Finance Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that. It is no coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is in her place tonight, as she has done sterling work on trying to stand up for the financially disadvantaged. I thank her for her work on so-called “payday lenders”, because when I tried as a Back Bencher under the last Labour Government to amend a Finance Bill to give the Government the power—just the power—to cap payday loan rates, I could not get a Labour Government to go even that far. She has done magnificent work because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, this is to do with protecting the financially vulnerable. That is why it is a big step forward. I congratulate the Government on introducing the safeguard that an assessment must be made of the vulnerability or otherwise of the alleged debtor and that that assessment must be recorded in writing.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I can scarcely believe my ears. I think that the hon. Gentleman is congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on helping a Conservative-led Government do more to protect the poorest in our society than a Labour Government would do. Have I heard him correctly?

[Rob Marris]

In that particular respect, the hon. Gentleman has heard me correctly. However, if he had heard my earlier remarks, he would also be aware of my great unease at many other policies put forward by the current Government as well as by the previous Conservative-led Government. But in the narrow respect to which he refers, he did understand me correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I totally agree. When you have no money left, having fed your kids and paid your bills, the cost of a product such as Tampax is a real issue for people.

Let me be clear: tampons and sanitary towels are essential, and everyone in the House knows it. I will not tell how I know it. I am sure there are plenty of mishaps that the women in the House could all talk about, including no doubt those that have happened even on these Benches. This tax is a tax on women and girls. I started my period when I was 10 years old, so I have paid the tax for 23 years. If the House will excuse the pun, it is a bleeding scandal.

[Mr Baker]

This problem of taxation on tampons and other sanitary products is one that, quite rightly, excites a great degree of anger and controversy, but the solution to the problem is uncontroversial. It is perfectly obvious that we are all agreed in the House that we should get rid of the tax on tampons and other sanitary products. The reason why this is a subject of interest to so many is that the House is of course prohibited from doing so by EU law.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why he thinks that purchase tax, which was also applied to tampons before our entry into the European Community, was not similarly egregious to women?

[Mr Baker]

Of course that tax was similarly egregious to women. I am happy to say that I was born in 1971, so I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for not taking responsibility for decisions made at that time.

[Mrs Main]

I am just trying to help my hon. Friend. He was not old enough to have voted at that time. Actually, I was not either—just. If we still had that tax in place and we were not in the EU, we could alter it. That is the problem.

[Mr Baker]

Indeed. That is precisely the point. It is not because we are spinning-eyed nutcases that we wish to get excited about Europe; it is because we find, again and again, that the European Union obstructs us from solving real problems in people’s lives.

On this occasion, it so happens that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) deserves all our congratulations on forcing the issue. I am very glad that my name appears on new clause 7. I must say that those who are attacking us for signing the new clause are probably going some way to diminishing the support they will receive. We are all in the House because we wish not to send messages but to take action that serves our constituents. I would like to break the news to some Members of the House that approximately half the electors of Wycombe are in fact women, and I am very happy to do the best I can to represent them in this place.

It seems to me that there are five courses of action available to the Government. The first is to do nothing. That is clearly untenable. We are in the House today because doing nothing is untenable. Some course of action must be taken to resolve the problem.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the other place not two minutes ago, their Lordships voted for a Labour amendment to in effect kill off—[Interruption.] Not for 100 years has the House of Lords defied this elected House. This is a serious matter, and I ask you or Mr Speaker to make a statement to protect the rights of the elected representatives—not just for us, but for the people of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not getting into a debate on the merits or not of the subject. I have given my answer and I am sure that all hon. Members have taken it on board. I want to get back to the debate. We still have a lot of speakers to come.

[Mr Baker]

In ascending order of difficulty, there are another four things the Government could do. The first is to do what new clause 7 would impose on them, which is to negotiate within the existing EU framework to deliver a zero-rating on tampons and sanitary products. The second would be to renegotiate the power to set such taxes. I commend that to the Minister, and I hope he will comment on the Government’s willingness to repatriate all tax powers, particularly VAT, back to this country. The third is to legislate, notwithstanding the European Communities Act. It seems to me that that would be a bold move, but I would certainly support it to end the problem swiftly, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House would support that. The final thing that could be done would be for us to leave the European Union and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, decide for ourselves in this House matters of taxation that apply to all our constituents.

This evening, I want to listen extremely carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister says. It is quite clear that we can no longer go on saying that this issue of the taxation of tampons and sanitary products is too difficult to push through all the member states and the European Commission. Clearly, action must be taken that is robust and dynamic. I must say to those who criticise us for being Eurosceptics that we know we are taking a risk. Unlikely as it seems, the Commission and the member states may well rise to the occasion and solve the problem. Well, good on them if they do. I should be very glad indeed to see no tax on these products right across the European Union.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I imagined that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues would welcome the Government’s being able to report to the House in February or March next year whether it was the Commission, other member states or poor negotiating powers that had failed to achieve this measure. Would he not welcome such transparency?

[Mr Baker]

I remind the hon. Lady that I have added my name to the new clause. My point is that this situation cannot continue any longer, and I hope the Minister will say that the Government accept the principle that tampons and sanitary products should be zero-rated. I hope they will explain why they are not able to bring such a measure before the House, and that the Minister will commit robustly to advancing this cause in the interests of women in the UK and across Europe this year and in future. We should get the whole thing cleared up as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

It is not just a matter of the EU law; the UK courts would ensure that we have to comply with the law, one way or the other. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would be happy to explain the position to the hon. Lady, but it would not be lawful for us to reduce that rate.

[Mr Baker]

I have listened extremely carefully to my hon. Friend and he knows how seriously I take this issue. Will he reassure me directly that he will specifically press the European Commission to bring forward measures to zero-rate tampons and sanitary products right across the EU?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I will make those representations to the European Commission to allow member states to have the flexibility to do that, which I think is the key issue here.

On the climate change levy, let me briefly explain the policy rationale, as we have debated this on a number of occasions. The climate change levy renewables exemption was misaligned with today’s energy policy, providing indirect support to renewable generators when the Government are now investing in more effective policies that target them directly. Together, policies such as the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff will provide more than £5 billion-worth of support to renewable electricity generation in 2015-16 alone. I do not believe the report on this clause is necessary. The Chancellor has already written to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee in August setting out the environmental analysis of the summer Budget in 2015.

On enforcement by deduction from accounts, we believe that we are introducing a necessary measure and that we have struck the balance correctly. I am grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West in pointing out that the safeguards are strong. I know he still has concerns about the measure, but the safeguards are strong and we believe we are striking the right balance.

To conclude, I urge the House to reject new clauses 1, 2, 7—if it is pressed to a vote, and I hope it will not be—10 and 11, and amendment 90.

Finance Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

The point made earlier was that this measure helps the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered, so I took the new clause to be about more than just mutuals, with it being about an unfair benefit being added to certain banks. I am trying to highlight that tax is not necessarily the means to control riskier transactions. Reference was made to those banks, which is why I was extending the point. With an allowance of £25 million set in place, the smaller institutions will be buffered to a certain extent. In addition, I do not believe it is essential that we start treating different institutions differently. Of course some pay less tax because they have fewer profits.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am wondering whether my hon. Friend is as surprised as I am that Labour Members have discovered that tax on profit is harmful. Will he join me in welcoming their discovery that tax can actually do harm? Does he believe it represents a new direction of travel for Labour?

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend puts the point much better than I could have. I commend the Committee for this section of this debate, because it is where it is at its most thoughtful and most articulate—perhaps because it is at the close of business.

The by-product of the regime to which I made reference is that foreign investment banks have moved their head offices from London to their home nations but not necessarily their jobs. That means that UK taxpayers are not liable for bank failure in the same way as they would have been previously. The point I wish to articulate is we should not just think of tax as the means to control the behaviour of banks; we should look at the regulation, and the separation of investment banks and retail banks. That has been a success.

As we move into the newer regime and as banks, to use their own rating, would be on “negative watch”, it is right that they pay an increased premium for the risk that still exists. We should absolutely be on our guard in that respect. It is also right that we treat them as another corporation—with corporation tax but with the tax in addition on profits. To address the point made in an intervention, I do believe that there are buffers within, but I also do not think it requires an amendment to state that the Treasury must undertake a periodical review, because the Treasury will of course do that on a daily and weekly basis. Given the support that this Government have given to allow challenger banks to be set up, the Treasury will of course ensure that the help is provided and that this is on watch throughout.

I welcome this change of approach, and believe the time has moved on from when we have a bank levy towards when we have an ordinary tax on profits. On that basis, I very much support the Government’s line.

Euro Area

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It sometimes feels like we need a new language in which to have this conversation about the European Union and our relationship with it. I am grateful that, over the course of his career, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has on many occasions given us that language by saying things such as:

“It is the last gasp of an outdated ideology…that has no place in our new world of freedom”.

I agree with him.

A new nation state is hoving into view, and people should be clear about what we are discussing. The question is: should we continue on the path into that new nation state? There can now be no doubt that that is the trajectory of the eurozone. Advocates of European Union membership on substantially the current basis are in danger of being blindsided. We can see from this debate’s attendance that people are not paying close attention to the important issue of what the five Euro-presidents have said. By the way, the “five Euro-presidents”—the ridiculousness of it is palpable.

The five Euro-presidents have set out a new nation state, and it is clear that those who advocate membership on a substantially unreformed basis have not kept up with events. Too often it seems that people complacently assume that there will be a yes vote and that things will go on as before in a kind of status quo, but there will be no status quo on the ballot paper when the referendum comes. The choice will be either to continue on a substantially unreformed basis, if the Prime Minister does not get what he wants, or to say no and continue on a fundamentally different basis. Of course, I hope that the Prime Minister succeeds in delivering everything that he has ever set out. When the day comes, I would like to see yes meaning a fundamentally different relationship with the European Union that we and the Prime Minister can wholeheartedly support, and I would like no to turn out to be something that we do not need to consider.

The five Euro-presidents have set out a path to a new European nation. I fear that the truth is that they will not be willing to allow us to move to a fundamentally different path and that, in due course, the choice will be either the wild ride to political union that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out or the conservative, moderate choice of sticking with our Parliament, our British courts, our British Lords and our ability to govern ourselves in the way that seems fit to us and that is accountable to the British people.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke earlier, for their efforts in delving so deeply into the questions without completely losing the will to live, but can he explain to me how, despite all their sufferings, the Greek people seem to regard membership of the euro as the addict regards the use of heroin? It does them enormous harm, yet they do not seem to be able to give it up.

[Mr Baker]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and it may be that through the euro system Greece has done rather well in the past, through the fact that money was very easy for Greece—probably much easier than it should have been—and a nation that had probably been quite parsimonious was encouraged to take advantage of cheap credit and get into bad debt problems. It may well be that that system encouraged Greece to believe that a new way of living beyond one’s needs was possible; but as good Conservatives we will recognise that one must live within one’s means and balance the books. One must have low taxes, small government and sound money. However, I do not want to divert my remarks too far down that path.

I want to pick up on something that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said about Germany. It has been an interesting journey, considering how people reflect on Germany. I am inclined to think that German commitment to the EU project is not malicious or controlling. It is not a problem, except that, perhaps because the EU is perceived as an anti-war project, the German people and their leaders have pursued the project far beyond what was reasonable, just and right, out of a sense of war guilt and a historical sense of shame. We as good individualists, in rejecting collectivism, may have to look at today’s generation of German people and say that they are not responsible for the horrors of the past. They must forgive themselves and move beyond the corrupting view that they have the responsibility to take forward, in a way that is quite dangerous, a project that can now be seen to have failed. History may not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes. We have had a horrible financial crisis.

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend made a funny remark about the apparent absurdity of the five presidents, but does he agree that they are not figures in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, but are enormously powerful figures commanding billions and influencing the lives of hundreds of millions of people across Europe? Just as they took the exchange rate mechanism well beyond the point at which it did untold damage, they could do untold damage with their euro scheme. Is not that a reason why we should try to let them get it right, rather than making it more difficult for them?

[Mr Baker]

My right hon. Friend is right, and it is not for us to choose the destiny of the other peoples of Europe. We might offer them our advice in different ways, but since they now have the euro as a currency they had better make the best of it—although, again, I do not want to be drawn too far off into ideas about money and banking. We are in a fix. I agree with my right hon. Friend that since those people are extremely powerful, they had better make the best of it, and we should not get in their way.

I was saying that history, while not repeating itself, sometimes rhymes. We had an enormous credit expansion, which broke the banks and led us into a position of desperation in several countries of Europe. We should not in such circumstances cast aside democracy and assemble a supranational state that is not accountable to its people. There we would be running the risk of a tragic rhyme in history—a cataclysmic mistake, possibly, should it go wrong—and it really might. The evidence of history is that it might.

I want to mention four things: we should undo what I would call the spell of Plato—the idea that a guardian class can look after us, free of democracy. We should get off the road to serfdom. We should make sure that we reject the omnipotence of government, and we should overturn this managerial revolution. I refer of course to books by Popper, Hayek, Mises and Burnham, all books written during the period of war in the first half of the 20th century. They are books that I would commend to anyone, lest, while not repeating history, we rhyme with the tragic events of the past.

Greece

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the heroic history of the Greek people and the many times at which they have fought for their freedom. I would make this observation, however. If they join the eurozone, they are joining an arrangement with other member states, other Governments and some central institutions, so they cannot take a unilateral course. That is why Britain did not want to join the euro, but Greece did join it, so that requires an agreement with the other Governments and the other peoples of the eurozone, as well. What the hon. Gentleman said about the people of Greece could be said equally about the people of Spain.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

“ConservativeHome” and others are reporting an analysis of IMF figures according to which funds that were thought to be for the Greek bail-out are apparently being used to bail out banks in other eurozone countries. Is that true, and, if it is true, does it not put a completely different complexion on the plight of the Greek people?

[Mr Osborne]

I have not seen that analysis, but I will have a look at it and report back to my hon. Friend.

European Union Referendum Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Most of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said could be applied to democracy itself, yet still we trouble ourselves with it.

[Mr Clarke]

Which is why I believe that the parliamentary system of democracy is so very good. A representative body of people elected from time to time have continuous responsibility for step-by-step decisions, and eventually they have to face the consequences of their decisions and can be removed. But we are already going wide of the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

It seems to me that the Government have got themselves in a bit of a hole. They have come up with a deletion and now there appears to be something of a stand-off. I have enough confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister to accept the words in a letter of a cast-iron assurance—which I hope I shall hear repeated shortly at the Dispatch Box—that the Government will go away and reconsider the matter, and come up with a proper amendment on Report.

[Mr Baker]

As a Buckinghamshire colleague of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I have great admiration and fellow-feeling for him. We were at Superhero Beaveree in Chalfont St Peter only on Saturday doing mirror mazes together, and he is a lovely man. However, I do not want to base my life in society on the assurances of a particular individual; I want to base it on the law. I would like the Government to accept amendment 11, change the law and come back with specific points that address the problems that have been have raised.

[Mr Grieve]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Governments, like the world, move in mysterious ways. If I may gently coax the Government back to the path of righteousness, as I think we are probably succeeding in doing, I, for one, will be broadly content.

On hearing assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will reconsider this and return on Report with a proper amendment, I will be quite prepared to continue to give them my confidence in this matter. However, if the Government were to be using this as a device to come back whenever Report takes place and try to wriggle out of this obligation again, I would regard that as a rather infamous thing to do, and I am afraid I would not be in a position to support them at all on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because that was not debated under the group.

[Mr Baker]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Many colleagues were expecting a Division on amendment 11. May I ask your guidance on when we can expect that vote?

[The Temporary Chair]

Amendment 11 comes later in the proceedings. Whether or not that is the subject of a Division will be a matter for whoever is in the Chair later in the day. My expectation is that there will be a Division, but that is a matter for the Chairman at the time.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have taken steps to deal with precisely the abuses to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, such as the use of vehicles to avoid paying stamp duty, the creation of partnerships so that hedge funds do not pay the proper amounts, and the fact that foreigners did not pay capital gains tax. Disguised income is another abuse that we have sought to clamp down on—and, by the way, the Labour party voted against our action in that regard. As more abuses come to light and more contrived schemes are discovered, we take action to deal with them, but I have to say that we have had very little support from the Labour party.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

When objective members of the public review these exchanges, they could be forgiven for thinking that there was little to choose between our parties. Will the Chancellor confirm that he has instituted not just the general anti-abuse rule, but follower notices and accelerated payments, and will he also confirm that our party has dealt with this issue far more robustly than the Labour party?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The accelerated payments scheme means that if tax is in dispute, we ask for it up front, and if people can prove that we have got it wrong, they get the money back. That is the rule with which the vast majority of our citizens must comply at present, but it was not complied with by those who were very well off. We introduced the accelerator, and as a result we are collecting hundreds of millions of pounds of tax that was previously not collected. As my hon. Friend says, that is further evidence of the gulf between what the Labour Government did during the 13 years for which the shadow Chancellor advised them, and what we have done in the last five years.

Tax Avoidance (HSBC)

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I outlined in my remarks, the main focus for HMRC has been the use of civil penalties. That approach has been followed consistently under Governments of all colours. There has been one prosecution in respect of this evidence. It is worth pointing out that prosecutions as a whole are on course to increase fivefold in this Parliament.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Successive Governments have incentivised particular investments using tax inducements, only to be surprised when things are taken too far. Will my hon. Friend publish a report that shows the extent to which this debacle was created by tax inducements introduced by the Labour party?

[Mr Gauke]

There clearly have been issues with some tax inducements being used for avoidance purposes. To be fair, this matter relates more to tax evasion. None the less, it is important that legislation is tested and it is important that we now have a general anti-abuse rule, which we did not have in 2010, to ensure that reliefs and exemptions are not exploited in a way that is contrary to Parliament’s intention.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) about who will qualify for the relief. As I have remarked, we are taking a power to define apprenticeships. Given that this is a devolved matter, it is important that we discuss it with the devolved Administrations. We want to support apprenticeships and will seek to achieve a broad definition for the purposes of the relief. However, the apprenticeship system across the UK is complex and evolving. Education and training is a devolved matter. Apprenticeships operate slightly differently in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and there are differences between Government-funded apprenticeships and independent employer schemes. The Government will discuss the definition of “an apprentice” with the Skills Funding Agency and its devolved equivalents before committing ourselves to a final definition. It is important that the definition is robust, satisfying minimum compliance standards while achieving the objective of supporting the provision of apprenticeships to the under-25s.

In terms of overall support for apprenticeships, the Government have done a great deal. We spend about £1.5 billion annually to support apprenticeship training. In Budget 2014, £170 million of additional funding was made available for apprenticeship grants for employers in 2014-16, providing a grant of up to £1,500 per apprentice for small businesses. The new budget will fund more than 100,000 additional incentive payments for employers to take on young apprentices.

It is also worth pointing out that in 2012 the National Audit Office recognised the strengths of the Government’s apprenticeship programme, highlighting how it continued to be valued by learners and businesses. It concluded that public spending on apprenticeships offered a good return, estimated at £18 for each £1 of Government investment. Evidence from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills suggests that returns may be higher, at £28 for every £1 of Government investment. I hope Members will resist the temptation to criticise the substantial progress that has been made on apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament. It has been significant.

On the definition of apprentices, which I touched on earlier, there will need to be discussion with the devolved Administrations and the Skills Funding Agency. We want a robust definition, but we have to bear in mind the complexities in this area.

On eligibility, for a business to be eligible to work with training providers to create an apprenticeship programme, the employer offering an apprenticeship needs to employ an apprentice for a minimum of 30 hours per week, pay at least the national minimum wage for apprentices, support on-the-job learning and be involved in reviewing their progress. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood regarding manipulation, I would make the point that those safeguards are in the system.

One further point I believe is important is that, as the Government are doing with employment allowance and under-21s from April this year and as we did when we came to office and increased the threshold before employer national insurance contributions is paid, we have done a great deal to reduce the burden on businesses of employer national insurance contributions. That has helped in creating the substantial progress in employment we have seen in recent years. Had we pursued the policy we inherited—an increase in the jobs tax—we would not have seen that progress.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

On reducing the burden on business, the Government have previously considered the notion of merging national insurance. Has the Minister made any progress down that line? I am acutely aware that national insurance still creates the impression that people have contributed to a fund out of which benefits are paid, when of course they are mostly pay-as-you-go. Can we reduce the burden on business, simplifying national insurance by simplifying the overall tax system?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point in this context. He is absolutely right that the Office of Tax Simplification recommended we looked at that. There is quite a lot going on in relation to payroll: devolution of income tax in Scotland, the auto-enrolment of pensions and the introduction of real-time information to the payroll system. They have caused considerable challenges—all for good reason; all are doing much to improve the tax system—and we have held off pursuing further integration of income tax and the national insurance contributions system.

My hon. Friend was right to raise a point about people’s understanding of the tax system and greater transparency. The Government have introduced tax summaries so that people can see how much they are paying in income tax and national insurance. That brings greater transparency to our tax system, so we have made progress on that front. On the integration of national insurance and income tax more widely, it remains a position we continue to review. Some evidence from internal reviews was that the benefits to business of bringing the two systems together were perhaps not as great as some outside commentators had anticipated. In those circumstances, we did not want to rush into this matter, but I assure my hon. Friend that we continue to keep it under review.

[Steve Baker]

Will the Minister remind me whether tax summaries include employers’ national insurance? I am always conscious that when we are employees we must generate an amount of value for our employer somewhat greater than even our gross pay, so is employers’ national insurance contribution also reflected in the summary? If not, could it be?

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I am rather excited by this debate on fiscal responsibility. This is not to say that I am an anorak who should get out more. My happiness resides more in the fact that those who support the motion will be committing to balanced budget economics. Anyone voting for the motion will not just be saying that they believe in balanced budgets; they will be voting for that.

In the new world of transparency the public will be watching who votes for what, and they will rightly hold everyone who votes for the motion to account for the two propositions contained in the charter. The first is the fiscal mandate. As the Chancellor spelled out—there is no confusion—we will balance the current budget by 2017-18. The second is the supplementary debt target, which means falling debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17.

How will we do this? The Conservatives are clear. It means that for the first full two years of the Parliament we will continue the public spending reductions, so that total managed expenditure will fall at roughly the rate that it has been falling in this Parliament—about 1% overall in real terms. That is equivalent to about an extra cut of £1 in every £100 being found in the next forecast period. Any business in my constituency asked to find a cut of £1 out of £100 would do it standing on its head, especially if it knew that that was vital to the survival of the business.

Specifically, we know that £30 billion of fiscal consolidation is required to deliver the fiscal mandate. So Members who vote for the motion tonight are absolutely committed to finding £30 billion. The Conservative party thinks it can be done as follows: £13 billion of that £30 billion by cuts to departmental expenditure limits, excluding the protected budgets for schools, the Department for International Development and health, and a further £12 billion from annually managed expenditure—the welfare budget. I shall not speculate, as I am not in the Government, but we might be looking to find those £12 billion-worth of cuts by, yes, restricting child benefit, maybe to two children; yes, perhaps restricting the top-heavy housing benefit budget and consider saying that those under 21 or under 25 should have their housing benefit curtailed. Finally—one of the biggest exemplifications of social justice that the current Treasury has come up with—yes, tough anti-avoidance rules. The Labour party in 13 years never dared introduce a general anti-avoidance rule. We are saying that those who have the broadest backs cannot be allowed aggressively to exploit tax loopholes. That will find £5 billion.

Our numbers add up. After those first full two years of consolidation, we would have flat real-terms settlements—flat, not further cuts. The result of all this, as we know, is that we would run an overall surplus, not just a surplus in the third year on current budget. Why is that important? Why did the Chancellor say it? The Chancellor said it because he understands that we have to start paying down debt. If we do not pay down debt, it will mean further tax increases and inevitably spending cuts further down the road for the next generation.

This is an ethical proposition, not an ideological one, as the Chief Secretary—I hate to say it—has branded these Conservative plans, and the Labour party as well. We need not waste any time on the Orwellian invocations of “The Road to Wigan Pier”. That is childish point-scoring. This is not ideology. It is about paying down debt.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

In the Red Book there is a chart showing debt interest in 2015-16 overtaking the education budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extremely practical problem of making sure that debt interest does not consume all the tax revenue that we might otherwise spend on services?

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend makes a trenchant point. Do we want burgeoning debt interest under the policies of the Opposition parties to eat away at front-line services? The money, as we know, has to come from somewhere.

I am not clear where the major Opposition party stands on this. The £30 billion is what anyone who votes for the motion today must account for. It was not clear whether the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that figure on Sunday, but he made a stab at how the Labour party might fiscally consolidate. There was the reintroduction of the 50p tax rate for high earners; we know that that raises less than £1 billion. There has been reference today to restricting pensioner benefits to very well-off pensioners; we know that that raises less than £0.5 billion. Labour Members are not even remotely in the ballpark in coming up with a £30 billion consolidation in anything they have said today inside or outside the House.

This leaves us with two possibilities in relation to Labour Members who are going to vote for this proposition today. The first is that they are voting for it in the full knowledge that they have no intention of balancing the current budget in year 3. I am a kind and generous individual, and I do not think they would do anything as dishonourable as to vote for something they had no intention of honouring. They are not going to get the money from spending cuts most of which they admit they will not pursue, and they will not guarantee our spending reductions. That leaves us, I am afraid, to conclude that the iron law of modern British politics still obtains: dogs bark, cats miaow, and Labour puts up taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

This has been a fascinating debate in which we have learned a great deal. The Government have been accused variously of making savage cuts and of making no cuts at all. We have learned that the Labour party is a party of fiscal discipline; indeed, the shadow Chancellor could not have been any clearer that he intends to balance the books and cut the deficit in every year. I think, therefore, that something that has happened in Greece is beginning to happen here. As the mainstream left-wing party shows its fiscal credentials, talks tough and prepares to fight the election, it creates a hole on the left. Who fills that hole? The hard-left parties: the parties of nationalism and the green parties—parties that live in a fantasy world where it is possible to keep on borrowing and taxing and where the rich will pay. We have heard all that nonsense before. It is not too much to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) did, that down that path lies a situation similar to that in Venezuela.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) suggested that we have not done anything like enough. Of course, not that long ago he was on the Conservative Benches, strongly supporting the Government.

We ought to consider what would happen if there was a change of Government. The Labour party would find that there was no low-hanging fruit. Labour would not cancel HS2, I think we can rely on it not to scrap the international aid budget, and it would not leave the European Union. Labour has suggested that it was reckless of us to protect the NHS, so perhaps it would cut the NHS. It might reduce the number of nuclear submarines in our deterrent. It would find that it is extremely difficult to cut spending.

There are, of course, three big taxes: income tax, national insurance and VAT. No one should want to put up VAT, because it is too high already.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

You did!

[Steve Baker]

I am well aware of that, but it was necessary in the context of the hideous mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is always the same and this is the essence of the problem: there is no kindness whatsoever in making to those in need attractive promises that subsequently cannot be kept. That is not kind; it is cruel.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the chaos that could be brought about by a lack of fiscal discipline would result in huge uncertainty for public sector workers, who will not be able to rely on their jobs if balanced books are not maintained, because they will lose them? More importantly, for the thousands—possibly millions—of households across the country who were encouraged to pick up an extra £1 trillion-worth of household debt in the Brown bubble in the lead-up to the financial crisis, the uncertainty of unbalanced books could result in much higher interest rates and imported inflation as a result of reduced currency. An enormous amount of pressure would be put on those households as a result of chaos through ill-discipline.

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He and I sit on the Treasury Committee and we have heard from the Debt Management Office about the factors propping up the current level of borrowing. Not only has borrowing been back-stopped by the Bank of England, but bond market traders are aware of the Chancellor’s and the Government’s intention to balance the books, have confidence in it and, therefore, will keep lending to us. The situation, however, is precarious and the Labour party would put it in danger.

VAT cannot really go up. If it went up further, it would hit the poorest hardest and that would be wrong. On income tax, perhaps Labour would reduce the personal allowance. The truth is that the top 1% already pay a quarter of income tax. How much further can we go? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the 50p rate was pointless, I think—I will have to check whether that is what he said, but it is pointless. It is an act of spite to pretend that the rich will pay through their income tax; all they will do is adjust their behaviour. We put up capital gains tax and the revenues from it went down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has explained that in detail on his blog.

The truth is that the evidence shows that in this country there is a hard limit to how much the public will pay in taxation. Depending on how we measure GDP, it is somewhere between 35% and 40% of GDP. If we are committed to balancing the books, we have to take overall Government spending down to the level that people will pay in tax, and there is a historical limit.

Labour Members have been rather hysterical about the Government consumption chart, which shows us going back to the 1930s. This is about balancing the books. I believe that Labour Members want to put up capital spending, and debt interest is already forecast to overtake education spending. There is a really tough problem here. The truth is that hysterics on either side of the argument will not do. For example, wealth taxes will not work. Opposition Members seem to think we will get the rich to pay, but Denis Healey said of a wealth tax:

“I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”

The truth is that there is very little chance of getting out of the mess we are in without taking extremely difficult decisions. Unlike turning around a commercial company, we cannot cut to the bone once and then build back up; reducing the deficit has to be taken gently, and we have done it at an appropriate pace. The Chancellor has the right plan, and I shall certainly back him tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

Absolutely nothing whatever. My hon. Friend and I are leading lights in the all-party apprenticeships group, which has seen fantastic work. I should probably make a declaration that I am the first MP to hire, train and then retain an apprentice as an office manager—not as an MP, I hasten to add—because she was doing a fantastic job.

On what the Opposition intend to do, we have to address the deficit. The Chancellor eloquently put it that the Leader of the Opposition is practising Basil Fawlty politics by not mentioning the deficit at every opportunity. We also have to look at fiscal consolidation. We all heard what the shadow Chancellor said today, but what did the Leader of the Opposition say only on Sunday on “The Andrew Marr Show”? He said that

“if we…cut our way to getting rid of this deficit, it won’t work”.

So there goes fiscal tightening in any way whatever. To the clarification put to him that

“that requires a £30 billion fiscal tightening”,

he replied, “I don’t accept that.” Whatever the Opposition say today, the reality will always be that the Labour party will introduce greater taxes and greater borrowing, and greater difficulties for our children.

On attempts to address the deficit, other Members have made the point, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that raising the tax rate to 50% will not increase the tax take by any margin and will actually decrease investment. On the minimum wage, tax credits from the coalition have already addressed that in a very successful form and we intend to raise it. I heard on the BBC “Daily Politics” today the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) proposing that his plan for addressing the deficit was an increase in gun licences. That may be laudable, I do not know, and I am sure he has fiscally costed this matter in great detail, but if that is his plan to address the entirety of the deficit, we really are in more trouble than we thought.

We were indeed fortunate to hear from the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). It is always a pleasure to comment on his speech. I will not cast aspersions on his honour, but I will attack his memory and grasp of economics. He supported the coalition as we did the tough work from 2010.

[Steve Baker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will not. I am so sorry, but I have zero time. The hon. Gentleman supported us then, but he does not support us now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The trouble for the Chancellor is that this debate gives us an opportunity to draw attention to his colossal failure to fulfil his promise to tackle the deficit. In his eagerness to trip up the Opposition, he has caught himself in a series of contradictions and entangled himself in his own spin.

We should remember that it was only nine months ago that this charter was changed. It keeps changing because the Government desperately have to pretend that they have a grip on things and that they are somehow on top of the deficit issue. The deficit after the next general election, however, is predicted to be a massive £76 billion. Revenues have collapsed over the lifetime of this Parliament, and we have seen rising tax credits and rising levels of housing benefit to subsidise low pay and the high-rent economy that the Chancellor has been fashioning. The Government now find themselves with an extra £200 billion-worth of borrowing over what they originally set out.

The Tories love to talk tough. They publish their documents—[Interruption.] I am delighted to see the Chancellor back in his place. He loves to bang that Dispatch Box and was getting very shouty and loud in his earlier contributions, but the reality is that his strategy has failed. The Chancellor and the Chief Secretary do not have a clue about what they are doing.

The debate was revealing, however, and I would like to ask the Chancellor about it. He said in his opening remarks that his deficit plan had not gone any slower than he had planned. I have taken the opportunity to look at the Hansard record of what the Chancellor said. He said:

“What we have done is cut the deficit by a half. We have neither gone faster than we said we were going to go, nor gone slower than we said we were going to go.”

The Chancellor has got himself into a terrible muddle if he thinks that he did not promise to eradicate the deficit back in 2010. The Prime Minister himself said:

“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”

That was the Prime Minister’s solemn promise to the country.

The Chancellor did become a little bit over-excited. Perhaps he found this rather a difficult occasion, given that the situation was blowing up in his face. Not only did he get into a tangle thinking that he had not changed his deficit reduction plan, but he got into a terrible muddle with the charter. That is quite embarrassing for the Prime Minister in particular. At 3.30 pm on 15 December, the Prime Minister said in a speech that targeting the current budget deficit would be

“a great, black, ominous cloud”

—that it would be a total disaster—but by 4.30 pm, the Chancellor had tabled a Charter for Budget Responsibility that actually supports a current budget process, which is, of course, the correct strategy.

Perhaps the Chancellor needs to be reminded what he said originally, in his 2010 Budget speech. He said that the mandate was current—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor want to deny that he said, back in 2010, that the mandate was

“current, to protect… productive public investment”?—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]

If so, let him correct the record now from the Dispatch Box. He will not do that, however, because he knows that targeting the current budget is the right thing to do.

At no point does the Charter for Budget Responsibility commit itself to a fixed deadline for 2017-18. The Treasury would like to pretend that it does, but it does not. Instead, it goes for a “rolling horizon” and year 3 of a five-year rolling forecast. The Chancellor needs to understand properly what that means; he did not quite get it earlier. It means that the target moves forward by a year each year. Perhaps the Chancellor does know that. Perhaps he did this because he wanted to wriggle out of any responsibility to which he might be held now, ahead of the approaching general election. However, if he feels that this is somehow a firm commitment to 2017-18, he is wrong. Labour Members believe that we shall need to get the current budget into surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament, and nothing in the charter is inconsistent with that view. The Chancellor, incidentally, did not really talk about the charter at all.

[Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

No, I will not. We have only a few minutes left, and I must give the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury a chance to reply to some of my questions.

The Chancellor referred to an “aim” rather than a “target”. I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary could explain why he chose to allow the language in the charter to move away from the idea of a target and towards the idea of an aim.

It is not enough for the Government to explain in the charter how they will measure progress. They need to explain how they will make progress, and that requires a balanced and fair plan. Ministers simply do not understand that the health of the economy and rising living standards are a vital pillar in the process of tackling the deficit and securing healthier public finances. If only wages and living standards rose at the historic average level during the next Parliament, there would be an additional £12 billion in tax revenues.

Cuts alone do not cut it. We have seen where that road leads: it leads to failure. We need a balanced approach across the three routes to improvement in public finances. Yes, we need sensible reductions in public spending, but we also need fairer tax choices—which means not giving away £3 billion to the richest 1% in society—and, crucially, we need rising living standards and sustained growth. The Government have lost revenues of nearly £100 billion over the current Parliament, and if we repeat that, we will lose £100 billion again. Any proposals in our manifesto will be fully funded, and the IFS has said that we are taking “the most cautious approach”.

Before I end my speech, I want to ask the Chief Secretary two more questions.

[Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Leslie]

No, I will not, because I do not have time.

First, I want to ask the Chief Secretary about whether we can have an elevated level of debate and discourse ahead of the general election. Does he agree that it would be preferable for the OBR to audit and validate the costings of the manifesto proposals of the main political parties properly? My understanding is that the Chief Secretary agrees with that, but I want to get on the record and make clear his view on that.

My second question for the Chief Secretary is about what happens after deficit eradication and the Chancellor’s lurch to the right—his wish to return to what the OBR has called the public expenditure situation of the late 1930s, when we did not have a national health service, there were only 1 million cars on the road and children left school at 14. We know that the Conservatives want to wage war on the public services, but the Chief Secretary signed off the spending assumptions in the official projections. We know from Robert Chote, chairman of the OBR, that these projections, all the way to 2020, were

“signed off by the quad”,

and so far as I understand it the Chief Secretary is a member of the quad, so why did he agree to allow the official projections to take that lurch to the right—to go down that particularly ideological route? [Interruption.] The Chancellor might give him some clues, but I want him to answer for himself. If it was a genuine mistake and he did not spot it, he should just say so and we will accept that; or did he for some reason actually think that, yes, he does want to go down that far right-wing position? If that is the case, did he get scared when he saw the public reaction to it? I want to get a sense from him of what is happening.

Going down to that consistent 35% of GDP or national income has severe consequences for our public services. The Government must realise that we need a sensible, moderate approach to tackling the deficit. The focus must be on eradicating the current budget deficit. That is what the charter says, but we will take a fairer and more balanced approach to clearing the deficit. Where the Government have failed during this Parliament, we will succeed in the next.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

What is a fact is that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% for the years since the 50p rate was cut has in every year been higher than in any of the years in which the 50p rate was in operation. It is this Government who have made changes to stamp duty land tax—that was just last week—and to capital gains tax, and who have dealt with reliefs and exemptions, to ensure that the wealthiest play a greater share than they have in the past.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Is it not the truth that people are able to change their behaviours to reduce their tax liabilities, and is it not the case that if the Government want to raise more from the wealthiest, it is necessary to lower the rate to a point where it encourages them to earn and to pay?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said a moment or so ago, in the two years since the 50p rate was reduced to 45p, a greater share has come from the top 1% than in the previous three years. There is a lesson to be learned there. It is probably the reason why the previous Labour Government had a 50p rate for only 35 days out of their 4,758 days in office.