Budget Resolutions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend asks that question as it allows me to say more on this issue. First, I can confirm that the £2 billion is all new money; it is new grant from central Government. Secondly, I can confirm that it will be added to every local authority’s baseline over the next three years as that money is distributed. My hon. Friend also rightly asked about how it will be allocated. The vast majority of the money will be allocated using the improved better care formula that already exists and is transparent and open, which will mean that account can be taken of not just the needs of every local authority but of their ability to raise money through council taxes. A small portion—10%—will be allocated using the existing relative needs formula, and the purpose of that is to make sure that every local authority in the country that has responsibility for adult social care is able to access new funding.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State tells us that the vast majority of the money will be allocated via the better care fund. We know that the settlement before Christmas caused problems and that a third of councils lost out, including mine which lost out because of the adult social care bill. Will he say how the rest of the money will be allocated?

[Sajid Javid]

I thought I had just made that clear, but I will repeat it and be a little more specific: 90% will be allocated using the improved better care fund formula and 10% will be allocated using the relative needs formula. These are two existing formulae already in place and, as I said, further details will be published this afternoon, with the allocations and a description of those formulae. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Lady.

We also need to make sure that councils deliver the best possible local care services. There are many excellent examples of best practice around the country, but there is a big difference between the best-performing and worst-performing areas. There is clearly room for improvement across the sector, so alongside the additional funding announced in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and I will shortly announce measures to help ensure that those areas facing the greatest challenges can make rapid improvement.



Looking at health more widely, we are already committed to a £10 billion annual increase in NHS funding by 2020. This Budget goes further still: there is £325 million to allow the first NHS sustainability and transformation plans to go ahead, meaning more efficient and more effective healthcare for local people; and there is another £100 million to fund improvements in accident and emergency departments for next winter, including better on-site triage and GP facilities. That is enough to fund up to 100 new triage projects, taking some of the strain off our A&E departments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

We have heard a wide range of speeches this afternoon, including from the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), and from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is no longer here. We also heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

I shall mainly talk about social care, but I want to mention the absence of any Budget help for the 1950s-born women struggling without their state pensions owing to the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts. Their demonstration and lobbying here yesterday were wonderful. I am also sad that the Chancellor could not find £10 million for the children’s funeral fund, which was campaigned for so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Despite cuts from central Government, my local authority has recently announced that it will waive fees for child burials, but all the weight of that should not be put on councils.

I had hoped that this Budget would finally announce a Government funding commitment to start to put the social care sector on a stable footing. The Chancellor said that everyone should be able to

“enjoy security and dignity in old age.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 820.]

However, despite his rhetoric, it is clear that his Budget did not match up to that aim. As we have heard, the King’s Fund has put the current funding gap for social care at around £2 billion. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced additional funding of £2 billion over three years, of which only £1 billion will be available this year. That is half of what is needed to deal with the immediate crisis. The Care and Support Alliance commented that that the funding will

“keep the wolf from the door”

but no more. There has been much discussion about the future and what will happen to that extra funding, but we must bear it in mind that post-Budget figures for adult social care show a 2.1% cut between 2016-17 and 2019-20, showing that funding is still being cut in this Parliament.

Along with council leaders, social care providers and health leaders, the Opposition have been warning this Government for many months about the perilous state of the social care sector. Indeed, the King’s Fund recently said that adult social care is

“rapidly becoming little more than a threadbare safety net for the poorest and most needy older and disabled people.”

Last week, the care company Mitie offloaded its two homecare businesses for £2, which is a clear demonstration of the fragility of the current care market. That company, which had provided care and support to 10,000 people and employed 6,000 staff, was reduced to being worth only £2. It has taken until now for the Government to heed the many warnings, and they were wrong to wait so long to act, just as they were wrong to cut local government budgets by around 40% since 2010, which has led to cuts of £5.5 billion from adult social care budgets by the end of this financial year.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the cuts to benefits, particularly to housing benefit, will have a huge effect on extra care? Large numbers of people are very happy, well looked after and protected in those arrangements, but they cannot pay for them if housing benefit goes. Moving those people into nursing care will cost far more a week. That is another ticking time bomb.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is right about extra care housing.

The Chancellor was wrong not to make any extra funding available for social care in the autumn statement. Instead, Ministers chose to continue putting the burden of funding social care on councils and council tax payers. The local government finance settlement compounded the mess by recycling money from the new homes bonus to create the adult social care grant. That rather inept settlement made a third of councils worse off, including my own Salford City Council, which loses an extra £2 million from budgets this year.

One council that did not lose out from the settlement was Surrey County Council, which will gain £9 million extra from the adult social care grant. Perhaps that should not surprise us, given that the settlement was made when Surrey was in the middle of a long, drawn out and clearly highly successful lobby of Ministers to get more funding for just that council’s social care.

Last night, Surrey County Council released many documents and texts revealing the extraordinary level of access that that one council enjoyed with Ministers and their advisers. My local authority recently asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to discuss our difficult financial situation and the loss of funding for social care. We were given a 30-minute meeting with one of the Under-Secretaries of State. However, the leader of Surrey County Council was given meetings with the Secretary of State on 12 October, 19 October and 9 January. There were a number of further meetings with the Secretary of State to discuss Surrey County Council’s funding situation involving the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Health and other Surrey MPs. There was also a substantial stream of letters, emails and texts, some of which may make surprising reading. Some frustration was expressed about the Communities Secretary, with one Surrey MP saying:

“Sajid led me to understand before Christmas that he would be trying very hard…to help Surrey out with the worst of its (Government-dictated) financial dilemma.”

And he said that if the Secretary of State was

“imprudent enough not to have £40m hidden under the Department sofa for just this sort of emergency/problem”

and if all the Secretary of State’s local government money really is allocated, he

“still has the option of adjusting all other Council settlements down very slightly in order to accommodate the £31m needed for Surrey—and I think he should be encouraged to do this.”

In January that Surrey MP wrote that he was

“losing hope re getting help from Government this time, we still need to kick up such a fuss that Ministers and Civil Servants really do remember at the very least ‘they will need to treat us better next time.’”

I think that refers to the new funding formula. All this about a council that the Chancellor himself told in a letter in December:

“Surrey’s core spending power in 2016/17 decreased by 1% compared to an average reduction of 2% for shire counties as a whole”.

And the Chancellor said that over the lifetime of this Parliament

“Surrey’s spending power is forecast to increase by 1.5% compared to a flat cash settlement for local government as a whole”.

It seems that Ministers were not ready to listen to most council leaders, care providers, local authorities and their own regulator about the fragile state of social care funding, but it is clear from all the correspondence—I recommend that hon. Members read that correspondence, as it is very interesting—that relying on council tax and business rates to fund social care will never give us the fair and stable funding system that we need.

As I said earlier, there will still be cuts of 2.1% to social care up to 2019-20, so what we have in this Budget is a sticking plaster or a stopgap announcement that will not give older and vulnerable people the “security and dignity” in old age that the Chancellor claims. And it will not enable us to deal with the continuing demographic challenges that we face. The number of people aged 75 and over is projected to nearly double by 2039. That ought to be something to celebrate, but instead the Government have created fear and uncertainty for older people by failing to address the health and care challenges raised by those demographic changes. The Chancellor said that the Government intend to produce a Green Paper in the autumn on long-term funding options, and there has been some discussion of that in this debate, but given that we have already had the Barker review and the Dilnot commission, there are fears that the Government could be kicking this issue, once again, into the long grass.

I hope that the Government are not doing that, because cuts to social care budgets hit not only people who need care, but the 6.5 million unpaid family carers. Carers UK tells us that an estimated 1.6 million people currently provide 50 hours or more of care per week, which is an increase of a third since 2001. Some 2 million people have given up work at some point to care for loved ones, and 3 million carers have had to reduce their working hours. That is not good for their finances, with many falling into poverty as time goes on.

As people live longer with disabilities and long-term health conditions, more of us will find ourselves having to take on a caring role. Sadly, this Budget offered nothing to carers, just as it offered nothing to women born in the 1950s and nothing to families who were bereaved after losing children. There was nothing in it for carers, no extra support and no sign that this Government value the important work that they do. I say to the Minister that £120 million would deliver a three-hour respite break each week for 40,000 carers who are providing full-time care; instead, as we know, the Government have chosen to prioritise cuts to inheritance tax and corporation tax, and to ignore the increased burden on unpaid family carers.

The Government have also failed to recognise that the social care crisis is not just about older people. The Chancellor talked about the impact that the £2 billion over three years will have on delayed discharges, but, as councils have reminded us this week, other groups of people need social care, including those with learning disabilities. About a third of councils’ annual social care spending—some £5 billion—goes on supporting adults with learning disabilities. Surrey MPs must now understand that fact, after all the correspondence from their council leader, who spent a lot of time trying to make clear to them what an issue that was for councils.

We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall earlier in the week on social care in Liverpool, when we heard that Liverpool had lost almost 60% of its grant since 2010 and that that will reach cuts of 68% by 2020. Cuts to social care there have meant that funding for care packages had to be cut, so whereas 14,000 people were receiving one now only 9,000 are—5,000 people are no longer getting a care package. Surrey, which has had so much attention, did not have cuts at that level; its cuts were only 28%. Indeed, social care spending in Surrey has increased from £273 million to £367 million.

I want to make an observation about the new allocations for the £2 billion that the Government have announced. I observe—that is all I can do, because the figures have only just arrived—that the allocations are £1 billion for year one, two thirds of a billion for year two, and one third of a billion for year three. In that, Surrey’s allocation goes up in year two; it is one of only six councils on the whole list that gets a bigger allocation out of a smaller amount of money. I do not know, and it is impossible to see here in the Chamber, what the formula is, but that position is very worrying.

Disturbingly, this important matter of funding social care has been tarnished by the offering of sweetheart deals and the making of gentlemen’s agreements. It seems, from reading the correspondence, that all of that was done to escape the political heat for some right hon. and hon. Members facing the reality of what cuts to council funding have done to social care in their local authority area. That is what this is all about: threats of what will happen to constituencies and areas if the cuts go on.

Social care should not ever be consigned to becoming a threadbare safety net. We also should not have a Communities Secretary who can hold more than seven meetings with Surrey County Council or Surrey MPs to discuss their funding, yet who will not meet a cross-party delegation from Salford City Council and has no time in his diary to meet the leader of Hull City Council. I hope the Communities Secretary will start to listen to councils other than Surrey County Council, whose leader emphasised in letters that we have seen that it has the largest Conservative group in the country. He should also listen to leaders from Hull, Croydon, Salford, Manchester, Liverpool, Durham and Newcastle. He needs to understand from them what is needed throughout the country to save social care from crisis.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

We certainly have covered a lot of ground in today’s debate; indeed, we have strayed internationally, as well as covering an awful lot of domestic policy. Before I address some of the key themes, I wish to stress again the central point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he opened the debate. Our ability to provide public services is entirely dependent on our ability to pay for them. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said in his speech that before we talk about spending, it is important to talk about how we would raise the money. That is the last thing we have heard from the Opposition today.

Key to this debate is the fact that if we do not live within our means, deal with the deficit and get debt falling, we simply will not be able to continue to fund the public services that we all care about on both sides of the House; of course, the generations to follow will then suffer. We have seen how debt has been left for others to deal with, which is why at the heart of the Budget and our economic policy is our continued resolve to restore the public finances to health, increase our economic resilience and secure our public services for the future. At the heart of our aims is the work to bring down the deficit. We have made great strides, and in doing so we have been able to bring what we spend and what we raise further into line. That is how we can afford public services.

We have already cut the deficit by almost two thirds, but the work is not done. We are also on course to get debt falling as a share of GDP by 2018-19. We are, though, the first to acknowledge that there is no quick fix, no silver bullet and, contrary to assertions by Opposition Members, no magic money tree. That is why we are sticking to the spending plans we have set out and why we are taking a systematic look at how we can become ever smarter in how we spend taxpayers’ money, including by conducting an efficiency review that aims to get more value for money and to save £3.5 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are looking forward to benefiting from the insight and expertise that Sir Michael Barber can bring to bear on the process.

We all have to acknowledge that this work is part of a longer-term challenge. There are many pressures on services in advanced economies around the world, and if we do not grapple with the issue of how we pay for things, we just cannot tackle them. We heard quite a lot from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), about social care. We made a significant announcement in the Budget statement about a £2 billion injection of extra cash—[Interruption.] Opposition Members say from a sedentary position that it is not enough; I return to my previous point: we have heard so much from them about where they would spend more, but we have heard absolutely nothing about how they would pay for it. They have a few gimmicky ideas, to which I shall come—I am going to address one of them head on—but their answer really is the magic money tree. We have made new money available, and further details have been announced today about how it will be allocated. That is real money made available very quickly—£1 billion is being made available for the new financial year starting in just a few weeks—and it is really important that we do that.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there is a longer-term challenge. As I said, all advanced economies face pressures as populations become older and the rise in complex and chronic conditions continues. As well as offering some kind words about me relating to my previous role, the right hon. Member for Leicester East rightly drew our attention to the Government’s work on prevention. I shall not be drawn into talking about that too much—as a former public health Minister, I could talk on that for some time—but I remind him of the national diabetes prevention fund and the related work, and the £16 billion a year from the public health budget that we give to local government.[Official Report, 13 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 1-2MC.] All Members have acknowledged what the sugar levy and other work are doing to turn the sugar tide.

I also draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to page 35 of the Budget book—our consultation on the damage that white cider can do. We are consulting on the alcohol by volume duty rates because we have heard from many charities, particularly those working with the homeless, about the impact of the abuse of white cider, in particular, on the health of homeless people and many young drinkers and the increase that it provokes in the frequency of visits to A&E.

[Barbara Keeley]

Surely the key point is that we are almost abandoning prevention. Some 1.2 million older people live every single day with unmet care needs. There is no prevention when a frail older person who needs care does not get it, and this money goes nowhere to helping with that.

[Jane Ellison]

I disagree with the hon. Lady about prevention. We can do a lot on prevention, particularly with older people. With this new money, we can have more care packages. For example, falls prevention, which is delivered in the community or at home, is one of the most valuable ways to keep people out of accident and emergency. But we are not in any way downplaying the challenges of dealing with these pressures. We are not burying our heads in the sand. It is a matter not just of common sense but of responsible government that we must face up to the question of how to secure our social care system for the long term. He is not in his place, but the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), my former colleague in the Department of Health, talked about that, and there are areas of great agreement across the House about some of those challenges. That is why we announced that we will publish a Green Paper by the end of the year in which we will set out our proposals to put spending on a sustainable footing.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said from the Opposition Front Bench that this was about the long grass. I will not embarrass her by reading out the very long list of times that the last Labour Government attempted to grapple with this issue over 13 years.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

No, I am not going to take another intervention—I will take the same time that the hon. Lady took.

The list is very long. Labour said in its 1997 manifesto that it would tackle this issue; there was a royal commission in 1999, a Green Paper in 2005 and the Wanless review; it was said that the issue would be resolved by the 2007 comprehensive spending review, and there was another Green Paper in 2009—13 wasted years. I am afraid that Opposition Members provoked me to embarrass them. Their long grass was very long indeed.

We are injecting not just new money into social care but an extra £425 million into the NHS to help A&E departments triage patients more effectively and to support local NHS organisations as they reform and improve for the long term the way services are provided to patients. By putting more money into social care and those specific parts of the NHS—triage and capital for A&E—we are addressing some of the very issues that Simon Stevens has talked about recently as immediate challenges of dealing with pressures in the system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked about STPs. The investment that we set out will make a real difference by supporting regions with the strongest plans that are ready now to deliver their long-term visions. We will revisit STPs in the autumn to see whether there are further areas with strong cases for investment, but the NHS obviously also has a part to play in looking at how it can, for example, dispose of unused land and reinvest that money. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Let me talk a little about education and skills. We have already taken action to fundamentally reform and improve school education, with the result—this is never acknowledged by the Opposition—that 1.8 million more children are in good and outstanding schools compared with 2010. The simple fact is that vastly more children are getting a good or outstanding education. In this Budget, we further galvanised our schools with £320 million of investment in new schools and £216 million for the maintenance of existing schools.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke compellingly about the sweeping reforms that we have introduced to put technical skills at the heart of our education system. I sense great cross-party consensus that that has been an undervalued part of our education system. That will give young adults a chance to develop new talents that will stand them and, of course, our country and economy in good stead as we work towards the high-skill, high-wage and hi-tech economy that will help us to be competitive in a global marketplace.

I have spoken about the importance of controlling our public finances, investing carefully in our public services and ensuring that our spending is sustainable. Alongside that, I want to make a few remarks about the importance of ensuring that our tax system is sustainable. We cannot talk about one side without talking about the other. The flipside of how we invest in public services is how we fund them. Let me address two issues.

First, a number of hon. Members have mentioned business rates. It is right that we update them to reflect today’s property values, but we recognise that this has meant a sudden jump for some. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) for his excellent speech. I am familiar with some of the pubs in his beautiful constituency. He mentioned the importance of supporting pubs. That was part of the £435 million package of support that the Chancellor outlined yesterday. He has been working on that with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to help businesses manage the steepest increases following the business rates revaluation.

Secondly, there has been much discussion in this debate of the changes we have made to national insurance contributions, and I will respond directly to some of the points made. Let us be clear that the contributory benefits funded by national insurance contributions are very different from employment rights. Much of this debate and the public discourse has criss-crossed between those two important, but distinct, subjects. National insurance pays into a fund that pays out to the NHS and contributory benefits—principally the state pension, but also parental pay. We have announced that we are looking carefully at maternity and paternity rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I outlined a moment ago, the purpose of the tax measures is to encourage people to invest in businesses. The changes are specifically targeted at companies—the cut in CGT does not apply to residential property—and put in place an environment in which businesses can grow and prosper. That is absolutely the right approach to follow. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other countries that have taken different approaches, of which he has been full of praise. It is not quite working out in Venezuela, is it?

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to ensure that disabled people are not disproportionately affected by reductions in government expenditure.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

The Government have protected the value of disability benefits, exempting such payments from the uprating freeze and exempting those in receipt of them from the benefit cap. Disability spending will be higher in every year to 2020, relative to both 2010 and today.

[Barbara Keeley]

That may the case, but a 40% reduction in core Government funding to local authorities has led to cuts that affect services. Local authorities are required to provide short breaks for children with disabilities, but 58% of local authorities have cut their short break funding by 15% or more. It is Carers Week. What will Treasury Ministers do to reverse the trend and ensure that there is money for local authorities to fund those important short breaks?

[Damian Hinds]

We have provided funding for respite breaks. The hon. Lady is right to identify this as an important thing for carers in this, Carers Week. There are 200,000 more people now receiving carer’s allowance in this country. The Care Act 2014 extends rights to assessments, and the Government are launching the new carer strategy in recognition of how important a role this is for millions of people throughout the country.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, provision was made in the local government financial settlement and the spending review to allocate up to £3.5 billion for adult social care by the end of the Parliament. The directors of social services and the Local Government Association actually asked for £2.9 billion, so our provision went beyond that. We also need to bring together the treatment of our elderly members of society so that councils and the NHS can, between them, look after those people well. After all, those requiring health care and social care are often the very same people. I know that, as a former Minister in the Department of Health, the right hon. Gentleman will favour that. Part of the devolution deals that we are pursuing will do that. We are seeing it happening in Manchester, and I hope that he will follow that with interest.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Clark]

I am going to make some progress, as I have said.

This Budget announces a number of new devolution deals establishing combined authorities for the West of England, Greater Lincolnshire and East Anglia, and there are more to come soon. Far from erasing local diversity, the deals make the most of it—for example, by bringing together shire, unitary and district authorities to work together for the common interests of their area. The Budget announces further transfers of power to the Liverpool city region and to Greater Manchester. This shows that establishing a combined authority, with the accountability of a directly elected Mayor, is just the beginning: a democratic basis for the ongoing devolution of power.

Growth deals are another front for the advance of localism. Through the business-led local enterprise partnerships, we are devolving control over the £12 billion local growth fund. The Budget explains how we will allocate the latest tranches of the fund. It will be done on a truly competitive basis to encourage ambition, innovation and the productive use of taxpayers’ money. I am also delighted to see the announcement of new city deals in Wales and Scotland. Specifically, the conclusion of a deal with the Cardiff capital region and the opening of negotiations with Edinburgh and south-east Scotland are important steps forward.

From north to south and from east to west, devolution is transforming our nation. In 2010, the UK was one of the most centralised countries in the free world. There were no combined authorities, and only one big city mayor. Nearly 80% of local government expenditure was centrally controlled. By 2020, there will be combined authorities across the country, and at least eight big city mayors. Local authorities will keep 100% of the income that they collect. This Budget describes and accelerates a process of profound change involving the revival and rebalancing of our economy, the rebuilding of our national infrastructure and the redistribution of power from the few to the many. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. The truth is that this Chancellor has been in charge of the nation’s finances for six years and he now wants to wash his hands of the mess he is making of the economy.

I was talking about an ethical hole at the Government’s core. We still remember Conservative Members cheering last Wednesday. They thought it was okay to rob the benefits of the most vulnerable for the purpose of cutting taxes for the better-off. It is not only the cuts to the welfare budget that illustrate the Government’s willingness to attack the poor; it is also the cuts to local government. Furthermore, the way in which the cuts are being distributed across local government equally illustrates the ethical hole that I have described. Those councils that face the greatest social needs are now suffering the greatest grant reductions.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Secretary of State would not give way to answer questions on social care, and that is unfair because it is a key responsibility. He keeps trotting out the usual figure of £3.5 billion, but that is a false premise because the Local Government Association wanted £700 million to cover the two years that will not be covered by the better care fund. My local authority can bring in £1.6 million from the 2% social care precept but it is going to cost £2.7 million to pay for the national living wage in the care sector. That is the sort of gap that we are faced with.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor, who, as part of devolution, has forced an elected mayor on Greater Manchester? Does he think we should have devolution without forcing elected mayors on areas that do not want them and never voted for them?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

This discussion is going to have to continue, because the most important thing is to have the support of the local authority.

I am worried about empire building. The new mayor is not going to operate out of a garden shed, although if one of us is elected in East Anglia perhaps we will do so. He or she is going to want to build a large empire and have a large number of staff, including directors of this and that division and department. Before too long, there will be a lot of pressure to have an elected assembly, and the heads of highways, infrastructure and housing will then become elected. Before we know where we are, we could well have an elected assembly.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has shown the courtesy to stay for my speech, because he has obviously been here a long time. People in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and London feel an affinity with and an attachment to their city, so they are more likely to support the idea of having a mayor. I feel absolutely no affinity whatsoever with East Anglia, but I do feel an affinity with Norfolk. Does East Anglia include the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire that will be in the combined authority? Does it include Essex as well? No, it does not. What about Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, just north of my county boundary?

I think that a mayoral election would face the problem of a pitiful turnout of perhaps 12% or 15%, so there would be no mandate. I am also worried that the institutions of Norfolk county could be undermined: this could be the death knell of Norfolk County Council, Suffolk County Council and Cambridgeshire County Council.

I also think this could lead to conflict with MPs. If I open a factory or campaign on a big issue and the elected mayor comes along and says, “Hang on, I also have a mandate of all of 12%,” and starts ordering us around, that is not good for the constitutional relationship between MPs and their voters. I am bruised by my experience of campaigning against the incinerator proposed by Norfolk County Council, when the local enterprise partnership suddenly waded in behind the county council.

I ask my right hon. Friend: can we have devolution, but can we also look very carefully at the idea of an elected mayor? Let us have devolution first, perhaps with a Minister for East Anglia. Perhaps that could be his colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). Let us then move very cautiously before we turn to the election of a mayor. If I do not have an assurance from my right hon. Friend, it will wreck what is an absolutely outstanding Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to get beyond the Budget headlines, which often lead to cheers from the Government Benches, and instead consider some of the details and try to get some answers.

I want to return to the point I raised in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, in an intervention on the Secretary of State and then in a point of order, because I still have not had an answer. The Government have said that local authorities will be compensated for the change to small business rates relief, which amounts to £1.7 billion in the next financial year—2017-18—and to similar amounts in years after. He said it was mentioned on page 84, line 15, of the Red Book, but that refers to the cost to the Government of the small business rates relief changes; it does not show how local authorities will be compensated for that loss by a section 31 grant. Will someone please show me where in the Red Book the section 31 grant is described as compensating local authorities?

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very pressing issue? In Greater Manchester, the business rates retention scheme could be put in place as early as 2017. Will the Government even have finished the consultation by then? Where are we? We need to know where we are.

[Mr Betts]

Local authorities are entitled to absolute certainty. We can welcome the help for small businesses but not at the cost of local authorities and their services. If the Minister cannot explain this today, I hope that the Secretary of State, to whom I have written, can at least give us a written answer that can be made available to everyone else through the Library.

The Secretary of State went on to say that after 2020, because no grant will be available, compensation will be provided by a reduction in devolved powers to local councils, so that they will not have as many things to spend their money on—money they now will not get through business rates relief. It is a bit disappointing that the Government’s way out is to reduce devolution. That does not seem to be consistent with their claim to be devolving more powers all the time.

More worryingly, on the change between the retail prices index and the consumer prices index, which comes into force in 2020, how on earth will the Government find a mechanism by which to compensate authorities for that change, given that it will vary year on year? How will they do it, when the only way to provide compensation will be by changing the devolved powers available to local authorities, which cannot be done on a yearly basis? Will the Minister please provide the mechanism and explain it to us?

There will be a fundamental problem here after 2020. If any future Government were to introduce the sorts of changes this Government have made to business rates, where would it leave local authorities? Their income would simply be cut, and there would be no means by which to compensate them because there would be no revenue support grant in existence. Local authorities’ devolved powers cannot be changed on a year-to-year basis. This does not just throw up the need in future to devolve receipt of business rates to local authorities; we also need seriously to consider devolving the right to set business rates and business rates assistance. If that is not done, this will be sham devolution, and it will raise the great risk of future Governments on a whim being able to change the system on which local authorities will rely for a good percentage of their income. This problem has to be thought through.

I turn now to the four-year settlement that the Secretary of State rightly offered to local councils for the rest of the Parliament. Where is that left by the £3.5 billion of efficiency savings the Chancellor announced in his Budget and the £4.4 billion of extra savings that presumably have to be found now that the PIP cuts are not being carried through? In total, it would seem to amount to an extra £7.9 billion that he will have to find. Can we have a categorical assurance from Ministers that this will not affect the four-year settlement offered to local councils? I hope that it will not once again be a case of giving local authorities certainty for the Parliament, only to come back within a few months and ask for more cuts, which would put them in an impossible position.

Moreover, are we going to see further cuts to the public health grant, which the Government have not preserved? In the last Parliament, the public health grant was initially—up to 2013—part of the health budget and ring-fenced accordingly, but it is now part of the local government budget, and already this financial year it has seen a one-off cut of £200 million. It is estimated that there will be £600 million more in real-terms cuts by 2020. Will the grant face any further cuts as a result of the Chancellor’s need to fill the £7.9 billion black hole?

Finally, the Government have announced £115 million of help to tackle rough sleeping. It is a blot on our society and it is right that extra help is being given to deal with it, but to tackle homelessness properly—apart from the prevention at one end—we need more social housing to offer to homeless people. What do the Government have to say about the Chartered Institute of Housing’s report stating that there will be 300,000 fewer social rented homes by the end of the Parliament than there were at the beginning? What about the evidence that St Mungo’s gave to the inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee the other day stating that, unless the Government changed the link to the local housing allowance, all its help and provision for homeless people will have been closed by the end of the Parliament? That is a situation that no one can tolerate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

As is now abundantly clear, the Budget was developed with short-term politics in mind rather than compassionate, long-term economics. On one level, we have to admire the sheer audacity of the Chancellor: the audacity of someone who genuinely thought that he could get away with rewarding Tory donors in the City with a cut in corporation tax while attempting to cut benefits for disabled people, get away with cuts affecting those who were least likely to vote Conservative while sticking to his mantra that “we are all in this together”, or get away with preaching about the northern powerhouse just as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills closes its Sheffield office and moves all 200 jobs to London. Today, all that he has got away with is shirking his duty to come to the House and account for his failure and the black hole in his Budget, and his reputation is now in tatters.

There was never any compassion in trying to cut the benefits of 370,000 of the most vulnerable disabled people in our society by £3,500 a year. As we know, this Government have always hit disabled people hard, through the bedroom tax and cuts in employment and support allowance, but I would have had much more sympathy with today’s U-turn had it been based on the warnings from charities such as Sense, which called last Wednesday’s Budget a

“bleak day for disabled people”.

A constituent of mine is disabled, and determined to carry on working. The personal independence payment helps him to do that. When he gets home, his joints are so stiff that his wife has to help him go to the toilet and have a bath, yet he is determined to go on working. He wants to keep working because he wants to keep his dignity; the Chancellor wanted to take it away. The Chancellor has performed a U-turn, not to help my constituent and help him to keep his dignity, but in an attempt to keep his own dignity. All that we need to know now is who he will pick on next in order to fill the £4.4 billion hole in his Budget. We can be sure of one thing: even after today, the most vulnerable in our society will continue to pay for the Government’s failures.

Let us take the announcement of business rates relief. On the face of it, the announcement was good news for small businesses in my constituency, but our local councils could find themselves cutting more services for those in need in order to make up the shortfall in their budgets. In my local area, we are proud to have more small and medium-sized businesses in the economy. In Kirklees, small business relief accounts for 11% of net rates income, as opposed to 4% in England as a whole. When 100% retention is introduced and the promised compensation for the loss of income ends, the council will be stuck once again, trying the balance the books to pay for a short-term victory for the Chancellor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) explained so clearly, despite the vague assurance that we heard today that councils would be compensated, the Red Book includes no explanation of where the money will come from and how long it will last.

The Chancellor was no less audacious in telling us great things about the northern powerhouse. If only we could believe him. Electrification of the trans-Pennine rail route would be a crucial development, but the project has been announced, cancelled, re-announced, delayed, and then re-announced once more, and we still have no clear commitment from the Chancellor as to when it will happen. There is nothing clever about announcing big investments and then running for cover when it comes to their implementation.

Indeed, work has only just started on 9% of the projects in the Chancellor’s infrastructure pipeline. A lack of infrastructure investment fuels poor productivity. Like so many of the Chancellor’s audacious predictions, productivity forecasts—as we now know—have been revised down for the next five years, and, once again, it is the north that suffers as low productivity strangles economic growth, holds back wages, and delays the much-promised recovery. The output of the Leeds city region is now 12% behind the national average.

I am afraid that I can feel no compassion for this Chancellor. He wanted the poorest fifth in our country to lose an average of £550 a year, while the richest fifth gained £250.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech, but could she touch on the subject of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign? Women up and down the country must have been very disappointed that the Budget contained no move towards them. Those women, born in the 1950s, are really suffering.

[Jo Cox]

I could not agree more. There was also nothing for long-term social care, nothing for the NHS and nothing for the next generation, despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric.

In fact, the Chancellor was playing politics with some of the neediest people in our society. Those who put politics before economics take a risk. The Chancellor had obviously started to believe some of his own press; I wonder whether he still believes it tonight. He got the economics very wrong, but he also got the politics wrong. He should now come back to the House with a package that addresses the real long-term needs of the country, not his own short-term aspirations. He should stop playing politics, and start planning for an economy that works for the benefit of all, not just his wealthy mates. If he cannot do that, he should have the courage to say so and take the consequences, rather than asking others to pay for his failures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The fact is that the north will succeed despite this Government, not because of them, but we could have a whip-round to buy the Chancellor a map to explain to him where the north actually begins and ends.

My local health economy is currently engaged in the success regime process, which is already being undermined by Ministers in the Department of Health. A necessary body of work—working out how we adapt the Cumbrian health economy to best meet the needs of such a challenging geography and a dispersed population with specific needs—is becoming fatally compromised by the refusal of Ministers to listen to those who have been tasked with undertaking the success regime. To secure the outcomes and achieve the improvements that the clinicians and other experts within this process want, the system requires more resource. This is simple and obvious, and the request is being made, but the response from the Government so far has been a resounding no. Without additional resources, the success regime will fail, yet this Budget offers no help for our effort to recruit more health professionals; to finish the redevelopment of West Cumberland hospital; and to finally achieve the ambitions of everyone in Millom for our local hospital services or of the public and patients concerned about future services at Keswick, Maryport, Cockermouth and Workington hospitals.

[Barbara Keeley]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that two more cuts to the NHS will hit and cause extra pressures? There will be £650 million of pressure from the pension contributions that have to be paid for NHS staff and a £1.1 billion cut in the maintenance and repairs bill for the NHS. All of that will have to be found.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A great many people wish to speak in this debate. Every time there is an intervention—and these have been too long—another minute goes by and somebody else drops off the end of the list. Just so long as hon. Members know that when they make interventions, the time available for the debate does not increase but merely prevents their colleagues from speaking. I am not saying for a moment that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has done anything wrong. She is perfectly entitled to intervene, but I merely point out the consequences.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

That is an important point. This is not simply about providing local councils with such powers, because our duty goes much further. We need to look further than simply at whether councils want this or not—whether 100, 200 or more councils want it. We need to look at what businesses and shop workers want.

On the question of imposition, in September, a survey of 10,000 shop workers showed that 91% of them do not want to work more on a Sunday. The current six-hour restriction is important to them because, as they say, Sunday evening is often their only guaranteed “family time”, especially if they have children at school in the week or partners who work weekdays. Not so many staff are required under the current regime—usually, there is a single shift—so most staff are able to work a Sunday rota with some Sundays off. We must look at the imposition on shop workers and businesses.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments are making a very good introduction to this debate. I understand that some chief executives of larger stores, such as Sainsbury’s and John Lewis, are expressing their concerns to the Prime Minister about this issue. In relation to that survey, Sainsbury’s has quite rightly questioned whether there is an appetite among consumers or retail staff for Sunday working. As I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, Conservative Members should not assume the opt-out means anything, because most retail staff say it is impossible to use it because employers find ways to make them suffer if they try to opt out of Sunday working.

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, that is true. We should not tar all large retailers with the same brush. I think Tesco has also expressed concern. Some of them have no doubt got a commercial interest—they may have more convenience stores on high streets than other large retailers—but they share the concern that the Government’s devolutionary approach is not so practical for larger businesses, given that there are issues in relation to distribution centres and dealing with waste recycling. This will make things more complicated for them. In essence, the Bill is about cutting down on red tape and about deregulation, but this would mean a move in the opposite direction for such businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) asked the Minister about zoning and whether London could be a single zone, but why stop at London? Why not designate England as a single zone, given that that is exactly what would happen because of the domino effect of the proposal?

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. The Trafford centre is a large shopping centre situated next to my constituency. It attracts an enormous amount of traffic, so if it extends its hours my constituency will never get a moment’s peace. Moreover, building work on the Government’s motorway project can take place only when the Trafford centre is not busy. [Interruption.] It is not my council. If the Trafford centre opens 24/7, the logistics will make things impossible for my constituents.

[Bill Esterson]

There are similar examples up and down the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me turn to some of the evidence we have been given in the lead-up to this debate. During the Olympics, convenience stores experienced a fall in Sunday trade of up to 7%. There was also a displacement of trade to different times of the week, but, instead of an increase in overall trade, there was a slight fall. The Government assumption that people will have more money to spend just because the shops are open longer does not bear scrutiny once we start to look at the evidence.

Meanwhile, the extra Sunday hours would increase costs in those large stores that stay open longer, and while there will be some displacement from convenience stores to larger retailers, as happened during the Olympics, there will be little or no overall increase in trade to pay for the increased cost in most shops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, forgive me.

This proposal will also do nothing to relieve the problems felt by the beleaguered high street. I also wish to say something to my hon. Friend the Minister about delegating this responsibility to local authorities in my part of the world. I sit at the apex of four different council areas and there would be a serious domino effect involving Surrey Heath, Rushmoor, Hart and Bracknell—if one went, the rest would feel obliged to follow suit. The changes that were made there during the Olympic games seriously damaged small shops. I have in my constituency the Association of Convenience Stores—some may call it the association of Conservative stores—which is run by small people who do a fantastic, hard-working job. The Oxford Economics survey found that increasing the opening hours of large stores will cost the convenience store sector 8,800 jobs and £870 million in sales. My council does not want this change, and nor does the Association of Convenience Stores.

I say to the Minister that we have a solution at hand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has proposed an alternative. The Minister is apparently talking about an alternative that is supposed to have been tabled today. Of course it has not been tabled, but it will be tabled in the other place. Why do we not do as we did in 1993, which is to have a Bill setting out the three options—possibly more—one of which is no change at all, and then let us debate it over a period of time, instead of trying to rush it through in a couple of hours?

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister’s last-ditch attempt at a compromise has already been described as scraping the barrel. I have to ask why we should believe last-ditch promises by this Government when the Prime Minister made a promise last April, and it is not being kept. My name is on amendment 1, and I agree with Government Members who have said that this should have been a conscience vote—a free vote.

The USDAW survey, which has been repeatedly mentioned—I congratulate USDAW on its sterling work—gives us a stark picture of existing Sunday working in both large and small stores. In fact, it tells us that 35% of staff in large stores and 55% in small stores want to work fewer hours, and less on Sundays. Chief executives from stores such as John Lewis and Sainsbury’s have expressed their concerns. They do not believe that there is an appetite among consumers and retail staff for this change.

I want to remind the House that there are carers in retail in the same way that there are in all occupations. The USDAW survey says that half the staff that it surveyed have caring responsibilities for children, older people, people with disabilities or family members who are ill. Arranging alternative care for Sundays is very difficult,

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

I will not, because we are very short of time.

The opt-out has been described as “laughable”. Only 13% of staff in large stores and 10% in small stores have used that right to opt out. It is my opinion that the vast majority of retail staff do not want to see these trading hours extended. I have had very many emails from staff in my constituency who tell me that.

Devolving Sunday trading will lead to longer opening hours. The stores and shops in my constituency have to compete with the Trafford centre. At Christmas, it was easy to see in shopping centres such as the Trafford centre that longer hours do not mean more business. People simply do their shopping at a different time, or they shop in large stores and small stores lose the business.

Moreover, staff would lose their precious family time, and probably not gain in pay, because their shifts would just be stretched over seven days. If shops open longer and longer hours, it will have an impact on life on Sundays. As I mentioned earlier, many hundreds of my constituents are greatly affected by traffic going to and from the Trafford centre, and that would become never ending if stores were open for longer and longer hours. They would never have peace—not even on a Saturday night. The Government would not be able to deliver their smart motorway project if staff could not work on the motorway overnight.

In conclusion, we have enough issues in Greater Manchester with the devolution of powers, we do not need the postcode lottery of zones and the opening hours that the Government are threatening. I will vote for the amendment and I commend it to the House. I do so for families, especially those who are carers, for people who live near shopping centres and suffer from congestion and traffic, such as my constituents, and for the small shops and all the staff who work in them who may lose their jobs. Those are the reasons why I will be voting for amendment 1.

[Victoria Borwick]

I rise to speak in favour of Sunday trading, because, in a place such as London—I stand as a London MP—we should have some freedom for people to trade and choose how they do business. A person does not have to go shopping, but if they want to, they should have the opportunity to do so.

Many of the arguments have been made already, so I will talk briefly about garden centres. Some Members have already mentioned pets. People with pets may have to make a trip to a garden centre to stock up. Garden centres have made representations to me, because those animals have to be fed. So I am running a campaign to allow people to trade the hours that they want.

I had a meeting this morning with my local church leaders, and I was struck when an American vicar said, “I am now a vicar over here, but where I come from, we have more churchgoing than even in this country. Notwithstanding that, people can still do business throughout the day on Sunday.”

I urge all hon. Members to consider those who want to work, and to allow these freedoms for those who want a different day to celebrate with their families. Let us not be selective as to who can spend their religious day with their family. Ours should be an inclusive party that encourages people to spend their particular day with their family. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to vote in favour of Sunday trading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend found his visit to Barclays in his constituency to be so helpful. I know that he, too, will welcome the fact that since 2014 financial education has been part of the national curriculum.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

T7. The Conservative leader of Essex county council has told the Prime Minister that the 2% social care precept will cover only half the council’s increased costs. He has suggested bringing better care funding forward to 2017 and asked for a fairer redistribution of funds. Even Conservative councils cannot wait till 2019 for the funding that the Chancellor has allocated, so will he act now to avoid a further crisis in social care?

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

In advance of the spending review, the Conservative leaders of the Local Government Association came to see me. One of their specific proposals was to introduce the social care precept to help address the shortfall there may otherwise have been. We have also put a lot more money into the better care fund to make sure that local authorities and the NHS working together are able to meet the challenges of social care over the next years.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend came to see me to fight on behalf of her constituents who see their lives disrupted when the channel tunnel is blocked and lorries queue up on the motorways and block local roads. She, together with other hon. Friends with constituencies in Kent, came to me with a proposal to relieve that congestion and the impact of Operation Stack. We are making a quarter of a billion pounds commitment to the county of Kent to help it deal with that traffic problem and provide a permanent solution.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have been telling the Chancellor, he is trying to push the issue of underfunding of social care on to local councils. A total of £4.6 billion has been taken out since 2010, and the gap is growing at £700 million a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, there is fourfold difference between the ability of different areas of the country to raise funding through the 2% council tax increase. How is he going to close this gap when there is no extra funding from the better care fund until 2017?

[Mr Osborne]

Overall funding for social care will be protected in real terms. The council tax premium can be levied, and the better care fund will have an additional £1.5 billion to make sure that it can help local government integrate with the national health service. Our objective is to achieve over the next five years the integration of health and social care services across the country. Places such as north-east Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Greater Manchester have made big progress in this area, and I hope that the hon. Lady’s local area also takes steps in that direction.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is rightly making a good speech about working families, but Ministers have made little mention of the impact that cuts to tax credits will have on working family carers. A carer in receipt of carers allowance who works 16 hours a week on the minimum wage and claims working tax credits will be badly hit by these cuts. Conservative Members talk about people working more hours, but those carers are already working for a minimum of 51 hours a week and they cannot work more. Does my hon. Friend believe that working carers must be protected from Government cuts, because Ministers do not even seem to recognise that issue?

[Owen Smith]

Yes, and if the Government are to provide us with any sort of detailed, worthwhile impact assessment, they should undertake precisely that sort of calculation. They should look at what net benefit to our economy and society is made by working mothers, carers, and those whose efforts are not being calibrated by the Government, because those people will lose out as a result of the changes to tax credits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I have considered the impacts. I think that reducing aggregate demand by taking money out of the pockets of working families—the people with the highest propensity to spend money locally in the economy—is a foolish thing to do. It is a false economy. We know that to be true economically, so why on earth would the Government want to do it?

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to add a little detail. Conservative Members seem to be raising the cases of people who do not benefit from working tax credit and are questioning it on that basis. Perhaps the example I quoted earlier will help. The carer on carer’s allowance will get £62 and is able to earn a maximum of £110, which is a disregard. That is what carers are on, and they will be hit very hard by the loss of working tax credit. These people are earning a maximum of only £172. The important point is that there are 689,000 such people—those wonderful carers committed to looking after family members. Only one Conservative Member seems to have recognised that issue, which is a massive one. It is not quite as massive as the 3 million families affected, but it is still important. Ministers need to reflect on and explain why they are doing this to 689,000 carers up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The Government are trying to encourage people to earn more in self-employment—that is the whole point of the policy. The idea is to create better incentives so that it is worth while people working more and longer hours if they have not had sufficient hours of work and not a sufficient income, and they keep more of the money they make by being in self-employment. That is true for them as well as for people in employment.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman has had one go and I am sorry he messed up his question.

[Barbara Keeley]

I have raised in this Chamber a number of times the issue of the almost 700,000 carers who are working but can work only 16 hours at the minimum wage. Many Conservative Members in this debate and in earlier debates have talked about people increasing their hours, but some sets of people cannot increase their hours—my Front-Bench colleague the hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has mentioned them and I mention them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to almost 700,000 working carers who cannot give themselves more hours, are not allowed to earn more than £110 a week and will be hit badly by this cut to working tax credits?

[John Redwood]

Yes, some people cannot increase their hours or, for good reason, do not want to increase them because they are already working long hours. I have already described the actions they or their employers can take, and that the Government can encourage. We want these people to have better opportunity and more skill, and to work with their employers to raise productivity to justify pay rises. The Government, with the full support of the Opposition, are using the force of the law to increase minimum wages, as part of the policy of driving wages upwards. But the only way we can succeed in getting wages in this country up to levels we would all find acceptable is through a productivity revolution. It has to come by working smarter and better, not necessarily by working longer hours or by working harder, with the right investment and the right back-up from employers, so that people can earn more and justify higher earnings.

Finance Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I was not going to speak in this debate, but I have decided to join in because it is a vital matter. I worked with other Opposition Members in this debate during the first day of Committee, when I was the sole representative of the shadow Treasury team. It was an important debate then, but I think we have really moved it on today. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) spoke well on this subject in Committee, and I want now to touch on some of what they said.

New clause 7, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), is an important new clause that has enabled a hard-hitting and sensible debate on the VAT rate for tampons and sanitary products. As others have said, they are not luxury products, but, as we noted in Committee, some bizarre products are VAT exempt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax found out, alcoholic jellies, edible sugar flowers, exotic meats, such as crocodile and kangaroo, and the amazingly named millionaires’ shortbread are apparently all VAT exempt. I am sure everyone agrees that alcoholic jellies are a luxury product, while tampons and sanitary products, which are vital products for women, are not.

As I said, we had a good debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax all spoke well, and I support what they said, but what did the Minister say? I hope we can change how he feels about this matter. At the end of the debate, he said:

“We are supportive and we would like the rate to be as low as possible”,

which was very good and supportive, but he also said that

“without wider EU reform and greater flexibility…it will be a challenge.”

Importantly, however, he also said that

“were we able to progress further, I would be sympathetic”.––[Official Report, Finance Bill Public Bill Committee, 17 September 2015; c. 26.]

I think the Minister should be supportive, given that a number of his hon. Friends want him to be.

I wish to add my name to the list of those who have praised Dame Dawn Primarolo’s early campaign to reduce the VAT rate by 5% in 2000. Fifteen years ago, that was a brave thing to do in the House. Plenty of Members tonight have been willing to talk straightforwardly about this, but 15 years ago there were not as many women in the House and it would have been difficult to talk about. I am in her fan club and glad to thank her for the campaign she ran.

This VAT rate, which we have had since 2000, is unfair to women and families. It might be a challenge for the Minister to negotiate with the EU on this matter, but I hope that he and the Prime Minister are equal to it and can take it on. There have been many things they have been happy to challenge in their EU negotiations, and many of his hon. Friends have indicated that they also want him to take on this challenge. I am sure he is up to it, as he is well steeped in these matters, and it is clear from this debate that he has support from both sides. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause and give him a reason to take on this challenge.

[Wes Streeting]

This debate is in great contrast to that taking place in the House of Lords. Here we are debating a cut to inheritance tax, while the unelected House is championing the interests of working people by doing something that many more Government Members should have done: put their consciences in their feet and marched through the correct Lobby.

We know from evidence already debated that the changes to inheritance tax will effectively cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21. As the great Nye Bevan once said,

“the language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.

To Government Members who ask where our priorities lie, I say: they will always be in championing the interests of hard-working people and trying to improve the lot of the low-paid. For this reason, new clause 9 would delete the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax. That says exactly where our priorities are and where they should be. It is humiliating for the Chancellor and Prime Minister, having claimed at the recent Conservative party conference to be these great centrist modernisers, that it is in fact the House of Lords that has had to do what the elected House of Commons should have done last week, and still has the opportunity to do in debates taking place tomorrow and on Thursday.

The “Conservative modernisation project mark 2” is now dead in the water, but let us remind Tory Members of “modernisation project mark 1”. We remember the Prime Minister promising “the greenest Government ever” when he was running with the huskies and hugging hoodies, yet here we see clause 45 of the Finance Bill, which will remove the exemption from the climate change levy for electricity produced by renewable sources from 1 August this year—it will be backdated. Conservative Members need to decide whether they are going to be the “true blue” Conservatives that we have seen represented in the unlikely forum of a debate on tampons and sanitary products, or whether they are the party of the centre ground and the working man and woman.

Tax Credits

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to talk to the Prime Minister about why he said on “Question Time” during the election that he would not cut tax credits. That is a conversation for him to have with the Prime Minister.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) talks about the Conservative manifesto, but the manifesto cannot have outlined that 689,000 carers might be affected. Those who care 35 hours a week and then try to work 16 hours on the national minimum wage will be hit. What do Conservative Members have to say about that?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes her point incredibly well. It is those who are working so hard to support us in every sphere—in our public services and the economy—who will be hit the hardest by this move. I hope that the Government will change their mind today. I will make some more progress before I take further interventions.

The Chancellor says that he wants a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy—this may come as a surprise, but of course we all do—but what he says and what he does are two different things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

This morning on BBC Tees, I debated the issue of tax credits with a Conservative councillor who stood unsuccessfully at the general election. He used an expression that summed up the total lack of understanding among Government Members of how people can be in work but in need of some state support. He referred to people as being “exposed” to the process, as if it was some kind of risk. I understand that that expression might be used by a City person in relation to investments or by a chief executive about a project that his company plans to undertake. In both cases, I am sure that they would develop a plan to mitigate the risk of failure. The millions of people who will be affected by the tax credit cuts are not exposed to a risk that they have the power to mitigate. Rather, they are having cuts to their income imposed on them and there is little, if anything, that most of them can do about it.

[Barbara Keeley]

One group that will be hit is family carers who receive carer’s allowance and work 16 hours on the minimum wage to supplement their benefit of £62. There are 689,000 carers in that position. Carers UK says that all carers who claim carer’s allowance and working tax credit will lose out under the tax credit proposals. I know that my hon. Friend cares about these things, but it seems that Government Members do not.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She does tremendous work in respect of carers and I understand exactly what she is saying.

My hon. Friend will be interested in the case of my constituent Linda Harper, whose medical needs mean that she requires help and support in some areas of her life. Despite needing the unpaid care of her husband, who also has a job, Linda’s determination recently saw her battle against her condition to open her own craft store in the local town centre. Although the business does not yet turn a profit, she is succeeding in building a customer base and is contributing to the community by running classes, teaching others the skills of her craft and hosting social groups that add value to the lives of those who participate.

Linda represents the attitudes that the Conservative Government claim they want to promote. She is hard working, persevering and enterprising. Let us not forget that the Conservative manifesto at the general election promised to improve the lives of

“the millions who work hard, raise their families, care for those who need help, who do the right thing”.

Yet, when the Government’s changes come into effect, Linda estimates that she stands to lose £2,000 a year. Paying her mortgage and putting food on the table will become significantly harder and the viability of her businesses will be severely challenged.

The Government say that their demand for employers to pay people more and their tax cuts will help to restore the money that people lose from their tax credits. That is absolute nonsense. I put the following questions to the Minister. What will happen to public sector workers and self-employed people on low incomes? How can the employees of local authorities, health trusts and other public sector employers make up their income by increasing pay when the Government have said that they cannot give increases beyond 1%? How will a person who relies on tax credits and who earns less than £10,000 a year benefit from an increase in the tax threshold? How will a self-employed person with earnings of £6,000 a year give themselves a pay rise to fill the gap in their income caused by the loss of tax credits? How will a small business fulfil the Government’s promise of higher wages when it is already struggling to survive? The answers are simple: public sector workers will continue to see drastic cuts to their incomes and standard of living; self-employed individuals will be left to their own devices; and small businesses will pay people off because they cannot afford to keep them.

I am alarmed to hear that, despite the reservations of many Conservative Members, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have no intention of halting these cuts. Perhaps the 70 or so Conservative Members whose majorities are smaller than the number of people in their constituencies who claim tax credits will have more to say about that in future. Several million people hope so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Many of those who have spoken, and indeed the Chancellor himself, are quite right to say that we have to view all the measures put forward as a package—not just the effects of the tax credit changes, but the many other measures that have been spoken about. I would like to make three points: on timing, predictability and the concept of scarcity.

On timing, the measures will come in at different times. It is vital that their timing should be synchronised. It is not there at the moment and I therefore ask that the timing of the introduction of the various changes to tax credits be looked at. I fully agree that we need reductions in the tax credit bills, but it is the timing that will bring great problems to many families.

On predictability, families want to know what their income is going to be. They want a reasonable measure of forewarning, so they can talk and negotiate with their employers, and plan their future. If their income is going to be reduced, they need time to do that.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about timing. I raised a point earlier about carers. Carers who work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage will lose their tax credits. They cannot change that, they cannot plan for that and they cannot find any way out of that. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that in relation to the 689,000 carers?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Lady must have read my notes, because I was going to come to that and say precisely that this is the other major issue. Those on fixed incomes do not have the ability to go out and work the two or three extra hours a week to cover the cost of the changes to tax credits. Full-time carers are not the only example, but they are the most obvious. I entirely agree with her.

Scarcity might seem a rather arcane concept to introduce, but studies have shown that for those who find sudden scarcity imposed on them economically, the costs are very great. The inflation rate for people on lower rates of pay is considerably higher than for those on higher rates of pay. If they suddenly receive a lower income—perhaps a cut of 10% or more—their costs will actually rise, because they will be unable to make the decisions to buy in bulk or in advance that they were otherwise able to make.

Finally, I am not one of those who does not want to eliminate the deficit. I absolutely do. If we have a change in timing—as I urge the Government to consider, including in relation to carers—we will need to find extra sources of revenue and we will have to take that on the chin. In particular, I have written to the Treasury to ask it to consider various income tax and corporation tax reliefs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

In my constituency, there are around 8,000 families with children claiming tax credits, 5,000 working families, and almost 10,000 children. We know from the Library briefing that they will lose more than £100 a month, but some families will lose more. One of my constituents, a mother with a disabled child, has worked out that her family will lose £200 a month from the tax credit cuts. Instead of just sitting there, perhaps Government Members can tell me how, if they back these changes, such families will manage? I do not think that they will manage. Another constituent, a single mother, told me that she uses tax credits to pay for school uniform, food and travel expenses. Those are the things that will suffer.

Earlier, I mentioned the impact that these tax credit cuts will have on the incomes of many thousands of unpaid carers who juggle care and work, particularly those who claim carer’s allowance and working tax credits. Carers UK told me that all carers who are claiming carer’s allowance and working tax credits will lose under the current proposals, even taking into account the introduction of the so-called national living wage.

Tax credit cuts will make it more difficult for working carers to balance work and care and that will hit their standard of living. They do not deserve that. Last week the Minister for Community and Social Care told me that he did not think that carers’ invaluable contribution to society had ever been better recognised. Is that hit to the income and living standard of working carers what he means by recognition? I hope the Minister will tell us when he responds what consideration the Government will now give to protecting working carers on low incomes from these unfair, savage tax credit cuts. Those cuts will hit families with disabled children. They will hit carers and millions of working people. I urge Government Members, the few who have managed to stay for this debate, to rethink this deeply unfair policy change.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and that of your co-Chair, Mr Howarth, when he joins us later. I associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, and welcome the Clerks, the Hansard reporters and others who will assist us in the days ahead, although it will just be one day ahead for me.

I welcome the members of the Committee and in particular those who came into the House in May. On the Labour side, that is my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South, for Halifax, for Dewsbury, for Torfaen and for Cambridge, and we will be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. We should also mention the stalwart work of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe.

As has been said, this is the first ever Bill Committee for those new Members, and I remember when I served on my first Finance Bill Committee back in summer 2006. I checked back, and the Financial Secretary was on that same Committee. We know now that he has served on 11 Finance Bill Committees, so he certainly wins the prize. I am afraid I do not. I assure the Committee and him that we will scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, as is our duty. Members should be grateful that the Bill is much shorter than the Finance Bill in 2006, which had 21 sittings.

As an opening comment, the Bill sadly does little to help families and individuals on low and middle incomes, and I think that is a pity. Millions of those families have heard that they will be hit by the tax credit cuts that were voted through by Government Members earlier this week. Those savage cuts will come to be seen as the hallmark of the summer Budget of 2015, which was also a tax-raising Budget, but I will come back to that point.

In Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, we heard about a working family who would be hit badly by the cuts, and there will be so many more, because 3 million families will lose more than £1,000 a year. In my constituency, more than 8,000 families with children receive tax credits, of whom 5,300 are working families. The Bill does not contain that measure on tax credits, but it comes from the same Budget, so I will keep those families in mind as we work through all the issues in the Bill.

[Roger Mullin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, along with my colleagues. I start by thanking everyone who has already been thanked, thus making sure that I miss no one out. I am slightly surprised that I am making this speech, because I did not know that this was how proceedings would begin, but on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to say that we look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail. We are particularly unhappy about a number of matters, and we share the views already expressed by the Labour spokespersons.

We also want, through new clauses, to raise some matters that are of particular concern to Scotland and the people of Scotland, who are severely disadvantaged on a number of fronts by measures within the Bill. I hope we will contribute constructively and speedily. I had a wonderful experience when I attended the Sub-Committee of this Bill Committee on Monday; the thing I thought was particularly impressive was that it lasted one minute. I am sure this Committee will take a little longer, but we will do our best to contribute constructively and efficiently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Clauses 1 and 2 enact the promise that the Government made during the general election not to increase the rate of income tax or VAT in the next Parliament. Clause 1 states that the basic, higher and additional rates of income tax will not increase above 20%, 40% and 45% for the duration of this Parliament.

We support the Government’s pledges on tax locks for this Parliament. In fact, it would be surprising if we did not, because we made them first. The Labour party made the same pledge on 25 March, and our 2015 manifesto contained a commitment not to increase the basic or higher rates of income tax, or to raise VAT or national insurance. We are glad the Conservative party adopted our pledge during the election.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, and as was discussed in the Budget debates, legislating for that pledge represents a U-turn. As my hon. Friend rightly said, in 2009 the current Chancellor said he was very critical of Chancellors passing laws to ensure they fulfil their promises. The current Chancellor stated then:

“No other Chancellor in the long history of the office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget…As one commentator observed this week, there are only two conclusions. Either the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is, so to speak, asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word, but hopes that they might believe in the statute book if not in him. Neither is much of a recommendation for the Chancellor of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 708.]

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On Tuesday the hon. Lady advised us on the Floor of the House that she would not seek to defend or reference remarks made on previous occasions by the new leader of her party. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think comments that somebody made when they were a Back-Bench MP are different. Once somebody has taken on a role, either in opposition or in government, what they say carries a certain weight. There is a freedom to the Back Benches that I and others here have experienced. Many Members of the Conservative party say things that their Front-Bench team would not agree with. That is my distinction, and I am sticking to it.

It appears that the Chancellor had a change of heart, and now feels the need to pass a law to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget. During the debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week we discussed the view that measures such as this are in fact gimmicks. We questioned why Ministers feel the need for this additional legislation when the promises that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party made during the election should be good enough. To people outside Westminster, it could appear that Treasury Ministers have lost confidence in their ability to stick to their resolutions, or perhaps they fear that everyone else has lost confidence in their ability to keep their word. The Minister may want to tell us which he thinks it is.

Although Labour supports the pledge to make no increase to VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions during this Parliament, I still question whether introducing legislation to ensure those locks is the best course of action. Rather than gimmicks, we need long-term tax reform and sensible policies to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good deal.

We have some concerns about the durability of the income tax lock in clause 1. As it stands, it appears that rates could be raised by repealing the Bill in a future Budget. Can the Minister assure the Committee that it is not simply a gimmick? Will he outline how he intends to show that the lock will remain in place? In our deliberations, we should consider the impact of that tax change and the other changes to the tax system announced in the Budget. As many tax experts have pointed out, only then will we be able to see the real impact of Government measures on particular groups of people.

In Committee of the whole House, I raised the issue of the insurance premium tax. Although the clause protects workers against an income tax rate rise, I note that they will not be protected from the other tax increases in the Bill.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Roger; I hope to profit from your experience. I want to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertion that the tax lock is a gimmick. Is it not in the same spirit as the legislation that ensures that 0.7% of GDP is spent on international aid each year? That measure is ensuring, as we speak, that refugees from Syria are being rescued from terrible circumstances. Is this not in a similar spirit?

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think it is. In fact, if it is seen in the same way, someone needs to have a word with the Prime Minister. He constantly refers to the 0.7% commitment as a matter of huge pride and has quoted it a great deal in our debates about the refugee crisis over the past week or two. The difference with financial matters—this is probably why the current Chancellor was so critical of things in 2009—is that there are many opportunities to legislate. This is the third Finance Bill this year, so things could change. The 0.7% international aid commitment was a very long-term commitment. It came up a great deal in international discussions and still does, so there is a difference.

I was talking about the insurance premium tax and the fact that people are not protected from those sorts of tax increase. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

“The tax and welfare changes between them mean that poorer households have lost quite significantly and as a result of yesterday’s Budget, much more significantly than anything that has happened to richer households.”

He also said:

“Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.”

Let us bear in mind that many of the households that benefit from this tax lock have been adversely impacted by other tax changes. In fact, the summer Budget did not cut the overall tax bill; it raised it.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady makes a lot about feeling it unnecessary that the Government have to promise to legislate not to change tax rates and about the importance of not affecting working households, particularly those at the bottom end. Is it not the case that when her party was in government, there was an understanding that people at the bottom end would be protected, yet at that time the 10p tax rate was removed, causing huge problems for working households? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a great deal of looking back, but let us look at what is happening this year and what will happen in the years following this Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts net taxes to rise by more than £47 billion over the next four years, with much of the money coming from increases in dividend tax, insurance premium tax, vehicle excise duty and cuts in pension tax relief. Of course, welfare cuts will also raise almost £35 billion. It is one thing saying that families will benefit from the tax lock, but all of those measures will hit many families and individuals in the UK hard.

The combination of changes needs to be seen in the context of the cut to tax credits that Government Members voted through this week, which are likely to leave millions of families worse off. I was asked the other day, “What else would you do?” It is our contention that the welfare reform we need is to things such as overpayments and the error and fraud in the welfare system, because things are not properly checked at the point of application. Error and fraud cost £3 billion a year. The cut to tax credits will hit working people on middle and lower incomes, which undermines the Government’s argument that this is a Budget for working people.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much in the last Parliament of a distinction between those who are in work and those who are not. By this attack on those who are in work, does he not find himself on the wrong side of his own dividing line?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely so. A great deal is said at the moment about working people, working families and who supports them. Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, has said:

“Significant allowances were an integral part of the design of universal credit, intended to give claimants an incentive to move into work.”

That is an important point. On tax credit cuts, he adds:

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

[Chris Philp]

Could the hon. Lady confirm whether it is the Labour party’s intention to reverse the tax credit proposals put forward earlier this week?

[Barbara Keeley]

We had the same question the other day. It is not helpful for us to keep repeating things.

As we saw during the election campaign, we have a different mix of changes that we want to introduce and different ways of moving the economy forward, and that will always be the case. I am sure we would not have made the cuts to tax credits. We introduced tax credits to help working people. We believe in them, because they help to bring children out of poverty. We would never have made such savage cuts. We believe that it is necessary to tackle the root causes of welfare spending—low pay and high housing costs—to bring down Government spending sustainably. Those things are not being tackled; rather, the infrastructure that supports families in work is being taken away. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the introduction of tax credits played an extremely powerful part in the improvement in child poverty figures, and that is what is at risk.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, as always. Under the moderate and reforming Labour leadership of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), Labour Front-Bench Members for the whole of the previous Parliament were never able to say what they would actually do. They were very good at saying what they would not do and at opposing everything that my right hon. Friends in the Treasury sought to do to reduce spending and bring it back under control. We await—with bated breath, it has to be said—what the reforming instincts of the new Labour leader will bring forward, but can the shadow Minister say what she would do? She has spoken about her long-term plans for house building, and so on, but, in the shorter to medium term, what would the Labour party do today, or what would it have done recently, to balance the nation’s finances better?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a very easy question to answer. We heard earlier about the former shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, who put in a great deal of work this year on zero-based budgeting spending reviews. He came up with a list of savings that amounted to £12 billion. We talked about that a great deal during the election—

[Simon Hoare]

He got sacked!

[Barbara Keeley]

I think it would be better, Sir Roger, if we could move away from things to do with the Labour party and concentrate on the Bill. It is not helping progress.

[The Chair]

Order. It is for the Chairman to decide what is in order and what is not. Inevitably in any debate of this kind there is going to be a certain amount of party political skirmish, and both Chairmen understand that. However, now that I am on my feet, what is relevant is that this debate is about income tax. We could have a debate about every aspect of tax—we could not, actually, because it would be out of order. Perhaps we can now revert to income tax.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I think one of my hon. Friends wanted to intervene.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I quite take the point you just made, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly rich for Government Members to talk about the past when they were elected last time on a pledge to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the Parliament, which they have completely failed to achieve? Setting tax rates in stone will only further perpetuate their past failure.

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely. In talking more broadly, I have been trying to paint a picture of the impact of the set of policies in the Budget, not all of which are in the Bill.

We feel that the tax lock is a short-term measure. As I said earlier, we need to think about long-term reform to ensure an equitable and efficient tax system that provides good value for the taxpayer. There is also a need for long-term tax system planning. We welcome the consultations announced by the Government, but action is also needed on, for example, the alignment of national insurance contributions and income tax. That has been discussed many times, over and over again, but never acted upon, and I will be talking about that later in the debate.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

May I associate myself with hon. Members from both sides of the Committee in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger? I look forward to profiting from your experience. Does the hon. Lady—

[Barbara Keeley]

I had concluded my speech.

[The Chair]

Ah. I understood that the hon. Lady was giving way. As no one else wishes to speak, I call the Minister.

[Mr Gauke]

I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s speech. Let me be clear that if one looks at the measures set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech this summer, one will see that we are ensuring that working families will benefit from a strong and growing economy. By 2017-18, eight out of 10 working households will be better off as a result of the changes we are making to the personal allowance, the introduction of the national living wage and the welfare changes set out in the Budget.

The concern has been raised that the clause is somehow just presentational, but I return to the point I was making earlier about underlining our commitment. It is consistent with the approach we have taken to the tax system, and I think families up and down the country will welcome that. In particular, in the current context, with the official Opposition apparently moving in the direction of wanting to increase taxes, the fact that Parliament is making it clear what the current majority feels can only be helpful.

[Barbara Keeley]

As I have said already in this debate and the other day in the Committee of the whole House, this is a tax-raising Budget and the Government are raising taxes. I touched on some of those taxes and we have talked about the insurance premium tax. This is a tax-raising Budget and a tax-raising set of measures.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government are committed to creating a low-tax economy and the clause marks clear progress towards that. We must remember that the Government inherited the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We heard criticism from the hon. Member for Cambridge, who said it should—[Interruption.] If the Scottish National party’s position is that the deficit should be larger, I strongly disagree. The deficit fell significantly over the course of the previous Parliament, but there is still further work to do. In that context, we must make some difficult decisions.

Public spending is taking the greater share of the strain when it comes to fiscal consolidation, and we believe that is the right approach. I do not know whether the Opposition parties share that belief, but I very much doubt it. The clause demonstrates our commitment on income tax, just as in the next clause demonstrates it on VAT—to ensure that over the course of this Parliament we do not increase those tax rates. I think the British public will welcome those measures—after all, they were set out before the last general election. I hope that the clause has the Committee’s support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

VAT lock

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Gauke]

I will say a word or two about the clause and then, if I may, I will respond to the new clauses that I assume will be set out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The clause states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the Parliament. It also locks certain provisions in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to prevent them from being used to change the scope of VAT by moving any goods or services out of the zero rate or reduced rate for the duration of the Parliament.

The Government believe in lower taxes and are committed to eliminating the deficit in a way that is fair to taxpayers. As part of our plan to move the UK to a lower tax economy, we made a manifesto commitment to rule out any increase in the main rates of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT for the duration of this Parliament, as I have mentioned. Clause 2, following on from clause 1 on income tax, implements that commitment for VAT. This initiative will provide certainty to taxpayers and ensure that working people will not have to pay any additional VAT on their purchases for the duration of this Parliament.

Let me set out the changes made by the clause in a little more detail. Currently, the standard rate of VAT is 20% and the reduced rate is 5%. Clause 2 states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise, locking the rates for the duration of this Parliament. As the zero rate clearly cannot be more than 0%, it is not covered by the legislation. Supplies that are subject to the reduced rate, such as domestic fuel and power, are listed in schedule 7A, and those that are zero-rated, such as books, children’s clothes and most food, are listed in schedule 8. The supplies listed can be varied by means of a Treasury order. However, the legislation will prevent the use of Treasury orders to expand the scope of VAT by removing supplies from the zero and reduced rates.

While the 20% standard rate of VAT is among the lowest in the EU, the UK also has the lowest reduced rate of VAT permitted by EU law and is one of only eight EU member states to have successfully negotiated to apply a zero rate of VAT. The Government will not increase the reduced or standard rates of VAT and will retain the zero rate of VAT, in keeping with our commitment to creating a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare country.

In summary, clause 2 provides the strongest possible backing for the Government’s commitment not to increase VAT for the duration of this Parliament. It delivers on our manifesto promise and is consistent with our policy to deliver a lower tax economy for hard-working taxpayers.

[Barbara Keeley]

Many of the points I raised about clause 1 on the principles of tax locks also apply to clause 2, which states that the standard and reduced rates of VAT will not rise for the duration of the VAT lock period. It also ensures that no goods and services can be removed from the zero and reduced rates of VAT for the duration of the VAT lock period.

The Labour party made a commitment not to raise VAT back in March and in our 2015 manifesto. Indeed, the Government’s tax lock was announced in response to our challenge about not repeating their broken promises on VAT. We are pleased the Government have agreed that VAT rates should not go up, because that will benefit people on lower and middle incomes. This legislation is perhaps a little more needed, given the Conservatives’ record on VAT. The Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only to raise it to 20% immediately after entering Downing Street. However, as with the income tax lock, we are concerned that there is nothing to prevent the Government from changing the VAT lock in future legislation.

How will the VAT lock stand up in the face of European Union intervention? The UK is subject to EU VAT law and European Court of Justice decisions on VAT will have an impact on VAT here. On 4 June this year, the European Court of Justice judged that the UK had failed to comply with the VAT directive by applying a reduced rate of VAT to the supply and installation of energy saving materials for housing, which the Court ruled will have to be charged at the standard UK VAT rate of 20%. Another recent example of EU involvement is the 2015 Court decision in the “Go Fair” case, in which the Court found that VAT should be chargeable on the supply of care workers provided by a temporary agency. Currently, UK agencies supplying nursing staff can benefit from a VAT exemption. Will the Minister indicate whether that will change as a result of the European ruling?

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

The hon. Lady may know that courts are overruled by higher courts day in, day out in the court system. Should the initial legislation not be passed because it may be overruled at some point in the future?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am not in any sense challenging it; I am asking the Minister to tell us what he thinks the impact on the legislation will be of that Court’s decisions. Those cases seem to suggest that the lock on UK VAT is not as robust as the Chancellor claims, so it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what impact future EU Court rulings could have.

On the scope of the VAT lock, clause 2 prevents any increase in the standard and reduced rates, and prevents anything from being moved out of the scope of the reduced or zero rates, but there is no mention of exemptions. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the current exemptions from VAT will remain over the course of this Parliament.

SNP Members tabled a new clause that seeks a report on the impact of exempting women’s sanitary products from VAT. Labour supports the new clause. We welcome the opportunity to call again for those essential healthcare products to be made tax-free. Women do not choose to use sanitary products; they are essential. Although the reduction in the rate of VAT on sanitary products in the UK from 2000 was welcome, more needs to be done. This is not just a female issue, but a family and household issue. Women supporting families across the country should be able to purchase those necessary items VAT-free. We recognise the complexity of the EU rules on VAT and the challenges faced by national Governments that want to make such unilateral changes. I ask the Minister to take action at an EU level to support the exemption of women’s sanitary products from VAT in the UK.

[The Chair]

I assume that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath wishes to speak to his new clauses, but I may be incorrect. Before he does so, I ask hon. Members look at the amendment paper. I will reiterate what I said earlier for understanding. At the end of this morning’s amendment paper are new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Only new clauses 1 and 3 have been selected for debate with clause 2, because they relate to VAT. New clause 2 does not relate to VAT, so although it appears on the amendment paper ahead of new clause 3, we are not debating it now. The new clauses will not be moved now. They can be spoken to by any hon. Member who wishes to address the subjects. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman in whose name the new clause was tabled will wish to speak to it. Others may also wish to speak to it; that is entirely in order. The new clauses will not be moved now. They will be moved, as with all other new clauses, right at the end of the Bill, which may be, I suspect, several weeks hence. There is an arcane form of words in which new clauses, as distinct from amendments, are moved. That is a pleasure in store for us, but we will deal with that when we come to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Let me say that I share your ambition for the timing of the Adjournment, Sir Roger.

I have addressed some of the points about the tax lock already. As for the application of EU law and ECJ judgments, which by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South rightly raised, let me be clear: EU VAT law and Court decisions will have to apply to the UK, too. Legislation will have to be changed to reflect any changes or Court decisions, otherwise the UK would be breaking the law. I do not wish to evade that point in any way. None the less, that does not undermine the basis of the VAT tax lock, because the great bulk of VAT issues on rates and the boundaries between the zero rate, reduced rates and standard rate are unlikely to change. However, I acknowledge that point. VAT exemptions are set out in EU law and cannot be changed by the UK unilaterally. We are therefore not binding our hands on the exemptions because they are not determined by the UK alone. I hope that provides a little clarity.

[Barbara Keeley]

Before the Minister moves on, I want to clarify once more why Opposition Members believe that the tax lock is a gimmick. If things go really wrong, it will have to change and, having bound their hands, if the Government have to increase VAT or income tax, that will really destroy public confidence out there. That is the problem.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me respond to that quickly. I come back to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. We did not hear those arguments from the hon. Lady or her colleagues when we were legislating for the 0.7% expenditure on overseas aid; these points were made in the context of the tax lock. One cannot help feeling that when the Opposition’s heart is really in the legislation, they think it is the right thing to do, and when their heart is not in it, they call it a gimmick. Very similar arguments apply to both items of legislation.

New clause 1 would require the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, including analysis of the change in their financial position since 2012 as a consequence of their ineligibility for section 33 VAT refunds. As we heard, in 2012 Scotland’s eight locally governed police and fire authorities consolidated to become two national bodies. As a result, they were no longer reliant on local taxation for funding, which is one of the two criteria for eligibility for the section 33 VAT refund scheme. Following the restructuring, the new national bodies were therefore no longer were eligible for VAT refunds.

The new clause asks the Treasury to write a report on the VAT treatment of those bodies, including an estimate of the change to their financial position since their restructuring if they had remained eligible for VAT refunds. However, it is important to remember that the Scottish Government were forewarned of that consequence well in advance of the decision they took. The Treasury was keen to ensure that the Scottish Government considered that consequence as part and parcel of their decision to restructure the services. Because the expected cost savings to the Scottish Government outweighed the loss of any VAT refunds, I perfectly understand why they went ahead with their restructuring programme.

As I have explained, as the Scottish Government restructured those services, they are no longer eligible for VAT refunds. That is plain and clear, and the eligibility is set out in legislation. There is no need to explain it further or for a report to be submitted to the House. If the Scottish Government are now reconsidering their position and wish to discuss how the services can become eligible once again for VAT refunds, the Treasury will happily engage with them to advise. In conclusion, there does not seem to be any justification for using Treasury resource to set out in a report something that is clearly set out in legislation. As things stand, the Scottish police and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are not eligible for VAT refunds. I therefore ask that new clause 1 not be moved.

New clause 3 would require the Treasury to write a report on a VAT exemption of women’s sanitary protection products, including a financial assessment and an assessment of the impact on the purchasing of these products, especially by those aged under 25. I am well aware of the ongoing campaign to zero-rate or exempt from VAT sanitary protection products, which has cross-party support. I very much sympathise with the aims of the new clause, but this is not simply a case of the Government taking action.

The new clause asks the Treasury to submit a report to the House on the impacts of exempting sanitary protection products from VAT. The plain facts of the matter are that the goods and supplies to which the UK Government can apply a VAT exemption are set out in EU law. Any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states, which is no easy task.

To put this into context, the UK applies a reduced rate of 5% to sanitary protection products—the lowest permissible rate of VAT under EU law. However, different countries have different priorities, setting their tax rates to meet the economic conditions prevalent in their own jurisdictions. Across the EU, the average rate of VAT applied to sanitary protection products is more than 17%. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central made reference to the Republic of Ireland. My understanding is that it is not correct that these products are zero-rated or exempt there. The UK applies the lowest rate across the whole EU.

In discussions in the EU, some member states may consider other reviews to be of more concern to them at this time. It is not that there is any lack of sympathy for the cause. When the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown, reduced the rate, he did not zero-rate these products because of the constraints of EU law. Any change would require the overall consent of the EU institutions.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

Before I do so, I wish to correct something. I understand that the Republic of Ireland has a zero rate for sanitary products. I correct what I said: the hon. Member for Glasgow Central was correct, so I apologise. That zero rate was agreed before Ireland joined the European Union in the early 1970s. A zero rate on these products was not in place when the UK joined the EU, or the Common Market as it then was. I am sure we would all consider that regrettable, but that was the situation. Trying to extend zero rates across the board would be difficult.

[Barbara Keeley]

There is a recognition of the difficulty—that certainly came out in the speeches we heard on this element of the Bill. What other Members and I would like to hear from the Minister is whether he supports doing something about it. Does he want to have a push on it? Party leaders seem to say that they do, but it would helpful if we could hear him say that he wants to do something about this issue.

[Mr Gauke]

There are a number of ways in which the European Union and the rules that apply within it could be improved. A strong case is made from all parts of the House that greater flexibility in this context would be helpful, but the point I would make is that we see little indication that other member states, which by and large have higher rates—the average rate is 17%—share that objective. If there is a general move, we would support that.

Other than when an accession country joins the EU and negotiates a zero rate, there is no particular indication that the Commission or member states as a whole are prepared to introduce new zero rates. Indeed, quite a lot of the advice coming from organisations such as the OECD and the general position that the Commission takes tend to be against that, so I do not want to underestimate the difficulties.