Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I think Mr Tommy Sheppard wishes to speak. No?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The clock has not been working, Mr Speaker.

[Callum McCaig]

The clock did not start, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I would like to start on a positive note by welcoming the Chancellor’s statement on the sugar tax. He may well want to consider whether he needs to wait a full two years to bring it in, but none the less it is a welcome start, and I commend him for it.

I am afraid that is where my generosity towards the Chancellor, his Treasury team and this Budget must end, because I see the rest of it in exceptionally negative terms. This is a Chancellor, after all, who is making a career out of failure. He has failed every one of the macroeconomic targets that he has set for himself. If we were to score him on a report card, we would have no option but to give him an F-minus. I think that when he began to prepare this Budget he was looking at failing in his final objective, which was to create a budget surplus by 2019. I would like to pause to ask what that is actually about, because a surplus in Government finances is quite a strange thing. It means that the Government are spending less on this country’s public services than they is taking in taxes from the people who depend on them. That is a strange thing to aim for.

I wonder why the Chancellor is so concerned to have a £10 billion nest egg in 2019-20. It would not have anything to do, would it, with the proximity of the 2020 general election and a Chancellor who is determined to see a longer career for himself in this House, perhaps in a different position? In fact, I wonder whether the Chancellor has less of a long-term economic plan for the country and more of a long-term political plan for himself. In order to get the £10 billion surplus, he has decided that he has to have another range of cuts, with £3.5 billion being taken out of non-protected Departments. I dread to think what that will mean when we work through the detail.

We have to ask ourselves: is there no alternative to this austerity being piled on top of austerity? There is an alternative. We said during discussions on last year’s Budget—and we will say it again this year—that rather than cut back on public spending, a prudent Government should have a slow, sustained increase over the lifetime of this Parliament in order to use the public sector as an engine for economic growth to raise revenues, eradicate the deficit and drill down on the debt. That is received economic wisdom in most of the world, including most of our competitor countries, most of the members of the European Union and the United States of America. It is only the City of London and the United Kingdom Treasury that are blinkered to that very obvious approach.

This is also a Budget for inequality. If we look at the middle income range, we will see that someone who earns £35,000 will benefit by about £180 a year from the increase in the threshold for the basic rate of income tax. However, someone who earns £45,000 will benefit by £580 a year—more than three times as much. In what parallel universe could that approach be described as removing inequality in our country?

And that is only if people are lucky enough to be earning enough wages to be taxed in the first place. Even with the Chancellor’s pretendy national minimum wage, if someone is earning £7.20 an hour over 30 hours a week, they will not meet that basic income tax threshold. This Budget does nothing for the millions of people who are in that position. It does nothing for the people who are on fixed or low incomes, or for those who, because of their situation, have to rely on state benefits.

Is not the cruellest thing of all that, while tax breaks will be given to people who can afford to pay their taxes, there will be miserly and parsimonious cuts to the benefits of the most vulnerable in our community? The Department for Work and Pensions is preparing for a £1.2 billion cut in the personal independence payment programme. That will involve assessing 640,000 claimants, 200,000 of whom will be removed from the benefit altogether, while the rest will have their benefits reduced from £85 to £55 a week. What a miserly, mean-spirited, mean-minded approach to providing a welfare system.

The Chancellor has made much of this being a Budget for business. Before I came to this House, I started and ran a successful small business. I welcomed the day that it did well enough to pay corporation tax, because it took a few years to get there. The Chancellor talks about this being a nation of shopkeepers, but there are plenty of shopkeepers in my constituency who are less worried about the rate of corporation tax than they are about whether enough people are coming through the shop door with enough money to buy their products and to keep them and their employees afloat. Rather than tinkering, it would be better to consider a programme for economic growth and regeneration.

Let us not kid ourselves that it is small businesses that will benefit from the one-size-fits-all business tax approach. A business that makes a £20,000 profit pays the same rate of tax as a business that makes a £20 million profit. That means that most of the £15 billion that is being given back in the business tax cuts is being given back to large multinational corporations that are the friends of the Conservative party and of the Chancellor.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will not give way, because I have a minute left and others want to come in. I say to the small businesspeople of this country: “Be very wary about what is being done in your name. This is not the way to make your business successful; it is a tiny little bribe.”

I am out of time, but I want to finish on the Chancellor’s suggestion that this is a Budget for the next generation. God help us if he really believes that. The next generation have just had the remaining grants for education removed from them. They are faced with living with their parents well into their 30s and 40s because their housing options have gone, and they are now being told that they may have to work until they are 80 years old. I do not think that those people will thank the Chancellor for this Budget. They will expect the Government to do an awful lot more to provide them with the future that they require.

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I draw hon. Members attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I also had the fortune to go to the west bank on the Fatah UK trip that has been referred to.

When we saw that the topic for the debate was local government and procurement policy, we wondered whether it had much to do with Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) noted, those matters are a matter for the Scottish Government—I shall return to that in a moment. However, it quickly became apparent—I think all parties understand this—that this is a debate not about local government, but about foreign policy. It is interesting that, rather than choosing an English town hall in which to make a pronouncement about the affairs of local authorities, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, travelled to Tel Aviv to make an announcement alongside the Prime Minister of Israel, and chose to illustrate his announcement by referring to the impact of local authorities’ actions on the settlements in the occupied territories.

Now, if we are to say—as some Government Members have suggested—that local councillors should not be having a foreign policy and should concern themselves with local matters, we might rightly ask ourselves, “What are the Ministers responsible for the UK civil service and English local authorities doing travelling to foreign countries to make pronouncements on foreign policy?” We need to understand whether this is actually a dispute among colleagues in the Cabinet and an attempt by some who disagree with the established position of the Foreign Office to undermine it, or whether it is a genuine confusion that has arisen. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position in his response.

We should be absolutely clear that what is under discussion here is not the state of Israel, but the activities in the illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Now, I know that the Israeli Government refute the fact that the settlements are illegal, but the UN Security Council, the General Assembly of the UN, the European Union, every NGO I can think of, and our own Government regard the settlements as illegal, so I hope that we can at least agree that engagement in those activities is unlawful.

I have witnessed these settlements, and I think that when some people refer to community settlements, they still believe that they are small, little, cutesy villages that are being developed. In fact, these are massive conurbations of thousands—sometimes tens of thousands—of people, with all the infrastructure we would expect from a modern city. Although many of the settlements have been built effectively as dormitories for people working inside Israel proper, it is clear that if they are to continue, they must develop their own economy and, therefore, the capacity to develop trade and production in those areas is vital for their survival.

We need to ask ourselves a question: is it the role of public agencies in the UK to assist in that illegal process or is it right and proper that they should do something about it? I think it is entirely proper that they should do something about it. The advice of the Scottish Government is consistent with that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in saying that there is a general presumption against trade and investment in illegal settlements and telling local councils that they should make a decision on individual matters of procurement according to procurement legislation and take into account the circumstances that apply, but reminding them that when it comes to the term “gross misconduct”, which colleagues have mentioned, it is entirely right and proper to regard the support for an international illegal operation as gross misconduct.

Looking at some of these contracts, people should be advised that they need to understand whether the contract will be secure—whether the agency or company with which they are contracting has the legal right to sign the contract, and to use the resources and occupy the lands and premises that they say they do. If a local authority is being prudent and making a careful judgment about that, it is acting in the interests of the people who elected it, and that is right and proper.

I have a minute or two left, so I want to say to the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) that in his speech, which I thought he galloped through with rather undue haste—it would have been better for him to have taken some interventions, because it might have demonstrated better confidence in his own arguments—he attempted, as others have, to suggest that this is an attack on Israel. It is not. I believe in the two-state solution. I would like to see a viable state of Palestine and a viable state of Israel, but I firmly believe that the actions of this right-wing Israeli Government and their refusal to take moves to end the military occupation are putting the prospects of a two-state solution in severe jeopardy.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution because he is consistent, unlike, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who has hurriedly left the Chamber. Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) not agree that the disinvestment strategy promoted by the BDS would actually lead to ending the possibility of a two-state solution, which would mean that there would not be peace in the middle east?

[Tommy Sheppard]

No, I do not make that connection or draw that conclusion in the slightest. In fact, I have visited the area recently and spoken to many Palestinians who are involved. They are absolutely of one mind in telling us that they want us to call for disinvestment in the illegal settlements in the occupied territories. That is their position and it is incumbent on us to try to understand, respect and advocate that position if we can.

I have limited time, but I very much welcome the fact that we are having this debate, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) secured. I welcome the attendance and the level of contribution. I do think that it is time, following this discussion, that we sought a debate in the main Chamber and devoted rather more time not just to this issue, but to the underlying aspects behind it. It is incumbent on us to do that because the overriding impression that I brought back from my recent trip to the west bank was one of desperation and despair among people who really feel that the world has given up on them. We need to show them that we have not.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend, as always, makes a very important point. He will know that EVEL did not apply because this change in Sunday trading was tied up with a plan to extend workers’ rights that would have applied throughout the UK, but we should reflect on what he says, because the people of England and Wales have been denied a change that would have put them on a par with what is currently practised in Scotland.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I apologise for the difficulties in which the SNP has placed the Government, but we were simply voting to defend the interests of our constituents, whose rights at work on a Sunday would have been affected by this Bill, and it is our right to do so. I ask the Secretary of State to stop harbouring this grievance against Scottish Members.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman should really be ashamed of his party’s performance today. He tries to hide behind a policy, but we know that the only thing the SNP was interested in today was headlines and denying the people of England and Wales a change that, as expressed in their MPs’ will, they clearly wanted to see. That is all the SNP was interested in.

Electoral Integrity and Absent Votes

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is interesting that we are having this debate as we begin to celebrate international Human Rights Day, because article 25 of the 1948 declaration of human rights called on nation states to provide free and fair elections on the basis of universal and equal suffrage. I do not mean to suggest complacency or to get into self-congratulatory backslapping but, from a global perspective, we have reason to be proud of the systems that we have in this country and of the level of respect that we have for the democratic process. That is not to say that there are not concerns or that there should not be changes. I will talk about some of those in a minute, but overall our democracy, and our electoral democracy, is in reasonable shape.

As I have previously suggested in similar Westminster Hall debates, the Scottish referendum last year was an exemplar of how to do things right, but I remind Members that probably the greatest compromised election in recent times also happened in Scotland. At the 2007 Scottish general election, fully 7% of the votes cast were rejected. That happened for two reasons, neither of which has to do with deliberate fraud or mal-intent. The first was that, because the local council elections took place on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections—the latter of which involved two different ballot papers—there was an unprecedented degree of confusion among the electorate, and an awful lot of people simply did not know how to exercise their right to vote. The second reason, which I am glad to say we have dispensed with, was that the then Scottish Government invested rather too much public money in a number of electronic counting machines that simply were not fit for purpose and seemed unable to do the job for which they were bought.

I am pleased to say that we have won the argument with the Government, because they did not rule out holding the EU referendum on the day of another election until the House clearly and explicitly decided that that should not happen. One of the procedures that we should use to protect our democratic process is to make sure that, each and every time a question is asked, it is a specific question that cannot be confused with anything else.

I was unaware of what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) was going to say in this debate, but I note his concerns, which fall into two parts. One is the question of deliberate electoral fraud, in which people, either individually or by conspiring with others, deliberately abuse the process to cheat. We are in a good position because, in a competitive, multi-party democracy, there is an opportunity for parties to keep tabs on each other and to monitor the process. There is also a degree of good will and sincerity among our electoral registration officers, who are very vigilant and aware of the possibility of fraud and the need to do something about it. In my experience, the police, and others with responsibility for taking action, take electoral fraud very seriously. Again, that is a healthy development.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the problem of familial pressure being applied in some communities, particularly to influence women’s votes. I do not deny that that happens, but I am unsure of what action the state or the public authorities can take to prevent it from happening, apart from some of the things that we are doing through individual electoral registration and, of course, the education campaign to encourage everyone to recognise that their vote is a precious thing that relates to them, and to them alone, and that they should not be influenced by anyone else.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good idea that we should make it more difficult to obtain a postal vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I know Members are concerned about the dramatic increase in postal votes, and we are clearly now in a situation where the ability to vote by post is a choice—people do not have to fulfil many criteria to exercise a postal vote. I see that as a positive development because it encourages people to participate in the election process. There are lots of people for whom it is more convenient to exercise their vote by post. If we are going to look at restricting that by putting hurdles in the way of people who seek to vote by post, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We are talking about electoral integrity, and I will finish by putting the issue in a slightly wider context. There are things that we can do. The Scottish referendum was an exemplar, with 97% of the people who were entitled to register being registered to vote and 85% of them turning out to vote. There were a number of reasons for that. One was that we widened the franchise and included 16 and 17-year-olds. I know that the House has rejected that model for the EU referendum, but plenty has been said about it by all parties and we will have to consider it again before this Parliament is over.

I will finish with this point. We also need to consider making voting easier, simpler and more contemporary. We really need to consider electronic voting in our processes. People trust the ability of the internet—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about electoral integrity and absent votes, not alternative forms of voting, so I hope he will just close his remarks.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, Mrs Main. I just wanted to say that if we looked at increasing ways for people to participate and vote, that would do a lot to improve the integrity of the system and the regard in which it is held by the public.

DRAFT Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015 Draft Representation of The People (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015. I will ask the Minister to speak to both the instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Hamilton. I am in favour of discussing both statutory instruments together; it is commendably efficient, and I support both of them. However, under the amendment to the Standing Orders made last week concerning English votes for English laws, is it appropriate for me, as a Scottish Member, to participate in a decision about statutory instruments pertaining to England and Wales?

[The Chair]

I am advised that the changes have not had any effect on delegated legislation Committees thus far, so every Member is entitled to vote on every delegated legislation Committee for the time being—and, of course, we are debating an amendment for Scotland as well.

Individual Electoral Registration

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to make my first speech under your chairship, Mr Davies. There is no opposition from my party to the principle of IER. We can all agree it is high time to move away from the Victorian process of the patriarch registering the household and to individual registration. However, the process of transferring the responsibility from the state to the individual means that not all individuals are equal. We know that in many areas there have been problems with some groups being able to take advantage of their ability to join the electoral register: people who live in the private rented sector, students, and people who are recent migrants or who have no fixed abode in communities and are moving around. Also, there are people with various problems—poverty, addiction or other social problems—who are very much on the margins of society and, frankly, registering to vote in an election is not at the top of their list of priorities. Such factors do not affect all constituencies equally. I guess that is why we have an apparent imbalance of interest in the debate today. I guess there is a disproportionate interest the other way round in a debate on tax credits, but who knows?

In Scotland we have had an exercise in our recent history that I think has set the gold standard in electoral registration. During the Scottish referendum, we reached registration levels of 95% plus—previously unseen in these islands and lauded by everyone as a remarkable achievement. I recall asking the then First Minister Alex Salmond, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), what his most vivid memory of the entire referendum was, and he said the thing that stood out for him most was being in the city of Dundee in late August in the bright sunshine and having a queue of more than 200 people waiting in line around the block to sign up before the deadline for registration. Such was the enthusiasm of people wanting to participate.

We will wait and see what the effect will be in December in terms of the drop in the register as a result of moving to the new process, but the initial indications are not good. The interim register in April was 3.4% down on the register on which the referendum took place. That is in part because of the presence of 16 and 17-year-olds, but if we compare over-18s on the register, there is still a drop of 1.8%, which is a fairly significant drop. Hundreds of thousands of people could lose their right to vote.

It strikes me that we need to do two things. First, we need processes that are external to Government, but wherein the Government encourage people to take part in the electoral process to begin with. That should be done, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) says, through schools, through advocacy and through trying to educate people about the importance of their being on the register. We need state and local government-funded publicity campaigns to drive people towards that process.

Secondly, we need to look at the processes involved and how we can make them a lot simpler and easier. It is ridiculous that when a woman gets married and decides to change her name, she then has to provide two further pieces of identification in order to re-register to vote. Surely it is the state that is agreeing to the marriage and recording it in the first place; I would not think it beyond our wit, in the 21st century, to find a way to transfer that information to the electoral register.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The problem that I have is that because of his fear of patriarchy, he is saying that individual people should grasp their right to vote. That is putting the whole thing on its head. It should be everyone’s right to vote. It seems obvious to me that the state should ensure that people have the right to vote; it is then for the individual to decide whether they want to.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, of course, that without question everyone should have the right to vote. I am trying to suggest that it is the state’s duty to promote the availability of that right and to encourage people and advocate that they take it up.

I agree completely with the points that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made about identity. I asked my electoral registration officer why people could not indicate in the relevant place that they felt themselves to be Scottish—I represent the capital of Scotland. The electoral registration officer said that they would happily change the form but could not do so because it would need to be changed on the Cabinet Office portal. I wrote to the Minister on that on 3 September and am still awaiting a reply. I am not trying to bounce him into replying today, but I shall be grateful if he will speed up the process.

I do not want to pre-empt what the Government are going to say, but I guess they would say that they have brought the date forward because they are extremely confident that everything will be all right on the night and okay in the end. Surely the question today is: what if it is not? What is plan B? We need to be prepared. When the registers are announced in December, if there is a dramatic drop-off in some areas, it is the Government’s responsibility to take emergency action to ensure that people are not disfranchised in the elections and referendums that are coming next year.

Finance Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of the SNP amendment and, hopefully, to persuade the House to deny the Bill a Second Reading.

Before I go into the details of the Bill, I want to deal with a question of overview. Over the years, we have grown used to hearing glib statements from the Government, and soundbites rather than substance. Many of us marvel at the fact that the Conservatives manage, without smile or grimace, to get the words “working people” out of their mouths quite so often, given that, we suspect, some of them rarely meet the working people of this country, let alone have their best interests at heart. We have also grown used to the phrase ”long-term economic plan”, although the plan has been going for five years and has so far failed to meet every single objective that was set for it by the Chancellor. The latest mantra we hear consists of six words: the Conservatives believe in “high wages, low taxes, low welfare”. That is the type of society that they want to see.

I think it was the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) who, at an early stage in the debate, asked the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), whether she agreed with the general direction indicated by those six words. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Lady, but I did not hear her response, and I think that she tried to dodge the question. Well, I do not want to dodge the question. I want to say that I consider that statement to be facetious, glib and shallow, and that it is not a statement with which my colleagues and I agree.

I want to see a society in which there are high wages, fair taxes and decent welfare provision for everyone, and that is what I think we should be aiming for. I believe that prosperity is not just about what we have as individuals, and the wealth that one family gets through a wage packet, but about the things that we have together, in our society and in our communities. I believe in the whole concept of the social wage. If we know that we have well-funded, adequate, strong public services in respect of, for instance, health and education, and if we know that we have a strong system of social insurance that gives us a safety net should we fall ill, suffer disability, or find ourselves between periods of employment, we are much richer as a result. That is our attitude, and that is the philosophy in which we believe.

Let me now deal with some of the provisions in the Bill. So far, no one has discussed the tax lock provisions in clauses 1 and 2. The Government are saying that, for the remainder of the current Parliament, they will take upon themselves a legal obligation not to increase VAT or income tax. I made some inquiries about that, because I thought it a strange thing for the Government to want to do. After all, they are the Government now, and they will be the Government next year and for the following five years. If these provisions are included in what will become the Finance Act 2015, it will only take a clause in the 2016 Finance Bill to overturn them. They are therefore literally not worth the paper on which they are written. That is another example of a Government who prefer public relations to concern about the public finances.

The second detailed issue that I want to raise is that of the personal allowance. Members on both sides of the House will probably welcome the increase in the allowance and, as we are told, the ability of people to keep a little more of what they earn; but let us not kid ourselves.

[Angela Crawley]

IFS figures state that a £1,000 increase in work allowance available to a single parent earning £12,000 would boost their income by £650 a year, whereas in contrast a £1,000 increase in personal allowance would mean a family would benefit by only £70, resulting in further child poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that this will not help families?

[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]

rose—

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on an excellent maiden speech, on an excellent election victory, and on the many excellent curry establishments in her constituency, which I have visited on a number of occasions.

Let me start by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been an employer for more than two decades.

This is a debate about dependency: the dependency of the worker. I cannot believe that any workers make their career choices thinking that they will bring up a family and will have to rely on state aid in order to do so; nor am I aware of any business people who embark on their business plan thinking that the state will subsidise their businesses. That, however, is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. Subsidies are anathema to business people. They suppress innovation and deter investment. Someone earning £10,000 a year who has three children can receive as much as £12,000 in in-work benefits. That is not a sustainable position. The total benefit bill for working tax credit and child tax credit is £30 billion. We frequently talk about productivity in this House. To engender real productivity in our economy we need business people to invest, and not just in the cheapest labour.

The system is very complex. Adam Smith said that the first rule of the tax system is that it must be simple. This revolving door of people paying tax then collecting it back through tax benefits cannot be right. All of us in this House are charged with the responsibility of cutting the cost of government and the cost of this system of tax credit, which must cost hundreds of millions of pounds every year.

The tax credit changes under the last Government were, according to the House of Commons Library, focused on supporting those on the lowest incomes. The 2012 Resolution Foundation report said that tax credits have a negative impact on work incentives and in turn on productivity. That cannot be right. We need people to climb the ladder of success, not stand in the queue.

We need simplicity in order to deliver incentives to work. Universal credit has been introduced to do that. It also makes sure there is transitional protection so that nobody is worse off. I believe that we need to change the tax credit system to make work pay.

Work is paying for more people, however. There are 600,000 more people in work than there were in 2010, and 40,000 households who had never worked are now working. Can there be a finer example to the children in those households than to see somebody getting up and going to work? These are all parts of the change to the system that we need to make.

We need to make work pay by getting the employer to make work pay. The minimum wage is too low and we should move over time towards a living wage. We have a strong economy, and in a strong economy everybody deserves a decent standard of living.

We should reform the tax credit system, and ideally lose the tax credit system if everybody in work is earning a decent amount of money. We need to make these changes progressively and over time.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that wages should rise and tax credits fall accordingly as they rise, rather than take money away from families already living on the breadline and impoverish them still further?

Scotland Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Nothing ever surprises me, although I was a little surprised last week that the 56 SNP MPs went through the Lobby with the Thatcherite arm of the Conservative party. That was because full fiscal autonomy would deliver something that would be fundamentally damaging to Scotland. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. [Interruption.] I thank her for waking up all the SNP MPs with her intervention.

The Smith agreement said:

“Income Tax will remain a shared tax and both the UK and Scottish Parliaments will share control of Income Tax. MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax…Within this framework, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to set the rates of Income Tax and the thresholds at which these are paid for the non-savings and non-dividend income of Scottish taxpayers”.

That is exactly what the Bill does, and it is important to highlight two aspects of that quotation.

First, maintaining income tax as a UK-wide tax is critical to the continued pooling and sharing of resources. That facilitates UK-wide redistribution on the basis of need, which underlines the welfare state and the state pension system. The Church of Scotland expressed the same view when it argued for

“a degree of solidarity across the United Kingdom, where prosperity is shared and those with broadest shoulders can carry the extra weight of supporting those less fortunate.”

Secondly, the Smith agreement explicitly mentions the continuing right of Scottish MPs to vote on the Budget within the framework that it sets out. That is equally important, particularly given the Government’s proposals on English votes for English laws. Devolving income tax in its entirety, which the hon. Members for Dundee East and for Gainsborough are advocating, would place that right in doubt and create two classes of MP in this place. That risk was the subject of considerable debate in the Smith commission. As long as one believes in the pooling and sharing of resources, which we certainly do, Smith’s recommendation to retain income tax as a shared tax is critical. That is why we reject amendment 124 and new clause 54, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East.

New clause 32 concentrates on the implementation of the powers being transferred and, as I have said a number of times in this Committee, the use of those powers. What we are trying to achieve chimes with much of what the hon. Member for Dundee East said, when he laid out the concerns about how the proposals would be monitored, how the number of income tax payers would be determined, the “no detriment” policies across the United Kingdom and the complicated nature of the fiscal framework.

The report under new clause 32 would include

“a review of the revised fiscal framework”,

given its complicated nature. It would also include

“the tax year to which sections 12 and 13 of this Act will apply, and the day on which they are due to come into force”

so that businesses are able to plan. It would include details of the number of staff that both Governments would assign to the implementation of the new Scottish rate of income tax to ensure that adequate resources were deployed to make it happen. It would be useful if the Secretary of State responded to the particular concern that the staffing level to determine the Scottish rate of income tax might be deficient.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I am just trying to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As I understand it, this is an opportunity to discuss whether the Scottish Parliament should have enhanced powers over income tax. His position seems to be that, rather than take that step, we should have a review of the situation. I can understand the logic of having a review of the powers, but why does he think that the review would be better in the hands of the Tory Chancellor, rather than the representatives of the people of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament? Surely the time has come to allow the Scottish people to determine these matters for themselves, rather than a Tory Government who have only one single representative in Scotland.

[Ian Murray]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. We fundamentally agree with the clauses relating to the devolution of income tax, but these are hugely complex matters, as is demonstrated by the complicated nature of the devolution of the 10p income tax provision in the Scotland Act 2012. The new clause would not prevent the Bill from proceeding; it would merely allow the Secretary of State to bring to the House a report on the progress of implementation.

There is another difficulty. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—the Scottish Parliament could produce a report and submit it—but I cannot, in the House of Commons, command a different Parliament to do something, which is why I am asking the Secretary of State to produce the report.

It is right for these issues to be raised. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will also examine them in great detail, and will present a full report to both Houses. Our aim is to protect Scottish taxpayers rather than to create a political divide. It is disappointing that, although we agree on the broad principles of the devolution of income tax, Members are trying to bring about division between us. We are trying to be a responsible Opposition in calling for a report on the implementation of income tax rates.

New clause 32 calls for

“a report on the identification of Scottish taxpayers”.

The aim is to ensure that individuals are either Scottish or UK taxpayers but not both, to prevent the double taxation that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee East, and to deal with cross-border mid-financial year movements, which is important in the context of where people may live or work.

The review must include the rates and bands at which the Scottish income tax will be set, and a projection of the impact of the tax on revenues generated in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. That is primarily designed to ensure that Scotland does not become worse off over time owing to the relative tax bases and demographic or behavioural changes in the United Kingdom overall. Such a review would allow us to assess the transitional process, and to ensure that the projected rates and bands accorded with the principle of no detriment for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That would protect Scottish taxpayers, as well as taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

Critically—the Smith agreement restates this—any updated fiscal framework should secure the Barnett formula, with the Scottish budget bearing the full costs of policy decisions that reduce or increase revenues or expenditure. That is crucial to the fiscal framework.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned gift aid, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to what he said.

I think it important for the people of Scotland to know what their Government are doing about these substantial income tax powers, whatever the colour of that Government. Those powers are worth £11 billion, and they are fundamental to the working lives of people in Scotland. As I have said all along, this is about transparency: transparency in regard to whether additional powers should be devolved, and transparency in regard to the use and impact of those that are devolved. That is what our new clauses 1, 21 and 32 seek to foster.

All I ask is that the United Kingdom Government, and, indeed, the Scottish Government, approach the Bill in the same spirit of transparency and openness as us, and agree to new clause 32. We shall be pressing it to a vote later this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

May I start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that we should put on record our thoughts for those people who have been caught up in the events in Tunisia, particularly those from Scotland who have perished? Although our debate has been curtailed today, it is right that that matter has been given such due consideration in this House.

I say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that I have considered the various issues raised in the House in the first part of our Committee stage, and I will continue that approach through the further days in Committee.

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[David Mundell]

I would like to make a little progress.

Since the Committee last met, I have had the opportunity to appear before the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee—to give it its full title—and to listen to its views and explain the Government’s stance. I can assure the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) that that Committee will continue to play a full part in my consideration of the Bill as it progresses through the House, and I have assured the convener of that.

I had a very useful meeting with the Deputy First Minister to look at how we move forward, particularly in relation to the fiscal framework, and I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but in a good way, because the criticism that was forthcoming from the Committee to both me and the Deputy First Minister was that we both said the same thing to the Committee, which was that we are not going to give a running commentary on the negotiation of the fiscal framework. What I can say is that the list of issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to in his contribution will be part of the discussion of the fiscal framework. We will of course keep this House updated from a UK Government perspective, but it will be for the Scottish Government to keep the Scottish Parliament updated.

I am pleased to start with the clauses on income tax in today’s debate. These are often overlooked, meriting only a few lines in the comments received on the Bill from both Parliaments and from the Scottish Government, but that is because, as has been said, they command widespread support as delivering the central aspect of the Smith agreement in full.

The changes made by clauses 12, 13 and 14 will give unprecedented flexibilities to the Scottish Parliament on income tax and are a significant milestone in Scotland’s devolution journey within the UK. The Scottish Parliament will be able to set income tax rates and thresholds for earned income. This includes the ability to introduce new bands.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

The Deputy First Minister, Mr John Swinney.

Ruth Davidson, however, has set out the Scottish Conservative position by saying that Scotland would never have higher rates of income tax than the rest of the UK. If people elect Scottish Conservative MSPs next May, that is what they will get. Scots voted decisively to remain within a United Kingdom. The UK is more than just a name and a flag; it is a social and fiscal union in which risks and rewards are pooled and shared. The Smith commission looked closely at a range of tax powers and agreed on a package of devolution that enhances Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. It strikes the right balance, by empowering the Scottish Parliament, while maintaining the UK’s strength and coherence. There is a good reason for transferring every power that we are devolving in the Bill, and a good reason for keeping in reserve everything that we are not devolving.

Turning to amendment 124, devolution of income tax is a significant step, but it is important to remember that in the independence referendum only last September, the Scottish people decisively opted for the security of being part of the UK family of nations, and part of that is a single, cohesive income tax system. That is why HMRC will administer Scottish income tax for the Scottish Parliament as part of its UK-wide management of income tax, thus minimising the burdens on employers and individuals. It is also why the Smith commission—which it is important to remember all parties present in the Scottish Parliament signed up to—specifically decided after careful consideration not to devolve the personal allowance.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Colleagues here are finding it incredibly depressing that on this, the third day of our debates on this important Bill, the Secretary of State still seems to be resisting completely any amendment to his point of view. What parallel universe is he living in if he thinks that the will of his party, which has one representative in Scotland, should prevail over the wishes of the majority of the electorate in Scotland, who voted decisively for our party and for more powers?

[David Mundell]

The world in which I live is one in which I have had a very productive discussion with the Deputy First Minister of Scotland on how we should take forward these financial measures and reach agreement on a package that will provide stability and financing for the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. That is what I am committed to doing. Of course I will listen to the views expressed in amendments tabled in this House, and that is what we are continuing to do today. It is for those who are tabling amendments to make a case for their being accepted.