking point in those negotiations, and has caused a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty among employers.

As has been pointed out by other Members, many people who do physically demanding and stressful jobs will struggle to work into their late 60s. The change will create real difficulties and hardships for those who develop health conditions as they age. It will also make life much more complicated for employers who will have to work around and adapt to the physical limitations of employees who should really have retired.

The reason this is such an acute issue in Scotland is very simple: our life expectancy is almost two years lower than the UK average. In fact, ours is among the lowest life expectancy levels in Europe. Even given recent improvements and an upward trajectory, male life expectancy in Scotland is only 76 years and female life expectancy just over 80. We also have an unenviable health record. I have previously referred to the widening gap between rising life expectancy and what is defined as “healthy life expectancy”—the years before the average age at which people develop serious physical health problems that impair their normal day-to-day life. At present, women in Scotland have a healthy life expectancy of only 61.9 years, while for men the figure drops to 59.5. In other words, people are already having to work beyond the age at which they can expect to be in reasonably good health.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am sorry, but Mr. Speaker has asked me to keep my remarks brief. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear with me.

A large number of people end up taking early retirement or receiving disability benefit in later middle age. The TUC has done some sterling work in highlighting the large proportion of people who are in that position. Many are having to retire early on reduced pensions, in some cases at a significant cost to their employers. When workplace pressures have contributed to the premature collapse of an employee’s health, that becomes a very costly exercise for everyone involved. I am thinking particularly of prison officers.

We know that people in physically demanding occupations and those on lower incomes die significantly earlier than affluent people in white-collar jobs. The new hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) mentioned that earlier. Our public sector encompasses a range of occupations, from civil service desk and office jobs to the work done by people such as prison officers, paramedics and nurses, which places intense physical demands on them.

Although the Bill has acknowledged the physical strain that is placed on some workers, such as firefighters and police officers, it does not take proper account of the human limitations of our work force as a whole. In applying such a broad brush to changing demographics, it takes no account of occupational and geographic variances that cut across other aspects of social class. We can legislate on paper as much as we like, but forcing people to work until their health caves in is not a sustainable long-term solution for pensioners. A little more pragmatism from the Government would go a long way, not only in enabling meaningful negotiations to progress, but in designing genuinely sustainable public sector pension provision in the Scottish context for the longer term. If we do not get the design of schemes right, public sector employees are likely to lose confidence in the process, and we will run the risk of individuals choosing to opt out, with all the negative unintended consequences that entails, with additional cost to the state through means-tested benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I wish to speak in support of amendments 1, 2 and 9. Amendment 2 is straightforward: it seeks to ensure that people are not forced to retire beyond the age of 65, as most of our work force have planned to retire then. On the argument that the amendment is unaffordable, let me remind hon. Members of what Hutton said about the 2007-08 changes. He said that they are likely to reduce costs to taxpayers of the pension schemes by £67 billion over 50 years, with costs stabilising at around 1% of GDP or 2% of public expenditure.

The other issue involved here is what our priorities are. The last figure I had for how much the unfunded public sector pension schemes were costing us was for 2009-10, when it was less than £4 billion. Some 60% of gross tax relief on pensions goes to higher rate taxpayers—that is £22 billion. The cost of providing tax relief to the 1% of our population who earn more than £150,000 was double the amount we are funding with regard to the public sector unfunded pensions—that is £8 billion. So the fact that we are willing to subsidise the higher paid—the rich—while forcing others to work longer and cutting their pensions at the same time reflects our priorities. That is why I have tabled the amendment: I do not accept the settlement or the Government’s rationale for these proposals.

Amendment 1 was eloquently discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I must declare an interest at this point: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. One point that the POA made, which we made on Second Reading, is that if we increase the pension age for prison officers, we lose money because more of them will become injured and more will go off sick, and more cost will be incurred in compensation. The actuarial figures are there almost to prove it, so it is anomalous not to include prison officers. The point about psychiatric nurses is the role they play, particularly in institutions such as Broadmoor, where they are dealing with the most difficult cases—physical challenges—within the NHS. I find it bizarre that we are expecting police officers to retire “early” at 60—I hope we do not go to that—because of the physical nature of their jobs in dealing with criminals, yet when those criminals go into prison it appears that they no longer provide a physical challenge to the officers dealing with them then. The situation is anomalous, which is why I support the amendment to include psychiatric nurses.

I also tabled amendment 9, and this is specifically for the Fire Brigades Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has said from the Front Bench, the Government have set up, in agreement with the unions, the working longer review in the NHS and the physical assessment in respect of the fire service. Evidence is piling in to those reviews—independent academic evidence, and details of physical tests that have been undertaken—to demonstrate that it is tough to do the job at 55, let alone at 60. I have seen some of the evidence put forward in the fire service review. When the previous Government increased the retirement age to 55 it was on the basis that there would be more firefighters doing preventive work and people could be redeployed into that work. This year, only 15 posts nationally have been available for redeployment, so redeployment is not an option. These people are still out there doing that physical job, and it is unacceptable to push the retirement age to 60. That is why amendment 9 would ensure that the pension schemes would be able to take into account the reviews currently taking place and that we would be able to adhere to a lower retirement age, particularly for firefighters and others as they are justified.

I am interested to hear what the Government’s responses will be, so I shall finish on this next point. Overall we seek to ensure that there is justice in the Bill, and that is certainly not the case at the moment. I reiterate that the Bill is increasing the contributions and increasing the length of time that people will be working. Given the life expectancy in my constituency, a large number of my constituents will not reach retirement age. Already, a third of all members across the schemes retire within three years of when they should normally do so because they cannot physically continue in the job. They therefore live on reduced pensions and in some poverty. My constituents will contribute more, work longer, most probably have a reduced pension at the end of it and have to retire early. That is an unjust deal when we are subsidising the wealthy through tax relief on their pensions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I want to address a couple of issues and reinforce some of the points made in Committee. It is not good enough to say that the normal retirement age does not matter because people can retire early if they need to, as they will retire on much lower pensions—that is what actuarial reduction means. Those with many chronic conditions might have several years of suffering with the condition that has made them retire. That is not good enough.

The way in which the Bill is formulated fixes the retirement age in a way that makes it very difficult to introduce the flexibility that might be required by some scheme reviews. There will be a battle every time a review shows that there should be a lower retirement age, as the Government will be able to point to the Bill and say that that age cannot be moved as that is what Parliament voted for. However, amendment 16, for example, would allow the degree of flexibility required. Many people already do not work in the years running up to the normal retirement ages, not just across the public sector but in the private sector, too. As many are living on reduced incomes and having to dip into any savings they might have put aside for retirement, they are much more likely to become dependent on other state support in older age.

We have the big issue of longevity, but underneath that lies the fact that a substantial proportion of the population cannot even work until the normal retirement age, particularly men between 60 and 65 in many private sector jobs. Those people are already living on reduced incomes, so if we keep increasing the retirement age more and more people will be in that position.

[Sajid Javid]

We have had a good debate on this set of amendments, but I am afraid that for reasons of time that are beyond my control I will not have an opportunity to respond on all of them. The main theme in this group is the link between the new normal and deferred pension ages and the members’ state pension age. That will help manage the financial uncertainties associated with longevity changes over the long term. It was a key recommendation of Lord Hutton’s report and is one of the foundations of the Bill.

The average 60-year-old is now living 10 years longer than in the 1970s. Although that is to be celebrated, it would be irresponsible not to react accordingly to ensure that pension provision is sustainable. Clearly, no Government can allow such a trend to continue unchecked.

In the short time I have, I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which they have been selected and I will start with 13, 14 and 15. The deferred pension age in the new schemes is vital given the vast number of public servants who claim deferred pensions. That is why the Bill sets the deferred pension age in all schemes as equal to the state pension age, including in the police, firefighters and armed forces schemes. As Members are aware, a normal pension age of 60 in the police, firefighters and armed forces schemes is in line with Lord Hutton’s recommendations and recognises the unique nature of the work involved.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) cannot be accepted by the Government, for two reasons. First, it would be unfair to other hard-working public servants, both those in active service and deferred members whose pension ages would be the state pension age. Of course we value the work of all our police, firefighters and armed forces, but once those people stop doing those jobs, there is no reason for them to be able to take their deferred benefits earlier than everyone else.

Income Tax

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Whether the rate is 45p or 50p”, but the difference between those figures is £3 billion that could be used to pay down the deficit, help families who are struggling with the rising cost of living or get rid of the granny tax that the Chancellor is introducing next year. The principle of having lower taxes is fine, but we have a deficit to reduce. I thought the Government believed we should be cutting that deficit instead of giving tax cuts. The Chancellor said that in his first Budget, but he has thought again since then and is giving a tax cut to the wealthiest while asking ordinary families to pay more. That is not what my constituents want, and I doubt it is what those of the hon. Gentleman want either.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, strangely, because the cut in the rate of tax was announced and then postponed, a number of people will doubtless try to do in reverse what they appear to have done when the tax was introduced? The Government will then say, “Ah, but in this year, not enough was raised through that tax.” It will almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Rachel Reeves]

Exactly that point about income profiling and not being able to estimate the impact of the tax because it has not been in place long enough was made by the IFS and the OBR. It is a shocking indictment of the Government’s priorities that the Chancellor has chosen at this time to give a tax cut to the few at the top—a tax break for millionaires—while asking working people to pay more. They are the same, old, out-of-touch Tories, and not one of their accomplices—the Liberal Democrats—had the nerve to stand up to the Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

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

“notes that the previous administration maintained the top rate of income tax at 40 per cent for 13 years, only increasing it to 50 per cent in April 2010, one month before the Government was formed, and that this new rate was damaging to UK competitiveness; further notes that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility certified the Government’s central estimate that reducing the 50 per cent rate to 45 per cent would have a cost to the Exchequer of £100 million per year and that measures introduced at the last Budget increased taxes on the wealthy by some £500 million; recognises that in contrast to the previous administration that abolished the 10 per cent rate of tax which increased taxes on more than five million low earners, the Government is cutting income tax for 25 million low and middle earners while taking two million low-paid people out of income tax altogether through increasing the tax free personal allowance; recognises that every Budget under this Government has increased taxes on the rich, including a new stamp duty land tax rate for properties over £2 million, an annual charge on these properties, introducing a cap on previously unlimited income tax reliefs and an extension to the capital gains tax regime, clamping down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and bringing in a General Anti-Abuse Rule; and welcomes the introduction of the Triple Lock, which led this year to the biggest ever cash rise in the state pension.”

The amendment is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. After all the anger and bluster the House has just heard, may I bring to its attention a few pertinent facts? Hon. Members have been told that the 45p rate for high earners is too low, which ignores the fact that there was a top rate of 40p for all but 36 of the 4,758 days of the Labour Government. We have been told that the rich should pay more. That ignores the fact that other changes in the tax system introduced in the Budget will raise five times the amount of tax from the wealthiest than the 50p rate raised in practice. We have heard that moving to 45p is wrong, but the Opposition will not commit to reversing it after the next general election.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister confirm a report that I read in, I believe, The Sunday Times, which stated that the number of property sales above the level of increased stamp duty has fallen since the Budget? When will he produce figures on whether such so-called additional taxes raise any additional money?

[Mr Gauke]

I note with interest that the hon. Lady appears to be arguing that an increase in tax can sometimes lead to a loss of revenue. She is right—that can sometimes happen. As it happens, the revenue on stamp duty land tax is holding up all right, but she makes an important point, one that I hope is understood more widely in her party. I am pleased that the Opposition are keeping open the option of not increasing the 45p rate of income tax. Although it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden—I will set out how the Government are making that happen—it is also necessary to ensure that the UK is competitive in attracting wealth creators to locate and stay in this country. A Government that are serious about the UK winning the global race for growth should be very careful about pursuing a policy that places a huge “closed for business” sign over our economy. That is exactly what the 50p rate of income tax was—a “closed for business” sign. I hope that at the next general election there will be a consensus that we do not want to re-erect that sign over our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow a maiden speech, particularly that of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whom I congratulate on his excellent speech. He has a hard act to follow, as he acknowledged, having had two illustrious predecessors: “Sunny” Jim Callaghan and Alun Michael, late of this House. We will all watch his career with interest to see whether the constituency can provide a trio of senior Cabinet Ministers in due course. I must warn him, however, that no one ever tells us before we come to this place how busy it is and how hard-worked we are. I hope that he will still find the time to go and see Cardiff City play, and to pursue his singing hobby, which I understand he is partial to.

Moving on to the matter of income tax, I believe that the right policy is one of fair taxes, not only in regard to the higher rates but across the piece. For me, that means taking the poorest out of tax altogether, as well as taking the middle classes out of the higher rate and not allowing them to be consumed by fiscal drag as they have been over the past decade. It also means avoiding punitive rates that drive people out of the United Kingdom altogether, and ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax on their UK revenues. Putting all that together would create the system of fair taxes and tax justice that this country urgently requires.

Did Labour do any of those things when it was in office? It did not do much to take the poorest out of tax. Indeed, many of the comments from the Opposition today on our policy of increasing the personal rate to £10,000, which I hope to see, have been mealy-mouthed at best. They appear at times even to oppose it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are different ways of assisting those on lower wages? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that tax credits are more efficient than raising the tax threshold, which is very expensive. Furthermore, once people have fallen below the threshold and out of tax, they get no further help. It is at least arguable that the Government’s much-vaunted raising of the personal allowance will not help the poorest families, and that it will come at a very high price.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I prefer aspiration to the welfare dependency that Labour has offered over the past decade.

We have cut income tax for 25 million people in this country, and we are taking 2 million people out of tax altogether. I am proud that this Government have done that. We are increasing the personal allowance to £9,205 in April 2013, and I want to see it increased to £10,000 in due course. These are real achievements for the Government. It was wrong that the previous Government allowed so many people on middling incomes to get stuck in the 40p rate, where they should not have been. I hope that, as the public finances recover, we will be able to find more space to take middle-earning people out of the higher rate. They are not rich people; they are the people in the squeezed middle created by Labour when it was in power, and I hope that that situation will change over time.

The most important thing is to look at the effects of the punitive rates that Labour introduced. Let us face the facts. Today’s Daily Mail reports that about two thirds of Britain’s highest earners “deserted the UK” after the 50p top rate of tax was introduced. It found that in 2009-10 some 16,000 workers with an income of over a million quid paid tax, but that the number then dropped to 6,000 after the former Prime Minister brought in new tax rules.

I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on asking the questions that drew forward these important figures. The tax paid by top earners fell from £13.4 billion to just £6.5 billion in 2010-11. That is the issue, is it not? If the rate is increased so much that it becomes punitive, people will leave the country, squirrel away their income, not declare their income, leave it in companies—personal service companies—or cash boxes where it is not subject to tax. When that happens, tax revenue is lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

On that basis, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will jump up next to say that he is in favour of hanging, along with most of the British people. I do not see him or his Labour colleagues supporting that particular measure—or, indeed, a measure to leave the European Union, which is what most people in this country say they want when they are polled. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious when it comes to these issues; he needs to be careful about what he wishes for.

I think that the Treasury is right to cut the 50p rate to a more sustainable level. We know it will cost £100 million, but we also know that five times that amount has been raised by taxes that are less elastic. This measure is right for the public finances and it is the right economic policy to encourage growth and prosperity in this country. It is also the case that if we cut the rate, we up the take; and I suspect the Treasury figures might turn out to be a little bit better—or perhaps it has been a little more cautious—than we think. I suspect that we might well end up with more money in the bank as a result of these measures.

Broadly, what the Government have done is right. It is important to remember that if we encourage millionaires to stay in Britain and to set up and run businesses here, they will do so far more effectively. It is important, too, for the Government to look at multinationals and ensure that they pay a fair share. We should also note that in the past decade, the Labour Government allowed multinationals to flout our tax law and not pay a fair share of tax. The reason we are talking about the super-rich—Apple, Amazon, Google and all the rest of these large combines—today is that the Labour Government let them completely off the hook. They were so determined to be the pro-business party that they did not collect the revenue from these companies that they should have done. They did not keep our tax law up to date for the internet age.

The Opposition may well want to talk about millionaires and the people who earn amounts that lead to the 50p rate, but it is wrong for them to do so while they completely let off the hook the really large businesses that have substantial revenues that they could and should pay in the UK but do not. Shame on them for that. Let us face the fact that the working nation under Labour saw income taxes rise by about 80%, whereas non-oil corporation tax revenues went up by just 6%. I do not think that is a record of which the Labour party should be proud; it is not a good record or a justifiable record, and people are very angry about the fact that Labour was completely asleep at the wheel on that score.

I think the Government took the right measure in dealing with tax avoidance by the super-rich. It is not just about the 50p income tax rate, as it is also about tackling tax avoidance. An important consultation on tax avoidance is taking place, along with the introduction of the general anti-abuse rule. It is important, too, that we are raising more money from less elastic taxes as a result of getting rid of the 50p rate. We have a package of measures, such as stamp duty land tax, cracking down on tax avoidance and introducing a cap on uncapped income tax reliefs. Reducing the 50p rate for millionaires is not the right way to approach these things; the right thing to do is to look at the inelastic taxes.

It is very revealing that we have seen interventions by Labour Members today attacking the measures on stamp duty land tax, implying that they are almost the wrong thing to do. It is important to go for the less elastic taxes and use the elastic taxes to encourage entrepreneurs, wealth creators and those who will create jobs and money. It is important, too, that the figures in the Office for Budget Responsibility report and from Her Majesty’s Custom and Excise show that the 50p rate raised next to nothing. Analysis showed that the 50p rate meant £16 billion to £18 billion of income was deliberately shifted into the tax year before it was introduced.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have already given way.

Self-assessment receipts for 2011-12 are below the forecast by £3.6 billion and the increase from the 40p to the 50p rate raised only a third of the £3 billion that the Labour Government said it would raise. It is easy for Labour to say, “Ah, but eventually this money will pop up”—but not necessarily. The money could be kept in a personal service company, as so many Labour Members and, indeed, the former Labour Mayor of London have done, and lent to oneself with a beneficial loan, helping to avoid paying tax. People can take those sorts of measures, or they can capitalise their income and invest it in something else, meaning that the money never comes into charge. That is why super-high rates are unwise. It also means driving people abroad. That is exactly what happened: people were driven abroad by the Labour Government’s penal tax rates. Again, that is not the right thing to do. We need to look at how to repair our nation’s finances, not look at how to play politics with the politics of envy.

It is important to remember that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the 50p rate was always meant to be temporary and that the Revenue has been very effective in cracking down on tax avoidance, which is where the really big numbers lie. The 50p rate does not raise a whole of lot of money and it discourages a whole load of people by sending out a negative message on the competitiveness of Britain, while the tax avoidance and evasion yield has jumped to a record £21 billion. It is important to crack down on all those tax avoiders and tax evaders, making sure that they pay a fair share.

Finally, I would like to quote what the OECD says about the effect of the 50p rate on our competitiveness and on our economy. Back in July 2010, it said:

“Consider reducing the top rate of PIT”—

personal income tax—

“which is substantially above the OECD average and likely adversely to affect work incentives and entrepreneurship, particularly of high skilled workers. Consideration should be given to reducing the top rate of personal income tax to close to 40 per cent”.

It is very telling that an international organisation is saying that a country’s tax system is going to drive people away, particularly the high skilled, highly able, highly job-creating, highly entrepreneurial people that a country most needs to have. The Government have been very brave in putting the economics before the politics in the last Budget. I commend them for what they have done and for taking the tough decisions that are right for our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It was a privilege to be present for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who spoke eloquently and passionately about his local area. The picture that he painted has made me eager to take the first possible opportunity to visit his constituency.

Let me begin with a small maths problem that I often pose to students in my constituency. If income tax rates were set at zero, how much income tax would the Chancellor raise? The students always get the answer right: it is zero. I then ask this question: if the Chancellor set the income tax rate at 100%, how much more income tax would he raise? Usually, someone will put his or her hand up and say, “He would raise a lot more.” I should welcome an intervention from any Opposition Member who has a view on how much income tax the Chancellor would raise if the rate was set at 100%.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Giving such an extreme and ridiculous example is unhelpful, as I think the hon. Lady is well aware. No Opposition Member is suggesting that the income tax rate should be 100%.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I seem to recall that in my lifetime—under the Government of, I think, the predecessor but one of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth—income tax was set at more than 90%. If it were set at 100%, we should have no income tax revenue, because no one would consider it worth while to work.

I then ask my students what would happen if we lowered the rate of income tax from 100% to 70%. Would we raise more or less revenue? Again, I should welcome interventions from Opposition Members. Everyone realises that we would raise more revenue, because if the rate was 70%, we would take home 30p in the pound. I notice that the new socialist Government across the channel recently introduced that income tax rate. We will see how that stacks up over time, but I expect that it will prove to be a deterrent to additional work, too.

The motion contains the seeds of its own mathematical inconsistency, because the Opposition are extrapolating a linear relationship between the income tax rate and the amount of income tax revenue raised. They are also extrapolating that those who can, in what is a global market, take their labour to any other country in the world will not take into account any difference in tax rates between the UK and other nations, yet all the evidence shows that that is not the case.

The Labour motion refers to 8,000 people paying income tax on income of £1 million or more. In 2009-10, which is the last tax year in which we had the 40p tax rate, some 16,000 people had an income of £1 million or more. Through raising the tax rate from 40p—a rate that was in place for all but one month of Labour’s entire 13 years in office—we can see that millionaires can do other things with their income. They can take their entire labour overseas, or they can decide to shelter their income or not to take a dividend that year, or they can use any of the other methods to ensure they do not pay that increase in income tax. There was a reduction of £7 billion in revenue after the income tax rate went up from 40p to 50p.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on making such an extraordinarily good maiden speech. It was elegant, forceful, confident and amusing, and it had a global sweep, covering most of the current political agenda. I am sure that we will hear a great deal more from my hon. Friend, and I wish him well.

The basic reason why the 50p rate decision is so unfair is that the very rich caused the financial crash, yet those at the top of the banks have hardly suffered at all, while the rest of the population are having to fund the bail-out and are now paying the price in rising unemployment, shrinking incomes and reduced services. To cap it all, in those current circumstances of austerity, the Chancellor flagrantly and provocatively cut the 50p tax rate to give the 1% very richest in the country—those on more than £3,000 a week—an average £10,000 tax break, including giving 14,000 millionaires a gift of £40,000 each, which is an extra £800 a week.

The Exchequer Secretary gave two reasons for doing that, one of which was that not much money will be lost as a result, but Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs report on the 50p rate reduction plainly states, in table A2, that the Treasury will forgo £3 billion as a result.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my right hon. Friend think the Government’s rush to judgment on the effect of the 50p rate decision will be as good as their rush to judgment on the value of the future jobs fund?

[Mr Meacher]

My hon. Friend makes her own point. It is very difficult to reach a final conclusion on this matter, because of forestalling and because this change is seen as temporary. The very rich will, therefore, ensure that most of their income is put forward until the rate is lowered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend says it is unusual, but I would say that it should not be surprising, given what Tony Blair said would be the intention of his party while it was in office. Of course, that gives us another opportunity to remind ourselves of Lord Mandelson’s comment that new Labour was

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

Let us compare the Labour Government’s record with what the coalition has done. Liberal Democrat priorities in the coalition are twofold: tax cuts for the lowest paid and effective taxes on the wealthy. We have seen the £10,000 tax-free threshold go from the front page of our manifesto and election leaflets through to the coalition agreement and it is on course for delivery within this Parliament. We will have raised the tax threshold from £6,475 steadily towards £10,000 possibly within four years and certainly within five. In the previous decade under the Labour Government, the tax threshold was raised by just £2,090. Under the coalition, more than 20 million people will have a tax cut of up to £700 and 3 million will have been raised out of income tax altogether. That disproportionately helps people who work part time, who are disproportionately women, and is particularly effective in helping the young. Indeed, a young person on the minimum wage can now work full time without paying any income tax. That is a huge difference from the position we inherited.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Would he support urging the Government to change how they will approach universal credit? Under the new rules, people will be assessed on their post-tax income and as a result for every £1,000 increase in tax allowance people on tax credit will receive only £70. Would he support an amendment or a change to that?

[Stephen Williams]

I think that universal credit will be seen in time as a major piece of welfare reform, sitting with what the 1945 Labour Government and 1906 Liberal Government did, and will have huge significance in simplifying the benefit system. Surely the hon. Lady, like me, will have visitors in her surgeries who fall between the stools of council tax benefit, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, and all the others and who ask her to sort that out for them. The Government are making progress on that. There are intricacies to sort out—I grant her that—but the reforms are yet to be brought in and I hope that there is still time to ensure that the system, when it starts, genuinely helps the most vulnerable in society, which we certainly want to see.

The top priority for the Liberal Democrats in this coalition is the £10,000 tax-free threshold. That is now the flagship policy of the coalition and both parties should be pleased that it is being delivered, but we also want to see effective taxes on the wealthy. The Government have already raised the rate of income tax from the 18% we inherited to 28%. We have raised stamp duty on properties worth more than £2 million from 5% to 7%. That is an extra £40,000 of stamp duty that someone will pay when acquiring a property worth £2 million or more. We have also imposed a 15% surcharge stamp duty to discourage the tax avoidance that was rife under the previous Labour Government, when people used corporate vehicles to acquire personal property. We have effectively put measures in place to block that. Of course, I now want the Government to go further and to see whether in our next couple of Budgets we can get an effective mansion tax and annual wealth tax in place.

When the announcement was made in this year’s Budget that the 50p top rate would be reduced next year to 45p, the Chancellor ensured that other measures put in place would raise five times as much revenue as was predicted to be lost as a result. I am interested in having an effective top rate of income tax and 45% compares well with the international situation. In Germany, the top rate of tax is 47.5%, but it bites only after about £208,000 of income. In the US, the rate is roughly 42% in the states that have the highest rates of taxation, but it bites only at £240,000. In France—I am surprised that Opposition Members have not mentioned President Hollande more often—the top rate of tax is 41%, lower than the 45% that ours will be next year, whereas the 75% that he talks of introducing will be only on incomes of more than €1 million if it is introduced in 2013.

Rates and thresholds are effective only if taxes are collected, which is why I am pleased that the Treasury has set up an affluence unit to target people who have assets and income of more than £1 million and why we are introducing a general anti-abuse and anti-avoidance rule, for which I have called for many years. That action has been taken by this Government and was dismissed by the two Chancellors of the previous Government.

When Labour was in office, it made a virtue of low taxes on the wealthy and high earners. The coalition has slashed tax for the poor, has effective taxes in place on the wealthy and is cracking down on tax avoidance. I know which record I prefer.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Being a member of a Public Bill Committee, particularly a Back-Bench member, can be a soul-destroying experience. It often seems to Opposition Members—under all Governments, I am sure; I do not intend to suggest otherwise—that what happens is this: the Committee debates the amendments that we have tabled, the Government generally oppose them, in some instances there is a vote, the Opposition generally lose the vote unless the Government have been uncommonly careless in losing some of their members somewhere in the building, and we move on to the next debate. However, that is probably not what the public think is involved in the scrutiny of a Bill in Committee.

When I became a member of the Committee, I wrote in my local newsletter that I was quite excited about it. Because the Bill did not appear to me to have created huge party political dividing lines, I believed that we would have the sort of opportunity for scrutiny that does not always arise. Unfortunately, however, there came a time when I began to feel that that was not the case, and that, for all my hopes that we would be open with one another about what was right and wrong with the Bill, we were merely engaging in those traditional Committee procedures. I was therefore extremely pleased to observe that the Minister, who had given little away in Committee, had tabled Government amendments on Report. That, I think, shows that he listened to what was said in Committee, and subsequently thought about difficulties that had been created during the drafting of the Bill but had not really been intended by legislators.

We must surely acknowledge that returning the time for which a charity must have existed before it can even claim under the scheme to two years, as the Government amendment proposes, would be an improvement, although our new clause takes a rather different approach. At least the amendment recognises that charities, particularly new charities, need a great deal of help. However, part of the problem with the Bill has been the fact that it is so strongly hitched to the gift aid mechanism.

It was assumed that small charities that could not obtain money through gift aid should be helped by means of the mechanism that already existed. That created a huge extra obstacle race. In fact, there will still be an obstacle race even if the Government amendments are accepted. The charity must be registered, it must have existed for a certain number of years—for the three years originally proposed, or for two—and it must be registered for gift aid. For all the reasons that have already been given, that can be quite a cumbersome process, particularly for small organisations that are entirely run by volunteers.

The whole apparatus of gift aid is quite complex, and the original mechanism involved a fairly lengthy process. It seemed to us in Committee that very small charities in particular were being expected to jump through a huge number of hoops to make their claims. Ironically, it appeared that they would be faced with far more obstacles than larger organisations which were claiming substantial amounts of gift aid, and that a scheme that had been intended to benefit small organisations was unduly elaborate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

The process of the Bill from start to finish, including the pre-legislative stage—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) mentioned—was very important. It is good to see that things can change. We sometimes become very rigid in this place—people take up positions and then cannot dig themselves out very easily without feeling a loss of face. A lot of improvements have been made, although some issues remain. The following may or may not prove to be the case; we will see how it works out in practice. During the pre-legislative scrutiny we attempted to grapple with the imbalance between organisations, whether national or regional in scope, which operate in such a way that each of their branches is a separate charity, and those which do not operate as a separate charity. Clearly, the Government listened to the concerns expressed, particularly by some churches, and made important changes. The by-product is a remaining complexity and an obstacle for organisations that cannot quite fit themselves into the model that has been adopted.

I hope that the ongoing review that the Minister at various times assured us will take place—regardless of whether there is a formal review built in for certain parts of the Bill—will look carefully at whether that model can be modified. It is genuinely difficult for some organisations to meet the requirements on where the money has to be collected and the reference to community buildings—linking not only where the collection takes place, but where the charitable activity takes place. There are numerous examples of organisations that do not fit into the model that has been adopted. It clearly fits the church model, where the charitable purpose takes place at precisely the same time as the donations—the collection—but constituent elements or branches of other charities that cannot fit that model may still be unable to take advantage of the provisions, even though they are collecting money and making exactly the kind of efforts that the Bill is designed to encourage.

Even though Opposition amendments and our suggestion of a clear review process have not been accepted by the Government—of course, it depends on what happens to the Bill in the other place; further amendments and suggestions may be made about how some obstacles could be smoothed further and ironed out—I hope that some of these issues will be looked at in coming years to ensure that the Bill does what we all say we want it to do and allows small charities, which take fairly low levels of collections that are critical to their operation, to be able to take advantage of it.

Fuel Duty

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

That is exactly why the Government have taken action on the cost of living, which I will move on to shortly. Let me first talk about the Labour party’s record. It will not admit that it delivered the biggest deficit in the developed world. The shadow Chancellor said only three weeks ago that under Labour

“there was not a structural deficit”.

In fact, there was a structural deficit of £71 billion in 2007-08—more than 5% of this country’s GDP. We should thank him. Whenever anyone might need reminding why the Labour party must never be allowed to run this country again, the shadow Chancellor steps up to the plate—and this motion is another reminder.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that it is misleading constantly to give a cash figure for the size of deficit and say that it is higher than in countries with a far lower GDP?

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the hon. Lady needs to study the figures and understand what “percentage of GDP” means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Anyone who listened to “The Westminster Hour” last night—perhaps it is only sad political anoraks who do so—will know that Ministers and Government Whips have been at their Back Benchers over the weekend, and no doubt for some days before, feeding them the line that they should not worry because everything will be all right in the autumn statement and the fuel rise will not really happen, so there is no need for them to vote against the Government tonight. Clearly, the Government are terrified that there will be more votes against them. However, it is not fair to people in Britain to tell them, with a nod and a wink, “It should be all right.” Government Members have sought to criticise our motion, on the ground that we should find a way to pay for not going ahead with the increase, but what they are really saying—the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) gave this away completely—is, “This is not going to happen, but we will not tell you how we are going to pay for it.” Therefore, they cannot lecture us and accuse us of hypocrisy.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the issue of fiscal strategies and paying for things, does the hon. Lady really think that it is a compelling case to say that the catch-all concept of addressing tax avoidance is the way in which the Opposition will pay for any reductions that they make to duty? This afternoon, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee and listened to evidence from Google, Amazon and Starbucks, and it quickly became apparent to me that, over 13 years, the Labour Government allowed crony capitalism and did nothing about tax avoidance.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he has just walked into the Chamber to make it; I do not think he was present throughout the debate. I am glad that he and his Government want to act on these issues, and we look forward to seeing—perhaps in the autumn statement—the measures that they intend to put in place.

We heard from the Minister nothing about the fuel duty increase, but a lot of rehashed issues to do with the economy. There have been accusations that the Opposition are suffering from amnesia, but the amnesia that the Government are suffering from is even more profound; they seem to have forgotten that when, two and a half years ago, they came into office, they had an emergency Budget, which, we were told, would sort out the economy. If Ministers recall, at the time of that Budget and in the autumn statement of 2010, we were told that the economy would grow over the next two years, and that they would reduce, and indeed eliminate, the deficit in their term in government. They have since had to concede that there has not been that growth, and that they will not eliminate the deficit over that period, so if anyone has amnesia, it is the Government. That happened because of the absolute insistence on trying to cut the deficit so quickly, including by making cuts in investment spending; that has produced a lot of the problems that we have.

Even some of the Government’s supporters, including David Smith, who writes on economics in The Sunday Times, said recently that it was a huge mistake for the Government to cut investment in their first year—in their emergency Budget—and in their next Budget. They have tried, in some small way, to say that they will reinstate investment, but the damage has been done. Investment that could have been made in affordable housing and school building was cut—for ideological reasons, I would contend. As a result, there has been no growth for most of the period, and people have suffered from very high prices, in many respects, at a time when many people are on short time, and are not earning what they did.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Lady think that Scottish Labour’s cuts commission’s plans to do away with free personal care and free bus passes for the elderly, and to introduce tuition fees, would lower the cost of living for Scottish people, who are suffering in the very conditions that she describes?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made those comments in an intervention, because I heard him say that earlier from a sedentary position.

Cuts have been made in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear about that. They have been made to social care in Scotland, partly because of the council tax freeze. I heard the Economic Secretary boast about that freeze, but it is an extremely regressive policy. For people who do not pay council tax because they receive council tax benefit, that policy has not benefited them by one penny. In Scotland, those people have not benefited for five years. Indeed, it gives a far greater benefit to people who pay the highest level of tax.

As a result of the council tax freeze, councils in Scotland have suffered a great deal, as councils in England are now suffering. A service that has suffered is social care. I will not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman, because cuts have already been made in Scotland as a result of his Government’s policies. Those things will happen in England too. I would not be as proud as the Economic Secretary of the council tax freeze, because it has a severe downside for many people who depend heavily on the services that councils provide, which are important for their living standards. We must not forget that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, people who work in social care are not only on low wages but they are told by their employers, who often have outsourced contracts from councils that are trying desperately to make savings, to use their own car to travel to do the job. They are not usually paid for travel time, and they are not refunded if they have to park somewhere and pay parking charges. They are on the lowest income levels, they are working hard in a hugely important service, and they deserve much more attention from us. They are suffering from the increases in fuel tax.

The Minister said yet again all this stuff about all the jobs that the Government claim have been created. As I have said before, if we say that there have been 1 million new jobs since the election and that that is a huge improvement, we should remember that, at the beginning of 2011, only eight months after the Government came to power, they said that they had created 500,000 jobs. I contend that those jobs were created as a result of the economic stimulus from the previous Government. In the following 22 months, another 500,000 jobs were created at a slower rate of growth. Many of those jobs are part time, which has increased spending on welfare benefits, thus increasing the problems that the Government face in trying to balance their financial books. People with part-time jobs claim housing benefit—98% of new housing benefit claimants are people in employment—and they claim more tax credits, because their hours of work have decreased. That is not a stable basis on which to proceed. If the Government want to scrap the proposed fuel increase in January, perhaps they should simply tell the nation that today.