Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Andrew Stephenson

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Despite some of the scaremongering in the press, the police grant report is good news for police forces across the country and for the force that covers my constituency. I strongly welcome the significant increase in financial resources available across England and Wales and the fact that no police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding in the next financial year. Credit for that must go to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, whom I thank for investing in protecting my constituents from crime and disorder.

The police have had to bear a heavy burden, as the country has had to deal with the mess left behind by the Labour party. The report confirms that we are through the worst and that under a responsible Government we can once again afford to offer our police the support they need and deserve. The fact is that crime has fallen by more than a quarter under this Government. Crime has fallen across Lancashire, including in Pendle.

[Barbara Keeley]

I counsel the hon. Gentleman against talking about crime falling across the country. He is saying things that are not true for Greater Manchester, which has seen a 14% increase in recorded crime and a 36% increase in violent crime, but which is facing an £8.5 million cut. Will he please not talk about crime falling across the country, as he is not referring to Greater Manchester?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The hon. Lady is talking about reported crime. According to the British crime survey, crime has fallen across the country, and that survey has always been accepted on a cross-party basis as a more accurate reflection of crime rates across the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Andrew Stephenson]

I want to talk about rates of crime that have increased, so if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some progress.

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Andrew Stephenson

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.