Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Tim Loughton and Steve McCabe(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Loughton
Absolutely. It sends out a very poor message to those people for Labour to say that marriage is very nice, but we will not recognise it in the tax and benefit system.
Frankly, it is those who oppose this measure—we have heard them again today—as some sort of 1950s throwback who are being judgmental about how certain people choose to live in their relationships. Disgracefully, they are seeking to pit working mothers and dads against stay-at-home mothers and dads, who are no less, and often more, hard-working. That certainly applies to the increasing number of stay-at-home dads who have made a conscious decision to give up a career because they think that is how they can best bring up their children. The state should respect that.
My support for a transferable married couple’s tax allowance has never been based on a moral stance on types of relationship. My concern, as one might expect from someone who formerly had responsibility in government for children, has always been based on what is best for children. That is why I favour the allowance for families with young children.
Quite simply, if a 15-year-old is living at home with both parents, there is a 97% likelihood that their parents will be married. There is a one in 10 chance that married parents will split up by the time their child reaches five, but a one in three chance that unmarried, cohabiting parents will split up by that time. As the Centre for Social Justice has shown, those who do not grow up in two-parent, married families are 75% more likely to fail at school and 70% more likely to be involved with drugs or to have alcohol problems. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which I have already quoted, has identified poorer outcomes for children from separating families. Importantly, a stable home can raise a child’s chances of escaping the poverty trap by 82%. Let us not forget that family breakdown, the prevention of which is the thrust behind this measure, is costing us £46 billion. That is about £1,460 for every taxpayer in this country every year. Marriage accounts for 54% of births but only 20% of break-ups among families with children under the age of five.
I am therefore surprised that nowhere in any of the contributions from Labour Members in support of the amendment did they touch on the outcome for children. That is the most important target at which the measure is aimed. The poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said.
Clause 11 alone will not solve all the problems I have set out. I am not naive enough to suggest that £210, or whatever the result is, will represent the difference between staying married and getting divorced or between getting married and cohabiting. However, it does send out the clear and strong message that we value couples who take the decision to bring up their children within marriage. There is a need to address the lack of a level playing field in bringing up children between couples who are not married and those who are. There are 2.2 million households in which one partner is in full-time work and the other is not earning. Those households include 1.2 million children and 700,000 of them include a youngest child who is under the age of five. Those are the families we should start with. Those are the families who deserve our support and recognition most of all. This clause, at last, goes some way towards rectifying that.
Steve McCabe
I support the amendment and oppose clause 11. I fear that the clause shows all that is wrong with the modern Tory party. It is based on an illusion—the idea that the Tory party has some special affection for marriage that is shown in its policy actions. Conservative Members have been keen to say that Labour was wrong not introduce such a measure during our 13 years in government, but of course we were not wrong. Had we done so, we would have got into exactly the same mess the Government are in today. We would have been perpetrating a con on the electorate by pretending a level of support for married couples and families with children that our policy simply could not deliver. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but we have heard that he suffers from that delusion. He thinks that he is helping people with children, but in fact he is helping a narrow band of those people.
As we have heard, the policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the tax system. It is a policy for a few married couples and some in civil partnerships—perhaps as few as 3.4 million of the UK’s 12.4 million couples who are married or in civil partnerships. In some ways it is a classic coalition policy, because it does not really satisfy anyone. Those in the Tory party who favour traditional marriage never intended that the tax relief should go to those in civil partnerships—that was not what they were arguing for at the outset. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it was.”] No, it wasn’t. If Conservative Members want to tell me that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is a keen advocate of civil partnerships, I guess that they have missed his speeches and blogs in recent years.
Steve McCabe
The hon. Lady is right, and Government Members have attempted to make that point before. She is absolutely right that the VAT rise put enormous pressure on both petrol costs and all sorts of other family incomes.
At its best, the Government’s measure will reward about 3.4 million of the country’s couples who are married or in civil partnerships with £4 a week. That is the figure from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but if the Government have better figures and want to challenge the IFS, that will be welcome. I would be interested to know not only the cost of the tax relief but the administrative costs of a £4 a week benefit for 3.4 million couples. It does not strike me as the best way to reduce the overall costs of tax collection or harmonise the system.
As was acknowledged earlier, the transfer of allowances reintroduces an element of joint taxation, a measure that the Tory party sought to abolish when it moved to individual taxation as long ago as 1990. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about all the countries that recognise marriage, but the move to individual taxation is a much bigger trend in tax systems across the world. It seems to me that it is the Tory party that is moving in the wrong direction, because as we have heard in this debate, Conservative Members want to move to a fully transferrable tax system. They want to go back to the days of old, and that is exactly what they are going to do. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has something to say. Would he like me to give way to him?
Steve McCabe
Oh, he just wants to mutter in the corner. Well, nothing new there.
Steve McCabe
Oh, he has changed his mind. He wants to mutter more loudly now.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman tantalises me too much. Will he undertake that, in the highly unlikely and disastrous event that there is a Labour-led Government after the next election, he wants this tax allowance to be abolished in their first Finance Bill, so that 3.4 million married couples—or 4 million or however many—will no longer benefit from it because of Labour’s warped priorities?
Steve McCabe
I have never thought of myself as someone who tempts the hon. Gentleman, but I can give a commitment that a Labour Government would move to a fair tax policy. That is what this is all about, which Conservative Members fail to recognise.
Steve McCabe
As I said, I am in favour of fair tax. I say it again, so that the hon. Gentleman understands. That is the problem with his party’s policy—it is unfair. If the policy is for only some civil partnerships and married couples, we could target it better. He and I share common ground on one group—people with children—whom we might want to help through the tax system. However, how on earth have we got into a situation in which only 1.4 million couples with children benefit from a proposal? That is an example of a policy that completely fails to do what he would like.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Tim Loughton and Steve McCabe(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve McCabe
I’ll buy you a dictionary.
We also welcome amendments 9 and 10, which add safeguards on regulations to give prospective adopters access to information on the register. Finally, in that section, we are happy with amendment 12, as we want children to have access to both parents after a separation when that is in the best interests of the child, but not when it involves an arbitrary division of the child’s time between the parents.
Tim Loughton
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have now accepted the principle of shared parenting. Will he tell us what changed his mind? I seem to remember that he signed the early-day motion in favour of shared parenting but subsequently voted against the proposal in the 2006 Bill, so what has changed his mind? I am delighted that he has now come full circle on this matter.
Steve McCabe
I think there might be a slight difference between our definitions of shared parenting. That might be the simplest explanation. I am in favour of children having access to both parents, as I have said.
We are pleased that amendments to part 3 mean that the Minister now recognises the need to provide for children who have a disability but not a special educational need. I also welcome the Government’s conversion on the need to cater for young offenders, many of whom do have special educational needs. I congratulate the Minister on accepting amendment 128—the “staying put” amendment—which means that children in foster care will now be able to stay with their foster parents until the age of 21. I want to acknowledge how much personal effort he has devoted to these changes, along with all the others who have been arguing for them.
I also welcome efforts to improve the appeals system for parents, who often feel that the problem is not that their child has a disability or special need, but the lifelong battle they are forced to engage in with the authorities to get their child the help and support they deserve. Of course, the amendments covering young carers address a glaring omission in the original Bill, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for all her efforts on that point.
Many more areas of the Bill have been vastly improved by their lordships’ intervention, but I wish to discuss the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues in the shadow education team, which deal with a number of concerns we have about how the Bill will work in practice. We do not intend to press any of these amendments to a vote, but that does not diminish our concern about how these issues will develop. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43, we want to make it abundantly clear that the local offer must not be the minimum a local authority thinks it can get away with; it is no good producing legislation full of good intentions while simultaneously stripping resources from local authorities, thus making it almost impossible for them to deliver on these intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I hope that we can be assured tonight that the Minister will be instructing his officials to monitor the implementation of the Bill and ensure that reasonable local services are provided across local authorities, and that where omissions or obstacles are identified, he will intervene to make clear that it is not acceptable, and that it is not the intention of his legislation, to create a postcode lottery where access to services and provision depends on where someone lives and what impact Department for Communities and Local Government cuts have had on their local authority area.
On Lords amendment 73 to clause 37, and our further amendment, it is our wish to make it abundantly clear that there should be no get-out clause for local authorities in providing access to social care provision specified within an education, health and care plan. If that is not the case, this Bill will have failed and the Minister will have let down hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who have taken him and his Government at their word that this is a brave new world of joined-up provision, designed to try to relieve them of their daily struggles for support. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the code of practice, but I want to know that he will step in if there is any question of a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities to provide social care as specified in the plan.
Finally, we continue to doubt the entire wisdom of childminder agencies, but we recognise that this is largely a cost-saving measure by a Government who cannot give Ofsted the resources to inspect individual childminding provision. On clause 51D and Lords amendment 158, and our further amendment, we are seeking to make it crystal clear to the Minister that we do not want shoddy childminder agencies on the cheap, with little or no regard paid to the quality of care provided for the children. As the Minister will know, the Department did not consult effectively with childminders on this proposal, and it is not broadly welcomed by childminders. None the less the Government have gone ahead, so we need to be clear that Ofsted will have sufficient powers to check the quality of care provided by individuals within the agencies, especially at the first whiff of concern that the agency or individual provision is not up to standard. There is a potential conflict with childminder agencies, in that they will be both inspector and inspected, and they will have a financial incentive to recruit childminders.