EU Referendum: Timing
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Despite the public’s ability to discern the different issues at stake in the different election questions, the media often fixate on one issue. They will undoubtedly concentrate heavily on the national question of the EU referendum while giving little coverage to the elections in the devolved regions. That is another good argument for why the two should not become enmeshed.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Sweden in 1994 two months elapsed between a general election and a referendum on membership of the EU; in Denmark, two months elapsed between the general election and the referendum on the treaty of Amsterdam; in Malta, one month elapsed between two such elections; and in Switzerland, 15 referendums were held in 1992 alone? Is he suggesting that these countries have abdicated their responsibility to the general public?
Mr Dodds
No, not at all. That is a rather strange argument to make. In Northern Ireland and elsewhere, European elections have been held on the same day as local and Assembly elections. So that is neither here nor there. We have already made the point that people are quite capable of separating out the issues. We are talking about the impact on the functioning of the devolved Administrations and the ability of political parties to campaign and work with others, if necessary, on those issues; about the purdah issue the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) rightly raised; and about the media’s concentration on EU issues to the exclusion of devolved issues. This debate is about those important issues, not the question the hon. and learned Lady raised.
On 3 February, the First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, along with the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, wrote jointly to the Prime Minister to set out the case against a June referendum and to argue for the debate to be free from other campaigning distractions. That needs to be taken seriously and treated with the respect it deserves. We hear a lot about the respect agenda and taking on board the views of the devolved Administrations, and that now needs to be put into practice. This is an important moment in this Parliament. Will the Government respect the devolved Administrations?
Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marsden
Well, there might have been weeks to read it if the Government had actually made it available, but they did not.
This is the document that almost dare not speak its name, not least because the detailed evidence of impact tucked away in its pages, to which I will refer later, is belied by the bland conclusions appended to it that it will be all right on the night. What is driving panic measures such as the threshold freeze is the Government’s dawning recognition that their whole set of financial assumptions about repayment in other areas that underpinned their swingeing fees increases is producing a black hole for them and for future taxpayers.
Mr Percy, I am sure that you and those of us who have been here under all sorts of Governments will have observed the rule of thumb in this place that there are two ways for Ministers and their advisers to present and package things that they feel might be unpalatable. One is to bundle in the controversial bits with more technical or anodyne measures that might lull the reader into a false sense of security. Here is an example of such wording in the impact assessment:
“The following maximum grants and loans for living and other costs will be maintained at 2015/16 levels in 2016/17”.
Another way is to entitle the document innocuously, to increase the camouflage. Both methods have been employed on this occasion.
This is not a bit of incidental tinkering with existing financial regulations. It represents a major departure and reversal of policy, only four years after the Government hailed maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds as an essential element in their strategy for fairness and in the acceptance of tripled tuition fees. I am afraid the measures are typical of the ideology-driven but evidence-light approach that this Government too often employ. They will affect probably 500,000 of England’s most disadvantaged students and define their futures for good or ill. Has the Minister made, or had given to him, any breakdown, geographical or otherwise, of that total figure and its impact on higher education institutions? If not, why not?
The statistics about those institutions helpfully provided to me by the House of Commons Library amount to a Domesday Book listing the numbers of students who will lose their grant under the new rules. Institutions in all parts of the country will be affected, both old universities and new ones. Further education colleges will be affected, of course, because they make an increasingly valuable contribution, 10% and more, to higher education for the group of people affected. Of course—this is not irrelevant in today’s circumstances—Scottish students who are taking courses at English universities will be affected.
There are a number of disadvantaged students studying at higher education colleges, and the Association of Colleges tells me that many of the colleges that deliver higher education are in northern towns—Blackpool and Blackburn are cited. Cornwall and the south-west also help to provide the large number of places at HE colleges. The association has said in specific response to these regulations, “We have real concerns about the proposed change as many of the students may never earn enough to pay back the money and the policy does appear to penalise poorer students. The new system therefore needs careful monitoring to ensure it is as fair as possible.”
These changes will affect significant numbers of students, from the north to the south. On the basis of the figures for 2014-15, for example, 14,728 students at Manchester Met University will be affected; 8,167 at the University of Manchester; 1,527 at my own excellent further education college, Blackpool and The Fylde College; 10,924 at Nottingham Trent University; 4,897 at Bournemouth; and 3,738 at King’s College. The other institutions that I have not had the opportunity to mention are far from incidental. The list will be a roll-call of lost opportunities if this issue is not handled carefully.
However, despite this being such a major issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has observed the Government have refused to bring the changes to the Floor of the House and prefer to try to sneak them through the delegated legislation route, whereby it can be debated and voted on by only a handful of MPs. As he said, there is cross-party support on the issue.
Importantly, the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in her letter to the Secretary of State explaining why there needed to be a full debate on these measures, wrote that scrapping maintenance grants for lower income students and replacing them with loans would have a regressive impact and should therefore receive further scrutiny from Members of Parliament. That was why she went on to call for a debate on these measures in Government time. She also made the practical point, which I will come on to, that the change would not improve Government finances in the long term, and she also made the link with the adverse impact of freezing student loan repayment, which I have touched on briefly.
Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State did not deal adequately with any of those points in his reply? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has asked, will the Minister also explain why his Department has ignored the words of the Leader of the House in December and is prepared to break the precedent of debates in the House under these circumstances?
Turning to the impact of the regulations, of course we can only speculate on the future cohorts of people who come in, but we have some reason to make those speculations on the basis of existing experience. The National Education Opportunities Network, which is the professional organisation for widening access to education in England, and the University and College Union are currently undertaking research with more than 2,000 final-year A-level and level 3 students to look at how costs influence the HE choices they make. The interim findings from that research show that more than half the students who are deciding not to go into HE are taking that decision because of the lack of direct financial maintenance grant support that they had envisaged for the year ahead. If research suggests that a large number of students are deciding not to go to university due to that lack of support, why are the Government risking even more students dropping out by introducing the regulations?
A study by economists at the Institute of Education in 2014 showed that a £1,000 increase in grants would create a 3.95% increase in participation, and that the removal of grants would see participation levels fall. In fact, the institute said that it should also be of grave concern that more than a third of students had told a recent survey that they would not have chosen to go to university if they had not had access to maintenance grants. Does the Minister not fear a severe drop in participation levels, given that statistics indicate that the accessibility of a maintenance grant is a deciding factor for many when choosing whether to go into higher education? His equality assessment, which has been circulated, as I have said, states:
“At an aggregate level there is currently no evidence that the 2012 reforms, which saw a significant increase in HE fees and associated student debt levels has had a significant impact in deterring the participation of young students from low income backgrounds.”
That is debatable, because the safety net of maintenance grants, introduced in 2012 with that tripling of fees, is now being removed.
My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote in her letter praying against the regulations:
“Labour are concerned that this change won’t improve Government finances in the long-term.”
Hon. Members might say, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” but perhaps more cogent is the view of the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“The replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016–17 will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve government finances in the long run.”
The IFS states that in the short term, Government borrowing will drop
“by around £2 billion per year. This is because current spending on grants counts towards current borrowing, while current spending on loans does not.
In the long run, savings will be much less than this. The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3 billion for each cohort, but only around a quarter of these additional loans will be repaid. The net effect is to reduce government borrowing by around £270 million per cohort in the long run in 2016 money—a 3% decline in the government’s estimated contribution to higher education.
About two-thirds of those eligible for the full maintenance grant will repay no more as a result of this reform because they will end up with the additional debt being written off.”
There is the rub. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Treasury about the accuracy of those predictions, and why his Department is embarking on a leap in the dark that will, as the IFS makes clear, diminish the contribution to higher education and do little to address the black hole?
The IFS states:
“Students from households with pre-tax incomes of up to £25,000 (those currently eligible for a full maintenance grant) will have a little more “cash in pocket” whilst at university. But they will also graduate with around £12,500 more debt, on average, from a three-year course. This means that students from the poorest backgrounds are now likely to leave university owing substantially more to the government than their better-off peers.”
It also states:
“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.
The removal of those grants threatens access to higher education and, importantly, follows on from the removal of the national scholarship programme, which was designed to help students from low-income households. The programme has been scrapped, just as the Government are doing to maintenance grants.
In 2012, when the Government tripled tuition fees, they tried to sweeten the pill by talking up the centrality of the maintenance grant to ensuring that the most disadvantaged could still access higher education.
“The increase in maintenance grant for students from household with the lowest incomes, the National Scholarship Programme, and additional fair access requirements on institutions wanting to charge over £6,000 in graduate contributions should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately.”
That is what the Conservative-led Government said in 2011-12 through the Minister’s predecessor, but the regulations will disadvantage the same groups of students the Government promised to protect two years ago. In June 2011, the Minister’s predecessor, David Willetts, pledged in Parliament:
“We want students from a wide range of backgrounds to benefit from the reforms. We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 770.]
He had previously defended the measure as a quid pro quo for the trebling of tuition fees, saying:
“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant, and because of the higher repayment threshold. That crucial commitment to taking progressive measures is one of the reasons we commend these proposals to the House.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]
Does the Minister accept that the Government have now broken both those promises? His colleague, who is now Lord Willetts, must be revolving in his ermine at the way his promises have been so lightly regarded by the Government.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a bit of a non sequitur in what he says? On one hand he says that the debt will be increased, but on the other he says that it will be written off. If both propositions are true, there should be no detrimental effect on the students involved.
Mr Marsden
The hon. Lady needs to look more carefully at the differential impacts. The point that I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, would make about this is that debt aversion depends on where someone is coming from. It is perfectly possible to have a situation with those common factors. It is not, however, at all clear from any of the evidence that has been put forward that that would not be a significant disincentive.
I was talking about the things that were said previously: those words will do little to enhance the Government’s alleged commitment to increasing social mobility. The Government and their predecessors set great store by the principle of “nudge”—actions that persuade people to change their behaviour for the better. I remind the Minister that is possible to nudge people away from desirable outcomes such as getting higher education, rather than towards them. The question that the Minister and his colleagues must answer is what attention they have devoted in the regulations, which are highly specific, to preventing that.
A new BIS study included in the impact statement by the Government says that more than half the applicants said they felt put off by the cost of university. Also, for poorer applicants, tuition fee loans and the income-contingent repayment threshold were more important in persuading them to apply, despite the costs. However, the Government seriously underestimate the effect that the grant and the cost of universities have on student decisions. That is backed up by what the Sutton Trust has said:
“Shifting grants to loans may move them off the balance sheet, but it could also put off many low and middle income students and tip the balance against their going to university. Since grants were reintroduced, there have been significant improvements”—
and we welcome that—
“in participation from full time less advantaged students, and this will be put at risk by today’s Budget plans.
The reality is that the Government has miscalculated the levels of repayments it will get from its student loans under the new fees system. Rather than penalising poorer students, it should have a fundamental review of the repayments system. We need long term solutions not a short term fix.”
Research from the NUS that was published yesterday by Populus shows that parents are concerned that the Government’s plans to scrap the maintenance grant will discourage their children from applying to university. Two fifths of those with a combined income of £25,000 or less believe that their children would be discouraged from applying to university if grants were replaced by loans. More than half the parents believed that the plan to scrap grants undermined the Government’s objective of increasing access to university for poorer students.
I want to deal with some other surveys that have been conducted. The changes may well pile even more pressure on to students to alter their work-study balance while pursuing a degree. According to the 2015 Endsleigh survey, produced by a company that has specialised in the area for many years, already 77% of students must work to help fund their studies, using time that could be spent on academic work. That already high number looks set to increase further with the removal of maintenance grants.
The Government claim that they want to strengthen our skills base and that they have given more support for postgraduates. The initial steps that were announced on that are welcome; but there is a risk that they will be undercut because of the debt aversion of the group of students who will lose their grants. The NUS found that after a student finished their undergraduate degree, access to a maintenance grant could also influence their post-study choices.
I want to turn my attention to the specifics of the equality impact assessment that BIS produced for the regulations. It concedes, for example, that black and minority ethnic students, in particular, will be disproportionately worse off than others following the removal of maintenance grants:
“We believe that the proposed changes will disproportionately affect people from ethnic minority backgrounds. This is based on evidence of debt aversion in this group and the increased likelihood for these students to receive the full maintenance grant. We have assessed that there is a small risk to the participation of students”—
given participation rates—
“both from high and low socio-economic backgrounds”.
Additionally, there is risk to the outcomes of these students if they choose not to take out the additional loan available.”
However, a recent BIS study also stated that non-white applicants were likely to cite the importance of maintenance grants in overcoming their concerns about costs. Thus the removal of the maintenance grant will seriously discourage BME students from attending HE institutions.
There is potentially bad news for older learners as well. The equality analysis states:
“Mature students will be disproportionately impacted by the policy proposals to remove the full maintenance grant and replace with additional loan as well as the freezing of targeted grants. The proportion of students aged 21 and over that claim maintenance grant support is significantly higher than their representation in the population of all student support claimants. The available evidence points to the cost sensitivity and debt averseness of this group. The policy change presents a risk for the participation of older students in higher education.”
The assessment has worrying words for disabled students as well:
“As for all students from low income backgrounds we expect the risk to participation of low income disabled students…to continue to be mitigated by the high average returns to HE investment and the repayment protection for low earning graduates.”
That, of course, assumes that current ratios quoted in that respect will remain the same with the massive expansion of the cohort entering full-time work in the next 10 to 15 years. There is no evidence whatever on that.
However, the Government have conceded in the assessment that disabled people will also be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect the real value of disabled students’ allowances. The assessment says:
“Students from low income backgrounds will be able to access DSA at same level in cash terms but may be disproportionately affected by the freezing (real terms reduction)”—
a term the Government were reluctant to use at the beginning of the equality impact assessment—
“of DSAs and dependants grants.”
For all of the groups that I have cited so far, I and the rest of the Committee want to know what the Government propose to do to mitigate those disproportionate impacts, which their own equality impact assessment so candidly concedes will be the case.
In addition, there is the separate worrying implication that a significant number of would-be students may be discriminated against under these regulations because of their religious beliefs. The impact assessment states:
“There is evidence to suggest that there are groups of Muslim students whose religion prohibits them from taking out an interest bearing loan. This means that this group of students will no longer have access to funding for living costs as non-repayable finance is no longer available. This could lead to a decline in the participation of some Muslim students.”
The complacency about the failure to have available a sharia-compliant alternative to grants that will be withdrawn borders on discrimination. Does the Minister agree that the regulations as they stand will restrict Muslim students from accessing valuable finance, while the removal of grants threatens to weaken further their ability and capacity to carry through their higher education studies?
The Government claim that they are making an alternative to traditional loans available that is sharia-compliant, but it is not there yet, is it, Minister? Yet the Government have known about the issue since April 2014. Will the Minister guarantee that the change will not be implemented until there are firm regulations in law for an alternative finance proposal that will be acceptable to people of the Muslim faith?
Mr Marsden
It is always dangerous to draw general a conclusion from ad hominem examples. I and other Members of this House can quote lots of examples. I can quote examples from my casework of people who have come to me at a later age who have been deterred. The onus is on the Government when making these changes to demonstrate that they will work, not by making ad hominem arguments—however much I applaud the hon. Gentleman for doing what he did to get to where he is today—but by looking at the broad statistics and the analysis that has been put forward today.
Mr Marsden
I will not take another intervention from the hon. Lady. She has had one. [Interruption.] I did answer the first. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later if she wishes to.
The equality analysis makes reference to the damaging effect that the proposed regulations will have on female students. As my colleague, the shadow Equalities Minister, said to me, the changes will have an unfair impact on women—especially mothers. When the Government increased fees, the number of mature students fell, so I think we can expect exactly the same effect with these loans. The impact assessment also states that female students will be particularly affected by the freeze to childcare grants, parents’ learning allowances and ESAs, given their significant over-representation in these populations. What action does the Minister plan to take to protect female students from the cumulative negative impact that the change could have on their ability to pursue higher education?
Those details from the Government’s own impact assessment should surely give them pause for thought, given that they threaten to affect the most debt-averse groups. Worryingly, it appears that the Government are yet to produce an up-to-date estimate of the impact that the shift from grants to loans will have on the resource accounting and budgeting charge, which calculates the cost to the Government of the higher education funding system, based on—this is relevant to the issues that other Members raised—how much students are expected ultimately to repay of their loans.
In November, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), asked about that issue in a written question. She received the following bland reply:
“This estimate will be updated in Summer 2016, alongside publication of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills accounts.”
Given, as I have already emphasised, the IFS’s scepticism about the savings that the changes will make, will the Minister tell us why his Department did not obtain an up-to-date estimate before proposing the changes? Is that not a dereliction of duty on a key question, both for sound government finance and for cost-benefit analysis? Summer 2016 will be way too late, as by that time the new regulations could have deprived 500,000 or so young people of their grants and set a potentially perilous alternative in motion. This Government proposal was not in the Conservative party manifesto. For all those reasons, I and my colleagues will vote that the proposal has not been adequately considered.
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree. Debt and disadvantage are being compounded by the actions of this Government.
Lucy Frazer
I should have declared an interest in that my husband works in the sector. Opposition Members are saying that the measures will disadvantage people and put them off studying as a result. Of course we must encourage all people, particularly the disadvantaged, to go into higher education, but the figures show that disadvantaged people have not been put off going to university by the fees. State school applications have increased from 88% to 89%, and applications from lower socioeconomic groups have increased from 30.6% to 32.6% in recent years, showing that people have not been put off.
Alison Thewliss
We cannot tell exactly what will happen as a result of these further changes and what impact they will have. I speak from my own experience: I graduated from university in 2004, and only since taking this job have I been able to make any impact on paying back the loan that I took out then. That loan was relatively small compared with the loans that we are discussing. How long will people be saddled with debt, and what impact will it have on their life chances and their ability to make progress in their lives? It is an absolutely appalling circumstance, and it is creating an even more indebted generation than the one before it. It is ridiculous. The impact in Scotland will be greater, because we have four-year degrees rather than three-year degrees as in England.
I will quote from the figures sent to me by the NUS in Scotland, which notes that in the academic year 2013-14, a total of £1.59 billion was awarded to applicants in all cohorts. In 2014-15, for post-2012 students, a provisional total of £1.5 billion was awarded. Assuming that that averages out over the three years, it implies an annual reduction of £500 million, contributing to a £50 million reduction in the cash DEL—departmental expenditure limit—available to Scotland per year. For comparison, Student Awards Agency for Scotland figures for 2014 show that the social grant and bursary awards made to Scotland for Scottish-domiciled students totalled £63.6 million. That is a significant impact.
On the impact on Scotland since the introduction of tuition fees in England, when direct cash DEL teaching grants provided by the Higher Education Funding Council in England to English universities were cut by more than £3 billion, assuming a straight consequential, the result is a £300 million reduction in cash DEL available to Scotland. The spending review proposes a further £120 million reduction in the teaching grant by 2019-20, which will result in a consequential to Scotland on top of the impact of these measures, including for nursing students.
The impact on us in Scotland is unfair. Decisions here by a Government we did not vote for and who have one MP in Scotland are resulting in decisions that John Swinney will have to make in our budget, which is decreasing. We have no impact on those decisions, and our Government cannot change them. The decisions taken by this Conservative Government and the previous coalition Government have had the effect of skewing the Scottish budget in further education. The departmental expenditure limit, which includes the teaching and research budget and the grant and bursary budget, has been reduced, and the annually managed expenditure budget, which goes on loans, has increased. We do not want an increase in loans; we want the DEL, but we cannot have that, because decisions here have reduced it. Those decisions affect the Scottish budget, and we must find the money that we want to spend on grants and bursaries from somewhere else within it. That is unfair. We want to support our students. Our students in Scotland deserve support, particularly where, due to demographic differences, they have not yet had the chance to go to university because they are put off by loans.
The point made by a Labour Member about minorities is true as well. It will particularly affect constituencies such as mine in Glasgow, Central, which is probably one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in Scotland and contains Strathclyde University and Glasgow Caledonian University, as well as bounding on Glasgow University. All those universities could be affected by that decision.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The national living wage is coming in next April, so of course we will comply with it.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T9. I welcome the Chancellor’s spending review last week, boosting the science budget and supporting silicon fen. Does he agree that the only way to continue to attract international investment to the region is good infrastructure, and now is the time to upgrade the A10 from Cambridge to Ely?
Mr Osborne
We have put a huge amount of investment into Cambridge, including of course the renovation of the famous Cavendish Laboratory, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the strong start she has made in recent months in championing her constituency. That has been continued today with a big bid for the A10, which I will take a close look at.
Spending Review and Autumn Statement
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
It is generally accepted across this House that mental health services in the NHS have not always had the support they need over many decades and that we have not always had equality of treatment in the NHS. We have now made that change in the constitution of the NHS. Today I have announced £600 million extra funding for mental health, on top of what was announced at the March Budget. That will help with access to talking therapies and to perinatal mental health services. I would have thought and hoped that the hon. Lady welcomed that.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor’s commitment to the fairer funding formula. How precisely will it help students in Cambridgeshire, who historically have received about £2,000 less per pupil than those in some other areas of the country?
Mr Osborne
The current funding for schools is arbitrary and unfair. Children in different areas but with exactly the same circumstances can receive many thousands of pounds in funding at their schools, depending on where in the country they live. Cambridgeshire is one of the areas that has been underfunded historically. The new national funding formula will help address that unfairness. My hon. Friend has been championing that cause, and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will set out how the formula is going to work.
The Economy
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I hope that that is what the Chancellor is working on at the moment and that that is why he cannot be with us.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned children twice so far. The Greek Government overspent, leaving tens of thousands of children unschooled in Greece in September. Does he not accept that a country that does not look after its finances does not look after its children?
John McDonnell
Of course that is true, but there are false economies. On a cross-party basis, we came to the conclusion that cutting tax credits to working families would be a false economy because it would remove an incentive to work—one of the principles on which many of our budgetary proposals are founded.
John McDonnell
Some of us did vote against it. As we argued in that debate, there is a way to reform welfare while making sure people do not lose out. For example, we have proposed reducing housing benefit by building the homes people need to make sure they have roofs over their heads. In that way, we reduce rent levels as well.
Instead of investing in the future, using the Government’s powers to borrow carefully and invest wisely, the Chancellor has allowed Government spending on our vital infrastructure to fall from 3.3% of GDP in the last year of the last Labour Government to just 1.6% today. It is set to fall further to 1.4% over the next few years—less than half what the OECD thinks is necessary in a developed economy to sustain a decent standard of living. A lack of investment is why National Grid is warning of electricity shortages this winter and why too many businesses suffer from poor broadband connections and transport delays. His response to growing calls from business has been to run to the Chinese Government and hope they will get him out of this mess. We have been presented with the extraordinary sight of a British Chancellor refusing to use his own Government’s powers of investment but more than happy to exploit those of the Chinese.
While every other major developed country is pushing up its research and development spending, recognising the future value of science and technology, our Government have cut spending by £l billion in real terms.
Lucy Frazer
The coalition Government set up a £160 million fund for agri-tech investment, and that investment has continued under this Government through the regional growth funds. It is really helping the east of the country, particularly my constituency. What ideas does the hon. Gentleman have for investment in agri-tech?
John McDonnell
We should increase the amount invested. So far, so little has been invested, it is not having the impact it should have.
On investment in training, research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the budget for sixth-form and further education colleges could fall by at least £1.6 billion under the Government’s spending plans. This is the equivalent of four in 10 sixth-form and further education colleges being closed. Local councils, often the engines for investment-led growth in their communities, are having their budgets cut to ribbons, and even statutory services are now at risk. All this confirms that there is no long-term economic plan. It is a short-term quick fix from a Chancellor who cannot think beyond the Conservative leadership election.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say gently to the House that it is reasonable for the Economic Secretary to be given the opportunity to respond to one intervention before immediately being pressed to accept another? Some level of orderliness in the conduct of this debate needs to be restored, with the help of all willing parties.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman will know, and has just reiterated, that we have maintained the science budget, which has been one of the choices that we have made. We have secured £7 billion of investment per year for UK-based renewable energy projects. We are investing in major research facilities such as the new Turing Institute, the UK’s national institute for data science. Our science and innovation strategy sets out our long-term vision for the sector’s contribution to national prosperity.
Lucy Frazer
Does my hon. Friend welcome the comments by Sir Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, who said recently that the UK is excellent on the world stage and that, in terms of effective research, we are probably top? Most people rank us second to the United States, and we lose out merely on size.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the effectiveness of our science spending. Earlier, she mentioned agri-tech, and my constituency has fantastic skills in cyber-security. Those are all important and we will continue to make sure that they are a Government priority.
Tax Credits
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) heard my answer. Perhaps his constituents will also be asking whether he has heard them. I am sure they are wondering who he will stand up for today.
Seema Malhotra
I will give way in a moment if I can make some more progress.
It is shocking that the Government continue to avoid telling the truth about these changes, including the Prime Minister, to whom I wrote last week, asking him to clarify his comments that after all the Government’s changes a family where one earner is on the minimum wage will be £2,400 better off. He is yet to be clear about how he reached that conclusion, how many families will gain in the way he suggests or what assessment he makes of the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, Barnardo’s and so many others who are against these changes.
The Chancellor chose either not to perform or not to publish an impact assessment of these changes for the Commons—a move that was criticised in no uncertain terms by the Social Security Advisory Committee. There are only two ways to interpret that: the Government either do not want to know or do not want to tell.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She highlights, too, the impact of the Government’s appalling administrative processes on our constituents. They are left trying to make ends meet and having to go to food banks. More than 60% of the use of food banks is due to issues with benefits and benefits administration.
Lucy Frazer
After an intervention, the hon. Lady asked whether Government Members had been listening to the media. I listened to an interview she gave on Radio 4 this morning. She gave only two examples of changes that she would make to the tax system. One related to inheritance tax and the other was to raise the tax threshold to 50p. In 2017-18, that would raise only £270 million. Where would she get the other £4.2 billion?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her comments. Perhaps she will say what she is doing for the 6,300 families in her constituency who will be affected by these changes. Perhaps she should speak to those in her party who have raised serious concerns about the changes, including Lord Tebbit.
Before the debate on the statutory instrument in September, the Government chose either not to perform or not to publish an impact assessment of these changes, so one was not available for the debate in the Commons. The Exchequer Secretary seemed to suggest that they had done that, when clearly they had not. The distributional analysis that the Chancellor finally submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place last week has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, as a “sleight of hand” and an attempt to “bamboozle”.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is always best before making an intervention to have listened to the debate so far and it is always best to make a calculation as to whether he is going to add to the sum of human knowledge by the intervention? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] All right, I was a bit harsh. Sorry about that. Mr Speaker, I am not usually so undiplomatic, am I? May I press on? The Chancellor may not appreciate the economic points that have been made, but—
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would like to make the point that my learned Friend—my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—was making: if there is no basis for this measure, why did the hon. Gentleman agree to it two weeks ago?
John McDonnell
May I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as I was too harsh? I certainly do not want to be with the hon. and learned Lady, but if she could just keep up it would be really helpful. I have tried to reiterate three times—I have said it three times. [Interruption.]
Finance Bill (Second sitting)
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Finance Bill (First sitting)
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady may know that courts are overruled by higher courts day in, day out in the court system. Should the initial legislation not be passed because it may be overruled at some point in the future?
Barbara Keeley
I am not in any sense challenging it; I am asking the Minister to tell us what he thinks the impact on the legislation will be of that Court’s decisions. Those cases seem to suggest that the lock on UK VAT is not as robust as the Chancellor claims, so it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what impact future EU Court rulings could have.
On the scope of the VAT lock, clause 2 prevents any increase in the standard and reduced rates, and prevents anything from being moved out of the scope of the reduced or zero rates, but there is no mention of exemptions. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the current exemptions from VAT will remain over the course of this Parliament.
SNP Members tabled a new clause that seeks a report on the impact of exempting women’s sanitary products from VAT. Labour supports the new clause. We welcome the opportunity to call again for those essential healthcare products to be made tax-free. Women do not choose to use sanitary products; they are essential. Although the reduction in the rate of VAT on sanitary products in the UK from 2000 was welcome, more needs to be done. This is not just a female issue, but a family and household issue. Women supporting families across the country should be able to purchase those necessary items VAT-free. We recognise the complexity of the EU rules on VAT and the challenges faced by national Governments that want to make such unilateral changes. I ask the Minister to take action at an EU level to support the exemption of women’s sanitary products from VAT in the UK.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
Lucy Frazer Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Bill is about low taxation. Low taxation is critical to encouraging our businesses and our economy to grow. Low taxation encourages entrepreneurship, and it means that work pays. The commitment not to increase national insurance contributions is a key part of the Government’s triple lock to ensure that we have low taxation for our working nation. As it is paid by both employer and employee on wages, it is an important part of our jobs tax.
Many sectors rely on their people knowledge. I have many such sectors in my constituency. Only a few weeks ago, I visited Cambridge Online, which deals in computer software. Its chief executive officer said to me, “We are nothing, Lucy, other than our people.”
Last week, I was at Marshall, which employs 3,000 people and is one of the biggest employers in my constituency. It spends a huge amount investing in apprenticeships and in training up the next generation who will be its workforce. Also in my constituency is the science park, which is a key place for biotech industries. Innovation and enterprise are fundamental, and individual experience and individual knowledge of people are key. Cambridge University is on our border, and the academics and their great research are fundamental to our economy. At the source of all that is people. Keeping national insurance contributions at the same level is critical to encourage employers to employ, to encourage the growth of businesses and productivity, and to ensure that businesses can recruit and expand. However, this Bill is about not just low tax, but certainty. As businesses expand, it is good for them to have foresight in respect of their expenditure, and that is what we are providing. We are providing them with certainty. As has been mentioned, that is particularly important for foreign investment. My constituency has biotech industries. We are competing not with Birmingham or Leeds, but with silicon valley. What we need is certainty that foreign investors will invest in our community and our businesses.
It has been said that this measure is a gimmick. It is not. It may be that the Bill is not required, but that does not mean that it is not welcome. It provides the certainty that we need. This Bill is about low taxation, certainty and transparency, as it tells people what this Government are doing, and it will help with jobs, and therefore our economy, in the future.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend makes an astute point. That is one of the things that is going on here.
The Chancellor is also shifting more and more from direct taxation on income to indirect taxation on spending. In doing so, he is pushing the burden of tax from those on middle incomes to those on lower incomes. They are the true target of this Government, as we shall see in the debate on tax credits later this afternoon.
The hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) claimed that this measure was about low tax, but I would ask her to reconsider that. For whom is it about low tax? For all the reasons given by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire, including the fact that not raising the basic rate of national insurance is a good thing to do, it is clear that this is a tax on labour. At a time when we want more people to have more good jobs, that seems rather perverse.
The most perverse thing about national insurance is the upper earnings limit, and including that in the legislation is a highly political act. We shall have a debate on tax credits in a little while. Let us look at the marginal rate that the Chancellor is giving to people, taking account of the tax and benefits system. After the Budget, the effective marginal tax rate faced by second earners in couples on very low incomes with two children will be 75%. However, for those earning more than £150,000 a year, the normal marginal tax rate of less than 50% will apply. Even when universal credit is introduced, the marginal rate for people earning around £10,000 a year will be 65%, but the withdrawal rate for people earning more than £150,000 will be 48p in the pound. That is not about low tax or certainty. It is clearly about protecting the Tory party’s rich friends and rich donors.
Lucy Frazer
I heard the shadow Minister say that this was Labour party policy. What does the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) say to that?
Helen Goodman
As I have said, I would not have made a commitment on the upper earnings limit. That is just not my view. Fortunately, in the House of Commons we are free to speak as we find things. We are having this debate and I am making my contribution. I am telling the House that that is not a terribly sensible commitment to make.
The hon. Member for North West Hampshire made some good points about the certainty that small and micro-businesses need, but I ask hon. Members to consider for themselves how many small and micro-businesses are employing people on £150,000 a year. I suggest that not many are doing so. I know that Hampshire is better off than County Durham, but it is not so much better off that every farmer and small shopkeeper is paying themselves and their staff £150,000 a year.