Finance Bill (Second sitting)
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best way to ensure that we have rising living standards is to have strong economy, which ensures that we encourage businesses, attract investment to the UK and reward entrepreneurship. That is the Government’s approach, but whether it is that of the official Opposition remains to be seen.
As we are talking about income tax, it is worth pointing out that 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010 as a consequence of increases in the personal allowance. The Government are committed to continuing to make work pay and have pledged to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. The Government also believe that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are introducing a change so that the personal allowance will automatically increase to ensure that it does not fall below the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.
This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance has not been indexed on the basis of price inflation, instead ensuring that individuals who earn up to 30 hours on the national minimum wage will not pay income tax in the future. Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to ensure that it is always set at a level at least equivalent to 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The change will take effect once the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Individuals working 30 hours a week or fewer on the national minimum wage will therefore be taken out of income tax altogether.
Clause 4 sets out that, until the personal allowance reaches £12,500, the Chancellor will have a legal duty to consider the impact of any proposed increase to the personal allowance on an individual working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. The clause also sets out the requirement for the Chancellor to make a statement on the impact that this will have on those individuals when an increase to the personal allowance is made at a future fiscal event.
The changes to income tax thresholds in the Bill will mean that an individual can work at least 30 hours a week without paying income tax both in 2015-16 and next year. In 2010, an individual could work only 21 hours on the national minimum wage without paying income tax. In time, an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will be brought back into income tax.
On clause 5, it is worth pointing out how much the personal allowance has increased in recent years. In 2010-11, it was just £6,475; now, it is £10,600. Following on from that record, in this Parliament, we have committed to delivering a high wage, low tax, low welfare society. That includes reducing taxes for the lower paid, and that is why we have committed to increasing the personal allowance from its current level of £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. Clause 5 increases the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18.
In total, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17. That will increase to more than 660,000 by 2017-18. The changes represent a tax cut for 29 million taxpayers who will see their typical income tax bill reduced by £905 by 2016-17. Taxpayers who are over 65 will also benefit. From 2016-17 onwards, the tax system will be simplified so that all taxpayers will be entitled to the same personal allowance; the remaining age-related allowance of £10,660 will be merged with the higher personal allowance of £11,000.
The clauses allow us to support those in work by enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. We are helping the lowest paid by taking them out of income tax altogether and we are moving towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is a very long time since I did a Finance Bill––it was in my very first year as an MP. We have had a lot of guidance this morning, because apart from me going back to 2006, many Members have not done one before.
Clause 3 changes the basis of indexation for the income tax personal allowance from the consumer prices index to a link to an annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the national minimum wage adult rate, when the personal allowance reaches £12,500. Clause 5 outlines future increases in the personal allowance that will work towards the Government’s stated aim of a personal allowance threshold of £12,500. The personal allowance is currently £10,600 and is set to rise to £11,000 in 2016-17, followed by a further increase to £11,200 in 2017-18.
Labour supports measures to improve the living standards of families across the UK. Every worker should be entitled to a fair wage and we welcome the increase in the personal allowance. We understand the reasoning behind changing the indexation for the income tax personal allowance. Linking the allowance to the annual equivalent of an individual working 30 hours per week at the adult rate of the national minimum wage when the personal allowance reaches £12,500 should help to increase a worker’s take-home pay when they work full time on the national minimum wage.
Currently, a person working on the minimum wage for 48 weeks a year earns £9,360 and so is already below the personal allowance threshold. Indexing the personal allowance to the national minimum wage rather than inflation will help to protect the earnings of minimum wage workers as the minimum wage rises above inflation. If the indexation of the personal allowance were to remain aligned to the consumer prices index measure of inflation, many workers on the national minimum wage could find themselves dragged into the personal allowance as their wages increase, as has certainly been the case in the past.
It is welcome that the Government are moving towards a wage and tax system that acknowledges people’s right to make a decent living, but it must be noted that the change in indexation may also have unintended consequences, particularly in the long term. In future, if the national minimum wage fails to rise in line with inflation, families could be hit by stagnant wages and a personal allowance that fails to reflect a squeeze on living standards. I hope that is borne in mind and that any future Government faced with this problem will act to protect family incomes.
Although the measure means that people working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not have to pay any income tax, many people are excluded from the additional benefits that brings because they do not earn enough to qualify. In particular, it will make little difference to someone who works part time on the national minimum wage. There are 8.27 million part-time employees in the UK. People work part time for a wide variety of reasons. For example, they may have caring responsibilities or be unable to find any other suitable work. We know that the majority of low-paid part-time workers are women, and we must bear in mind that an increase in the personal allowance is unlikely to have any effect on that group. If the Government are serious about helping those on low pay to achieve a decent standard of living, we must also look towards other areas of income taxation.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that reform of national insurance contributions could help those on low incomes. Many people earning below the income tax personal allowance threshold still pay national insurance contributions. I question the Government’s priorities in increasing the income tax personal allowance, because I feel that there could be more targeted assistance for those on the lowest incomes through changes to national insurance contributions.
That is a symptom of a wider problem within our tax system. The lack of alignment between income tax and national insurance causes additional complications for employers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the public. We welcome the Chancellor’s asking the Office of Tax Simplification to look at the possibility of merging income tax and national insurance. As national insurance and income tax have become less distinct in their purpose and what they are used to fund, it is important that we review how we can address the lack of alignment between the two.
Although the personal allowance for income tax has consistently been raised to take more people out of tax, the tax people pay through national insurance has lagged behind. We must consider whether any future increases in the personal allowance could be targeted at national insurance, reducing distortions in our tax system and simultaneously helping those on low pay.
Although the use of the adult national minimum wage as a benchmark for the personal allowance is welcome, we must note that it will not be equivalent to the real living wage or even the apparent living wage announced by the Chancellor in the summer Budget. As the Bill stands, the national minimum wage appears to be the rate for those aged 21 and over. The personal allowance is therefore no guarantee of a living wage for people who work more than 30 hours a week. Will the Minister say whether the Government will seek to increase the personal allowance in future to the level of the new national living wage for the over-25s, once it is introduced?
There is great confusion about the Chancellor’s use of the term “living wage” in the Budget. Even if the new so-called living wage of £9 per hour were used in this calculation, it is unlikely to provide a real living wage for full-time workers. The current UK living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, is £7.85 an hour throughout the UK, with the exception of London, where it is £9.15 an hour. The current real living wage, however, takes into account the tax credits that many families will lose under the Budget. When the Chancellor’s living wage reaches £9 an hour in 2020, it is likely that that will not reflect a real living wage as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation.
Mr Gauke
From what the hon. Lady said, I take it that she welcomes the significant further increases in the personal allowance. We have come a long way from the days when it was just £6,475, and I am glad we have made that progress. I am pleased that she appears to accept the principle of linking the personal allowance to the national minimum wage. I hope she recognises that the reforms we are making are helping the country to move towards the low-tax economy we need.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, for which I am grateful. She stated her support for the introduction of the national living wage, but then raised concerns about the jobs that will be lost and the care sector. We have to remember that this country is successfully creating a lot of jobs. Large numbers of jobs have been created in the past year or so, so we believe that the time is right for us to introduce the national living wage. We are locking in a more generous floor for the lowest paid across the economy, which obviously applies to the social care sector. Clearly, the costs of social care will be taken into account as part of the local government settlement in the spending review later this year. I cannot add much more to that at the moment, but I hear the hon. Lady’s point.
Barbara Keeley
It is instructive to listen to care providers and the people around them—the national provider associations. Privately paying residents of care homes now subsidise the residents who are paid for through local authorities to a substantial extent. I was given a case of somebody who, at the end of their life, was moved to a much smaller, cheaper room. That can happen in people’s last months, as they are approaching death. Care home providers do not want to do that, but they are in an awful situation in which there is a great disparity between the cost of supporting people as they need more and more care and the money available. We have to recognise that that is happening. I want to emphasise how important this is. The Minister and his colleagues should listen to the people who are worried about this. Although more jobs are being created and people can transfer between jobs, we cannot live without care homes.
Mr Gauke
The point I am making is that as we increase the personal allowance, people who earn under that amount do not pay income tax. If we still had a personal allowance of £6,475, such a person would clearly be paying income tax. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we have already made an awful lot of progress, I would entirely agree with him. That does not mean that we should stop.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised the issue of the national living wage, which we will introduce. It is based on the national minimum wage, which we believe should continue in its current form, applying recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to the Government. That has an important role to play.
The Government want to protect younger workers’ employment prospects as well as see as many people as possible benefiting from a higher wage. Given that younger workers tend to have less experience in the labour market than older workers, there is a risk that too high a wage rate might make them relatively less attractive to employers. That is why we will have both the national living wage and the national minimum wage.
Barbara Keeley
I talked at some length about national insurance and the fact that those with very low earnings may not reach the personal allowance but still pay national insurance contributions. Will the Minister comment on possible steps to remedy that drift? What are the Government’s plans?
Mr Gauke
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. In the coalition agreement in 2010, the coalition Government made it clear that our objective was to increase the personal allowance. Again, in my party’s manifesto for the 2015 general election, we made it clear that we wanted to increase the personal allowance, and of course we will. Our priority is to honour our manifesto commitments and that is what we will do.
It is worth pointing out that the income tax rate is higher than the rate of national insurance contributions. The increases in the personal allowance have been effective in sending a clear signal that we are making work pay and I think they have contributed to the strong recovery we see in jobs. That is to be welcomed, because it incentivises people to work.
Barbara Keeley
I understand that we want to ensure that people on the lowest incomes who may not work a lot of hours, and certainly those on the national minimum wage or zero-hours contracts, do not reach the personal allowance. However, the point remains that they are paying national insurance contributions and that is an alternative route to help people on very low pay.
Mr Gauke
That is an alternative route; it is hard to argue against that point. What I would say is that we had a manifesto commitment to increase the personal allowance to £12,500. Given that that was our manifesto commitment, it is right that we fulfil it—I am sure the hon. Lady does not disagree with that—and that is precisely what this measure will do. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Basic rate limit from 2016
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause sets the income tax basic rate limit for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The changes deliver the Government’s commitment to support and reward those in work. In the last debate I set out the Government’s record on cutting taxes. On top of that, we also want to support middle-income households and to reward individuals who want to work hard and progress. That is why we have committed to increasing the higher rate threshold—the point at which the higher rate of income tax is applied—to £50,000 by the end of the Parliament. The clause takes the first step in delivering that commitment.
Clause 6 increases the basic rate limit from £31,785 in 2015-16 to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. That is the income on which 20% tax is due. The income tax higher rate threshold, which is the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit, will therefore increase from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in 2016-17 and to £43,600 in 2017-18. Above that level, 40% tax is due. This is the first above-real-terms increase in the higher rate threshold since 2010, taking 130,000 people out of the higher rate of tax by 2016-17. By 2017-18, that will rise to more than 160,000 individuals. Since 2010, a typical higher rate taxpayer will have gained £818 by 2016-17 and £918 by 2017-18.
As in previous years, the national insurance upper earnings and upper profits limits will remain aligned with the higher rate threshold in 2016-17 and 2017-18. I noted on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill earlier this week that a number of Labour MPs suggested that the link should be broken and that national insurance contributions should be charged at 12% above the higher rate threshold. Clause 6 allows the Government to support those in work, enabling people to keep more of the money they earn by paying less income tax. That helps us to move towards a high wage, low tax and low welfare society.
Barbara Keeley
I note the Minister’s point about the comments of Back-Bench MPs, but as I said earlier, all parties in the House have Members who do not share the views of those on the Front Bench. That is the way it is, and I could certainly quote all kinds of thing that have been said by Conservative Members on matters dear to my heart.
Clause 6 sets the income tax basic rate limit for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 tax years. It will rise to £32,000 in 2016-17 and £32,400 in 2017-18. We are in favour of tax cuts for those on middle incomes and we support the increases in both the personal allowance and the basic rate limit for 2016-17. However, as inflation, pay and living costs increase, we need to ensure that the basic rate limit for income tax reflects that change. That will prevent families and individuals from being dragged into a higher tax bracket and paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, despite them seeing no real-terms increase in their living standards or disposable income. Many people feel that is the situation they are in today.
We must also bear in mind how many people will benefit from the increase in the basic rate. In the most recent annual survey of hours and earnings, which used 2013 data, the median gross annual earnings for an individual was just over £22,000. The majority of basic rate taxpayers earn much less than the basic rate limit and are unlikely to benefit from the increase. It will only benefit people with earnings towards the top of the basic rate of tax and will disproportionally benefit people who earn much more than the average income of an individual in the United Kingdom.
As always, we must look at the package of measures outlined in the summer Budget to understand the true impact of the change for working people. Although the Government are altering the tax system to help to ensure that people are rewarded for work, this still does not help to tackle low-paid insecure work. On 2 September, the Office for National Statistics released its figures for zero-hours contracts, which we have already touched on today. Those figures showed that zero-hours work is on the rise, with the total number of contracts rising to 1.5 million and the number of people reporting zero-hours contracts as their main source of employment rising by almost 20% since last year.
At the same time, there are now more than 1.2 million people working part time because they could not find full-time work. That is 200,000 more people than when the Conservative party took office in 2010. John Philpott, director of the Jobs Economist, has raised concerns that the new national minimum wage will mean that employers could stop offering full-time permanent contracts to avoid paying the steep rise in the national living wage for the over-25s, which comes into force next April. He has stated:
“In an otherwise very lightly regulated UK labour market the forthcoming large hike in the minimum wage when the national living wage (NVL) is introduced next year might act as a further incentive to employers to increase their use of zero-hours contracts—which are already very prevalent in sectors where the NVL will bite hardest—in order to minimise the impact on total labour costs.”
We welcome the introduction of the higher limit for basic rate taxpayers. Although basic rate taxpayers will be protected from a rise in living costs, the Government’s freeze in working-age benefits will mean that benefit recipients will not receive the same assurances. In fact, taking into account inflation forecasts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the freeze in working-age benefits is equivalent to a 4.8% cut to working-age benefits over the four years. That will result in 13 million families losing £260 a year on average in benefits.
Although a basic rate rise will be welcomed by those who will benefit from the increase, we must bear in mind that many workers will not benefit from the rate rise. It will not help to solve the problem of insecure work nor will it make up for the other changes to welfare payments and tax credits that go to people who earn significantly less than the threshold.
Mr Gauke
I retract that. The hon. Lady is not dismissing the opinions of Back Benchers; she just does not like them being quoted. I can understand why she holds that position, given the circumstances in which she finds herself.
The hon. Lady makes the point that the changes will not help individuals who do not pay income tax, or those who do not pay higher rate income tax. Under the circumstances, however, we believe that it is right to increase the higher rate threshold. This is the first above-inflation increase for some years. We have set out our intention to have a higher rate threshold of £50,000 by the end of the Parliament, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support that.
It is right that we support work. I sat in similar debates during the previous Parliament and listened while Front-Bench Labour spokespeople made the point that some nurses, policeman and others would benefit from bigger increases in the higher rate threshold, but that we were not increasing it fast enough. I hope that she will welcome the fact that we are making that progress and that the Labour party will continue to support such measures, which are all part of our move towards a low tax, low welfare and high wage economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Rate of corporation tax for financial years 2017-2020
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Such greatness to fall on one so young.
In the face of global competition, the UK cannot afford to stand still, which is why we will go further in this Parliament, cutting the rate to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. Those cuts will benefit more than 1 million businesses, saving them a further £6.6 billion by 2021, and will give the UK the lowest corporation tax rate in the G20, supporting investment, productivity and growth.
There is strong evidence of the economic benefits of lower corporation tax rates. Low rates increase the return that companies receive on investment, so encouraging the business investment that is vital to productivity growth. The University of Oxford estimates that the reduction in the corporate tax burden that we have delivered will increase business investment by £11 billion. The Treasury and HMRC have modelled the economic impact of the corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010, along with those announced at the summer Budget. The modelling suggests that the cuts could increase long-run GDP by more than 1%, or almost £20 billion in today’s prices.
[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]
As well as supporting businesses already operating in the UK, lower rates of corporation tax make the UK more attractive to international businesses. UK foreign direct investment stock has increased by almost 50% since 2010, reaching £1 trillion by the end of 2014. Last year, UK Trade & Investment reported almost 2,000 inward investment projects—the highest number ever—which have created almost 85,000 new jobs. The corporation tax cuts and other reforms, such as the introduction of the patent box, have completely changed perceptions of the UK tax regime. Five years ago, businesses were leaving the UK because of our tax regime; that regime has now become an asset that attracts firms to the UK, which is now regularly cited in surveys as having one of the most competitive regimes in the world.
In conclusion, cutting corporation tax has been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and it is working. The UK grew faster than any other G7 economy in 2014, and 2 million more people are in employment since 2010. Business investment is growing rapidly. Tax competition is dynamic. In the past few decades, we have seen countries throughout the world cut their corporation tax rates. We cannot afford to stand still while others rush ahead. The UK needs to be as competitive as possible.
There were those at the general election who advocated an increase in corporation tax to 21%. I am pleased that, months later, on Second Reading, those very same people were supportive of the measures in the clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who spoke for her party in that debate and supported the reduction in corporation tax to 19% and then 18%. A new 18% rate will send out the message around the world loud and clear that Britain is open for business. I hope that the Labour party will continue to support the policy, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad to see you back in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I put my head down for a moment and then you were not there.
As we have heard, clause 7 sets the main corporation tax rate at 19% for the financial years beginning on 1 April in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and at 18% for the financial year beginning 1 April 2020. Labour is in favour of support for businesses, which is what we need to discuss as we consider the clause. We want to help British businesses to invest in the UK and to enable long-term investment. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we have questions about the future direction of policy on support for businesses. It perhaps is not appropriate to discuss it at this point, but that is why later in our consideration of the Bill we would like to introduce a new clause asking for a public consultation on the reforms to the system of tax relief for businesses.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I suggest to the hon. Lady that businesses have been generous in passing on the fruits of their expansion and profitability, as evidenced by this week’s figures showing that wage growth is at a record recent level.
Barbara Keeley
I do not see how that follows the flow of what I am talking about, but if I find a place to give a reply, I will do so.
In 2014-15, corporation tax made up 7% of the total tax take in the UK. We need to be clear that cutting corporation tax amounts to a transfer to the largest businesses that disproportionately benefits them. We are concerned that a more effective policy measure, such as the one suggested at the election, could have been used to help all businesses, rather than just the largest companies. We question the reasoning behind the Government’s policy decision. It appears that corporation tax has been used because it is relatively easy to alter. I am sure the Government recognise that a substantial amount of money is going to businesses. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to pay for the rate cut, which in 2020-21 will cost £2.5 billion? We have not seen a breakdown of exactly how that will be paid.
We have heard the point about firms being attracted to this country due to our tax regime. KPMG’s December 2014 survey of tax competitiveness revealed that only 8% of respondents saw favourable tax policies as the factor with the most impact on our recovery. Only 18% saw tax as having a high influence on where companies base themselves. That contradicts the point that the Minister just made. We believe that the focus of support for small and medium-sized businesses should be a priority and that policies to encourage businesses would have been better targeted elsewhere than this tax rate change.
Many small and medium businesses will have been disappointed that the Chancellor failed to mention business rates in his Budget speech. During the general election campaign, we outlined proposals to cut and then freeze business rates, so that smaller firms could have the support needed to invest, innovate and raise productivity. That would have helped more than 1.5 million small business properties. Small and medium-sized businesses are concerned about the pressures on business rates. Every time I visit such businesses in my constituency, that is almost the first thing they raise. Labour, along with small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country, will be waiting to see whether the Government will take action to reduce the business rates burden. There are reports that the valuation office now has to deal with 500 appeals a day. Will the Government give small and medium-sized businesses a gesture of support by providing them with an interim report on their business rates review?
Rates reform continually tops many small retailers’ and business groups’ lists of areas that need real reform, but the tax, over which there is a backlog of more than 250,000 complaints, failed to get a mention in the Chancellor’s speech. That caused a lot of disappointment. The British Retail Consortium has warned that the level of business rates could cause 80,000 shops to close by 2017, and business groups including the Confederation of British Industry say that the antiquated system of business rates is a major barrier to investment.
Let me return briefly to the point about the 80,000 shops. Very many MPs, including me, have in our constituencies the situation of empty shops on high streets and we all want to do something about that, but here is the big problem. John Allan, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, urged the Government to take action. He said:
“Bringing forward reforms to business rates is an immediate priority.”
We urge the Minister and the Chancellor to ensure that the ongoing review of business rates does not result in small businesses paying disproportionately more. We call for greater attention to be given to business rates as a means to support small businesses.
It is quite common in these debates to hear questions backwards and forwards about the different priorities. During the general election campaign, Labour set out further ways to support small businesses, including elements that are often talked about here in debates. One was the tackling of late payments with a new requirement on larger businesses to set out the extent of late payment that they have been responsible for and the action that they have taken to compensate suppliers. We would have given business organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the right to take cases on behalf of their members, because they believe that that is very important.
We wanted to strive to reduce unnecessary regulation in the small business arena by establishing a small business administration, which the FSB has called for, to co-ordinate work across the Government to benefit smaller businesses and cut unnecessary regulation as it affects them. Our small business administration would have been given a remit to ensure that regulations or requirements on small business were proportionate and appropriate and avoided unnecessary burdens or compliance costs. They want to see regulation designed from the perspective of the smaller firm and they feel that it is not.
There is a need to deliver a longer-term road map for capital allowances and incentives for research and innovation such as the research and development tax credit, and not just for the headline rate of corporation tax. There is also a need to improve support for entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises that want to grow rapidly.
We understand that the Government have started to take steps to address the issue of late payments and that a consultation on the proposed role of small business commissioner was undertaken. As we are talking about the different scale of businesses, may I ask whether Ministers can provide us with an update on the new role, because that consultation ended on 21 August?
What other action are the Government taking to offer the support needed for small and medium-sized businesses? Feedback from a cross-section of businesses, ranging from start-ups to FTSE 100 companies, that was gathered by PricewaterhouseCoopers stated a number of key messages about their view on how the UK tax system should be shaped in the future. They included the following. The UK needs to be clearer on tax; that is the issue of the road map to instil confidence. A longer-term approach to tax needs to be taken. We will talk about that later in terms of how some taxes and allowances have changed. Businesses feel that the tax system should be more focused. It is too complex, with many different reliefs and exemptions; reliefs should be better targeted at specific purposes. Also—I have already made this point—national insurance contributions should be aligned with income tax. That was the view of those businesses.
Labour wants certainty for businesses looking to invest.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions certainty. Does she accept that other measures in the Budget, such as the national insurance contribution ceiling, will not only create certainty, but help the small businesses that she is mentioning?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed; that is why we made that pledge first. There is nothing else to say about that. We understood how important that was, and made the pledge first—on income tax, national insurance and VAT. The only difference between us on that is that we would not have spent the time of a Public Bill Committee or Committee of the whole House on gimmicks—on putting forward legislation to bring in what we pledged. We support action to help small and medium-sized businesses, and a system in which business reliefs are clear and focused. We want to ease the burden on smaller business of navigating the myriad reliefs that, we have to admit, exist today.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
We will not challenge the main substance of clause 7, but it has unintended consequences that reflect on later clauses that we will try to amend; I want to bring those up, and will ask the Minister to reflect on them and perhaps discuss them with the Chancellor.
The clause pre-announces the cut to the main rate five years in advance. Ordinarily, I would think that was quite a good thing to do, because it maximises revenue streams and still gets us the maximum impact of the incentive. That worked very well in Sweden, so we should congratulate the Minister on that principle. The first problem that emerges is that significant evidence shows that large amounts of corporate surpluses are staying in the bank or are being used for share buy-backs. There has been no great evidence over the past few years to show that cuts to corporation tax are leading directly to reinvestment in manufacturing plant and productive infrastructure. In fact, corporate balances have been going up significantly in the UK and, for the same reason, the United States.
My practical worry is that if we continue, over these five years, to cut corporation tax, that may incentivise profit-making in business, but the profits will not be reinvested into raising productivity in the British economy. That link has to be looked at. The issue could be dealt with by adding extra incentives for investment, so that the corporate surpluses are recycled. One of my criticisms of the Bill overall is that those incentives do not exist. I ask the Minister to look at that.
Mr Gauke
I begin by welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South for the reduction in corporation tax—although, if I may say so, she could have sounded a little more enthusiastic about the measure. I would be grateful to know whether the shadow Chancellor agrees with the reduction in the corporation tax rate first to 19% and then to 18%. He is on record suggesting that the rate should be considerably higher, but I appreciate that he made those comments when he was a Back Bencher, so perhaps we should not dwell on them for too long.
A few issues were raised, some of which relate to this clause. I will try to address as many as possible. First, on the issue of the UK’s reputation and the base erosion and profit shifting process, which was instigated by the UK Government and others, the UK believes in a tax system that is competitive and fair, and which properly reflects where economic activity takes place. We want a simple, competitive and fair tax system, which is why we instigated the BEPS initiative to ensure that companies are not able to make use of an outdated international tax system that does not properly reflect where economic activity takes place. Within that system it is perfectly reasonable to have low and competitive rates, and that is exactly what we have delivered.
As I set out earlier, we are seeing signs of increased business investment. The analysis undertaken by the Treasury and HMRC shows that much of the tax loss as a consequence of the reductions is recovered by increases in economic activity. A dynamic behavioural analysis shows that this is helping. Real business investment is growing as a proportion of GDP; business investment grew by 8% in 2014, and the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that it will grow strongly over the next few years. It is also worth pointing out that the likes of the OECD make the case that corporation tax is perhaps one of the most economically damaging taxes and one of the most inefficient of our taxes. That is why it has been a priority for the Government to reduce it. We believe that if the UK is to prosper and to win the global race, it is important that we have that competitive tax system.
Our case as a country would be aided if there was consensus that we should have low rates of corporation tax, and that is why I genuinely welcome the fact that the Opposition parties apparently will not divide the Committee on that issue. I hope that that consensus can be maintained, because those who go around advocating very high rates for corporation tax do not aid those of us who are trying to advocate that businesses should invest in the UK when they have a number of international choices.
Barbara Keeley
I do not think it would be my place to confirm the shadow Chancellor’s support for the measure. If this is going to come up again in the debate, I should explain that we have a robust system of policy development and that decisions in the short to medium term are taken by the shadow Cabinet, which I think has met only once since we had the change of leadership at the weekend; then we have a substantial policy forum set up, which works nationally with our annual conference to take forward new developments and changes in policy direction and decisions. It is not sensible in this very short time into a new administration to ask a junior shadow Treasury Minister to make that point.
To bring the Minister back to my questions, I spent quite a lot of time talking about corporation tax versus business rates. We made our pledge on business rates and we are very concerned about small and medium-sized businesses, and about the high street. Can he answer my questions?
Mr Gauke
I will, although I do not want to hurry away from corporation tax, given that it is the essence of clause 7. I note that the hon. Lady said that although she is able to make a statement about party policy as the Labour party Front Bencher in this Committee, neither the leader of her party nor the shadow Chancellor are in a position to do so. If that is the way the Labour party operates, that is one for that party, curious though it might be to the rest of us.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Another point about corporation tax that can be lost in the debate is that, ultimately, the burden of all taxes falls on people. There is a lively debate on corporation tax about how much should it fall upon shareholders, in which case we are often talking about pension funds that pay pensions to ordinary people. Sometimes it could fall upon employees as a consequence of the fact that there is a reduction in investment as a consequence of corporation tax, which in turn means that productivity does not improve, and as productivity tends to drive salaries and wages, employees often suffer; or it could indeed be consumers who suffer from higher prices as a consequence of corporation tax.
Let us be clear that all taxes that we debate in this Committee are ultimately paid by people. They might not be writing the cheque or transferring the funds from their account, but ultimately all taxes are paid by people, and if one has an economically inefficient tax, the price that people pay for the benefit to the public finances becomes all the greater.
Barbara Keeley
I find the comment from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the prior experience of Members of this House rather patronising. I started my career in IBM, which is one of the biggest companies in the world. In fact, I worked at the large systems end of IBM with some of the largest organisations in the country, so I will not be patronised about my business experience. I have also been self-employed, which an awful lot of Members have not been.
I return to the point that this was a straightforward switch. I do not have many large corporations in my constituency in Salford, but I do have a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. Our straight switch from corporation tax was to support those small and medium-sized businesses. That was the essence of my contribution.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, he was saying that those who advocate corporation tax rises might not understand business. As she is not advocating corporation tax rises, I do not think she should take those remarks personally.
The coalition Government introduced a number of measures on business rates at autumn statements and in Budgets—for example, introducing a discount and extending the small business rate relief. We have announced a review of business rates, which will report by the end of the year. We set out details in the Budget of how we are paying for the rate cut, as part of a set of tax-reforming measures.
The Government have taken strong steps to deal with avoidance both domestically and internationally. I will not detain the Committee on that, but I am happy to do so if necessary.
On tax simplification and helping small and medium-sized enterprises, it is worth pointing out that the Office of Tax Simplification was set up in 2010 and has made more than 400 recommendations, of which half have already been implemented. The OTS will be established on a statutory basis with an expanded role and capacity.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about the late payments consultation. As we heard, that consultation was completed last month and the House will be updated on its results once responses have been reviewed. I am grateful for the Committee’s support for the measures, and I hope clause 7 will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Annual investment allowance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Barbara Keeley
I think businesses might say, “About time,” given the history of the allowance. As the Minister said, the clause increases the maximum amount of the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £200,000 for expenditure incurred on or after January 2016. In fact, that is a cut to the existing temporary level of £500,000.
The allowance ensures the immediate deduction of expenditure on most plant and machinery from taxable profits. The history of the allowance’s levels is entertaining. It was set at £50,000 between 2008 and 2010 and then it increased to £100,000. It was cut to £25,000 in 2012 but then increased to £250,000—supposedly temporarily—in 2013. In the 2014 Budget, as we just heard, it was raised again to £500,000 and, as was announced in the Budget, it is now being cut to £200,000 in 2016. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“These changes and instability create costs and uncertainty and distort behaviour.”
In 2010, the Chancellor cut the main capital allowance rate and reduced the annual investment allowance to just a quarter of its previous level, from £100,000 down to £25,000. The Government then increased it, but on a temporary basis. Such unpredictability and complexity makes it difficult for businesses to plan the long-term investments that the allowances are intended to support—that is their whole purpose.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
That said, taking into account fluctuations over the years and the fact that it was a two-year stimulus, does the hon. Lady agree that the key part to the provision is that it is permanent, thus allowing businesses to plan in the way she advocates should be the way forward?
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman says that, but, looking at what people say about this, it seems that they do not have confidence that the allowance is permanent because of the way it has chopped and changed. That the Government acted in 2010 to reduce it to a quarter of its earlier value—it was £100,000—is part of the problem. One can see from what I just read out that it jumped around.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, both the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have called for the annual investment allowance to be retained at £500,000. Crucially, the IFS also states that
“restricting the AIA to investment in plant and machinery only creates distortions through differential treatment of assets.”
The IFS has estimated that setting the annual investment allowance at £200,000 from January next year will cost £0.8 billion.
Will the Minister explain how the Chancellor reached the figure of £200,000? As I say, the allowance has jumped about: it was cut to just £25,000 and is now going to be £200,000. There were calls from some small and medium-sized businesses to set a level over £500,000. The IFS says that over the past few years there has been
“an absurd degree of inconsistency”
in the setting of the allowance. As highlighted earlier, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ “Paying for Tomorrow” campaign put forward a strong argument for a need for a long-term view on tax, with a simple, focused approach to tax reliefs. The history of the allowance is anything but that.
The inconsistency has a damaging effect on businesses’ confidence to plan for the future. The move to make the annual investment allowance a permanent rate is welcome, and we support the move to encourage investment and productivity, but we question whether the measure goes far enough. As I said, a number of small and medium-sized businesses have called for the allowance to be set above the current level of £500,000. As with business rates, they feel that the Chancellor has not listened to them. There are calls for him to look again at how he helps businesses to continue to spend and grow.
Other reliefs should also be considered. Consultations are out on business rates—although the Minister did not seem keen to tell me more about that one—enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. We encourage the Government to focus more than they have on the needs of small businesses. I have many questions about how the annual investment allowance has been handled by the Government to date, but of course we welcome some degree of permanence, as guaranteed in the summer Budget—if it is to be permanent. However, the overall system of tax reliefs for businesses must be considered if we are to have a competitive and fair system for businesses to invest and grow. I hope that the Minister will adopt Labour’s new clause and launch a public consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses. I hope also that Members will support the new clause when we vote on it later.
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)
Much of what I say will be in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. The Scottish National party also considers the allowance a vital investment tool, particularly for small businesses. The fact that it can be claimed during a year of investment rather than over a number of years is particularly beneficial for encouraging investment and therefore productivity, which we are also keen to see.
To reiterate what the hon. Lady said, yes, the allowance was increased to £500,000, and we are pleased that it will not fall off a cliff edge to £25,000 in January 2016; rather, it will just be decreased to £200,000. It is, however, a pity that it is a decrease of £300,000. My question for the Minister is, if it is good at £500,000, why not keep it there to encourage productivity? In his Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that we do not export enough, train enough, save enough or invest enough. The key question stands: why not make the allowance permanent at £500,000?
Mr Gauke
I thank hon. Members for their questions. First, let me make it clear that £200,000 is the highest permanent level there has been for the allowance. If I recall correctly, it was £100,000 during the Labour party’s last year in office. We made some temporary increases in the AIA to support the recovery, and those increases were warmly welcomed by businesses, which believed that they allowed them to bring forward and realise their investment plans. We recognise the importance of providing certainty to businesses in the current economic climate, and we are committing to keeping the level of £200,000 for the entire Parliament. We believe that that will help to provide an environment of long-term support for businesses to invest.
The level of the allowance must be viewed in the context of cuts to corporation tax. We must remember that although the previous Government had an annual investment allowance of £100,000, the rate of corporation tax was 28%. The allowance of £200,000 when we have a corporation tax rate of 20%, falling to 18%, is significantly more generous.
On business reaction, let me read two quotations following the Budget announcement on 8 July. John Allan, the chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:
“The Annual Investment Allowance has been an important incentive for people investing in the future growth and productivity of our small businesses. We have long called for the Allowance to be set permanently and at a reasonable level. Small firms will therefore welcome the move by the Chancellor to do just that by setting the Allowance permanently at £200,000.”
John Longworth, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said on the same day:
“The Chancellor has confirmed that Britain is open for business. Firms across the UK will cheer not just the new permanent Annual Investment Allowance, further Corporation Tax reductions, and lower National Insurance for small businesses, but also commitments to childcare and higher education that help them employ Britain’s best.”
We must bear that in mind.
Barbara Keeley
The quotes give part of the message, and it is not surprising that those whom the Minister has quoted from business support permanence. As two Opposition Members have said, however, businesses have called for the allowance to be retained at £500,000. It is not surprising that they wanted permanence, but they also wanted a higher level.
Mr Gauke
The reaction to the announcement was that businesses were pleased. That is what we got from the Federation of Small Businesses and the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. Would they have liked it to be higher? Of course they would, but the claim that the measure has disappointed business is certainly not supported by those two quotations.
Mr Gauke
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if he will bear with me, I will set out the rationale for the measure. We think there is a particular issue about family homes and the fact that more and more homes are caught by inheritance tax. That is why we have introduced these measures. When it comes to complexity, if one looks at the inheritance tax regimes of Germany, Italy or France, they all consist of a number of different bands or rates, depending upon the relationship between individuals. Germany also allows for an exemption in certain circumstances when the family home is left to children or stepchildren. Several countries, such as Australia, Sweden and Canada, do not have inheritance tax, but still charge capital gains tax on death, and those regimes have their own complexities. Complexity is inevitable because of the complexity of relationships and so on.
What we are considering today is in addition to the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, which will remain at £325,000 until April 2021. That means that individuals will have an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £500,000 by the end of this Parliament. In addition, a surviving spouse or civil partner will be able to claim up to £1 million.
From 6 April 2017, a surviving spouse or civil partner who dies will be able to benefit from the transferrable element of the new allowance even if their spouse or civil partner died several years ago. To ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax, the largest estates will not be able to benefit from this new allowance. They will have it gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million. We do not want to discourage downsizing, and I can confirm that legislation will be introduced in the Finance Bill of 2016 to ensure that those who downsized or ceased to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 are not penalised.
The Government have tabled six amendments to clause 9. Amendments 1 to 3 clarify that homes placed in some types of trust for the benefit of a surviving spouse during their lifetime, and where the home passes to a direct descendant on the spouse’s death, will benefit from the new main residence nil-rate band. Amendments 4 and 5 will ensure that the main residence nil-rate band will apply when an individual leaves their home to the current or surviving spouse or civil partner of anyone already defined as a direct descendant. Finally, amendment 6 is a minor change to the definition of a foster parent to include other similar terms, such as kinship carers in Scotland.
The Opposition’s amendment 7 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer, three months after the passing of the Bill, to publish a report reviewing the impact of clause 9 on different regions of the UK and house prices. I recognise the importance of evaluating the impact of policy changes, but a formal report is not necessary in this case. HMRC already publishes annual statistics on the number of tax-paying estates and the amount of tax due in each region. I have also explained the steps taken to reduce any potential impact on house prices. The OBR has confirmed that it expects this measure to have only a small impact on the housing market. The Government will keep the impact of the policy under review in the normal way and at the appropriate time, but a report more than a year before it takes effect is not a sensible way forward.
The changes made by clause 9 will mean that around 93% of estates will be able to pass on all their assets without paying any inheritance tax. The number of estates facing an inheritance tax charge in 2020-21 will be almost halved in comparison with previous forecasts, and thousands more will pay less tax. This measure will also provide peace of mind to thousands of families who worry about the prospect of paying inheritance tax. Inheritance tax will, however, continue to make an important contribution to the public finances. The number of tax-paying estates will continue to be higher at the end of the decade than at any time between the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986 and 2014-15. Indeed, more estates will continue to make a contribution than at any time between 1979-80, when capital transfer tax was in operation, and the end of the last Parliament.
There are those who disagree with making it easier for hard-working individuals to pass on their family home to their children and grandchildren. They say that rewarding hard work and aspiration is not a priority, but they are out of touch with the British people. The Government listen to the British people and deliver on their promises.
Barbara Keeley
I am afraid I am not at all convinced, but perhaps that is no surprise. Clauses 9 and 10 bring into force the nil-rate band for inheritance tax, allowing parents to pass on a house to direct descendants, as defined by the Government’s amendments, worth up to £1 million free of inheritance tax. This legislation is extremely technical, running to more than 400 lines and representing six of the clauses we are considering today.
We have been clear that we believe that the focus of tax cuts should be on helping working people on middle and low incomes and on tackling tax avoidance. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy, so we should be clear about the part of society we are talking about. The priority for the Government, we believe, should be helping the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own. That is why Labour voted against the Government’s inheritance tax proposals in the July Budget debate.
The Treasury estimates that the changes to inheritance tax will cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21—nearly £1 billion. We must think of priorities and the context of what we are talking about. This is a week when tax credits have been cut, so that two parents working full time on the minimum wage and raising two children will lose £2,200 from tax credits and be £660 worse off, even with the increase in the minimum wage that we talked about earlier.
I would like the Minister to clarify why exempting wealthy property owners from inheritance tax has been one of his Government’s policy priorities. That is the question that we keep coming back to. When this was proposed in the general election campaign, the IFS commented that
“The vast majority of estates (over 90%) are not liable to IHT at the moment and therefore would not benefit…With around 50,000 estates forecast to pay IHT over the next few years this gives an average (mean) gain per IHT paying estate of around £20,000. The maximum reduction in IHT on a couple’s estate is £140,000 which will go to married couples with estates worth between £1 million and £2 million. Since the children of those with very large estates are disproportionately towards the top of the income distribution the gains from this (and in fact any) IHT cut will also go disproportionately to those towards the top of the income distribution.”
The IFS has said:
“Inheritance tax is not very effective at achieving wealth redistribution. Were the threshold raised to £1 million it would also be much less effective in terms of raising money.”
We have to think about that.
Barbara Keeley
I was not in anything like my current role at the time; I am afraid that I cannot explain the thinking of the former Chancellor.
To bring us back to policy priorities, there is much to be said about the technical detail of this legislation. Inheritance tax is already a complex tax to navigate, and the Bill creates a new level of complexity. The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has set out 10 tenets for a better tax system, one of which states that
“the tax rules should…be simple, understandable and clear in their objectives.”
This tax has never been that. The institute says of the clause:
“The measure is excessively complex; it would be simpler to just increase the nil rate band to £500,000.”
Why has the Minister chosen to implement the policy in its current form? There seems to be a simpler way of administering the tax.
Chris Williams of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:
“The proposals add further complexity to an already complex system. The government has recognised that the problem of downsizing”—
to which the Minister referred—
“must be addressed but proposes only to allow for downsizing that takes place on or after 8 July 2015. Other problem areas include the need to define a main residence consistently throughout the tax system, and to recognise the diverse patterns of the modern family when attempting to restrict the benefit to children and descendants.”
I will come on to that, because there is an important point about what a modern family consists of.
The Mirrlees review, led by the IFS and funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council, noted that inheritance tax was a
“somewhat half-hearted tax, with many loopholes and opportunities for avoidance through careful organization of affairs.”
That is well known. It went on to say:
“This leads to charges of unfairness and makes a principled defence of the current inheritance tax difficult.”
I grant it that the Minister tried. With such a generous increase in the nil-rate band and such low estimated returns to the Exchequer, the question now is whether we should start revising this to a quarter-hearted, rather than half-hearted, tax. Is this policy a priority at a time when families and first-time buyers are struggling to get a home of their own? The average house price outside London is just over £183,000. The current nil-rate band is £325,000. That would be enough to cover the average value and include a buffer. Why has the Chancellor decided to introduce that additional residence nil rate band?
Simon Hoare
Why does the hon. Lady’s narrative automatically presume that because an estate is asset-rich, descendants are cash-rich? She referred to people trying to get on the property ladder—to pay the deposit, stamp duty, and so on. Take the widow who has stayed for years in the family home, which she bought reasonably cheaply in a part of London where property values have risen. It is the disposal of that asset on her death, and her descendants’ inheritance of it, as free of tax as possible, that allows those descendants, who may be in low or middle-paid jobs, to get on the property ladder. Why do the hon. Lady and the Labour party automatically exclude them from their thinking?
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to a very good reason why. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s points. I ask the Minister why—I hope he does not lose this question—given the average house price outside London, the Chancellor has decided to introduce this additional band. There are wider questions, which I said I would come to, about the scope of who will benefit from the nil rate band.
The new tax exemption applies to lineal descendants. We welcome the clarification of who will benefit outlined in the Government amendment, and the apparent extension of the nil rate band to a lineal descendant’s spouse or civil partner in the event of the lineal descendant’s death. However, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has pointed out that it could be seen as discriminatory to allow the relief only to lineal descendants; many godparents, aunts and uncles are as close to, and their lives are as intertwined with those of, godchildren, nieces and nephews as are those children’s parents. That is the kind of family structure that we have these days.
Daniel Zeichner
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had representations from constituents who feel that the lineal descendancy clause is absolutely discriminatory, particularly against childless couples. There seems to be no logic to it, and I would welcome hearing the Minister’s case for it.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend puts that in an excellent way. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on why the policy will apply only to lineal descendants? It has the potential to raise house prices by making property an even more attractive investment for the wealthiest, which would make it even more difficult for ordinary working people to get on to the property ladder.
Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, has said that it is
“rather odd to give this special treatment to housing given that owner-occupied housing is already extremely tax privileged”.
He said:
“This will only increase the bias we have towards putting your money in a house, to inflating potentially the value of housing, without dealing with the lack of housing, which is driving up the value of private residences.”
Many of the policy’s features are similar to those analysed in a Treasury document that was leaked to, and published by, The Guardian. According to the estimates in the document, based on Budget 2014 forecasts, the policy would reduce the proportion of estates liable for inheritance tax from 8% in 2015-16 to just over 6% by the end of the Parliament, rather than increasing it to slightly more than 10%, as the current policy would have done. The document contains the argument that
“there are not strong economic arguments for introducing an inheritance tax exemption specifically related to main residences”.
A number of problems with the policy are set out in the document, such as the fact that it would encourage investment in owner-occupied housing rather than other more productive investments and that it would discourage downsizing late in life when that might otherwise be appropriate. Although the Government have made some provisions to prevent the downsizing problem, industry experts have said that the changes could lead to more people choosing to upsize later in life, which would have consequences for the availability of housing stock for other buyers.
I want to talk about the balance of the Government’s tax cuts, including changes to inheritance tax. Those changes will cost £24.6 billion over the Parliament, and they will be financed by five main sources, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Tax increases will raise £47.2 billion over the Parliament; we have talked about things such as insurance premium tax. Welfare cuts, including cuts to tax credit and many freezes, will raise nearly £35 billion. Other spending decisions will cut £8.1 billion. Cuts to departmental spending and to the BBC have been proposed. Various tax and spending decisions have indirect effects that will raise a further £14.2 billion.
The Budget decisions, interestingly, imply £3.5 billion of extra borrowing over the Parliament, on top of the £14.6 billion increase indicated by the OBR pre-measures forecast. Inheritance tax raised an estimated £3.8 billion in 2014-15, but house price inflation had been expected to drive the tax take up to £6.4 billion by 2019-20. Instead of the Exchequer receiving more revenue from inheritance tax, however, the policy is expected to cost it £940 million a year by 2020-21, when the additional family home allowance—like the existing allowance, it will be transferable between spouses—reaches £175,000 per person.
When they talk about borrowing, Conservative Members should bear in mind that if the Government had kept the existing allowance, they would have more than halved expected additional borrowing over the lifetime of the Parliament. In contrast, their position appears to mean more borrowing, when one of the Government’s specified aims is to do the opposite. It seems strange that in the debates we have had so far the Conservative party seems to be convinced that it is okay to increase taxes such as insurance premium tax and to make increases that hit very large numbers of people the main way to raise finances, while implementing changes to inheritance tax that will cost the Exchequer considerable sums of money.
Surely, keeping inheritance tax as it was would be better than increasing the insurance premium tax and making hefty welfare cuts. Those are the decisions that are weighed against each other. The Government are cutting a tax for the wealthier families in the country, while cutting tax credits for millions of those who are in need. That is what we are going to see over the coming years. We could say that this is a rather warped interpretation of Robin Hood: taking money from the poorest to pay for a tax cut for the richest.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset, this tax cut comes at the same time as the Government have decided to abandon a manifesto pledge to implement a £72,000 cap on care costs. In a written statement to the House of Lords on 25 July 2015, the cap on costs was described as an expensive new commitment. The cap—a pledge made by the Conservative party—was designed to prevent older people and younger people with disabilities from having to sell their homes when they went into care.
Here is the answer for the hon. Gentleman: why is it okay for people with care needs to have to sell their homes and have nothing to pass on, while the very wealthiest—the top 10%—are allowed to keep house values of £1 million? The Government have decided to abandon a cap, for which they had made legislation, on the grounds that it is too expensive, while they are opting to go with the introduction of the nil rate band for inheritance tax on properties, which will cost £1 billion by 2020. That £1 billion a year could have been an incredible investment in social care; instead, we are going the opposite way. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. People who have to pay their own care costs will be under a huge burden and will have to give up their homes.
Simon Hoare
I would simply say to the hon. Lady that it is just about how an individual uses the asset. If someone needs to use their asset to pay for their care, that is what they must do. Greedy children will be hanging at the gate preventing them from putting up the “For sale” sign or whatever, but we just have to get used to using our residential assets better, as needs require.
Barbara Keeley
We were committed to a better way of funding social care, and in future we will be committed to even better ways.
I want to finish by questioning the Government’s priorities. It is a question not only of priorities, but of the unintended impacts of the policy. We talked about downsizing and the effect on the housing market. The clause may have a significant impact, which is why we tabled amendment 7, which would require a report on the effect of the inheritance tax changes on different UK regions and on housing prices. The Minister seemed to signal that he will not look at or accept our amendment, but it is very reasonable, asking only for a report. If he will not accept our proposal now, we will bring it back on Report.
Roger Mullin
I do not think I need to go over the nine pages of the clause in detail, for which the Committee will be grateful. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South did a good job of going through the minutiae and detail, for which she has our thanks. I will not repeat her.
I have one or two simple observations. I have paid particular attention to the Minister’s words in a number of his remarks. It is an extraordinary priority that the Government are putting in place these measures when they are also making some of the most vicious cuts in welfare that people have experienced in our lifetime. It was very telling when the Minister indicated that one criterion for the decision on inheritance tax—I think that I quote him fairly—was that it will give “peace of mind” to those who are no doubt relatively wealthy, with considerable assets. I did not hear the Government say that the peace of mind of the poor was a criterion when they brought in their tax credit cuts and other welfare reforms.
It is also interesting to reflect that the Minister talked earlier about the need to do things because of the trying circumstances that the economy is in. If we have to take account of those circumstances, why is this measure a priority? It contributes nothing. My party is wholly opposed to the Government’s proposal.
Mr Gauke
I am disappointed that the Opposition parties will not support this measure, but let me try to respond to some of the points raised. Rising house prices mean that inheritance tax is hitting more families than previously. More estates are paying it than at any time since the system was introduced, and the numbers were forecast to double. This measure will simply return the number of estates paying IHT to the levels of 2014-15, which, at the end of the decade, will still be more than in any year between 1997 and 2010—that is any year of the last Labour Governments, including 2007, when the then Labour Chancellor stood up and announced a significant reform to take more estates out of inheritance tax. Receipts in cash terms will continue to be higher under this Government than at any time since the introduction of IHT.
It is worth pointing out that the taper for estates worth more than £2 million ensures that the largest estates do not benefit. This measure is being paid for by increasing taxes on the wealthy elsewhere in the tax system—for example, changes to the rules relating to non-doms—and by reducing the generosity of pension tax relief for those with incomes over £150,000 in particular.
The question of lineal descendants was raised. The Government have sought to focus on the passing of homes to the next generation in the immediate family, which ensures that parents know that they can pass on the family home they worked hard for without the worry of inheritance tax. The extension of that to homes left to others would carry an additional cost to the Exchequer, which would need to be financed by raising other taxes or reducing public expenditure. We sought to strike the appropriate balance, with a policy that allows the family home to pass on to the next generation, but which is also affordable. In terms of the impact on downsizing and the housing market, the OBR agreed that there will be only a small effect.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South touched on the cap delay. The Government remain fully committed to introducing a cap on social care costs and helping people to cope with the potentially high costs of social care, but a time of consolidation is not the right moment to implement such expensive new commitments. The decision to delay implementation has not been taken lightly: it follows concerns about timing expressed by stakeholders across the sector, including the Local Government Association and the National Audit Office.
We listened to those concerns and, by delaying implementation of the funding reforms until 2020-21, we will allow local authorities time to focus on delivering the important reforms to care and support introduced on 1 April, laying the groundwork to implement the funding reforms as successfully as possible in 2020. We will also use that time to work with the financial sector to explore what more can be done to support people to plan and prepare for later life and the risk of needing social care. I regret that the measure does not have cross-party support, but I hope that the Committee as a whole will support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 9, line 18, leave out
“under the disposition the property becomes”
and insert
“the property becomes, on D’s death,”
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(3B) Where, immediately before D’s death, the property was settled property in which D was beneficially entitled to in an interest in possession, B inherits the property if B becomes beneficially entitled to it on D’s death.”
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 9, line 27, leave out “a person’s death,” and insert
“the death of a person (“D”),”
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 9, line 29, leave out
“a lineal descendant of the person”
and insert “—
(a) a lineal descendant of D,
(b) a person who, at the time of D’s death, is the spouse or civil partner of a lineal descendant of D, or
(c) a person who—
(i) at the time of the death of a lineal descendant of D who died no later than D, was the spouse or civil partner of the lineal descendant, and
(ii) has not, in the period beginning with the lineal descendant’s death and ending with D’s death, become anyone’s spouse or civil partner.”
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 10, line 44, after first “parent” insert “(however styled)”—(Mr Gauke.)
Barbara Keeley
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. I need to check something with you. Sir Roger said this morning that if we are not sure of our process, we should ask. I understand that if we vote on the amendment and the clauses now we will not return to them on Report, but we want to return to them on Report.
The Chair
You can come back to issues on Report, but it depends on the number of amendments and new clauses at the time, and the judgment that is made. I cannot give the hon. Lady any absolute assurance.
Barbara Keeley
I understand that. We are choosing to return to this issue on Report, so we will not press our amendment.
The Chair
In my opinion, all the issues in the clause have been fully debated, so I do not propose to have a clause stand part debate.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Rate bands for tax years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Barbara Keeley
As I said earlier, we will return to inheritance tax on Report if we can. Clauses 11 to 14 address tax avoidance measures that have previously been allowed in the inheritance tax system and a number of anomalies that have created unintended consequences and loopholes in the inheritance tax regime.
The clauses illustrate the complexity of inheritance tax legislation. That complexity is compounded by the need to continually update and rectify the regime with additional legislation, making the legislation even more difficult to understand and apply. Although we welcome the moves in the Bill that seek to close loopholes, this raises a bigger question about the efficacy of inheritance tax legislation. In the light of that, will the Minister say whether the Government have any further plans to adopt a programme of reform to simplify this tax and make it easier to navigate?
We welcome the fact that clauses 11 to 14 address areas of the legislation that give an unfair advantage to some beneficiaries over others, because that will help to ensure that inheritance tax is applied in a fair manner. Previously, it has been relatively easy for people to avoid paying the correct amount of inheritance tax by placing property into a number of trusts or by increasing the value of property in a trust immediately after an initial amount of property was settled. The clauses and schedule aggregate the value of property in trusts that are not related, for the purpose of determining the rate at which inheritance tax is charged, when the value of property in those trusts is increased on the same day. The schedule also simplifies some of the rules for calculating the rate of tax for the purposes of the 10-year anniversary and exit charges.
The provisions are welcome as measures to prevent avoidance techniques through the use of multiple trusts settled on the same day. We also welcome the adoption of a system that aggregates property over multiple trusts, rather than splitting the nil rate band to take into account multiple trusts. That would have been an extremely complex system to administer, and aggregating property held in multiple trusts is a much simpler way to resolve the problem. The simplification of rules on exit charges and the 10-year anniversary charge is welcome, but I would like to know whether the Minister is considering any further changes.
We have had a good debate on inheritance tax today, but wider issues with it remain. In particular, it is still extremely complex. Although the Government have introduced many of the measures outlined in previous consultations to make inheritance tax policy more cohesive —for example, multiple trusts, the 10-year anniversary charge declarations, interest in possession and the implementation of an IT strategy to transfer inheritance tax administration online—the tax still lacks simplicity. Each of those issues has added another set of complexities to inheritance tax.
In 2010, the Office of Tax Simplification’s report identified 89 inheritance tax reliefs. It noted the need for a top-down review of inheritance tax in 2011, stating:
“We consider that a more appropriate approach to the inheritance tax reliefs is to consider the scope and operation of inheritance tax with reference to the original and desired policy rationale, and thus to consider individual reliefs in context. In addition, any review of inheritance tax needs to include a review of the taxation of trusts, which are often used to pass family assets between generations.”
Does the Minister have any further plans to enact new measures to simplify the rules and administration of inheritance tax?
At the heart of the clauses, an issue of tax avoidance is addressed. We should encourage planning for the future. Planning what happens to their finances after their death is something that most people should consider. For some people, that has been entwined with navigating the inheritance tax rules to minimise their contribution. People should pay no more and no less than their fair share. Will the Minister provide any details on the measures the Government are taking to ensure that everyone who is eligible pays their share of inheritance tax?
The Minister has taken us through the clauses and how they operate. The correction of the anomaly in clause 12 means that trustees will now have clear guidance about the timeline to submit an application for exemptions. That should make it easier for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to administer the exemption.
Clause 13 corrects an anomaly whereby types of interest in possession escaped all inheritance tax charges because the property was neither part of the beneficiary’s estate nor included within a relevant property trust. That was an unintended effect of the 2006 legislation. Labour welcomes corrections of that type. We welcome the change, which will ensure that an interest in possession in settled property is treated the same, regardless of the date at which the settlement was created.
Clause 14 provides that where property is left in trust in which no interest in possession subsists and an appointment of that property is made within three months of the date of death, the appointment can be read back into the will. I do not think any of us is an expert in this, but I understand that that corrects an anomaly known as the Frankland trap. Labour welcomes the removal of the anomaly, as the tax will now be applied fairly. It will protect families who could unfairly suffer if they were unaware of the trap.
In view of what we said earlier about our overall views on inheritance tax and clauses 9 and 10, we think that it is right that the tax is applied in the fairest way possible and that anomalies are removed.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. Many people would agree that we should take action where there is aggressive tax planning. The changes will ensure that there is no longer an advantage in creating multiple trusts. It is right that we take action. At the same time, existing trusts will benefit from the simplification aspects, such as the removal of the need to include non-relevant property in the calculation.
The main point made by the hon. Lady relates to a programme of reform to simplify IHT legislation. We will of course continue to simplify the tax system wherever possible. I should use the traditional response of a Treasury Minister in these circumstances, which is to say that all taxes are kept under review, and we will continue to look at inheritance tax. More generally, it is worth pointing out that we have established the Office of Tax Simplification. We are putting it on a statutory footing and strengthening its role and capacity. It has already achieved a great deal in the period it has existed, and I hope that will continue to be the case over the next few years. I am grateful for the support for the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Inheritance tax: interest
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 15 makes minor changes to the rules for interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments that will ensure that the interest is calculated correctly when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available.
The Government announced in the 2013 autumn statement that HMRC will provide a new online service for people to submit inheritance tax returns and settle the affairs of those who have died. The introduction of the new service requires various legislative changes to facilitate the new online processes, including aligning the treatment of interest for inheritance tax with that for other taxes. Rules that apply standard rates of interest across all taxes should also apply to inheritance tax. The new online service now provides the opportunity to make the necessary IT changes to apply the rules. To ensure that the standardised interest rules apply correctly, some minor changes are required to make consequential amendments to related provisions and to correct an error in the rules.
It might be helpful if I explain briefly to the Committee why the changes are being made. There are specific rules for charging interest when inheritance tax is paid by instalments and the estate includes shares in certain companies or financial institutions that deal in shares and securities on the stock exchange, which are known as market makers. The current inheritance tax rules were amended in regulations in 2012 to reflect a change in the definition of a market maker, using a power in the Finance Act 1986. The equivalent standardised interest rules also need to be amended in a similar way, but the power in the 1986 Act may be used only to amend the current inheritance tax interest rules, not the standardised ones. Clause 15 amends the relevant provisions in the 1986 Act to extend the power to the standardised rules to enable the definition of a market maker to be updated. That will enable the standardised interest rules to apply correctly to payments of tax instalments on shares in such companies and financial institutions.
The interest rules also need to be amended so that the period from which interest is charged is six months from the end of the month in which the death occurs. The changes made by the clause will come into effect on a date specified in regulations, which will be at the same time as the new online service for taxpaying estates becomes available, currently expected to be in April 2016. The changes are expected to affect only a very small number of estates that include shares in companies that are market makers and where the tax due is paid by instalments. The impacts on the Exchequer and on individuals and businesses are therefore expected to be negligible.
The changes are small but necessary. Clause 15 will enable the new interest rules for instalment payments to be applied correctly and consistently when the new inheritance tax online service becomes available for taxpaying estates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Barbara Keeley
Labour welcomes any move to make the payment of tax simpler and more efficient. Many people already benefit from paying certain taxes online—I must say I am not one of them; I find it quite difficult, despite my IT background—and clause 15 will allow inheritance tax to follow that road map. In particular, relevant provisions relating to the late payment of interest will be updated and applied consistently when the new online service becomes available.
The only question remaining is when the new online service becomes available. The Government have reported that the service will become available. I wonder whether the Minister’s officials can get a note to him fast enough for him to answer. Can the Minister provide an update on the service’s progress or, indeed, tell us when he expects the service to be functioning? He has not answered many of my questions today—he has brushed his way past an awful lot of the questions he has been asked—so perhaps he can answer this last one if he has the answer in his notes.
Mr Gauke
As it so happens, let me say the following. The IHT online service will be implemented in phases, with increased functionality at each stage. Selected customers who have no inheritance tax to pay and are applying for probate in England and Wales will be invited to test the new online service during this month and next. It will become available to the public in November, and later phases will extend it to taxpaying customers, as well as agents and people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Details of the timing of future releases will be given in due course.
I hope that, finally, at the end of a long day, I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South with respect to one of her questions. I know that this is the end of her contribution to the Finance Bill Committee this year, so I thank her for her questions and constructive engagement. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also commend her for managing to brush past the various quotations from her leader and shadow Chancellor that were thrown at her, which she was happily able to ignore.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)
Draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential amendments) Order 2015
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair, Mr Bailey. The order makes a number of consequential amendments to specific references to tax rates in existing legislation, which the Minister talked us through, so that Scottish rates can be used when it is appropriate to do so.
Labour believes that Scotland should have more autonomy over its taxation decisions. In the general election, we promised to make the Scottish Parliament
“the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world.”
Although the order will simply adapt legislation to take account of any changes to income tax, the Scottish Parliament may undertake no tax changes in the future without this complication. A number of concerns remain about how the changes will be implemented.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the Smith commission made it clear that in many ways, the most difficult work lies ahead, and that the details of how taxes and benefits are devolved will be crucial. We must also consider the practical implications of tax devolution for businesses such as insurers and pension funds. Concerns have been raised about how to identify who is liable to pay the Scottish rate of income tax. What measures has the Minister taken to ensure that Scottish taxpayers will be identified without significant additional costs?
Concerns have been raised by the pensions industry about how to implement pension relief at source in light of the change, which follows the implementation of a range of other pension measures introduced in 2014. The purpose of those measures was to provide customers with greater pension freedom, but there is clearly already a significant amount of strain on the pensions industry, causing difficulties for many pensioners. Last year, Scottish Widows admitted that it had reached breaking point because of the reforms, which have had a significant negative impact on its ability to provide its customers with a quality service.
Pension providers have stated that they will struggle to implement the new round of reforms. Many pension scheme providers have pointed out that the new arrangements will have significant administrative implications. The National Association of Pension Funds has said that the higher operational costs are likely to be passed on to scheme members. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with the NAPF that those changes will lead to higher costs. If he does, can he give the Committee a figure of what the costs might amount to for scheme providers and individual members who will end up having the costs passed on to them? That raises the question of who will bear the impact of higher operational costs. Will those additional costs be borne solely by scheme members in Scotland or by members across the UK?
As the Minister mentioned, because of the pressures and strains on the industry, HMRC has given it more time to implement the changes. Between April 2016 and April 2018, relief will be given at main UK rates, with an adjustment being applied later. Given the delay, does the Minister think the planning for the arrangements has been adequate? Have the cost and administrative implications for pension scheme providers and their members in Scotland been sufficiently taken into account? What steps is he taking to ensure that the reforms do not impact negatively on the service that customers receive from their pension providers?
The future implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax remains unclear. The explanatory memorandum states that after April 2018 Scottish taxpayers will
“as far as possible…receive the correct amount of relief into their pension pot.”
Will the Minister clarify to the Committee what is meant by “as far as possible”? It implies that the implementation of the changes may not be completed even within the grace period given to pension providers. It raises concern that, even by 2018, there will still be cases in which individuals are not receiving the correct amount into their pension scheme. Will the Minister explain to the Committee what will happen in those cases?
It is clear that there are lessons to be learned from the implementation of the Scottish rate of income tax. The Scotland Bill outlines devolution plans that include the devolution of far more substantial income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament. Will the lessons learned from the introduction of this tax change inform the Government’s approach to the management of the reforms that are yet to come? HMRC has published draft guidance on how it will interpret the definition of “Scottish taxpayer”, but concerns have been raised about the helpfulness of that guidance for more complex cases. At the moment it is unclear whether that guidance will be amended to take account of the feedback. Will the Minister provide further information on that?
Overall, there is still very little guidance for taxpayers about this important matter. Employers and taxpayers need to be in possession of clear guidance, and they need to be given enough time to plan for changes that they may need to implement. Will the Minister tell us what plans have been made to ensure that information is provided to taxpayers and employers in a timely manner?
We must bear in mind the wider changes that may result from this tax change. The Association of British Insurers has warned in its response to the Smith commission:
“Over an extended period any adjustment to the value of tax relief would affect the…value of an individual’s pension fund and their income in retirement. As a result, employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income (lower or higher) than colleagues in other parts of the UK, even if they are making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”
Clearly, that seems totally wrong.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact on financial services currently based on the UK income tax regime if the Scottish income tax regime were to differ? The UK Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of pension tax relief in the UK. The review will consider potential reforms to how pensions are taxed, which could have a significant impact on pension policyholders. Does the Minister anticipate that the UK Government’s review and any changes arising from it will have an impact on the operation of pension tax relief in Scotland?
Although Labour does not intend to oppose the order and we support the move to devolve further tax powers to the Scottish Parliament as outlined in the Scotland Bill, we have concerns about the practical applications of the changes. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and any assurances he can give about the issues I have raised.
Mr Gauke
Let us not detain the Committee too long on that ancient history. However, it is great pleasure to respond once again to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
The Scottish rate of income will apply to Scottish residents. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman sets out, where somebody is not a Scottish resident, the UK rate of income tax will apply. I hope that provides clarity.
I should point out that there is no definitive list of Scottish residents, but HMRC has been and will continue checking its address data against third-party information, for example the Scottish electoral register, to check accuracy. HMRC expects to contact Scottish taxpayers later in 2015, well in advance of the introduction of the Scottish rate in April 2016.
Work on making changes ready for the Scottish rate of income tax is well advanced. It is on schedule and will support further devolution. While it is clearly vital that the public have all the information necessary to understand the Scottish rate of income tax before it comes into force, all the customer research that HMRC has commissioned shows that the timing of information is equally important. If guidance or information highlighting the changes is provided too early, it will not be at the forefront of busy people’s minds.
UK employers and pension providers are amending payroll software to take into account the introduction of the Scottish rate of income tax from next April. Technical guidance on Scottish taxpayer status was published for consultation in June and will be published in its final form, along with a raft of more general support and guidance, later this year. HMRC will write to those whose records show that they are a Scottish taxpayer later this year and tell employers and pension providers which of their employees or pensioners are Scottish taxpayers. I reassure the Committee that progress towards the introduction of the SRIT appears to be well in hand.
Barbara Keeley
We have talked in other debates about such things as insurance premium tax. There are considerable pressures and strains on the pension industry, and one of the serious concerns we came across was the higher cost to pension scheme providers. As I said earlier, Scottish Widows said that its systems were at breaking point. This change comes on top of others, and we are even changing insurance premium tax. I do not know whether he was going to respond to that point, but will he do so? Given that even insurance premium tax is being put up, there is concern that pension scheme providers will be suffering from extra administrative cost. What might that cost be?
Mr Gauke
If the SNP is suggesting that it has a plan to reduce taxes and reduce spending accordingly, I look forward to hearing it. In the absence of that, let me make the point that what is set out in the Scotland Bill—I appreciate that we are not debating the Scotland Bill today—will give the Scottish Government a huge amount of flexibility. I am sure the people of Scotland are looking forward to hearing, at some point, what the Scottish Government intend to do with it. I note that we hear no further information at the moment on that point.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister has not really answered all my questions, so I would like to make some key points again. Given that much more is to be done in future years—there is to be more devolution—the issues I have raised and the questions I have asked are important. If the Minister does not have the details of the higher costs that will hit pension scheme providers, he needs to write to me about them.
I really do take on board the point about the potential impact on individuals. The ABI believes that, because of all the difficulties and the time it is taking,
“employees in Scotland could receive different levels of pension income”
from others
“making the same contributions into the same scheme over the same period of time.”
I feel strongly that that is not acceptable. There is much more work to be done. We cannot have individuals losing out on their pension funds because the pension schemes are on their knees trying to cope with the changes that are being thrown at them. It is clearly not acceptable that individuals will be affected in that way. If the Minister is not able to assess that and tell us what he thinks the impact will be, perhaps he could write to me. He will have the note with all my questions.
Mr Gauke
As I said, we do not have the specific numbers for the costs of administration by pension providers, but I reassure the hon. Lady that individuals will not lose out. HMRC will ensure that all pensioners pay the correct tax—that is what the system is designed to do. There is an interim arrangement, so to speak, but there is also a reconciliation process, and the correct tax will be paid. I hope that the Committee will take note of those points and support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Rate of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin
Of course, the impact of freezing national insurance for employers and employees is that throughout the life of this Parliament they can have the confidence that their national insurance rates will not change—a confidence they would not have if the hon. Gentleman had any say in it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister’s team might helpfully do something about the fact that if one searches online for the impact of this Bill, one gets a 404 error message. It would be useful to have some view on the Bill’s impact.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Lady for her sensible suggestion. I know that those who put together the impact assessment online will have taken her wise words to heart and will make a change. Clearly, when one brings in legislation to freeze national insurance rates, the impact is that there is no change in national insurance and therefore no impact to report.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
As the Minister described, the Bill provides for the Government’s commitment, as set out in their manifesto, to a tax lock: a commitment not to increase the rates of VAT, income tax or national insurance in the next Parliament. The Bill provides for the national insurance element of that pledge. Such a measure has to remain separate from the Finance Bill currently going through Parliament, because statutory provisions regarding national insurance contributions cannot be included in the annual Finance Bill.
As we have heard, the Bill prevents any increase in the current rates of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers for the duration of the 2015-20 Parliament. It also provides that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the higher rate threshold, which is to say that the upper earnings limit cannot exceed the sum of the personal allowance and the basic rate limit.
Responding to the tax lock announcement during the election campaign, many people wondered why such a commitment etched into the statute book would even be necessary. If Ministers—indeed, the Prime Minister—commit to not raising income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT in the run-up to an election, surely such a commitment should be taken at face value. Apparently not in the case of Conservatives, who perhaps felt that the low levels of trust in their pledges were such that they would have to go much further. No wonder, when we consider that the Prime Minister made a similar commitment in 2010 not to raise VAT, only then to raise it to 20% after entering Downing Street.
Harriett Baldwin
Will the hon. Lady confirm that in her party’s manifesto, on which she just stood, there was a similar commitment not to increase national insurance rates, yet the new leader of her party has stated publicly that he would like to increase them by 7% for higher earners?
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to my party’s manifesto commitments in a very short while. I do not think it is helpful, and I am not going to respond, to any interventions or points made by Government Members that refer to things the current Leader of the Opposition said before he was Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] That is a different situation. What I have just said is that when the Prime Minister was elected in 2010, he raised VAT when he had said that he would not do so.
Beyond the broken pledge on VAT, which is a serious matter—[Interruption.] Government Members can sit giggling, but these are very serious matters that hit the country hard. It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister appeared to rule out cuts to tax credits when appearing in front of a special “Question Time” audience during the recent election campaign. Yet, we are due to vote later today on that measure, and the Government’s cuts to tax credits will leave some 8 million families on average over £1,000 a year worse off. That is a shocking broken pledge.
Simon Hoare
Unlike the hon. Lady, not all Government Members are obsessed with the new leader of the Labour party. Surely she has to accept that on broken promises, the greatest albatross around her party’s neck is the previous Prime Minister, Mr Brown, who promised the end of boom and bust? That was signally incorrect and is the biggest albatross from which the Labour party can never be freed.
Barbara Keeley
Government Members should stop going back in time. I have just referred to the fact that the Prime Minister promised before the 2010 election not to raise VAT. [Interruption.] Look at your record. You’re in government. You’re defending your Bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady is using the term “you” which refers to the occupant of the Chair, not Government Members.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is really helpful. It is sometimes easy to forget.
I have made the point and I am prepared to come back to it again and again. In five years, there have been two serious broken pledges that have cost the British public dearly.
Let us get back to the Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I did not make the diversion. Let me be clear, Labour in opposition wholeheartedly supports the principle of not raising taxes for working people. The Minister has just questioned me on this. During the election campaign, it was the Labour party that first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions. In fact, we did it before the election campaign, because the pledge was made on 25 March. As such, we will not be opposing the Bill today. Regardless of that, however, there is no doubt that this tax lock has become the height of gimmickry. It was said to be such during the election campaign and it remains so today.
Let me give you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members present, some quotes relating to the tax lock. On 29 April, the Financial Times, lamenting what it saw as the level of gimmickry coming all too often from the Conservative campaign, put in its leader:
“What is more of a shock is the stream of gimmicks and poor policies coming from the Conservatives…arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance…the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise more than £350bn for the exchequer would make the challenge needlessly harder.”
Andrew Stephenson
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying—she believes the Bill is purely a gimmick—but would she not agree that this so-called gimmick will save money for millions of hard-working families? It is not a gimmick to the hard-working people we represent.
Barbara Keeley
In a minute, I will record how other commentators also think it is a gimmick. I have said we are not going to oppose the Bill because we do not want working people to pay more, but we have just seen in this Parliament a tax-raising Budget. I will talk more about that in a moment.
One of the main concerns about this policy gimmick is the serious constraints it will place on the Treasury and the Government’s ability to raise taxes or maintain the flexibility to raise revenue in response to economic events. As Alex Henderson, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said:
“Arguably the lock means the Government has less flexibility on where tax revenues could come from, with the burden more thinly spread.”
He also pointed out that it would not constrain Ministers’ ability to raise revenue from the same taxes in other ways—for example, by delaying the uprating of thresholds and removing reliefs. So it is not true that people are not going to pay more; there are other ways. We know the Chancellor used such measures, otherwise known as fiscal drag, to great effect in the last Parliament, because, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they have raised taxes of roughly £64 billion a year by doing so. The headlines people read do not indicate tax rises, but the measures used do.
Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said:
“While IoD members are opposed to increases in the rates of VAT, Income Tax and National Insurance, we consider it imperative that the Government’s commitments do not prevent bold tax reforms to both simplify taxation and reduce the burden upon businesses and individuals.”
As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, pointed out, the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms, such as the treatment of national insurance contributions for the self-employed, which has already been referred to.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am a little confused. The hon. Lady has said that she supports the policy but is now quoting a load of people who do not support it. Surely, she supports it because it gives hard-working people the chance to keep more of their income and gives businesses certainty about the number of people they can employ.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Lady confuses our not opposing a pledge that we made first on 25 March—it is our pledge, if you like—with a Bill that I am denouncing as a gimmick. It is not just me who is denouncing it as such; a range of commentators have done so as well.
Barbara Keeley
No.
Paul Johnson believes that the tax lock could rule out sensible tax reforms. That is the answer to the question from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). The commentators and others who work day in, day out on these issues think it ties the Government’s hands too much. Paul Johnson said it was
“extreme to tie your hands for such a long period with the main rates of the three largest taxes”.
It is worth reminding Members of The Guardian’s view of the tax lock—Members may not have read it—as set out in its editorial on 29 April.
Barbara Keeley
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members do. It read:
“No one can see into the future. So a responsible chancellor ought to be duty-bound to keep options open, to be able to respond to events and adapt to unexpected changes in the economy, not close them off. Instead, the Conservatives are now committed to tying their hands behind their back, placing the taxes that provide roughly two-thirds of all government income – income tax, national insurance and VAT – wholly off-limits, come what may, for five years. This is madness.”
Harriett Baldwin
So it is not a gimmick then, but welcome certainty for families and business.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Lady is not listening.
The Financial Times leader, to which I referred earlier, said:
“It is unwise for the Conservatives to bind their hands, legally or otherwise, against using tax rises to close the deficit. Much of public expenditure is unavoidable or politically protected”—
that is the important thing; these days certain budgets are politically protected—
“so that ever more savings need to be found from the shrinking funds for welfare, social care, justice and defence. It makes sense to leave oneself the option to turn to tax in times of adversity to smooth the path of consolidation.”
Nothing better reflects the gimmickry of this measure than the fact that the recent summer Budget included some significant revenue-raising measures that amounted to significant tax rises for millions of people. As the Office for Budget Responsibility set out, the tax-raising measures announced in the summer Budget amounted to nearly £16 billion of tax rises by 2020-21—we touched on this point last week—£3 billion of which will come from changes to vehicle taxation, as well as increases in the insurance premium tax, which will raise £8 billion by 2020-21.
Last week, we debated the increase in insurance premium tax, and as I pointed out then, some of the UK’s biggest insurers, including Aviva and RSA, have confirmed that they plan to pass on the cost of that tax increase to customers. Experts say that many people will now see their household insurance bills rise by between £50 and £100 a year, if they have more than one car and they insure their buildings and contents. I highlighted the fact, and still think it a serious point, that young drivers would be hardest hit, and many might wrongly take the risk of driving uninsured. In the last week, therefore, we have seen a £50 to £100 tax bombshell for millions of families, and this tax-lock Bill does nothing to guard against that.
What is more, the Government are yet to offer any assurances that they will not raise insurance premium tax further in subsequent Budgets. Given that a Conservative peer, Lord Northbrook, has called insurance premium tax an “easy target”, I invite the two Treasury Ministers present to say whether they will be increasing insurance premium tax any further. Would either like to say what their intentions are?
Harriett Baldwin
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance about whether we ought to be discussing something that Parliament settled last week or the Second Reading of this Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that if she wishes to raise a point of order, she can do so by way of a point of order. However, the point she raises is a matter for discussion, so I invite the shadow Minister to respond, if she wishes.
Barbara Keeley
I think that the whole range of the tax regime and national insurance is under discussion today.
Given that we hear no assurances that there will not be further increases to insurance premium tax in this Parliament, I want to make it clear again that we support the principle of not raising taxes for working people. That is why we do not oppose the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, before the election campaign started properly, we pledged not to raise national insurance contributions, so this could rightly be described as our idea.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady says that the Opposition will not oppose this welcome measure. Does that mean they will vote for it, or simply abstain?
Barbara Keeley
As I understand it, there will not be a vote because it will not be opposed, but I cannot speak for other parties in the House.
The Government’s tax lock, of which the Bill forms a part, is nothing more than a gimmick of epic proportions, as I have outlined and demonstrated with many comments from people outside the House. It speaks volumes about the lack of belief that Conservatives have in their own policy commitments. We vote annually on tax legislation, and the Government regularly introduce Bills on NICs alongside Finance Bills—we have already heard about suggested changes to NICs—and, as such, primary legislation, debate and Division are already required in the House.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady keeps referring to the measure as a gimmick. It would be helpful if she could explain why, when the Labour party commits to it, it is not a gimmick, but when the Government commit to it, it is.
Barbara Keeley
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening. I know that Conservative Members often sit there with their Whip’s brief and try to find a way of working in some point that the Whips have given them to say. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is looking at. The point is, as I said earlier, this is a gimmick because we do not need legislation. A commitment was given on this. All that is required is that the Government and the Prime Minister stick to that commitment. It is a question of delivering on what was pledged. We do not need a Bill for every single element of what a party has pledged in the run-up to an election campaign. I am questioning—and people outside the House are questioning—why we need a Bill for the Government to bind themselves not to increase the rates, which they have already set out. It is very strange indeed.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I can understand why the shadow Minister does not want to comment on her new leader’s position, but will she comment on the shadow Chancellor’s position? The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) recently said that he would commit his Administration to a 7% rise in national insurance and to a 2.5% increase in corporation tax. What she is saying now seems to suggest a change in position. Will she confirm that that is the case?
Barbara Keeley
We are not signalling any change of position. It is amusing to hear this from Conservative Members, after a tax-raising Budget that is taking £8 billion from British people through the insurance premium tax, and after they put VAT up to 20%—when they promised not to do it. The absolute gall of Conservative Members in raising these points is amazing.
Barbara Keeley
No, I will not.
The tax lock restricts the Government’s ability to respond to unexpected economic events. That is why this Bill is seen, both outside and inside this place, as a gimmick. If we have learned anything in the last decade, it is that such flexibility is absolutely essential. Indeed, it was this flexibility at the time the Labour Government left office in 2010 that meant we had an economy recovering and growing once again. Above all, this tax lock provides no protection to millions of hard-working families, who, if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members later today—
Andrew Gwynne
Is it not indicative of the level of trust in politics and politicians generally, but specifically in this Government and their record on tax, that they need to come to the House of Commons to legislate not to increase a specific tax, rather than allow people to accept their pledges at elections at face value?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for raising that point. I think that Ministers have got to think about what they are doing to public trust if they have to introduce gimmicks such as this Bill—it is a gimmick, and was seen as a gimmick by a host of commentators outside this place.
Barbara Keeley
No, I have nearly finished.
As I have argued, the Bill provides no protection for millions of hard-working families, and if the statutory instrument on tax credits is voted through by Conservative Members, those families will be £1,000 a year worse off on average. That will be a direct result of the Chancellor’s fiscal decisions, and I believe many Conservative Members will come to regret it. Ministers should not be wasting their time on legislative gimmicks such as this so-called tax lock.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She will know that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland. I have listened very patiently to what she has said here today, but I think the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom generally are entitled to know the policy of the Labour party, the main Opposition party, after a change in the leadership and with a new shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. What exactly is their policy on national insurance contributions? Is Labour not going to increase them? Does Labour agree with the Government that they should not be increased for five years? Is that the clear policy of the Opposition?
Barbara Keeley
Yes, it is. I am the shadow Treasury spokesperson responsible for the Bill today. [Interruption.] Well, I am standing here today. We made the pledge first. I am very pleased that the hon. Lady raised the question in the manner she did. As I say, we made the pledge first: it is our pledge. Let us get back to that point.
Rather than wasting their time with gimmicks such as this so-called tax lock, Ministers should perhaps direct their focus on supporting low and middle-income families. [Interruption.] Ministers should really bear in mind that every time they sit there laughing on a day when they are going to take £1,000 off 8 million hard-working families, they simply provide grist to the mill of people who contribute to newsletters up and down the country. The Government’s fiscal policies are too serious for Ministers to sit there laughing. I really advise them to stop it. They should direct their focus at supporting low and middle-income families who will be worst hit by the summer Budget of this Conservative Government—with or without a tax lock.
Huw Merriman
I agree completely. The cut in corporation tax allowed this Government to justify the increase in the living wage, as it offsets that. Such a change would put all that at risk, although I very much hope that we will never see that day.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the House for giving me leave to speak again.
We have had a very lively debate on this somewhat peculiar measure. As I said earlier, many people will wonder why we are debating it at all—we have spent a considerable time on it—and many commentators have called it a gimmick. If the Prime Minister commits not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT in the run-up to an election, surely such a commitment should be taken at face value. The essence of this debate is that what the Prime Minister commits to should not be questioned, but taken at face value.
However, other pledges made by the Prime Minister and his party have been broken. The commitment made in 2010 not to raise VAT was followed by an increase in VAT to 20% soon after the Conservatives entered government. I have found several other broken pledges that I would like to refer to Government Members. Before the 2010 general election, David Cameron—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr that he had no plans to cut front-line services. Interestingly, for a Leader of the Opposition preparing for government, he said that if
“any cabinet minister if I win the election…comes to me and says, ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”
Since then, we have seen cuts in the number of NHS nurses, hospital beds, firefighters and front-line police officers.
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister said he had absolutely no plans to raise VAT. On child benefit, he said at a Cameron Direct event:
“I would not means test it.”
The coalition Government in effect abolished the benefit for higher earners and then froze it for three years. On the NHS, he said, “No more top-down reorganisations”, which is perhaps the most infamous broken pledge. It was made both by the Prime Minister and by the person who became Heath Secretary. On education maintenance allowances, the Prime Minister said in January 2010, again at a Cameron Direct event:
“We don’t have any plans to get rid of them.”
On Sure Start, he said:
“Yes, we back Sure Start.”
Over 550 Sure Start centres have closed, while more than half those still open no longer provide on-site childcare. I could go on and on, mentioning the future jobs fund and what the Chancellor said about bankers’ bonuses and many other pledges.
As I said earlier, following our discussion on the Bill, the next item of business will be a debate on the Government’s cuts to tax credits, which will leave some 8 million families over £1,000 a year worse off, on average. Let me say again that the matter we are voting on—or not voting on, because we support it—was a Labour pledge. [Interruption.] Presumably Government Members do not want a vote and would prefer the Bill to be supported. I have said that we will support it, so why raise such matters? There is no question about it.
We first pledged not to increase national insurance contributions, and, as I said earlier, we will not oppose the Bill. I have not heard any Member say that they oppose it. I say to Treasury Ministers—I hope that they will take this serious point away from the debate—that breaking pledges and using gimmicks, such as the so-called tax lock, further undermines people’s already reduced belief in government and politics. As I said earlier, one of the concerns that many people have in this policy gimmick is that it will place a serious constraint on the Treasury and, indeed, on the Government’s ability to raise taxes or to maintain the flexibility needed to raise revenue in response to economic events. That is the other serious point that I was making. The Government, as I and my hon. Friends have said, will have to resort to measures such as delaying the uprating of thresholds and removing reliefs, as they did in the last Parliament.
The suspicion remains that future Budgets will mean further increases to taxes like the insurance premium tax, which seemed to be regarded in the last Budget as an easy target. I am disappointed that Ministers declined my offer for them to use this debate to pledge that no further increases would be made to the insurance premium tax in this Parliament. The insurance premium tax, which we debated at length, will bring in £8 billion for the Government by 2021, but will hit many millions of hard-working families. It may lead, as I mentioned last week, to the negative consequence of even more uninsured drivers. The rate of uninsured drivers is already nearly 3% or 1 million vehicles on the road. We have to think about the negative consequences of the tax increases that we saw in the summer Budget.
As I have said on a number of occasions, we will not oppose the Bill. It implements our pledge and we stick by it.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to respond to a lively debate. I thank all those who have contributed, not least the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who contributed twice. She carries a heavy burden on behalf of her party and I hope that it is noted by the powers that be. I welcome the shadow Chancellor to the Chamber. No doubt he will have noticed the effort that she has put in.
I thank Government Back Benchers for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) began his speech with the sensible point that, ultimately, it is not companies that pay tax. It is always families and individuals who bear the tax bill, regardless of who writes the cheque. Like a number of hon. Friends, he went on to speak about the importance of providing stability and certainty in the tax system both for individuals and for companies. The tax lock will provide much greater certainty and stability.
That point was also well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who highlighted the importance of low taxes to businesses in her constituency and to employees. She made the point that a number of those businesses compete with businesses in silicon valley, and that they need the certainty that the Bill and the Government’s other policies provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made a similar point about the need for economic policy to support business. It is through the success of our businesses that we will see the economy grow and tax receipts come in, which will enable us to pay for high-quality public services. We must not forget the importance of an enterprising economy. It may well be that that point becomes more important in the debate in this country over the next few years, as the consensus appears to be breaking down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) rightly criticised the characterisation of the Bill as a gimmick. I will turn to that in a moment, but he was right to say that this is an important measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) highlighted the fact that in 2001, a Labour Government were elected with a promise that they would not put up income tax, but shortly afterwards they put up national insurance contributions. We must not forget that national insurance contributions are paid by people in much the same way as a tax. It should not be open to Governments to use national insurance contributions as a stealth tax. That is why, as well as introducing legislation to provide a tax lock for income tax, it is important to have legislation on national insurance contributions. Given that national insurance contributions cannot be dealt with in a Finance Bill, such a measure is contained in this Bill.
Barbara Keeley
I am astonished that the Minister can talk about things that happened in the past and not reflect on the more recent pledge made and broken by his Government not to raise VAT. How can he stand there and talk about any issue when that is in recent memory? How hard did that hit many millions of families in this country? I think he would be better leaving that topic alone.
Mr Gauke
For those of us who were debating such matters at the time, the state of the public finances, and the deterioration identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility in the summer Budget of 2010, revealed that we needed to take steps to put the public finances back on track. We took those measures, and I remind the hon. Lady that the Labour party abstained on the increase in VAT. Labour Members did not oppose it at the time, presumably because they recognised that it was necessary. That was, I suppose, a time when the Labour party was flirting with fiscal responsibility. I am sure it would never repeat that now.
Barbara Keeley
My points are about the way the public feel about broken pledges. This gimmick of a tax lock means nothing if, whatever the circumstances, the Government are prepared to change their mind on things. I read the Minister a long list of pledges that his Prime Minister and Government have broken, and every time such things happen, the public get sick of it.
Mr Gauke
We are underlining our commitment not to increase the rate of class 1 NICs by introducing this Bill. The hon. Lady asks why we are legislating rather than making a pledge. She could apply exactly the same argument to the legislative commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, yet that was actively supported by the Labour party. If she feels that this Bill is a meaningless gimmick, why does she not oppose it today?
Let me finish thanking my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) described this as a short but important Bill, and may I say that he delivered a short but important speech? My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) highlighted the need for greater certainty in the tax system and welcomed the Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who also highlighted the importance of stability in the tax system. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) supported that argument and suggested that the Bill would provide greater confidence to businesses in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised a number of questions and asked about the potential for integration between income tax and national insurance contributions, and the work being undertaken by the Office of Tax Simplification. As he said, it was announced in the summer Budget that the OTS will undertake a review of the closer alignment of income tax and national insurance. The overall aim of the project is to build on earlier work undertaken in that area, and to understand the steps needed to achieve closer alignment of the taxes, as well as the costs, benefits and impact of each step. The terms of reference were published on 21 July, and the OTS will publish a final report ahead of the 2016 Budget.
On the one hand we heard from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that this measure is a gimmick and unnecessary. On the other hand, I was also struck by the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who made the argument that we—I do not know whether she was talking about the Government or the Labour party—should consider abolishing the upper earnings limit. In other words, the 12% rate of national insurance contributions should apply also to higher rate taxpayers. That policy was supported by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins).
Let us be clear about what is being proposed. It would mean an increase in the tax rate for higher rate taxpayers of 10%, from a combined rate of 42% to a combined rate of 52%. That is not the policy of the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South made clear, but three days into the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) the Labour Front Bench appears to be being attacked from the left, something that I had not anticipated. I do not know whether the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland and for Luton North are making a late bid for inclusion in the shadow Cabinet, although I was surprised that neither was there in the first place. I am sure that the shadow Chancellor, who is in his place, will have listened carefully to that proposal, which would clobber a large chunk of middle earners.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South upbraided hon. Members for quoting remarks made by the right hon. Member for Islington North before he became leader of the party and said that she would not respond. That is a novel approach, although I have some sympathy with her and really cannot blame her.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister seems to forget that I read out to him a list of various pledges on policy that the Prime Minister made before he became Prime Minister. Will he now defend every one of those? Will he defend what the Prime Minister said about Sure Start, EMA and other things that have been changed or abolished? It appears that the Minister thinks it is all right for the Prime Minister to say what he said when he was Leader of the Opposition. The Minister cannot have his cake and eat it, but that is what he appears to be trying to do.
Mr Gauke
I understand why the shadow Minister does not want to defend the position of the current leader of the Labour party, but let me make this point clear. The Prime Minister came into office in 2010 with a mission to turn around the UK economy. He succeeded and was re-elected with a majority in 2015.
The hon. Member for Luton North always makes entertaining and thoughtful speeches. I noted that he praised the tax system of Denmark, but I would point out that its VAT rate is 25% and it does not have any lower rates. I can assure him that we will not follow Denmark’s example and put VAT up to 25%.
EU general budgets for 2015 and 2016
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that these should be brief? It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related, supplementary questions.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee, the first time that I have done so with you in the Chair. May I thank you for chairing our proceedings today? I hope it is helpful if I group my questions.
First, on the draft decision about the use of the EU solidarity fund in 2016 for financial assistance to eligible states affected by major national disasters or extraordinary regional disasters, the terrible floods experienced by Romania, Bulgaria and Italy in 2014 caused extensive damage to the economic and productive sectors in many towns and cities in those countries. The UK was a beneficiary of the solidarity fund after the 2007 floods; I am sure Members remember those floods and the difficulties they caused for many constituents. We received £127 million to help with their aftermath.
I agree and have constantly said in debates on these matters that there is a need for budgetary restraint and reform in the EU budget. I spoke strongly about that in the debate on the European Union (Finance) Bill. Will the Minister make his position on the solidarity fund clearer? Will he accept the need to help countries that have experienced significant problems owing to flooding? Will he agree to such mechanisms being used in a similar way in the future, or does he think that, for us to achieve budgetary restraint, we have to reform the way those instruments work?
Secondly, what plans do the Government have to ensure that this annual budget and future EU budgets are controlled and that funding is prioritised on interventions to encourage jobs and growth throughout the EU and in the UK? Today’s documents raise again some of the issues that I raised in the European Union (Finance) Bill. Funding for the common agricultural policy is still high and not being diverted to more useful programmes such as the European fund for strategic investments. Other budget amendments have pushed the budgets further into the margins, which again raises my question of whether the gap between commitment and payment appropriations is manageable and whether it is the most efficient way to ensure budgetary restraint. We had quite a debate on that when discussing the Bill. What plans does the Minister have to ensure wider reform of the EU budget?
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about the UK’s response to migratory pressures in Italy and Greece. In document 11, his follow-up letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on draft amending budget 5, responding to those migratory pressures, he outlined more details and he has said more on that today. In the letter, he said that the funding provided for in this DAB supported a range of measures to support the management of migration flows, none of which directly funded the Commission’s proposed schemes for relocation to other member states of 40,000 migrants arriving in Italy and Greece or the resettlement of 20,000 refugees from those countries. Will he confirm whether, in line with the European announcement, the project will include resettlement to other European member states? Does he agree that, contrary to the comments he made in the letter, that does appear to constitute direct funding for the relocation of some of the migrants arriving in Italy and Greece?
Labour Members in the UK Parliament and European Parliament have called for a joint approach to help cope with the increasing number of refugees. The Government have stated that they will not participate in a proposed mandatory EU programme to resettle migrants rescued when trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. Now that European leaders have voted against a quota system for relocation, something with which the Government did not agree, are there plans to engage further in the European effort to solve the migrant crisis? What future financial support are the Government willing to mobilise to help the UK and other EU countries deal with those migratory pressures, which are the consequence of unrest in the middle east?
Mr Gauke
May I put it on record that I am grateful to see the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South in her place? I hope we can continue to debate this and other matters in future. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe in his place, and I hope we will continue to debate Treasury matters.
First, in terms of our position on the EU solidarity fund, the Government support the objectives and principles of the fund in providing assistance to member states affected by serious natural disasters. However, the Government also take the view that the Commission should always look first to reallocate funds from within existing agreed budgets to meet in-year pressures, rather than coming to member states to request additional money. Past examples show that the Commission is able to find reallocations—for example, when programmes are delayed or take-up is slower than expected.
In terms of the budget more widely and the need to prioritise areas relating to jobs and growth, the Government’s record is clear. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the best way to put pressure on inefficient spending is to cap the overall expenditure. The deal negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2013 was the first real-terms reduction in the EU budget, and such budgetary restraint is very important. As the Prime Minister said at the time, EU spending reform is a long-term project, but the deal that he secured represents important progress, including on common agricultural policy expenditure. While spending on CAP was cut by 13%, spending on areas of pro-growth expenditure increased and now accounts for 13% rather than 9% of the overall budget.
It is also worth mentioning wider budgetary reform. The UK welcomes the objectives of Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which aims to develop a more performance-orientated budget that delivers tangible results for EU citizens. We are working closely with the Commission on that and see it as an important opportunity to help improve the value and efficiency of EU spending and to increase transparency about it for taxpayers. The Chancellor made our position clear at ECOFIN earlier in the year. We have held discussions with the Commission and offered technical assistance, and we are keen to drive this agenda forward.
On migration funding and our response to the crisis, the UK is of the view that a great impact can be made in conflict regions, which is why we are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort. We will continue with our significant efforts to ease the burden on front-line member states by providing practical, on-the-ground support. In line with the Prime Minister’s announcements, we will also take forward plans to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this Parliament.
With regard to funding of Frontex, to which we contribute not via the EU budget but through a separate bilateral contribution, we will match increased EU funding as proposed under draft amended budget 5. I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any further questions.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for his answers. It was interesting that the hon. Member for North East Somerset made an appropriate point about the vagueness of definitions in an 88-page document and the various other attachments. What we are debating is probably as clear as the proverbial mud to many people outside the room, so perhaps we can add a little clarity.
I have made this point before: the Opposition believe—we must keep insisting on this—that the European Commission should try to make decisions surrounding the budget much more accessible to citizens. The material is dense and, even for a short debate such as this, it is hard to understand what is being said. The Commission should start to understand how to give more and better information about the budget and the budget process, and I am sure that the Minister, who has to plough through all these things, agrees. Transparency is a key factor, so I was glad that the hon. Member for North East Somerset talked about that.
I want to cover several more points, just for emphasis. A lot of this is uncontentious, albeit not all. As I have said, we welcome the fact that the draft budget states that its primary objective is to
“provide a new boost for jobs, growth and investment”.
We welcome the overall increase in the fund for competitiveness for growth and jobs of 11.4% for 2016 compared with 2015. However, there have been decreases in funding for large infrastructure projects and, at a much greater rate, for energy projects to aid economic recovery. We should encourage a focus on green energy and investment.
Funding for economic, social and territorial cohesion has received a small overall increase, although both the cohesion fund and the European territorial co-operation fund have decreased. That heading has been the subject of an extensive reprogramming exercise and the margin left beneath the ceiling is now very tight, with only £11 million of difference. We will continue to press the Government to ensure that significant changes to and reallocations of funding are made on the basis that they are likely to increase value for money for the UK taxpayer.
We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget—as I have said, it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020—but the wider reform of the common agricultural policy that is needed has still not taken place. The UK Government should push for such reform in future negotiations. Deductions are being made to sustainable growth and natural resource funding, but they involve funds for which reform is less of a priority. For example, the European agricultural fund has decreased by 24.9%, whereas market-related expenditure and direct payments have decreased by only 1.4%.
We welcome the increased focus on dealing with the refugee crisis. Draft amending budget No. 5 was intended to support the EU relocation and resettlement schemes. As the Minister mentioned, the money has been used to reinforce Frontex, to provide emergency assistance after the first arrival and screening of migrants, to reinforce the regional development and protection programmes for north Africa and the horn of Africa, and to cover emergency assistance for the surveillance activities carried out in the context of Frontex operations.
In addition, €25 million was used to implement a voluntary pilot project on resettlement. To refer back to my question, a European announcement on 13 May suggest that that project would include resettlement in European member states. Labour welcomes the use of the flexibility instrument to help to alleviate the migrant crisis, but we encourage the UK Government to engage with the rest of Europe and other affected countries to find a sustainable way of funding a response to this increasingly serious situation. Frankly, we must have something more sustainable than what is in place today. It was disappointing that many Conservative and UKIP MEPs voted on 9 September against legislation calling for a unified response to the relocation of 40,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece. Labour Members and MEPs have called for a joint approach to help to cope with the increasing numbers of refugees. My colleague, Claude Moraes MEP, chair of the European Parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said:
“We need a long-term solution, with Britain opting into a comprehensive EU plan to tackle a crisis which is likely to go on for some time and will require solidarity on refugees and measures to halt people-smuggling and the root causes.”
I believe that this is a Treasury issue as well as a Home Office one, and I hope that the UK Government engage with the EU to provide an adequate response to the crisis.
Along with our European counterparts, Labour Members fully support the letter of draft amending budget No. 1, which helps to create the budget structure necessary for the provision and creation of the European fund for strategic investments. We believe that such funding should be a priority for the EU. It will help to target areas for growth, including infrastructure in the transport, energy, digital, environment, urban and social sectors. Other areas of focus will be education and training, health, research and development, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is unfortunate that the money redirected to that fund is from funding already set aside to increase competitiveness for growth and employment. We should not be in that either/or situation. Money is being shifted from the Connecting Europe Facility to fund the European fund for strategic development. That means that money to improve cross-border rail and operability, sustainable and efficient transport, and the connectivity of transport modes has been more than halved. However, there is a new budget allowance for encouraging private investment for transport infrastructure projects. The Minister mentioned the redeployment of funds from Horizon 2020.
I want to leave the Minister with a question, although I do not know whether he will have time to answer it today. Have the Government made any assessment of whether the shifting of the funds will provide better value for the UK taxpayer? I understand that the measure uses unallocated margins, but that goes to the question of the manageability of the gap between authorised commitments and authorised payments. I spoke about that a great deal in our debates on the European Union (Finance) Act 2015, so I will not rehearse the arguments again today.
Finance Bill
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 59, line 19, at end add—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, undertake, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a review of the impact of any further rise in the standard rate of insurance premium tax with particular attention to the impact on—
(a) the price charged for insurance policies; and
(b) the take-up of insurance policies”.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take clause 43 stand part.
Barbara Keeley
The change in the level of insurance premium tax from 6% to 9.5% will have an impact on insurance premiums, and it will mean increased costs for families. Treasury figures show that the increase will have one of the biggest impacts on Government finances of any policy revealed in the summer Budget. By 2021 Ministers will have brought in an extra £8 billion from the measure, a cost that is likely to be passed on by insurance companies to consumers, so as we debate clause 43 and Labour’s amendment I want to ask the Minister to explain the reasons behind the level of this tax rise and to ask whether Ministers have fully considered where the impact of this rise will be felt and which groups will be most affected.
In 2010 the coalition Government announced a similar but much smaller rise in insurance premium tax from 5% to 6%, but this most recent change increases the tax by 58%. I want to ask the Minister for the reasoning behind that scale of change.
A colleague of the Minister in the Lords, Lord Northbrook, has described the insurance premium tax increase as an easy target. Taxes should not be increased just because they are easy targets. Indeed, any decision to increase Government revenue should be undertaken after a robust analysis of the impact the changes will have on individuals and businesses. There are still many questions to be answered about the impacts of this measure on family finances and on the take-up of insurance. So in addition to other questions later, I want to start by asking why the Government have chosen to make such a marked increase in insurance premium tax from 6% to 9.5%, an increase of 58%.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the proposed new level of tax will still be substantially lower than the 19% rate levied in Germany, and that the proposals strike the right balance between raising revenue and making sure premiums are competitive?
Barbara Keeley
I do not think making such comparisons is particularly valuable and I will come on to the reasons why.
The insurance industry has raised concerns about the impact of this increase. Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, responded to the proposed increase in insurance premium tax by warning that consumers would be worse off. He said:
“Insurance Premium Tax is a tax on people and businesses at the point at which they buy a general insurance product. So it’s very disappointing to see a more than 50% tax increase being imposed on consumers, especially when the insurance industry and Government has worked so hard in recent years to bring down the cost of essential insurance.”
The ABI calculates that the new rate of insurance premium tax will add almost £10 to the average annual household insurance policy for buildings and contents combined, and over £12 to the average annual comprehensive motor policy. However, the increase will be much higher for some groups, and I want to come on to talk about them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about householders in areas prone to flooding who might already have to pay high premiums and for whom this is an additional amount they will have to find on top? That is certainly the case for a number of properties bought under the Help to Buy scheme set up by the Treasury, as those properties built after 2009 are not eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme the Government have brought in.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and I will come on to that, because the cumulative impact of this and other changes in the Budget on specific groups is of great concern. My hon. Friend is right that there could be a real issue in parts of the country prone to flooding. We do not want to see families in the properties my hon. Friend talks about that are outside the Flood Re scheme go without insurance.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If the hon. Lady wants to forgo this substantial increase in revenue, what would she replace it with, given that her income tax proposals would also cut the revenue because the higher rate would collect less?
Barbara Keeley
It is not for me to make those suggestions; it is the Government’s Budget, not mine.
As I have said, the increased cost of this will be much higher than the averages for some groups. The AA has also shared its concern. After the Budget, AA president Edmund King said:
“The sting is in the tail. The Insurance Premium Tax increase on the average car insurance policy is still equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre. Either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. This is an outrageous hike which could well backfire by leading to an increase in uninsured drivers.”
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the fact that the freeze on the motor fuel duty escalator over the past three or four years has saved motorists far more than the 2p a litre to which she has just referred? It is saving the average motorist about £10 every time they fill up, which is far more than the 2p that she mentions. Will she join me in welcoming that measure?
Barbara Keeley
No I will not. As I have just stated, the president of the AA, Edmund King, has said of the Budget:
“The sting is in the tail.”
It is fine to make improvements that help the motorist, but the sting is in the tail and he has made the point that this is an outrageous hike. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the impact on young motorists and the possible increase in the number of uninsured drivers. If that were the result of this hike, it would be a very dangerous development.
The chief executive officer of the British Insurance Brokers Association, Steve White, has also raised concerns about the impact of the tax on insurance policies and on the industry. He makes this important point:
“Those hit by this stealth tax will include the 20.1 million households with contents insurance, 19.6 million with motor insurance and 17 million with buildings insurance. The Government has been working with the industry to reduce the cost of insurance for consumers…It therefore seems counterintuitive to be taking measures which will add to the cost—effectively taxing protection.”
Let us be clear about what is going on. This is a tax on the protection that families need.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is now in his place, has made clear in the past his views on the impact of increases to this tax. In 2010, he said of the smaller rise that was introduced at the time:
“I am not denying that we expect the increase to be passed on predominantly to consumers; we expect that the bulk of it will be.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1130.]
Indeed, some of the UK’s biggest insurers, including Aviva and RSA, have already confirmed that they are planning to pass on the cost to consumers.
We need to be clearer about which groups will be affected by this increase and what impact it will have. Car insurance and home contents insurance policies will clearly be affected. Of course we welcome the assurances that the Government have given about preventing a rise in VAT, income tax and national insurance, but families in the UK will still be hit by these changes to the insurance premium tax. This tax increase on families comes in addition to other Budget measures that will hit families, such as cuts to tax credits. We must always keep in mind the cumulative impact on families of all the Government’s policies.
Hon. Members have asked what else we would do. The tax rise is also contrary to what the Chancellor promised before the election. He said that
“tax increases are not required to achieve”—
further consolidation, and that this
“can be achieved with spending reductions”.
So the Chancellor did not foresee these measures. Despite his claim, however, he has chosen to deliver a Budget that increases taxes as well as placing a significant squeeze on public finances and services. The average household is likely to be affected by these changes in multiple ways. Many families purchase more than one type of insurance, which means that they will have to pay this tax increase more than once.
We must also consider the effect of the policy on different groups. People’s insurance needs differ depending on their age and income and on whether they own their home. Those who have high premiums are more likely to be adversely affected by this increase to the taxation rate. The groups that I single out are young motorists, homeowners and some businesses. For example, insurers have estimated that the average cost of a year’s cover for drivers under 25 will jump by around £50. The British Insurance Brokers Association has stated that
“a young driver or an experienced driver in an inner city area would see the amount of tax on an annual car insurance premium of £1,500 increase from £90 to £142.50”.
Young motorists already pay the highest premiums, with the average policy for someone who is under 25 already costing more than £1,200 a year. For a young apprentice, jobseeker or student, the increase could make the difference between being able to afford insurance so that they can travel to work for their first job and not being able to do so. Young people are already having their eligibility removed for housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and the new minimum wage, and this is just another financial burden that the Government are placing on them.
Another group facing higher insurance premiums are people who have become unemployed. A BBC report in 2012 showed that those without a job are generally asked to pay more for motor insurance cover than those in full-time employment. BBC research with three different brokers found that car insurance premiums averaged almost a third more—30%—for those out of work, but that the cost could be as much as 63% higher. People who are out of work already face many challenges: looking for a job; finding the money to pay their rent or mortgage; and finding the money to feed their families and run their homes. Insurance premiums are higher than regular premiums, so this increase is just another blow to people who are struggling to find work.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There seems to be the assumption that the entire increase will be passed on—perhaps in part it will—but I visited one of the country’s largest insurers in my constituency and it did not seem to have cause to pass on the increase. Perhaps the hon. Lady should reflect on that and see that passing on such costs may not be automatic. It may be that a reduction in corporation tax means that the costs can be absorbed.
Barbara Keeley
I think that I have already covered that. In a debate in 2010 it was accepted that these costs are almost always passed on. Almost every commentator has said that the costs will be passed on. Aviva and RSA have already announced that they will pass them on, so all the signs are that they will be passed on. Clearly, it would be good if any part of the insurance industry decided not to pass on the costs, but what we are seeing is an increase in premiums across the piece.
This tax increase on a merit good like insurance could undermine the message that individuals and society benefit if the correct level of insurance is taken out. An increase in the insurance premium tax of 58% punishes families and individuals for acting responsibly. When there have been previous increases in the tax, they have been something in the order of around 1%. There is a major concern that this steeper increase could be large enough to alter the coverage chosen by customers, which means that they would become underinsured. It may be that Conservative Members do not face problems of underinsurance in their constituencies. I must say that I have seen a lot of it in my constituency. People really suffer when they are underinsured. If levels of crime are high and there are other issues affecting them on the roads, underinsurance is a real issue.
The Government need to ensure that tax policies do not lead to a situation in which families struggling on low incomes decide to forgo insurance or let their previous policies lapse because prices have risen and they decide that they can no longer afford insurance. That could leave many families at risk of great loss in the event of burglary, or if they have a road accident.
Underinsurance could be a consequence of this rate rise. People could also opt for cheaper policies, which means that they do not get the right coverage, or they opt for higher excesses, which effectively means that their coverage is less. Buying insurance can be a complicated business and a good price may often take precedence over having the right level of coverage.
The HMRC policy paper for this rate rise estimated that there would be
“a small reduction in the demand for standard-rated insurance.”
Any fall in demand for insurance that leaves families open to greater risks should be avoided. Where does the Minister believe this “small reduction” is likely to occur and what is she doing to prevent reductions in the demand for insurance?
Finally, HMRC suggests that there could be changes in the behaviour of insurance companies. It states that there is likely to be
“a small increase in tax planning activity by insurance companies.”
What are the Government doing to minimise this further potential unwanted consequence?
Clause 43 is a typical measure from a Conservative Government who promise one thing and then deliver the opposite. In this case, the Chancellor promised before the election that he had no need to raise taxes, but then he raised this tax, which will have an impact on households throughout the UK and on their usage of insurance. The increase could have a number of negative consequences. Higher insurance premiums may lead to fewer families and individuals purchasing much-needed insurance to protect themselves against everyday problems, which happen much more often in some parts of the country than in others. I am talking about burglary and damage to property and possessions.
The Government must provide more information and analysis of the wider impacts of this tax increase, as well as strategies to prevent the negative consequences that are likely to result from this policy. Labour’s amendment to clause 43 asks the Government to consider the impact of any future increase of the tax.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called for a road map to indicate a long-term strategy for our tax system. The CBI has outlined its concerns about the UK tax system in a letter to the Financial Secretary, stressing the need for Ministers to recognise that
“changes to the tax system that appear innocuous can have wide-ranging effects.”
The CBI also stated that there was a need for “renewed discipline” in tax policy making and that the lack of consultation and notice period for tax changes can cause great uncertainty for businesses. None the less, the Government continue to increase and lower taxes for short-term policy goals. Labour believes that we need to consider how to reform our tax system so that people and businesses are taxed efficiently and fairly.
As I have outlined, there are particular concerns about this and any future potential rise in insurance premium tax because of the impact it might have on the price of insurance policies and the take-up of insurance by families and individuals. With that in mind, will the Minister comment on the potential for any further increases in the insurance premium tax during this Parliament, given the comment of her colleague in the Lords that the tax is an easy target?
Labour’s amendment will ensure that the impact of any future increase is properly considered by the Government. It will ensure that there are careful deliberations—much more careful than we have seen on this occasion—on the short and long-term consequences of any further increase in the insurance premium tax and its effect on families and business. I ask Members on both sides of the Committee to support our amendment tonight.
John Redwood
: I remind the Committee that I advise an industrial and an investment company and the details are set out in the register.
I found it interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)speak from the Opposition Front Bench on this important matter. As someone who thinks that taxes are best kept low and that we need to do all we can to maximise the spending power of those we represent, I had a lot of sympathy with much of what she was saying. Of course, there will be people who do not want to pay an increased insurance tax—who does? In particular, some people will find it difficult because it is quite a high tax. I would have found the hon. Lady more convincing had she been able to answer the question in my intervention: if not this, what?
We have just had a passionate debate in this House in which the Opposition, understandably, wanted us to do more for Syrian refugees. That takes money. We are already being very generous with our overseas aid budget, and although we understand their motivation they are not proposing lots of reductions in spending.
John Redwood
The hon. Lady might well find that some of her constituents have aspirations and could be successful; I am surprised that she is so negative about them. Many people in all parts of the country welcome the idea. In 10 or 20 years’ time, if there is a death in the family and assets pass, they would be grateful not to have that limit. It was a good effort and I accept that the hon. Lady came up with the least bad of the Labour attitudes. Everything else that Labour wants to do involves either spending more money or increasing tax rates, which will reduce the revenue.
Barbara Keeley
The right hon. Gentleman should be directing his question to the Chancellor, because, as I said, it was the Chancellor who said that
“tax increases are not required to achieve
further consolidation, as
“this can be achieved with spending reductions”
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be asking the Government and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor his question rather than the Opposition, because the promise to the electorate—this is the important thing—was that there would be no tax increases, yet here we are soon after the Budget with a tax increase that will hit many millions of households and bring in £8 billion.
John Redwood
But I support the Government on that. I think that they are right to want to make more progress in bringing down the deficit—I am not sure whether the hon. Lady agrees. I also think that they are absolutely right to honour the very important promise they and I made to our electors not to increase income tax or VAT. Better still, we must honour our pledge to get income tax down, particularly for people on lower incomes, by raising the threshold. I also wish to see reductions in income tax at the 40% level, which affects many of my constituents and those who aspire to better jobs and pay, which we hope our economic recovery will deliver to many more people. We are honouring our pledge not to increase income tax rates, but to make the cuts we specified over the five-year period, and we are honouring our pledge on VAT.
Barbara Keeley
There seems to be a very selective honouring of pledges going on. The pledge not to increase taxes is not being met, because £8 billion is being taken. The other thing that I am very concerned about is the Government’s decision to ditch the pledge to cap social care costs. It is one thing to allow people with properties worth £1 million not to pay inheritance tax, but it is quite another when people up and down the country will be hit by the dropping of the pledge to cap care costs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that, because I am sure that it affects his constituents just as it affects mine.
John Redwood
I think that we are now going rather wide of the amendment and the clause that we are meant to be debating. I wish to see a generous care system that is properly controlled and disciplined. If the hon. Lady has individual cases where people will be adversely affected unreasonably, I am sure that Ministers will be willing to look at them. The last thing I wish to see is unreasonable cuts affecting people who really need the money, but I also wish to see more work done—this is what the Government are doing—to promote the abilities of many people, including those she suggests are disabled, because many people have many abilities. This Government are about encouraging those abilities, helping people to do more for themselves and, where possible, to get into work so that they can lead more rewarding lives, and so that they can receive pay in addition to the benefit assistance for which they currently qualify. There is a complete policy there to promote better lives for everyone in society, and cutting income taxes is an important part of that, and promoting abilities and opportunities is another.
John Redwood
That is very good advice, and that is exactly what this Committee is trying to do by highlighting the issue in a short but thorough debate.
I will now make some progress on the specific matters relating to insurance tax. It passes my first test, which is that if we have to increase a tax rate we must ensure that we get more revenue from it. It passes that test because the starting rate is sufficiently low, and the forecasts indicate that we will see a substantial increase in revenue as a result of the change.
The second question is what is its distributional effect. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South understandably made much of the cases that are the hardest, but overall I would imagine—the Minister may have some figures—that people who are better off will pay more of this tax than people who are not so well off, because a lot of it is insuring property and asset and businesses, and it will be the people with the most substantial assets and businesses who will pay rather more of that tax. It therefore meets a general test of fairness in the sense that it is progressive.
My one nervousness about that—I look forward to the Minister’s response on this—is over the issue of the young driver, which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised. I think that we need to ensure that we have a very supportive package for young people generally, because they are finding it difficult to price themselves into housing, and they do not always get the rates of pay at the beginning of their careers that we would like to see them enjoy. It is very important that we keep cutting the income taxes at the lower end of income, especially for them, because they really need to keep everything they earn if their starting pay is not very good.
The biggest problem for the young driver, particularly the young male driver, is that the starting prices for insurance can be exceptionally high. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult for the very young male driver to get insured at all. We have to ask ourselves why that is. The main reason, of course, is that the young driver is perceived to be a bad risk by the insurance company. There is some evidence that the younger driver may, on average, have a worse record than the older driver, and that is why the premiums can be particularly high on younger people.
Perhaps the Government can help rather more, through and with the industry, to tackle the main problem, which is not the tax on the premium but the initial height of the premium. Some good work has been done in the industry to provide methods of reassurance that the young person will drive well and safely by means of technology in the car that monitors them, at their own request and with their agreement. That may be the price of their getting the lower premium. We need to look at how technology and support for good driving can be reinforced so that a young person is more readily insurable at a realistic price. Of course, if the young person behaved recklessly, that would become obvious and the arrangements would have to be changed, but there are ways in which this can be done.
Barbara Keeley
It is not a question of technology changes. This £50 increase, at least, in the duty paid on the very high premiums that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about will prevent young people—presumably young men, more than young women—from getting to the point where they can start to gain experience. The age at which people will be able to be insured will advance and advance so that they will be unable to get started. That is the issue. It is not a question of technology but of making insurance affordable, and this makes it worse.
John Redwood
I am trying to deal with the underlying reason why it can be very difficult for young men, in particular, to afford insurance. The big problem is not the increment on top of the current insurance tax or the bigger increment resulting from this Bill; it is the starting level of the premium. People are working on ways in which we may be able to address that.
If the young person can accept a system that will reassure the insurer that they are going to drive sedately, prudently and safely, then the reason for charging them more disappears. By accepting the constraints of the technology, they can demonstrate that they are driving safely. That reinforces their cheaper premium and they can start to earn the bonuses that the rest of us enjoy if we have driven safely for a long period and then get discounts on the insurance costs. It is getting started that is so difficult for young males, in particular, when they are all judged by the average standards of high claims that the industry experiences. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in Departments more directly related to the insurance industry will look at this problem. It is not caused primarily by the tax system but by assessment of risk and perceptions of driving behaviour. It can be very unfair on individuals, and the more that can be done to smooth that out, the better.
I do not like tax rises. Part of the reason I am in Parliament is that I want to be a voice to try to keep taxes down and have a more prosperous society as a result. I cannot say that I welcome this part of the Finance Bill, but as someone who believes that there are important public items that we cannot cut, and faced as we are with Opposition parties that very rarely come forward with any proposals to save public money, we have to raise a reasonable amount of money. We have been borrowing too much, and this is part of a series of measures to try to get our borrowing under some kind of control. With regret, I conclude with the Government that this is one of the least bad options for trying to do that. I hope that they will take on board the need to work away at some solutions to the underlying problem of individual categories such as young drivers who may find this to be another increment on top of a difficult situation.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
In responding to the debate, I hope to touch on many of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members.
Clause 43 increases the standard rate of insurance premium tax to 9.5%. The policy will increase the revenue raised from the tax and help to close the deficit.
Before I turn to the amendment, I will cover some of the points that have been mentioned. I confirm that the insurance charge includes the gross premium that the insurer chargers, including the broker commission and any other directly related costs. It is a charge on the insurer rather than on the individual. It is due on general insurance, which accounts for approximately one fifth of insurance premiums. As we have heard, it includes motor insurance, home insurance, employers liability insurance and medical insurance.
Some 80% of the insurance market is exempt, including reinsurance, long-term insurance such as life insurance and permanent health insurance, and the permanent health insurance that is used to pay for critical illness insurance.
Travel insurance and insurance that people purchase on warranties with, for example, white goods, is already charged at the considerably higher rate of 20% to prevent VAT avoidance. That, too, is unaffected by the change. It is important to remember that there is no VAT overall on insurance.
The new rate for the taxable insurance premiums will begin to apply with effect from 1 November 2015. In the tax year 2016-17, it will raise an extra £1.4 billion, which can be used to reduce the deficit. If insurers pass on the increase, it will affect businesses and households, particularly by increasing the cost of their property and motor insurance. However, we expect that any impact on consumers will be modest. Most households and businesses have some form of general insurance and any impact of a rate rise is therefore shared by a large number of people and organisations, as we have heard. To give some idea of what that means, if insurers chose to pass on the whole increase, the average household expenditure on insurance would increase by 70p per week.
We do not anticipate that the tax increase will reduce the number of people taking out general insurance. Even if insurers choose to pass on the increase, any increased costs will be a very small proportion of the overall cost of insurance. As the insurance market is competitive, customers affected by the change can shop around to find a policy that best fits their needs.
Barbara Keeley
I hope the Minister will address the point I made about the impact of insurance costs on unemployed people. I quoted BBC research, but work done for MoneySavingExpert.com found that there is an enormous differential when people lose their jobs. In one case, insurance for an office manager to insure her vehicle went from £359 a year to £1,034. It is all right to talk about averages of £10 here or £12 there, or even £50 for young people, but insurance premiums can be disproportionately increased by unemployment. That point was made in the social media debate on the Budget, and that is one reason why I have taken it seriously. The increase is unfair, because it hits people straight away when they become unemployed. We must start to reflect on that.
Harriett Baldwin
I will come to the distributional points raised by questions from hon. Members but, with the greatest respect, the situation the hon. Lady describes would be unaffected by the changes the Government propose this afternoon.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that the increase must be seen in the context of significant Government action to reduce costs for the insurance industry and for motorists. We are taking a lot of action to reduce insurance fraud. According to the Association of British Insurers, insurance fraud alone adds an average of £50 a year to average household insurance costs. Our previous action to reduce the cost of fraudulent claims includes a ban on referral fees in personal injury cases and reform of the regulation of whiplash claims. Those actions have been welcomed by both industry and consumer groups. The insurance fraud taskforce is due to report at the end of the year with suggestions on how further to reduce the cost of insurance fraud.
In the summer Budget 2015, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further consultation to establish how to introduce a cap on fees charged by claims management companies, and a fundamental review of the regulation of claims management companies, which is due to report in 2016. I note with interest the point my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made about banning outbound calls. More generally, the Financial Conduct Authority is working on how to encourage people to shop around for insurance, which will ensure that people find the best deal for their circumstances and that the market remains competitive.
The Government have been working hard with the insurance industry to develop the Flood Re scheme, which will continue to allow insurers to offer affordable home insurance. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I both have constituencies where there are a lot of flood-prone properties—I pay close interest to the topic. Of course, properties built after 2009 will be exempt from the scheme because we do not want to incentivise builders to build in flood-prone areas.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. She and I come across the same sorts of issues in our casework, and a lot of London is built on a flood plain. In some cases, I have had to work with specialist insurance broking to find a broker service. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association is very useful in that regard. I am sure she and I will continue to pay close heed to how the Flood Re scheme is delivering for our constituents.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of motor insurance, particularly for young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked whether technology could help young people with the costs of their insurance. Young people can currently take the opportunity to install a telematic device. Many insurers will reduce the cost of motor insurance in those situations.
I am able to reassure hon. Members on the impact on young drivers’ insurance premiums. Young drivers pay a much higher premium at the moment, but the overall cost impact of this change for young drivers in their 20s is estimated to be 25 pence a week and the overall impact for a driver aged 17 or 18 about £1 a week. Obviously, all tax increases are unwelcome, but this needs to be set against the fact that drivers are currently saving about £9 every time they fill up their vehicles.
Barbara Keeley
The figures I was given from the industry were that the increase in duty alone on the average premium paid by a young driver would be from £90 to £142.50. That is not 50p or 25p a week; that is £1 a week. Various points have been made about fuel duty, but this is a tax that has to be paid. This is a very serious increase for young people who are being hit in the other ways that I outlined.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right to point out the overall context; this measure should not be seen in isolation. The cost to businesses was mentioned earlier. I am sure that Members will welcome the fact that, according to the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, the overall cost of insuring a commercial vehicle has fallen by more than 13% in the past 12 months alone.
I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ questions, particularly those about young drivers and household flood insurance. In particular, I want to support the points my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made about personal injury claims management.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I must stress that most households will see very little impact from the increase in the standard rate of insurance premium tax. It will remain at a low rate compared with many other countries and will certainly not make the UK a less attractive place to do business. I therefore ask that clause 43 stand part of the Bill and request that amendment 1, tabled by Opposition Members, be withdrawn.
Barbara Keeley
I do not propose to withdraw the amendment. The reason for it is the lack of a full analysis of where the impact of the increase will be felt and the groups that will be most affected. I have been quite disturbed by the complacent attitude of some Government Members, including the Minister. I have quoted many senior industry figures on the impact on their business and industry and the strength of their feelings about this tax, which they have called a stealth tax. I will quote some additional comments. Janet Connor, managing director of AA Insurance, said:
“That premiums have been falling seems to be the Chancellor’s justification for the tax increase but he is wrong. His timing couldn’t have been worse; not only are premiums starting to rise but the tax can only lead to even greater premium increases than could otherwise be expected over coming months.”
She continued:
“There is no justification for this underhand and unfair tax increase.”
I have quoted various insurance organisations, but the ABI said:
“UK drivers benefit from one of the most competitive motor insurance markets in the world. But with pressure on claims costs”,
which some Government Members have recognised,
“and an increase in insurance premium tax adding an additional £12.80 to the cost of the average policy…other factors are starting to put up costs.”
The key thing is that a range of factors are in play, despite our having had a successful couple of years, which has reduced premiums and rates. I hope Ministers will not continue to be complacent about the cost of premiums for young drivers and the danger of under-insurance or no insurance.
Graeme Trudgill, the executive director of the British Insurance Brokers Association, has said:
“Insurance has been seen as a special case in terms of taxation as it is a social good”.
Ministers seem to be ignoring the fact that it is a special case, in that it is a social good. We must take that into account.
Barbara Keeley
No, I will not.
Mr Trudgill went on to say:
“Young drivers are the most over-represented age group for uninsured driving and increasing the cost of their motor insurance further is likely to increase the level of uninsured driving, which we are aware has now started to deteriorate.
The increase completely undermines the constructive work that the industry and government have done in the past few years to tackle fraud—particularly with regard to whiplash claims—which previously saw premiums soar.”
Ministers and Government Members should be clear that what they are doing is hitting the industry at a point when premiums have started to go in the wrong direction and the good work that has been done could be undermined.
I want to leave Government Members with a couple of other points about this amendment. The AA calculates that uninsured drivers cost the insurance industry around £380 million a year and add £33 to cost of every motor insurance policy. Finally, the Motor Insurers Bureau reports that 2.8% of UK motorists—and about 1 million vehicles on the road—are estimated to be driving without insurance. That is the risk that the Minister is taking.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are going to help his constituents to buy their own home. The Help to Buy scheme has helped 100,000 people; the new Help to Buy ISA will help the families he represents save up for that deposit; and of course we all still want to see more starter homes being built. We have to address the acute housing shortage in London, and we have the policies to do it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Why are the Government abandoning people with savings and those who own their own homes? They are going to be forced to spend their savings and sell their homes to pay for their social care costs. The Chancellor raised the hopes of those older and vulnerable people before the election with a pledge that no one would have to sell their home to pay for care. Those people will feel badly let down by the Government’s U-turn. Did he ever intend to keep that manifesto pledge?
Mr Osborne
We are going to introduce that cap on care costs in this Parliament. It is a bit rich coming from a Labour party that was in power for 13 years and did absolutely nothing to cap those costs. That is why we are introducing the cap. We have also already introduced the changes that enable people to provide for their future care costs without having to sell their home. We are making those changes, alongside the support for savers and pensions, so that we move away from the society and economy built on debt that was left to this Government to an economy that builds and rewards savers.
Finance Bill
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
I disagree. By 2020, the living wage will be £9, because that is the level at which we have set it. For the lowest-paid workers in the country, that has to be a huge advantage. I cannot believe that Opposition Members are actually disagreeing with a proposal to increase the wages of the lowest earners.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is imputing various motives and feelings to Opposition Members, and is not doing so reasonably. May I point out to her that a living wage that took full account of the take-up of tax credits would be well over £11? The level set by the Chancellor is not that level, which is why this is not a national living wage.
Maria Caulfield
I assume that Opposition Members will support the wage increase for the lowest earners. I am pleased to see the hon. Lady nod in agreement.
However, we are doing more than just increasing the national living wage. We are also reducing the tax that people pay, not only by raising tax thresholds but by freezing national insurance, VAT and fuel duty levels for this year, to ensure that they have more money in their pockets.
Let me now say something about housing. It is, again, the Conservatives who are helping those on low incomes to reduce their outgoings by lowering social housing rents by 1% a year for the next four years. Opposition Members feel that they cannot support that move, and will either oppose it or abstain. That, I think, shows their true measure. However, the Bill goes a step further by ensuring that social housing occupied by people who have done well, and are earning more than £30,000 a year outside London or £40,000 inside London, will no longer be subsidised by hard-working taxpayers who may be earning less than that themselves. Instead, those people will pay market rents—the same market rents that others in the same position pay in the private housing sector.
In addition, to increase the supply of affordable housing, the Chancellor has announced an increase in the rent-a-room relief, which will enable people to rent rooms without having to pay tax that acts as a penalty. The tax relief for buy-to-let landlords will be reduced, too. That will level the playing field for ordinary families trying to get on the housing ladder, who have been in competition with buy-to-let landlords who have previously been at a significant advantage.
Lucy Frazer
I am answering the question. It is interesting that the Opposition were pushing for less austerity but now, when the Chancellor increases the time frame in which he wants to make the changes, the hon. Lady opposes it.
The Bill reduces taxes on working people by further increasing the personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016. The living wage will improve the lives of many people across the country. With tax credits, people are often penalised by deciding to change their hours because they lose far too much of their earnings. The Budget changes that.
It is worth noting that Labour has proposed no amendments of any nature to the Bill, which suggests that, at the very least, not everyone in the Labour party is opposed to all of it.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. and learned Lady is just not right on the detail. This is not the time for amendments today; this is Second Reading. We will table many amendments; she just needs to wait.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for that intervention. But clearly it is the time, because the SNP has tabled an amendment, and so have the Greens.
Tommy Sheppard
I agree with my hon. Friend and was just about to make that point, which has been endorsed by the IFS and others. The personal allowance is one lever we can use to enable people to keep more of what they earn, but we should not fool ourselves that it is going to do something about the lowest paid in our society and that it is the only thing we should do. Let us compare and contrast it with action on the work allowance, for example, which is the amount of money people are allowed to earn before they begin to lose benefit. As my hon. Friend said, increasing that by £1,000 would have a much better effect than increasing the personal allowance by £1,000.
Our manifesto had a proposal to increase the work allowance to 20% to allow people to keep more of the money they earn. That would also provide a powerful incentive for people either to go out and get higher paid work or to get more work, knowing they would be able to benefit from that and would not lose benefits as a consequence. Under these current proposals, however, someone who today has a part-time job earning, say, £5,000 a year will either lose benefits or have to work less and earn less than £5,000 to keep their benefits. Either way, their household income will go down. That will make the poorest in our society poorer still, and it is a serious indictment of this Government that that is the direction they are going in.
On inheritance tax, I do not think any Member of this House would suggest for one minute that people should not be allowed to pass on their good fortune to their children. All of us believe in that, but this is the question: when doing that, should the luckiest in our society who have benefited the most, as well as passing most of what they have on to their children, also make some contribution to other people’s children and society as a whole? That is why we have taxation, after all. Governments and their policies are about priorities and this Government have shown their priority is to look after people who live in £1 million houses and make the tax burden easier for them while clobbering the poorest in our society.
I also want to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), who proposed our amendment, and ask the Minister to examine in the context of this Bill the serious value added tax anomaly that has built up in Scotland with our police and fire and rescue services. There is an opportunity to remove this anomaly whereby the forces in Scotland are the only ones in all of these islands that have to pay VAT. Police Scotland has to pay £23 million a year to the Exchequer. That is extremely unfair and it places a great burden on that service. The money would be better spent on police officers on the streets defending us against crime. Given the Government’s apparent commitment to doing something about crime in our society, I hope they will take that on board. If Ministers cannot deal with this point in today’s debate, perhaps they will at least give an undertaking to look into it as the Bill goes to Committee.
The insurance premium tax measure is a clear example of this Bill’s policies not being about those who can afford to pay the most and who have the broadest shoulders and are able to cope with this burden. Those who live in high-crime areas are usually in poorer households and poorer communities, and they will face heavier insurance bills—if, indeed, they can afford to buy insurance. As a result of this policy, we are taxing people who have to pay those premiums in those areas more than people in the leafy suburbs who are much better able to pay. This is an iniquitous, devious little measure, and it should be rejected.
I have two further points to make. First, there is the most interesting question of this entire debate—and we have sat here for hours now. It is, where are Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition? I was taken aback when I heard the Labour party’s representative say that it would abstain on this Bill, so I spent an hour out of the Chamber doing a little research. On 6 July 2010, the Labour party voted against the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. On 26 April 2011, the Labour party voted against the Finance Bill on Second Reading. Members may see where I am going with this. On 16 April 2012, there was a Division on Second Reading and Labour voted against the Finance Bill. On 15 April 2013, there was a Division on Second Reading of the Finance Bill and Labour voted against it. On 1 April 2014, Labour voted for its own reasoned amendment and then against Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
For five years the Opposition have voted against the Government’s Finance Bill on its Second Reading. Can it possibly be that the difference then was that it was a coalition Finance Bill put forward with the Liberal Democrats, and that, now, the Opposition find this Finance Bill, put forward just by the Conservative party, to be more acceptable? Even I would find that incredibly implausible, so I urge and plead with Labour Members, because the country needs better than this. The people who did not vote for the Conservative party—63% of them—expect it to be opposed in this Chamber, and, even if Labour Members agree with one or two things in the Bill, surely they can see that its overall rubric and intent is to penalise those people in society whom they should stand up for. I appeal to Labour Members to reconsider their position on this issue and to join us in the Lobby tonight as we vote against the Bill on its Second Reading.
My final point is this: in my country this Government have no mandate to bring forward these proposals. They got 14% of the votes in Scotland; they have one out of 59 Scottish MPs. Our country is completely opposed to the Bill, and the people have sent us here with a mandate to oppose it. That more than anything else shows the need for these measures to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament—in order that the Scottish Government can deliver to the Scottish people their own democratic wishes and the type of society that they want to see.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. It seems that it is third time lucky.
We have had a lively debate. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).
Last week, the Labour Opposition voted against the Budget, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary, described as “unfair” and “regressive” and
“not equal to the challenges that we face as a country.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 768.]
This is the context in which we start our scrutiny of the summer Finance Bill. There has been much rhetoric and spin from Ministers but little acknowledgment of the hardship that the Government’s measures will cause to more than 3 million people on low incomes. We heard much on that point today.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East challenged my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary on Labour’s stance on the general direction of the Finance Bill. I am not a Hansard writer, so I do not claim that this is absolutely verbatim, but it is worth repeating what my hon. Friend said, which was that Labour disputes the Government’s characterisation of the measures in the Budget and the Bill. We do not see them as they see them. They use these descriptions of national living wage, working people and so on, but we do not see it that way. However—this is an important point—the measures we oppose are not all in this Bill. Some will be in delegated legislation. I hope that explains our position to the hon. Gentleman.
Given the hardship that the Budget’s measures will cause to 3 million families on low incomes and that we debated yesterday, the tax lock is of course welcome. However, there were giveaways in this Budget, which are detailed in the Finance Bill, such as the cut to inheritance tax. That featured a number of times in the debate. I want to question the priorities that are behind the choices made by this Government. Whenever we talk about increases to the national minimum wage, we must bear in mind, as many Members have done, that the cuts to tax credits more than outweigh those wage increases. My hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to outline our opposition to these regressive measures that will hit more than 3 million working people. Despite the gimmick of the tax lock on VAT and income tax, the Government’s other tax increases will also have an impact on families over and above the impact from cuts in tax credits.
Ian Blackford
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned Labour’s opposition to the impact of the tax credits, but there is concern on the SNP Benches and elsewhere in the country—this goes to the heart of the matter—that people who will be affected by the Budget and what is happening in this Finance Bill need leadership. It is that failure to give leadership—to oppose, as the Opposition party in this House—and to stand up for people who are affected by these measures on which the Labour Opposition will be judged.
Barbara Keeley
I do not believe that is the case. We have been through the whole of the last Parliament being the official Opposition and we are still in that position again after the election, much to our chagrin. I know there are a lot of new Members in the House, but I must say that a Bill does not pass through the Commons in one sitting—it does not pass through the Commons in one day—because it goes to Committee. When we come back in September we will have a Committee of the whole House, and we have started to table amendments for debate on those days. There are also Public Bill Committee sittings, Report and Third Reading, so there are many occasions when speeches can be made.
Alex Salmond
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, the Labour Opposition have divided the House on the Finance Bill for every Budget since 2010. What is it about this Budget—this extraordinary, regressive Budget—that makes it such that the Labour party does not want to support our opposition to it?
Barbara Keeley
I have made the point about the characterisation of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman will have to take my word for it that some earlier Finance Bills contained all the measures that were in the Budget. Much of this Budget is split. It is not all in this Bill or the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Some of it will be in delegated legislation. There will be plenty of opportunities to make the arguments he puts. Opposing at this point is not the only thing that we can do as an Opposition, and Members will just have to take my word for that.
Despite the gimmick of the tax lock on VAT and income tax, the Government’s other tax increases will have an impact on families over and above the impact from cuts in tax credits, as I said. The rate of insurance premium tax is increasing by more than 50%, which will be a hit to the cost of insurance for the family home, the family car and family holidays. A number of hon. Members referred to that. Insurance industry experts have raised concerns about the impact that this tax increase could have on the take-up of insurance. They have warned that it may mean policyholders buy less cover, in effect “taxing protection”. Half the poorest households do not have home contents insurance, and those households are more than three times as likely to be burgled as those with insurance. That leaves low-income households less financially able to replace goods lost through burglary, fire or flood. That point obviously was not understood by the hon. Member who mentioned it earlier.
We have welcomed the increase in the minimum wage set out in clauses 3 and 4. The Government are adopting a Labour policy to increase the value of the national minimum wage, a measure we introduced in 1998 in the face of fierce opposition—one could almost say ferocious opposition—from Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke effectively about implementing the real living wage and about the safety net that tax credits can provide as people move in and out of low-paid work. We had a number of useful interventions in which hon. Members clarified the status of the real national living wage versus the increased national minimum wage. Leaving aside that issue, it would help if the Chancellor got his facts right. In an article in The Guardian yesterday, he claimed that 2.7 million people would gain £5,000 each from the increase to the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission tells us that there are, in fact, 1.4 million people in minimum wage jobs, including only 1.2 million people who are over 21. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Chancellor persists in using such incorrect figures.
There is real concern about the impact of minimum wage increases on social care provision, funded through local authority budgets, if the Government do not fund the increase in the minimum wage as it is a new burden on local authorities. The care sector is one of the lowest-paid sectors. The planned increases in the national minimum wage for care workers have been estimated by the Local Government Association to cost £330 million this year, rising to £1 billion a year by 2020. The Opposition believe that low-paid care workers should have a wage increase, but we obviously need to find ways to fund it that do not involve further cuts to care or other local authority services. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who was leader of her council, has battled through that, as have other local authority leaders.
Ministers are clearly in a mess over the funding of social care. Since the Budget, the Government have abandoned their manifesto pledge to cap care costs from next year, as we heard in Treasury questions this morning. Indeed, the vice-president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said that the pressures of rising demand, punitively reduced budgets and the impending obligation to pay increased wages all
“put an intolerable strain on social care finance.”
Abandoning the care cap seems to be a short-term palliative to those funding issues, but it will come at a high cost to people living with dementia and other long-term conditions.
The Opposition therefore question the Government’s priorities. Bringing in the nil-rate band of inheritance tax for properties worth up to £1 million when the property passes to direct descendants will cost almost £1 billion by 2020 onwards, yet families of people who need social care for long periods can lose nearly all the value of their homes through paying for care. It seems, unless the Minister can enlighten us otherwise, that there is no ray of hope for them in this Parliament.
The IFS has described the removal of the climate change levy exemption on renewables as a measure that makes “no economic sense”. Friends of the Earth has said that the change shifts the climate change levy from a carbon tax to just a tax on all electricity consumed. A number of interventions and speeches touched on that.
Andrew Gwynne
Of course, we should not be surprised about the changes to the climate change levy, given that the Government have already signalled their direction of travel through their proposed changes to onshore wind. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a retrograde step, given that the United Kingdom is such a leader in renewable energy?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed I do. My hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary noted that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has suggested having some kind of audit and report on the way forward for the sector, which would be very helpful.
The removal of that exemption will come at a cost to companies and to the environment. It makes little sense to remove the exemption for renewable energy generators in the UK. It will not only increase tax on business consumption of energy, but reduce the relationship between the tax paid and the carbon content of the energy, as a number of Members have noted. The Opposition believe that the Government should be encouraging the renewables sector to develop and grow. Cutting green subsidies risks being a false economy and may cost the UK economy more in the long term.
It is right that banks should pay their fair share of tax. The bank levy, as many Members have noted, was designed to discourage risky borrowing. Now the Government plan to reduce the bank levy gradually. Instead, banks will be subject to an 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits from January 2016. The IFS estimates that the change to the bank levy will cost the Exchequer £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards, whereas the 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits will raise only £1.3 billion.
There is a question of priorities here. Is it fair at this time, when working families are going to be made worse off by the Government’s plans, to reduce the levy paid by the banks in that way? The Minister will probably say that it will make money in the longer term, but many concerns have been raised. The IFS and other organisations have raised concerns about the possibility of perverse incentives and disproportionate impacts on parts of the banking sector.
We want to ensure that the Bill helps to create a system in which banks are taxed proportionately and fairly. A number of concerns were raised about the impact of the corporation tax surcharge on bank profits on building societies and challenger banks. We clearly need to examine the issue closely in Committee of the whole House.
On tax avoidance, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in his place, was asked whether £5 billion was small beer. Certainly, our Labour target for tax avoidance was £7.5 billion by the middle of this Parliament, and Labour Members have raised many points of concern about tax avoidance, including on the importance of going further to close the “Mayfair” loophole. We will return to those tax avoidance issues later in our scrutiny of the Bill.
Although we agree with some measures in the Bill, others obviously need to be amended. It is clear that the Budget, and hence the Finance Bill, together with the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will have a regressive impact, and the Finance Bill highlights the wrong priorities chosen by this Government. The Chancellor claimed that his Budget was moving us to a low-tax society, when tax increases are actually at twice the level of tax cuts. Budget giveaways, like the cut to inheritance tax, look like the wrong priority when they are viewed against measures to penalise 3 million of the lowest-income households by £1,000 a year. Families will also be penalised when they take out insurance on their family car or home contents, if they can still afford to take out insurance on their car and home contents. A point which I come back to because it is so important is that the Government’s priorities mean that one group of families, with homes to a value of £1 million, are to be protected from inheritance tax, while the families of people needing social care over long periods will have no cap on the costs of their care.
We will return to the issues of bank taxation, the insurance premium tax and the climate change levy in our debates in Committee in September, and I hope Ministers will have time in between for more reflection on their priorities.
This is not the pre-recess Adjournment debate, but a number of good wishes have been expressed and I should like to add to them. I will take a chance here and wish the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) happy birthday; I am sure I made a mess of the pronunciation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish all Members of the House a good recess and wish all the Officers and you a good summer, with some time off for a break before we return.
Damian Hinds
I must make progress. I must respond to several points that were raised in the debate.
This Bill takes the next steps towards Britain’s sustained economic security, putting us on the right path towards meeting our ambition to be the most prosperous major economy in the world within a generation. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, the Bill is not about everything that is in the Budget. The Finance Bill is limited in scope specifically to tax measures intended for general expenditure. The national living wage is not within its scope, but as the direct question came up of how the Government would bring it in, I confirm that we will be making regulations to introduce it for April 2016.
I want to respond to a number of other points. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) suggested that changes to inheritance tax were only to protect the rich. As a result of rising house prices, inheritance tax increasingly hits people with normal family homes and, without action, the number of estates facing an IHT bill was forecast to double from about 35,000 in 2014-15 to 63,000 in 2021. As he will know, there are provisions such that it is clawed back from the very largest estates so that the wealthiest people do not in fact benefit.
The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and others mentioned the so-called Mayfair loophole and the treatment of carried interest. Carried interest is treated as a capital gain in the UK, as in most other jurisdictions, because it is not exactly the same as a salary; it reflects the return to the manager in terms of some of the investment risk that they have undertaken. That is aligned to the tax treatment applied to other investors.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath spoke powerfully about the vital and sometimes dangerous work done by the emergency services in Scotland, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), and asked about VAT treatment. The discontinuation of local funding for police and fire and rescue services in Scotland was a decision by the Scottish Government, not the UK Government. The Scottish Government were explicitly advised of the VAT consequences of that reorganisation. Because these bodies are no longer funded through local taxation, the rationale for providing exemption under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 does not apply.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), apart from his very engaging mini-debate with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), asked about take-up of the employment allowance in Northern Ireland. It has been taken up by 27,000 businesses—an 84% take-up rate, which is a wee bit below the UK average, but fairly close to it. Of course, we must continue to draw attention to its benefits.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green rightly talked about the vital role of childcare in enabling productivity gains. She mentioned particularly the importance of enabling mums to return to the workplace sooner if they so wish. I am sure that she will therefore welcome our increasing the facility for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talked about the productivity problem. I am sure he would not suggest that it is a new problem, but if he had, it would have been misleading, as it has been around for a long time. I make no apology for the fact that in 2010, facing the economic crisis that we did, the very top priority of the incoming Government was to keep people in work. The success of that approach has been reflected in the 2 million jobs created over the past five years.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for East Antrim asked about what would happen with vehicle excise duty in Northern Ireland. Devolved Administrations will of course continue to get funding for roads through the Barnett formula, and they could establish a specific fund for their roads if they chose.
We heard a number of other excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) reminded us of the context of the deficit. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) said that it was easy to come up with reasons for not doing things now but that now is the right time to get on with these important measures. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) talked about the importance of businesses in creating jobs, and welcomed the apprenticeships levy.
Fairness was at the fore of the debate a number of times. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) put it very well when he said that we believe in a low-tax economy in which everyone pays their fair share. He is correct that our plans include improved tax recovery. It is partly because of that that we can ensure that everyone, especially the low-paid, can keep more of what they earn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) noted.
Indeed, we have always believed that working people should be free to keep more of the money they earn. That is one of the most powerful incentives to aspiration. During the last Parliament, we increased the personal allowance from the £6,475 we inherited to £10,600. Clauses 5 and 6 will increase the personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18, and increase the higher rate threshold to £43,000 and to £43,600 respectively. As a result, nearly 600,000 more individuals will be taken out of income tax by 2016-17. These are important steps towards the Government’s ambition to increase the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of the Parliament. We will ensure that, when that is achieved, the personal allowance will be uprated in line with the national minimum wage so that no one working 30 hours on the national minimum wage will pay income tax.
Damian Hinds
I had better continue, as I still have several of points to which I need to respond.
The Finance Bill provides further certainty for the people of this country by legislating for the income tax and VAT elements of the tax lock in clauses 1 and 2, which delivers our manifesto commitment to rule out in law any increases in the main rates of income tax, VAT or national insurance for the duration of this Parliament.
Finally, the Finance Bill recognises and rewards the natural aspiration to own your own home not just as a place to live, but as a piece of security, an asset to invest in through your working life, to take with you into retirement and one day to be able to pass on to your children.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad that the Minister has managed to spare some time out of the 90 or so minutes that remain. I raised the issue of the care cap, to which he has not responded at all. It will cost £1 billion to bring in the nil-rate band on inheritance tax. The Minister talked about childcare, but he has not touched on that particular point. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady. The Members who have been in the Chamber for the whole debate will wish to hear her and the Minister’s answer. If other people, who have not been here for the debate, wish to have conversations, they can have them outside the Chamber.
Barbara Keeley
Will the Minister respond to the point I raised: is it reasonable to spend £1 billion so that people can pass on the value of their homes while others—people with dementia and other long-term conditions—can lose everything they have and all the value of their home through paying down care costs?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady will know that we still intend to bring forward the cap. It has had to be delayed, but we intend to do it during this Parliament. The Budget delivers for all the people of this country, including those who work hard, save hard and want to be able to pass on an asset to their children. In the Bill, we introduce a new £175,000 per person transferable allowance when a person’s home is passed on at death to their children or grandchildren. With the allowance, married couples and civil partners can now pass on an estate worth up to £1 million before having to pay any inheritance tax.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly
The word “community” is key, because businesses are as much a part of any geographical community as the people who live in it. We lose sight of that at our peril.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I feel the need to defend my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, who is being unfairly attacked by Conservative Members. It is being said that he did not even mention business in his opening speech. [Interruption.] I am one of the people on this side of the House who does have a business background; I have a very substantial background in the IT sector, supporting manufacturing industry up and down the country. An extensive section of my hon. Friend’s speech addressed the need to do something about business rates, but there was no answer from the Secretary of State on that point. I think—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have briefer interventions.
James Cleverly
It does not matter what my hon. Friend or I think, or what Labour Members think; what matters is what businesspeople think, and the feedback I had—
James Cleverly
I am running short of time and have been very generous in taking interventions, so if the hon. Lady forgives me I will continue.
The message that came through loud and clear on the doorsteps when I visited businesses in my constituency during the election campaign was that they did not feel that the Labour party understood them or was sympathetic to their plight. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked me specifically about business rates. We are going to have a business rates review—
James Cleverly
I am not a member of the Government. The hon. Lady needs to take that up with a member of the Government. If anyone wants to make me a member of the Government, however, my door is always open.
Small businesses need a tax and regulatory framework that is sympathetic to their needs, but they also need interventions that will unlock their potential. I am unapologetic that I am now going to mention the need for broadband in rural Britain, and I shall continue to mention it almost every time I get to my feet in the Chamber. I recently visited a business in my constituency, ESco Business Services Ltd. It provides services to the magazine industry, dealing with magazine subscriptions and prizes and so on. It is a digitally enabled business, and much of its work is done online. It is in a building in the middle of the countryside, near the picturesque village of Finchingfield. It provides good quality, well-paid local employment, and it relies absolutely on good quality digital connectivity, without which it would be unable to locate where it is. Instead, it would be forced to locate in a nearby city such as Cambridge, or even in London. If we are to spread economic activity in this country away from London, it is really important that we open the door to businesses such as ESco to allow them to locate where the potential employees are, rather than where the broadband is.
I echo the point made about road investment, and I make no apology for once again mentioning the A120, which is sorely in need of attention. My Government understand the needs of small businesses—I am far from convinced that the Labour party does—which is why I welcome the Budget and will be supporting it in the Lobby later.
European Union (Finance) Bill
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I will certainly make that point. It was estimated by the European Commission to be of the value of €9 billion over the previous MFF period. In this MFF period, it would be in the region of £2 billion a year, which would be a considerable loss. The Government will not be repeating that.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I would like to take the Minister back to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), because the Minister did not really answer him. In an article in The Sunday Times this week, one Conservative MP said of the Prime Minister’s intentions that he was keeping things up his sleeve, and that:
“He’ll try to negotiate a lower net contribution to the budget.”
It is definitely being said that the Prime Minister is holding that in reserve. Will the Minister comment on that?
Mr Gauke
We have consistently argued the case for money being spent more wisely and for greater European Union public spending restraint. We have already made progress with that argument—we made progress in 2013 and the Bill relates to the negotiation, although it is on the revenue rather than the expenditure side. We will consistently argue that case.
Barbara Keeley
I invite the Minister to remind himself of a similar debate we had in January 2008, in which he and his hon. Friends on the then shadow Treasury team tabled a strikingly similar new clause that asked for a report on the review by the European Commission covering all aspects of EU spending. It was a very robust debate and he was a signatory to that new clause. He rejects my new clause, but it is very similar to the one he tabled in 2008.
Mr Gauke
I am tempted to point to the remarks made by the hon. Lady’s colleagues in setting out the reasons why that new clause should have been rejected. She might not have been persuaded, but I am tempted to say that six years on, after much reflection, I can see some value in them. The stronger argument I would perhaps make is that in contrast to what happened some years ago, when the previous Labour Government negotiated away part of our rebate, we have just had a successful negotiation in 2013. Let me set out the progress that is being made on that agenda. If I may, I will give a little detail on the substance, putting aside the point that the Bill focuses on the revenue, rather than the expenditure, side of things.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Let me come straight to new clause 3, as he has raised that point.
Along with many across Europe, we share the concern that lies behind new clause 3 that the EU is not sufficiently accountable to EU citizens. Hon. Members will need no reminding that the Prime Minister has already made it clear that strengthening the role of national Parliaments is a central tenet of his reform programme. Within the existing legal framework, the Government already take the role of national Parliaments in scrutinising EU proposals very seriously. That is why, when the European Parliament requested the formation of a high-level group on own resources to review the EU financing system, we insisted that national Parliaments, as well as the European institutions, were given a voice as part of the consultation. We therefore amended the joint declaration on the formation of the group explicitly to take account of input from national Parliaments.
We do all we can to ensure the transparent and effective scrutiny of each year’s annual budget negotiations. An explanatory memorandum is deposited as soon as possible after the publication of the draft EU budget each year. That is followed by debates in both Houses and regular ministerial updates at significant stages of the negotiation process.
We are committed to working with both scrutiny Committees to make this process as efficient and effective as possible for all parties. However, we believe that requiring the Government to write to invited officials to appear before the scrutiny Committees would add little to the scrutiny process and would be a very peculiar precedent, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It would add little because the Committees can, and have, invited officials to appear before them. For example, in June 2014, Nadia Calvino, the Director-General of the European Commission budget, gave evidence to the Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee.
It really should not be the place of Government to determine who the scrutiny Committees should see. It is for the Committees of both Houses to decide for themselves who should appear before them and when. It would be a peculiar precedent for the Executive to begin to interfere with that freedom, no matter how benign the initial intention.
Barbara Keeley
I appreciate the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stone, but the Minister cannot have it both ways. In a debate in October 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), speaking for the Government, complained strongly—I referred to this in a previous debate—that Ministers had asked the Commission to model costs of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion in relation to staffing. That very reasonable request was bounced back with the very insulting comment:
“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.
If the Minister is expecting us to believe him, when such a simple request on a staffing issue is not taken seriously, then we do have some points to make.
Mr Gauke
I will return to that point. My remarks, when the hon. Lady intervened, were in respect of new clause 3 and the European Scrutiny Committee. I have been very clear that it would be a curious thing to do to place this in legislation and for the Executive to take that role upon themselves. I very much echo the remarks made on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.
Mr Gauke
In the case of new clause 2, which relates to how we deal with the way in which the Council of Ministers works, we are making progress and taking action, which includes cutting the budget. In the case of new clause 1, I do not need to undertake to write a letter calling for the Commission to do something that it is already doing. As for new clause 3. I have already made it clear that I do not think it would be appropriate for us to impose on members of the European Scrutiny Committee something that is a matter for them.
Barbara Keeley
I am slightly surprised that the Minister is unable to take on board what was actually a very sensible suggestion. He says that overall budget restraint is sufficient, and that there is no need for a focus on “waste and inefficiency”. As I mentioned earlier, back in 2012, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells tried to introduce measures to reduce the staffing budget and asked for modelling, but that request was rejected. Commission representatives should not feel that they can bounce back to UK Ministers simple requests that really would help decision making.
Time and again, Members on both sides of the House raise issues relating to the Commission’s staffing costs. If that is the response that the Minister has been receiving—he is not admitting it today, but the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned it during another debate—we really must press the matter. It is not good enough simply to accept that everything is fine and we do not have a problem. We must push the case for enhanced scrutiny.
Mr Gauke
We care a great deal about eliminating waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The question is how we should do that. Let me say first that, if we can reduce the MFF, that will place a much greater onus on the Commission to eliminate wasteful expenditure.
The hon. Lady made a perfectly fair point about what happened back in 2012. However, the Prime Minister’s negotiation triumph in 2013 has reduced the MFF, and we are now seeing signs—which we were not seeing three years ago—that the Commission is focusing much more on the issue. Vice-President Georgieva described the 2015 budget, which was agreed last December, as
“a budget of responsibility… a tight budget that reflects the tight fiscal conditions in our Member States.”
She said that it was
“a very focused budget, focused on the priorities that we have established in the new Commission.”
She added:
“It is directed towards investments in competitiveness, for instance supporting the innovative nature of our businesses. It is also a budget where tight controls on spending will allow us to achieve the best possible results.”
Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which focuses on better rather than more spending, has come about as a direct result of the imposition of restraint at the top. The United Kingdom is engaging constructively with the initiative, and is working actively with the Commission to ensure that momentum is maintained through regular meetings at political and technical levels. We are working with our allies to increase support for the initiative and to ensure that all member states are represented in discussions. We look forward to the first meeting of the inter-institutional working group in mid-July and to contributing to the “budget for results” conference in September.
Because of what we have achieved in reducing the budget, we are seeing a culture change, but we need to ensure that the momentum is maintained. If the Labour party supports that, I am delighted, but we must remember that it was Labour that surrendered part of our rebate and failed to impose the discipline that we needed.
Barbara Keeley
Again, I am surprised by the Minister’s response. Let me remind him of a point that I made on Second Reading. When Labour Members voted with rebels in the Conservative party, they strengthened the Prime Minister’s hand before he went into negotiations by insisting that the MFF be cut. The Minister really ought to acknowledge that. Surely it helps if, on every occasion, Members in all parts of the House can be strong in saying that we want enhanced scrutiny, and that is what we are trying to do through our new clauses today.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady has asked a good question. In the context of the review that the Commission is undertaking and the focus on a budget for results, transparency is certainly important. The Government’s record is clear: we want more transparency in relation to all expenditure, whether at UK or EU level, and I think that more can be done in that regard.
The hon. Member for Worsley made an important point about administrative expenditure. As part of the MFF deal, EU staff salaries were frozen in 2013-14, and EU institutions committed themselves to a 5% headcount reduction by 2017 and an increase in statutory pension age to 66 for officials who started work in or after 2014. I would be the first to accept that those reforms do not go far enough, but, working with like-minded member states, the Government will continue to press the EU institutions to show maximum restraint when it comes to administrative expenditure.
Barbara Keeley
Are this Minister and other Ministers having more success than their right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells had back in 2012, when the European Commission dismissed his very reasonable request for some modelling on staffing costs? Are the Commissioners being any more helpful nowadays?
Mr Gauke
Some progress has been made since then. The Commission has improved its transparency record, partly thanks to the Government’s ongoing work. In particular, it released a payments plan containing much more detail on payment forecasts. I accept that we can go further, and that UK citizens expect more, but requiring the Government to write a letter inviting officials to attend Select Committee meetings will not really deliver that. What is required is constant vigilance and discipline. We have shown that, and it is delivering results.
Mr Gauke
The point about our position applies across the piece. To be fair to my right hon. Friend, certain eventualities that he predicted many years ago have come to pass. Because of the current situation in the eurozone, substantial reform could well be needed so that the members of the single currency are able to co-ordinate fiscal policy to a greater extent, with greater fiscal transfers and so on. That raises issues for the eurozone members which do not apply to other members of the European Union that have access to the single market but would not wish to partake in any such arrangement. We would need to ensure that if that is the direction the eurozone goes in, the position of the euro-outs is protected. Ensuring that access to the single market remains in place for all 28 member states is an important part of that, which is why I mentioned it. We need to ensure that our position is protected. That is the point I wish to make, and I fully understand the points that my right hon. Friend is making.
Finally, amendment 1 has been proposed in order that the conditions set out in new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are consistent with the terms of commencement in the Bill. I have explained to the Committee why we will not be supporting the new clauses, and we thus reject the amendment. While I have the opportunity to do so, I wish to identify a typographical error in the explanatory notes. The second line of paragraph 6 refers to a VAT-based rate of call of 15% for Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, whereas it should have read 0.15%. I draw the Committee’s attention to that in case it caused consternation among right hon. and hon. Members.
In conclusion, let me assure the hon. Member for Worsley that, having made important progress in 2013, this Government are focused on ensuring maximum restraint, budgetary control, value for money and transparency in EU spending. I therefore welcome the spirit of her proposals, but requiring the Government to request that the Commission or the Council of Ministers review these issues adds little to the real work that has been done and continues to be done to improve the working of the EU budget. That work began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, which cut the budget in real terms and protected the current system of financing—we should not forget that that is what this Bill is about. That work continues through the budget for results, through the Government’s continued engagement on the annual budget and through the discharge of the budget, and it will continue during the mid-term review of the MFF.
With those few, brief introductory remarks, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her proposals to a Division and I urge hon. Members to support the clauses set out in the Bill.
Barbara Keeley
Before we go any further, may I point out that my constituency is now called Worsley and Eccles South? The people of Eccles would rightly be very upset if we left them out of the equation; Eccles is a very important town in my constituency.
I rise to speak to the new clauses standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are dealing with a slight complexity, in that the Bill is simple but drafted in such a way as to make it complex to amend. Amendment 1 is therefore a technical paving amendment which can bring in the new clauses, so it is that amendment that we will push to a vote, if necessary.
The Bill relates to agreement of the own resources decision that will be incorporated into UK law, based on the agreement reached at the February 2013 European Council. The Minister covered that at great length over the past hour and 20 or so minutes. Decisions on UK contributions reaching €14 billion are brought into sharper focus in a week when Ministers are discussing cuts to tax credits for the low-paid and have not been prepared to rule out cuts to financial support for disabled people. We find ourselves in a serious and austere financial context, so we must ensure that we look at every aspect of value for money, budgetary control and the reform of priorities within the EU budget.
When we debated the MFF in this House in October 2012, the Government’s motion talked about agreeing that we must see
“significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and significant improvements in the value for money of spend”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 295.]
The last debate contained many examples, some of which I shall refer to, showing that we are not there yet. I am sure the Minister would agree, so what we are simply trying to do with the new clauses is find ways in which we can enhance value for money assessments, budgetary control and the reform of priorities. That is very important to many of the Members in the Committee today and to Members throughout the House.
The proposals standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends will assist greatly in ensuring that reports are made to this House on value for money and budgetary control, and on budget priorities and waste and inefficiency within the EU budget. Examples have been given in interventions that give us an understanding of the extent of concerns about this out in the country—which we explored on Second Reading—and those can only increase.
Tom Tugendhat
Would the hon. Lady let me know which of her hon. Friends are so supportive of her? There appears to be somewhat of a dearth of support.
Kelvin Hopkins
I rise to assure my hon. Friend that I am supporting her very strongly today.
Barbara Keeley
I think the hon. Gentleman will see when we come to the vote that we do have support.
Our new clause 3 would also improve accountability and transparency by inviting EU budget representatives to appear before the European Scrutiny Committees in this House and the other place each year before the EU budgets are negotiated. I appreciate the points made by Conservative Members that of course there should be no interference with the work of the European Scrutiny Committee in this House, but what we have tried to do in these new clauses is send the strongest statement we can send and give the strongest possible support to all those in this House who want to see these important aspects of value for money and budgetary control put in place.
Sir William Cash
I am sure the hon. Lady would appreciate the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee functions by virtue of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Leaving aside the merits of this proposal, if there were to be a stream of requirements imposed by Parliament on the manner in which the European Scrutiny Committee, an all-party Committee containing many Labour Members, were to conduct its business, the life of the Committee would be made pretty intolerable and its purpose would probably be undermined.
Barbara Keeley
I very much take that point on board.
New clause 1 requests a review by the European Commission of the basis of appropriations for the European Union budget and a study of whether alternative arrangements might offer improved value and enhanced budgetary control. On Second Reading, I highlighted a concern about the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. As I pointed out in the earlier debate, that gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% in the period from 2014 to 2020. We must now seriously question whether that gap is manageable.
The Commission describes the system as follows:
“Commitments are tomorrow’s payments, and payments are yesterday’s commitments. Commitments are planned future payments whereas payments are legal obligations from the past…if every year the increase in commitments is much higher than that in payments you end up promising many partners to pay their future bills but find yourself unable to pay those bills when they arrive years later.
This is what has been happening over the last years: as many commitments were made years ago for projects that are being completed now”.
That is a key issue with the drive to smaller EU budgets, yet, as the Commission says,
“many bills related to projects remain unpaid and have to be rolled over to the following year. This leaves no choice to the Commission but to call for increases in payments.”
John Redwood
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about the need to get better value for money in a smaller budget and to bring down the commitments. Does she have some individual proposals on things that could be taken out of the EU budget for which the Government should argue?
Barbara Keeley
I think that we could get to that if we had the information in the review that I am calling for, but what I want first is an examination of the system. This system is a recipe to drive up budgets rather than a way to control them.
Commitments are being made at a level of up to €14 billion a year more than payments. We have had years when the commitments have been €14 billion more, and that means bills being rolled forward, or staying unpaid, which is unacceptable. It is not a sensible system, and I think that the Minister actually acknowledged that. If it is not a sensible system, we should not be going along with it.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is making a fair point. It has been suggested that, in real terms, we should be paying 7% less into the European Union budget by—I think—2020. Given what she has just said, is it not likely that that will not turn out to be true, and we will not see a reduction of that kind?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, that is a very real fear. If we look down the list of commitments and compare it with the payments made, we will see the level of commitments that are still to roll forward, which is a very frightening prospect. I go back to the point that I have just made. This is a system designed to drive up budgets. We support what has taken place and recognise that the House voted for it back in 2012, but unless this system changes we will be in a situation in which commitments are being made in the period up to 2020 of €960 billion, which is €52 billion more. It is a serious matter. Clearly, it is serious if the Commission is taking on budgets and then not paying bills, but it is the upward pressure on the budget process that is the great concern.
In our last debate on this Bill, the hon. Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to a range of concerns that their constituents had about EU finance, how the EU budget is spent and the need for control of the budget. That is a point to which we will keep returning.
In the debate of 15 January 2008 on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill—I have already mentioned this—the Financial Secretary, then shadow Treasury Minister, and his shadow Treasury colleagues called for a report on “all aspects of EU spending”. Clearly, both the Opposition then and the current Opposition have had concerns about this. The Minister and his colleagues called for that report in 2008. I hope that we still have time in the rest of this debate for him to repent his view that we do not need further reviews.
As I have mentioned, there were complications in the wording of the amendment in 2008. I have read through the debate. The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the shadow Treasury team at that time ran into was that the amendment called for Treasury certification that it
“considers the outcome of the review is satisfactory to the interests of the United Kingdom”.
That seemed to be the sticking point. We have avoided such complications in this Bill by tabling simpler amendments that ask for an analysis of the basis used for appropriations and the study of alternative arrangements.
The Minister has said that such a review is ongoing. Will he tell me at this point when we will see that review?
Barbara Keeley
Will he clarify at which point in 2016? [Interruption.] No, it is just some time in 2016.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister can hear the comments being made by Members from sedentary positions. Clearly, we are working through a crucial time in the run-up to the referendum, and the budgetary information, with all the decisions that have to be made, will be crucial for the people out there.
In our amendments, we have expressed the wish to have these reviews and the reports. We want to send out the message that this House is serious about scrutinising the EU budget.
At the end of our debate on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary talked about the need for scrutiny on the payment gap. She told us that the European Commission has committed to publish more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming an enhanced level of information on the EU budget, but believe that much more needs to be done on that. Does the Minister agree now—after both of us have spoken on the matter—that it is time that the EU moved away from a system in which it can make commitments of billions of euros more than it can pay, creating pressure on member states to ever-increasing budgets?
New clause 2 calls for a reform of the priorities in the EU budget, and specifically requests a review by the Council of Ministers of budget priorities and waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. The Minister has mentioned reviews that are already taking place, but I do not think that he mentioned a review of priorities of the kind that our new clause invites.
On Second Reading, I raised the need for further reform of budget priorities. Labour believes that expenditure on growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that overall spending on the common agricultural policy will fall by 13%, compared with the last financial period, and that spending on research and development will increase by 4%. As welcome as that fall in agriculture spending is, we believe that the level of spending is still too high compared with spending to support growth and jobs. The Minister has responded to points made by his own side today, but he has not really got to the nub of the point.
As I said on Second Reading, agriculture accounts for only 1.6% of the European Union’s total output. If that is the case—I think that we will keep returning to this point—is it still appropriate that it accounts for 30% to 40% of the budget?
Alex Salmond
Is the hon. Lady saying that, in the opinion of the Labour party, agricultural support and spending are too low in Wales?
Barbara Keeley
I am not making that point in particular. What we are asking for in this clause is a review of budget priorities. We can see from the percentages that competitiveness for jobs and growth is the most important. I am not making specific points about specific countries. Under the new method of agricultural spending, I think that there is a great deal of flexibility for allocating the funding between countries.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend made a very strong point about the CAP. If there were no CAP, would it not be sensible for us to subsidise sections of our own agriculture according to what we think is right rather than what the European Union thinks is right?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed we could. Let me go on and make a few more points about the proportion that is allocated to that very important priority of competitiveness for jobs and growth. In 2014, only around €15 billion will be spent by the EU on that budget priority compared with over €41 billion for market-related spending and direct payments for agriculture. There is no sense in a system that takes that vital priority—vital for every part of the EU—of competitiveness for jobs and growth and spends so little on it. Out of the €6.3 billion of European Union funding allocated to the UK in 2013, only 23% was spending on jobs and growth compared with 63% on agriculture. It is the balance that we are calling into account.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said on Second Reading, although the proportion of the budget for agriculture has been falling, there has been a fairly significant increase in money terms over the past eight years. As long as this balance seems wrong to people, it will be very hard for many of us to explain on the doorstep why we are spending only 23% of European Union funding in the UK on jobs and growth but 63% on agriculture. Some hon. Members might find such an explanation easier in their constituencies than others, but it is a difficult argument.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. My one concern would be that if there are reforms, they do not disadvantage some farmers in North East Somerset and other rural constituencies to favour spending on the continent. Reform is quite right, but it needs to be fair for the United Kingdom’s farmers.
Barbara Keeley
The more reviews that we carry out of those priorities, the more that we develop our understanding of where the money is going. Earlier, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) called for these matters to be discussed in a language that his constituents could understand, and I do not think that they are discussed in such a way. Having ploughed through very many debates and very many documents in relation to the Bill, I do not think that those matters are understood. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted that expenditure on the CAP is
“still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1426.]
If that is what the Treasury team currently feel—that it is still too high, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget—what are we doing to understand that better, to review it and to change it?
It is my assertion that previous reviews have not led to the level of reform that we want to achieve. It was our purpose in tabling new clause 2 to keep focus on that vital issue. When most member states are finding it necessary to make very difficult decisions—clearly, we are in that position ourselves—about their own budgets and spending, the European Union must ensure that expenditure is efficient and focused on addressing the major concerns that member states face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the October 2012 debate:
“The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies.”
As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is much needed when we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK looking for work. That should be our focus—those young people.
We need a better balance of funding and we need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve growth and jobs. Looking deeper into the detail, and the spending commitment to the EU’s smart and inclusive growth priority, only a quarter of that is spent on competitiveness for jobs and growth, and three quarters on the EU’s cohesion policies, including structural funds. It probably is not appropriate today to open up further debate about the use of structural funds. That is often discussed when we are discussing EU finance, but as my hon. Friend also said:
“Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that…are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]
The Opposition say strongly that the proportion of the EU’s smart and inclusive growth expenditure that goes towards securing competitiveness for jobs and growth is too small. That important area of spending accounts for around a quarter of the EU budget in 2014, but that rises to only 27% across the whole six-year period.
Sir William Cash
Does the hon. Lady appreciate that much of what she says in terms of generalities is understandable, and is reflected very much in European Commission documents, which I have been looking at for the last 30 years, one way and another, on the European Scrutiny Committee, but that the inherent problem is the fact that every time there is a need to argue for jobs and growth, the answer from the European Commission is to give more subsidies, more bail-outs, and more cohesion and structural funds, when actually what is needed is deregulation and to provide people with a means of increasing productivity and jobs and to deal with youth unemployment?
Barbara Keeley
I hesitate to say that I think we agree on this point, but I think we do. [Interruption.] All right, then: we enthusiastically agree on this point. It is very clear indeed that, particularly with youth unemployment, we have a serious problem. It is a problem throughout the EU. We must spend more on that and we must find a way of doing so. Although the Minister spoke at great length, he did not tell us at any point what the difference would be between the ongoing review in the EU and the existing commitments. We want to send a very strong message. Until the Bill is passed, it is our last chance for a considerable period to make these points strongly to the EU, and we believe that we should do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One issue that concerns me in the area that I represent is the fishing industry. There is to be a review of the common fisheries policy. One thing that could come off the back of that is our young people getting jobs in the boats, because up until now they have not been encouraged to do so. We need not just a better common fisheries policy, but encouragement and incentives for our young people to take the jobs in the local fishing boats, and thereby create employment and prosperity for them as well. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. We have focused a great deal on agricultural spending and the CAP, but I do not think any of us would say that there has been a fair deal for people in the fishing industry. Fisheries policy, in many places, has been a disaster and has caused great problems for our fishing industry. It is a shame and a pity if, as I think is the case, young people no longer believe that they can have a career in fisheries.
Alex Salmond
Given that many people who represent fishing constituencies would agree with the hon. Lady on that point, does she not find it passing strange that in all of the possible treaty amendments that have been listed as possibilities for the Prime Minister’s soon-to-be-considered renegotiation stance, not once have I heard from the Government Front Bench that a treaty renegotiation on the common fisheries policy is any part of the Conservative party’s priorities?
Barbara Keeley
That is strange, but I cannot answer for the Minister. He may want to intervene for himself now or at some later point.
I have emphasised jobs and growth, but this EU budget priority also includes policies and programmes to promote vital areas of research and innovation—infrastructure, education, training and enterprise development. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has been a staunch advocate of the importance of EU funding for research and development in the UK. In 2012 he said:
“The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 292.]
It is self-evident that competitiveness for jobs and growth should be more of a priority, but also that we would benefit more if the priorities were switched to increase funding for research and innovation.
Serious consideration of reform of the EU’s spending priorities is needed if we are to use the EU budget, as the Opposition believe we should, as a mechanism to promote future jobs and growth in the UK and other member states. We can only get that change of spending priorities if we keep a focus on the balance between competing priorities and continue to drive down wasteful and inefficient spending.
Much was said on Second Reading, as I am sure the Minister recalls, about what hon. Members consider to be wasteful and inefficient spending. Some Members might cover that again today, but we have already talked about staffing costs and administration costs, and the costs of the move between Brussels and Strasbourg. Other items of waste and inefficiency can also be drawn to the Minister’s attention.
We have already discussed new clause 3, and I do not need to keep on emphasising this, but in tabling it we did not in any way want to disturb the balance between the Government and the scrutiny Committees. I hope that hon. Members accept that. However, points have been raised in previous debates on why we need that relentless scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said in the debate on the multi-annual financial framework that we need
“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on Second Reading:
“Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1389.]
That is a very poor situation that we find ourselves in.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Lady referred to the need for relentless scrutiny. I have a thought in my mind that maybe some people think that the European Scrutiny Committee, at least over the last five years, has indeed been relentless in its scrutiny, and that goes for all members of the Committee, which has produced many unanimous reports. Is she effectively prepared not to press her amendment because of the problem I gave about the constant stream of legislative requirements that might interfere with our status as a European Committee?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, we could do that. We would definitely want to press the other new clauses, but there was no intention to upset that balance. It has been suggested that the Minister could solve these matters by giving some kind of undertaking on the matters raised in our new clauses. We do not resile from the position that we want to send out the strongest possible message from this House that we are serious about scrutiny. The European Scrutiny Committee is of course relentless in its focus on those matters, and so too must the House be relentless. Doubtless we will have many more reports and reviews.
When in opposition, the Minister was part of the team that tabled an amendment to get a report, as I mentioned earlier. It was not agreed to at the time, but the Commission review went ahead anyway. The results of that report, which was published in 2010, were interesting. Its main finding—it was a very substantial finding—was that the current rules for the EU budget make it slow to react to unforeseen events, while too many complexities hinder its efficiency and transparency.
This is a week of tumultuous events for the European Union. The situation we find ourselves in with the EU budget, with its complexity, its slowness to react, the difficulty in balancing priorities and the fact that it does not represent the priorities that we think are important, means that it is clear to all—there is often broad agreement on this in the House, and I am sure that there will be today—that it is past the time when it needs to change.
Our remaining amendments would assist in ensuring that reports are made to the House on value for money, budgetary control and, importantly, budget priorities and waste and inefficiency. I commend them to the Committee.
Sir William Cash
I have already said much of what I need to say on new clause 3, which is my main concern today, so I will make only a few points. Basically, new clause 3 is inappropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee does its job relentlessly, as the shadow Minister has just indicated, so there is no need for the new clause. We can invite officials to it if we wish to, and we do on occasion, but we are perpetually scrutinising the budget and recommending matters for consideration on the Floor of the House.
Imposing on the European Scrutiny Committee legislative functions that would be monitored by other Government Departments could cause enormous difficulty by interfering with its Standing Orders functions. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee has to form a judgment on what is of political and legal importance. We can invite European Commission budget representatives to see us, and indeed we can also recommend to the Treasury Committee, for example, that it might wish to do the same, so we already have various means at our disposal.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the points that I have already made in interventions. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing not to press new clause 3 and putting that on the record, so that in future nobody else is tempted to impose on the European Scrutiny Committee, or indeed on any Select Committee, legislative requirements that might in one way or another interfere with their discretionary judgments under the Standing Orders.
Barbara Keeley
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we have no intention of doing that, but I also hope that he will agree that it is important to send out the strongest possible message that we are focusing on these matters relentlessly throughout the House, and that the European Scrutiny Committee will continue its excellent work.
Sir William Cash
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that she will not mind my mentioning the fact that she is sitting in glorious isolation on the Opposition Front Bench, and with nobody behind her, other than my friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not known to be enthusiastic about all matters European. Perhaps the relentless scrutiny to which she refers could be improved by having a few more Labour Members here to support her.
Mr Gauke
We have had a wide-ranging debate over the past two and a half hours. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was not far off the substance of the matter before us: the disagreement is over whether there should be placed in statute a requirement to write a letter.
I recognise the spirit of the proposed changes before us, and the need for us to improve the value of expenditure in the European Union, to cut down on waste and to increase transparency. We strongly support and have advocated those points.
I have to say that writing to the Commission, asking it to review the issues, will not particularly achieve the objectives we have heard set out, but the Government have taken action and continue to do so to improve EU spending. That began with the Prime Minister’s historic deal, cutting the budget in real terms. It has forced the Commission to prioritise, which we very much welcome, and it has led to the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The UK is playing an active role in that process, and we continue to push the Commission to bear down on waste in its responses to the EU budget discharge process. The Government are contributing to the simplification proposals from the Commission, and the UK will continue to fight for restraint in the annual budget.
Those steps have led to concrete results: the Commission has become more transparent and has shifted more funding into pro-growth spending. We certainly make no apologies for that—although there appears to be some resistance to it in some parts of the House—and the UK’s contributions will be lower for every year in this seven-year deal period than in the final year of the last MFF deal. That is a saving of almost £8 billion over the forecast period compared with 2013-14.
Barbara Keeley
If the Minister is resisting the amendments, and it sounds as though he is, will he tell the Committee whether he is happy with the balance of priorities in the spending on competitiveness for jobs and growth, which was a key point that I spent time discussing? He seems to be resisting any attempt to put forward a review or report that would make it easier for the House to push for changes, so is he happy with the current balance?
Mr Gauke
In the 2013 negotiations, we achieved a shift towards a greater proportion of expenditure being on pro-growth measures, such as research and development, and away from other areas of expenditure that contribute less to growth. That includes the common agricultural policy. The hon. Lady says that it is a small amount. Actually, it was not; there was significant progress in terms of a reduction in the common agricultural policy, with more spending on those areas where we think there could be greater added value. That is the right direction. I again have to draw the contrast with the surrender of £2 billion a year in respect of our rebate for common agricultural policy reform that we did not see—I am afraid that that is the record of the last Labour Government with the 2005 deal. I therefore believe that we are moving in the right direction.
If the hon. Lady is asking, “Would we like to go further?”, then, yes, I very much support that view. We want to go further and see a greater emphasis on expenditure that provides better value for money for UK and EU taxpayers. That is very much what we want, but I question the idea that the letter she is calling for will make any difference, particularly when we are seeing progress with the Commission’s budget for results initiative. The working group will meet for the first time in July and there will be a major conference in September 2015. We want to continue that approach during the mid-term review, which, as I said, will occur in 2016.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister was unable to give a date. Mid-term reviews are one thing, but we are moving towards a referendum, as we all know. We are all going to have to build this case for our constituents and for the campaign out there, and we need the information sooner. The slow trundling-on of the EU Commission will not suit our need for that information in this country, in this year and the next. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency and try to explain that this is a really good deal—the split between competitiveness and growth, and the amount that is spent on research and development—when we really should be pushing for that for our economy. We need to explain that and we need the review to be done sooner. He cannot even say when it is going to be done in 2016—it may be too late.
Mr Gauke
The MFF will be in 2016, as I said. The reality is that trying to transfer expenditure in the way we certainly want to—and from what the hon. Lady is saying, she also wants to, although it does not seem to have support in all parts of the House—is a major task. We have made progress. If she is saying that the situation is frustrating and she would like to go faster, I am not disagreeing with her, but I am afraid that that is the way the European Union works. We have clearly made progress and I do not think it does her cause any good to downplay our progress.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad that new clauses 1 and 2 were discussed earlier. Given the result of the vote, I urge the Minister to consider the importance of keeping EU budget spending under review. As I said earlier, the system of commitments and payments is worrying. We want a system of budgetary control, not a system that drives up the pressure for increases through unpaid bills and commitments made in years past.
I also urge the Minister to continue to focus on the need for reform of EU budget priorities, which we spent some time discussing, and, in particular, on the need to increase funding for competitiveness, jobs and growth. It is important for Ministers to be able to reshape EU budget priorities, but, following our discussions, I am not sure that they have that ability.
The Minister resisted our amendments, and resisted our requests for him to make a sensible undertaking that would have removed the necessity for a vote. His position on our amendment and new clauses suggests that he is content with the reports and reviews that are trundling along in the EU, and it does not send the strong message that could be sent about the need for enhanced scrutiny and reformed priorities. That is a pity, and I hope that the Minister will continue to reflect on it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Keeley Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Treasury Ministers do not discuss individual cases, but I can say that the Government are determined to ensure we have a competitive tax regime in which everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share. We have been involved in a number of crackdowns on tax avoidance, both domestically and internationally, with the OECD base erosion and profit shifting projects, and we continue to work hard on that.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Well, it seems that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) does not have a lot of confidence in the measures being laid out by Ministers. Never mind percentages: the tax gap has increased to £34 billion. The US-Swiss tax deal raised £800 million in 2013, not the forecast £3.2 billion. Despite these failings, the Minister has just mentioned the manifesto promise to raise a further £5 billion. Will he start to tell us how he will do that? He has not even brought in tougher penalties on the general anti-avoidance rule.