Finance Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that point. First, the increase to £500,000 was temporary, as we always made clear. Very strong representations were made by business groups that what was important was putting a permanent level in place. We have the highest permanent level ever; at £200,000 it is twice the level we inherited in 2010, at a time when corporation tax rates are substantially lower. This is therefore a much more generous regime than we have had before. Our changes to corporation tax rates are an important measure in encouraging investment. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not believe it was that long ago that the Scottish National party was advocating a corporation tax rate of 18%. I am sure the SNP is delighted that there will be a rate of 18% across all the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves off the issue of support for businesses, may I say that although there are many measures in the Bill to support businesses that we welcome, many of my local small businesses are eagerly awaiting the Government’s review on business rates later this year? Will he give some indication that those small businesses in my constituency will not end up worse off as a result of changes that may be planned to the business rates?

[Mr Gauke]

Our record on business rates is that we have consistently looked after the interests of small businesses: we have extended small business rate relief on numerous occasions; we have introduced the rebate for retail premises; and we have made a number of reforms to business rates to assist small businesses in particular, as well as capping increases in business rates. A review is ongoing and I am not going to make any announcement today, however nicely the hon. Gentleman asks me what its contents will be. It is ongoing and the consultation period has only relatively recently finished. We are keen to progress this and we have brought forward the timetable by which we will complete that review; we will have something by the end of the year.

Improving productivity also means prioritising investment in infrastructure. Our road network has suffered from decades of underinvestment. This Bill implements reforms to vehicle excise duty to support the creation of a roads fund. The reforms will ensure that VED still incentivises purchases of the cleanest cars, while putting revenues on a sustainable long-term footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the measures set out in the Bill. It is a somewhat strange Finance Bill, because many of the most contentious measures announced in the Chancellor’s emergency Budget are not actually in it. Indeed, the Bill is almost as significant for what is not in it as for what is. It is important to reflect on that, and on the fact that the Budget exposed a real difference between the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the reality of what he is delivering, particularly for ordinary working people in our country.

It was certainly not the Budget, and this is certainly not the Finance Bill, that working people needed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us that 3 million working families will be around £1,000 a year worse off. The Budget clearly leaves working people worse off. Despite what the Minister has said about productivity, as a package it fails the test of building a more productive economy to bring down the deficit in a more sustainable, stronger and fairer way.

The Bill does not provide for the contentious changes to tax credits, which the Minister and I have debated several times already over the past week or two, or the reduction in the work allowance and the increase in the taper rate, which will hit working people on middle and lower incomes. We discussed those changes during Treasury questions this morning, particularly the high marginal tax rates that people who earn just above the personal allowance threshold and are currently in receipt of tax credits will be facing. I understand that those changes will be made by delegated legislation, which we expect later this year. They will be hotly debated and opposed, because choosing to make 3 million working families £1,000 a year worse off is the wrong choice, regardless of how the Government try to dress it up.

The Bill also does not set out the changes to the minimum wage. Despite what the Minister and the Chancellor have been saying over the past week or so, what the Government have announced is not a real living wage.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just because the Chancellor calls an increase in the national minimum wage—welcome though that is—a national living wage does not make it “the” living wage. Is she as concerned as I am that the IFS has said that it is arithmetically impossible for the increase in the national minimum wage to match the losses that will result from the changes to tax credits?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been busily trying to claim that the changes to tax credits will result in no real change because the new national living wage, which is effectively only an increase in the national minimum wage, will make up for that. The IFS has made it clear that that is arithmetically impossible. That is a pretty damning indictment of the messages that the Government have been trying to put out since the Budget on 8 July.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend knows that several Greater Manchester MPs have already voiced their concern about the pause of the electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds, not least because that is absolutely crucial for the economic growth that we need across the Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire “northern powerhouse”, as the Government like to call it. Does she also appreciate the frustration of Greater Manchester MPs that the only mention under the heading of “infrastructure” in the Budget was a plastic Oyster-style card to use on our Pacer trains?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The northern powerhouse has very clearly got a power cut, and it remains the case that with changes to local government funding, we cannot empower local government and local people if we impoverish them. At the same time, there remain important critiques of the Government’s policy making in this area. He is absolutely right that the Budget, the Finance Bill and all the attendant documents that were published on 8 July certainly did not go far enough on infrastructure, and the example that he gives powerfully highlights that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will shortly turn to insurance premium tax, which is a very significant tax-raising measure that the Government have not been quite as keen to trumpet as other measures in the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber—it is significant that most of the very contentious changes in the Budget, particularly in respect of working tax credits, are not in the Bill but will be made in delegated legislation Committees. I dispute the Government’s characterisation of these measures, because I believe that they will leave working people worse off. That is not necessarily directly relevant to all aspects of the Bill, but it is relevant to the overall package of measures introduced in the Budget.

There is serious concern about the impact that the 8% surcharge will have on building societies. Of the six main building societies—Nationwide, Yorkshire, Coventry, Skipton, Leeds and Principality—only Nationwide currently pays the bank levy. Based on the most up-to-date profit figures from 2014-15, it is estimated that the building societies will pay about £126 million a year through the corporation tax surcharge, equating to about £630 million up to 2020. The building societies point out that the primary way in which they build their capital is through retained profit, so a tax on profit has a disproportionate effect on them. Moreover, they do not have shareholders, unlike public limited companies, so this is, in effect, a tax on the customers who own them—retail savers and mortgage borrowers. It will be important for the Government to explain their thinking on building societies and what analysis there is of how these changes will play out for them in practice.

The next key issue that we will return to in Committee relates to the climate change levy. Clause 45 removes the climate change levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. I am afraid that this is another example of the Government undermining investor confidence in renewable energy. They have already tried to halt the development of the cheapest form of clean energy by pulling the plug on onshore wind, and this continues that trend. It would be fair to say that since taking office they have put placating their Back Benchers’ more strident views about renewable energy generation above the jobs and investment that would be created across our economy if we were genuinely able to move towards a low-carbon economy.

We will particularly seek to push the Government on a suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that they produce a road map, as they have done previously on aspects of taxation policy—in particular, corporation tax policy—setting out their plans for the future of environmental taxes to help the renewable energy industry, and business more generally, to take long-term investment decisions. That could be an important way for the Government to set out their intentions for the life of this Parliament and for us to test whether they mean it with regard to charting a course towards a low-carbon economy for our country.

Insurance premium tax, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), is a significant revenue-raising measure. Clause 43 increases the standard rate of the tax from 6% to 9.5% with effect from 1 November 2015, raising £1.6 billion. There are very important questions about the distributional impact that that will have and whether those on middle and low incomes will bear the brunt of the increases. It is interesting that the Chancellor did not focus on the very significant revenue-raising measures in his Budget. Indeed, the rhetoric and narrative that he has been pursuing suggests that it is a Budget of giveaways. He will not be surprised that we will not let him get away with that characterisation.

Insurance premium tax has been described as a stealth tax. Ministers will be aware that several industry figures have warned that increasing it could prompt policyholders to buy less cover, possibly exacerbating problems caused by under-insurance, particularly with regard to car insurance. Again, we will wish to test those areas further in Committee when we will look carefully at any analysis by Government of the possible impact on under-insurance. The AA has said that insurance premium tax on the average car insurance policy is equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre, so either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the measure’s overall distributional income, what conversations the Government have already had with the insurance industry and what this means for future changes to fuel duty.

As I have said, we support other measures in the Bill, particularly the so-called tax lock both for income tax at the basic, higher and additional rates, and for VAT. I remind Treasury Ministers that, back in 2009, the current Chancellor was very critical about Chancellors passing laws to ensure that they fulfil the promises they make in general election campaigns, and I think that that criticism applies just as much to him now. However, we support the principle of the lock. We have pledged not to raise VAT, national insurance or the basic and higher rates of income tax, so we welcome those measures.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I commend my hon. Friend and the shadow Treasury team, because that particular lock would not have been introduced were it not for the valiant efforts of Labour Front Benchers in the run-up to the last general election in highlighting that the Government would probably have to raise VAT or other taxes. She has already described some of the stealth taxes that have come to fruition since the election.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I wonder whether we would have the tax lock had it not been for the VAT bombshell poster we unveiled or for the exchanges at Prime Minister’s questions ahead of the general election. Ministers were certainly very quick to write such a law, and despite the Chancellor having suggested in 2009 that passing laws to ensure promises on taxation are kept was a very bad idea, he was very quick to convert to that cause. Nevertheless, they are passing a law on the tax lock. It was Labour party policy, and we are very pleased that we pushed the Conservative party into our territory in agreeing that the rates for ordinary people on lower and middle incomes should not go up.

Another change we support is on the annual investment allowance. I am pleased that the direction of travel has been set out for the whole Parliament. That contrasts very strongly with what happened during the last Parliament, when lots of chopping and changing on capital allowances definitely undermined business investment. Even if the deal is less generous, with a decrease from £500,000 to £200,000, it is important that businesses at least know that the deal they are going to get will last a lot longer than it previously did.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned with respect to the expected changes on corporation tax, there is a lack of concrete proposals for business rates. The Financial Secretary has raised expectations and hopes of real change on business rates when the consultation is finally unveiled later this year. We will certainly look at whether the business rates burden will come down for small and medium-sized companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

I have made the point about the characterisation of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman will have to take my word for it that some earlier Finance Bills contained all the measures that were in the Budget. Much of this Budget is split. It is not all in this Bill or the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Some of it will be in delegated legislation. There will be plenty of opportunities to make the arguments he puts. Opposing at this point is not the only thing that we can do as an Opposition, and Members will just have to take my word for that.

Despite the gimmick of the tax lock on VAT and income tax, the Government’s other tax increases will have an impact on families over and above the impact from cuts in tax credits, as I said. The rate of insurance premium tax is increasing by more than 50%, which will be a hit to the cost of insurance for the family home, the family car and family holidays. A number of hon. Members referred to that. Insurance industry experts have raised concerns about the impact that this tax increase could have on the take-up of insurance. They have warned that it may mean policyholders buy less cover, in effect “taxing protection”. Half the poorest households do not have home contents insurance, and those households are more than three times as likely to be burgled as those with insurance. That leaves low-income households less financially able to replace goods lost through burglary, fire or flood. That point obviously was not understood by the hon. Member who mentioned it earlier.

We have welcomed the increase in the minimum wage set out in clauses 3 and 4. The Government are adopting a Labour policy to increase the value of the national minimum wage, a measure we introduced in 1998 in the face of fierce opposition—one could almost say ferocious opposition—from Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke effectively about implementing the real living wage and about the safety net that tax credits can provide as people move in and out of low-paid work. We had a number of useful interventions in which hon. Members clarified the status of the real national living wage versus the increased national minimum wage. Leaving aside that issue, it would help if the Chancellor got his facts right. In an article in The Guardian yesterday, he claimed that 2.7 million people would gain £5,000 each from the increase to the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission tells us that there are, in fact, 1.4 million people in minimum wage jobs, including only 1.2 million people who are over 21. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why the Chancellor persists in using such incorrect figures.

There is real concern about the impact of minimum wage increases on social care provision, funded through local authority budgets, if the Government do not fund the increase in the minimum wage as it is a new burden on local authorities. The care sector is one of the lowest-paid sectors. The planned increases in the national minimum wage for care workers have been estimated by the Local Government Association to cost £330 million this year, rising to £1 billion a year by 2020. The Opposition believe that low-paid care workers should have a wage increase, but we obviously need to find ways to fund it that do not involve further cuts to care or other local authority services. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who was leader of her council, has battled through that, as have other local authority leaders.

Ministers are clearly in a mess over the funding of social care. Since the Budget, the Government have abandoned their manifesto pledge to cap care costs from next year, as we heard in Treasury questions this morning. Indeed, the vice-president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said that the pressures of rising demand, punitively reduced budgets and the impending obligation to pay increased wages all

“put an intolerable strain on social care finance.”

Abandoning the care cap seems to be a short-term palliative to those funding issues, but it will come at a high cost to people living with dementia and other long-term conditions.

The Opposition therefore question the Government’s priorities. Bringing in the nil-rate band of inheritance tax for properties worth up to £1 million when the property passes to direct descendants will cost almost £1 billion by 2020 onwards, yet families of people who need social care for long periods can lose nearly all the value of their homes through paying for care. It seems, unless the Minister can enlighten us otherwise, that there is no ray of hope for them in this Parliament.

The IFS has described the removal of the climate change levy exemption on renewables as a measure that makes “no economic sense”. Friends of the Earth has said that the change shifts the climate change levy from a carbon tax to just a tax on all electricity consumed. A number of interventions and speeches touched on that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course, we should not be surprised about the changes to the climate change levy, given that the Government have already signalled their direction of travel through their proposed changes to onshore wind. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a retrograde step, given that the United Kingdom is such a leader in renewable energy?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed I do. My hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary noted that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has suggested having some kind of audit and report on the way forward for the sector, which would be very helpful.

The removal of that exemption will come at a cost to companies and to the environment. It makes little sense to remove the exemption for renewable energy generators in the UK. It will not only increase tax on business consumption of energy, but reduce the relationship between the tax paid and the carbon content of the energy, as a number of Members have noted. The Opposition believe that the Government should be encouraging the renewables sector to develop and grow. Cutting green subsidies risks being a false economy and may cost the UK economy more in the long term.

It is right that banks should pay their fair share of tax. The bank levy, as many Members have noted, was designed to discourage risky borrowing. Now the Government plan to reduce the bank levy gradually. Instead, banks will be subject to an 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits from January 2016. The IFS estimates that the change to the bank levy will cost the Exchequer £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards, whereas the 8% corporation tax surcharge on bank profits will raise only £1.3 billion.

There is a question of priorities here. Is it fair at this time, when working families are going to be made worse off by the Government’s plans, to reduce the levy paid by the banks in that way? The Minister will probably say that it will make money in the longer term, but many concerns have been raised. The IFS and other organisations have raised concerns about the possibility of perverse incentives and disproportionate impacts on parts of the banking sector.

We want to ensure that the Bill helps to create a system in which banks are taxed proportionately and fairly. A number of concerns were raised about the impact of the corporation tax surcharge on bank profits on building societies and challenger banks. We clearly need to examine the issue closely in Committee of the whole House.

On tax avoidance, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in his place, was asked whether £5 billion was small beer. Certainly, our Labour target for tax avoidance was £7.5 billion by the middle of this Parliament, and Labour Members have raised many points of concern about tax avoidance, including on the importance of going further to close the “Mayfair” loophole. We will return to those tax avoidance issues later in our scrutiny of the Bill.

Although we agree with some measures in the Bill, others obviously need to be amended. It is clear that the Budget, and hence the Finance Bill, together with the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will have a regressive impact, and the Finance Bill highlights the wrong priorities chosen by this Government. The Chancellor claimed that his Budget was moving us to a low-tax society, when tax increases are actually at twice the level of tax cuts. Budget giveaways, like the cut to inheritance tax, look like the wrong priority when they are viewed against measures to penalise 3 million of the lowest-income households by £1,000 a year. Families will also be penalised when they take out insurance on their family car or home contents, if they can still afford to take out insurance on their car and home contents. A point which I come back to because it is so important is that the Government’s priorities mean that one group of families, with homes to a value of £1 million, are to be protected from inheritance tax, while the families of people needing social care over long periods will have no cap on the costs of their care.

We will return to the issues of bank taxation, the insurance premium tax and the climate change levy in our debates in Committee in September, and I hope Ministers will have time in between for more reflection on their priorities.

This is not the pre-recess Adjournment debate, but a number of good wishes have been expressed and I should like to add to them. I will take a chance here and wish the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) happy birthday; I am sure I made a mess of the pronunciation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish all Members of the House a good recess and wish all the Officers and you a good summer, with some time off for a break before we return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I can. The Government’s long-term economic plan is working. Since 2010, we have seen the creation of 1,000 new jobs a day, but the job is not yet done. The Government will continue working through the plan to secure Britain’s economic future.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the OBR analysis shows that the number of high-skill jobs in the UK economy is shrinking at a time when the number of low-skill jobs is increasing. Is he proud of that record?

[Damian Hinds]

There has been a growth in the number of jobs in low and medium-skill sectors, and we should all welcome that. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I meant high and medium-skill sectors. The Government’s focus on the productivity plan is all about making sure that as we move into the next phase we are boosting those highest-value-added sectors.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who made a distinguished contribution as housing Minister, is right. Permitted development rights are important to bring otherwise disused spaces, such as offices, into use for homes. He will not have long to wait before we announce the continuation of those arrangements.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am interested in the Secretary of State’s proposals to reform planning regulations, but will he look carefully at unintended consequences? We all want an increase in the number of homes being built, but we do not necessarily want to lose valuable employment land.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point in a reasonable way. He is absolutely right, which is why article 4 directions are expressly available to local authorities to make sure that land is kept for a particular use where it is important to do so.

Some of the proposals will be contained in the housing Bill this autumn and the House will have the opportunity to debate them. The Bill will create a new register of brownfield land to help fast-track the construction of homes, with the principle of development being agreed on 90% of suitable sites by the end of this Parliament. In London, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Mayor will create an additional 10 housing zones, all on brownfield land. Those additional zones will bring the total number in the capital to 20, which, combined with the 20 housing zones outside London and the eight shortlisted areas that we have agreed to work with, could deliver nearly 100,000 more homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

It seems from the details of the Government’s productivity plan, which were published on Friday, that the hon. Gentleman’s party is introducing a nationalised spatial strategy.

Our amendment to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, would ensure that areas that did not want a mayor would not get a second-class deal. A Labour amendment that was passed in the other place earlier this afternoon proposes the introduction of a “devolution by default” test for every new Bill that the Government introduce to Parliament. If the Government did not push down as much power as possible to local level, they would have to give and justify their reasons. I hope that they will agree to retain that new provision, because it will be a test of their commitment to devolution.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Like my hon. Friend, I strongly support the devolution of powers to Greater Manchester, but does she agree that not just devolution to the strategic city-wide level but devolution to the local level is crucial, given that many authorities in Greater Manchester are now struggling to deliver basic services?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. When we were in office we devolved power to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but I know from our colleagues in Scotland that they are very disappointed that there has not been much devolution from the Scottish Parliament downwards. As my hon. Friend says, if we are devolving to combined authorities, we need to ensure that there is real devolution to communities as well.

The Budget also reinforced the Government’s piecemeal approach to devolution. We are calling on them to deliver a more ambitious and comprehensive devolution agenda to every part of the country—to all our cities, towns and counties. Doing a small number of one-off deals is not a one nation approach.

This Secretary of State is certainly better liked than his predecessor—[Interruption.] I accept that it is not a particularly high bar. It remains to be seen, however, whether he will live up to the reputation that he is trying to forge for himself. We hope that he will fight the corner of local government, but we will judge him on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in the autumn, on the settlement that he achieves for local government, particularly in areas of high need, and, crucially, on the impact that any settlement will have on the vital public services on which people rely. Local government areas where more children are in care, where there are more vulnerable elderly people and where the needs of the local population are more complex and difficult are the areas where the Government have made the deepest cuts in the last five years. Let me say this to the Secretary of State: he cannot champion local government if he is impoverishing it at the same time. Devolution must not be a smokescreen to bring local government to its knees.

Housing is the other long-term challenge with which I want to deal. In our first debate in this House since the election I said to the Secretary of State, when debating the Queen’s Speech, that tackling the housing crisis was a key test for him and his Government. He agreed; he said it was an “issue of huge importance” and that this Government would

“build more homes in every part of the country”—[Official Report, 10 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1231.]

He even invoked the spirit of Harold Macmillan, but last week the Chancellor delivered a Budget that contained no proposal to tackle the housing crisis. Worse still—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. Worse still, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Budget would lead to 14,000 fewer affordable homes being built, which is contrary to what the Secretary of State said today. His desire to emulate Harold Macmillan appears to have been rather short-lived. If he thought that private house builders would compensate for his Government’s policies, he was mistaken, because the OBR says that it does

“not expect private sector house-builders to offset this effect to any material degree.”

Then there was the Government’s so-called pay-to-stay measure. I was interested to read that the Prime Minister had reservations about these proposals because he was not sure of the wisdom of describing people earning £30,000 as high earners. Indeed, these proposals would mean that a couple working full-time on the living wage would be classified as high earners, with a combined income of just over £30,000 a year. We have not seen the details of these proposals yet, but that couple could have to pay, on average, an additional £3,600 a year according to the Government’s own figures. Those who secure a promotion or more hours could thus be hit by this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I inform the House that today I have been contacted by a police officer from Greater Manchester police regarding correspondence between me and some of my constituents about Audenshaw school in my constituency. It is not my intention to release the information requested by the police because I consider letters between constituents and me as a Member of Parliament to be confidential unless I am instructed to release them by a court. May I place that on the record and ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether that is also your understanding?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he has said, and whether or not to release those letters is a decision that he must take, based on the information that he holds. The point is certainly on the record because we are all aware of it and people will read about it tomorrow.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

And many of those people going into work, I gently say to the hon. and learned Lady, will be in receipt of tax credits. The only way that that work will pay for those individuals moving from unemployment into work is through the tax credits her Government may well cut tomorrow.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: tax credits are also in-work benefits. Has she sensed any intention on the part of the Government to offset cuts to tax credits to working families in my constituency and hers with an increase in the minimum wage, which would have to rise by about 25%?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national minimum wage would have to rise by 25% overnight tonight if the Government make these changes tomorrow. I shall come later to the difficulties and to the changes we need to make to the national minimum wage.

Greece

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right. We have reduced our exposure, as I said, to the Greek economy and, absolutely crucially, the Prime Minister made sure we were out of the bail-out funds for Greece that existed when we came to office. With hindsight, that looks like one of the most important decisions we took.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The form of any contagion is not yet known, but surely one of the dangers is capital flight from the poorer southern eurozone economies to the richer northern economies. That would not just be a disaster for Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, but it would have ramifications for the wider European Union, which are political, as the Chancellor has intimated. Given that, what discussions are he and his officials having with European Finance Ministers to make sure that the European single market is not undermined?

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman is right that capital flies from countries in distress. That is why the Greek Government have had to impose capital controls. We see German bund spreads coming down today. That is a consequence of an open and free market and, as I said in reply to an earlier question, it is difficult to defy that market, as Greece is seeing. More broadly, we want to make sure that the eurozone finds some sustainable way forward so that we avoid these tensions, which spill out into the political system.

Scotland Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The Scottish Parliament will have a significant ability to adjust the zero rate in particular. I hope that the Secretary of State responds to that point, because the House of Commons Library was quite clear on it. However, there has to be some pooling and sharing. Income tax is the biggest tax that everyone pays. Everyone who works pays a proportion of their income in income tax, above the basic allowance. It is important that everyone has a stake in that game. We could get to a situation in which people who did not have a stake in that game asked what the United Kingdom was for. I fundamentally believe in pooling and sharing, and the Smith agreement struck a reasonable balance.

We need a full analysis of how all the proposals will work. That is why we tabled new clause 32. Some adjustment of the powers might be needed in the future. We do not yet know what effect the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 will have, because it does not come into force until 2016. The question that the hon. Member for Gainsborough raises relates to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 32, because the report would examine the consequences of this transfer of powers.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is not one of the unintended consequences of the devolution of income tax to the Scottish Parliament that it will affect UK-wide facilities such as gift aid, which reimburses charities on the basis of the basic rate of income tax that is set at a UK level? If there were two different basic rates, might that not cause complexity for donors in tracking what they pay to HMRC and to Revenue Scotland? Does my hon. Friend think that that issue should be considered by the review that would be conducted under new clause 32?

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted by that intervention, because I was going to speak about that issue later. Given the time constraints, I will take that point out of my speech, because my hon. Friend has made it well. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has raised the relationship between income tax and gift aid. Although that matter is not mentioned in new clause 32, I hope that if there is a reporting mechanism, it will look not only at gift aid, but at pension relief. That is another matter that was not mentioned by the Smith agreement, but which has been raised by many of the organisations that have been in touch with us about the Bill. Gift aid is worth £1 billion a year to charities, so we must ensure that it is considered properly.

Greece

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the remaining interest, but only on the assumption that we can wrap this up by 6.30, so I appeal for extreme brevity, to be exemplified by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Chancellor said in his statement that eurozone authorities

“stand ready to do whatever is necessary to ensure the financial stability of the euro area”.

That may well be tested to the full in the coming weeks. Given that the lesson of the exchange rate mechanism is that pressure will undoubtedly be mounting on other European currencies and economies, what contingencies does he have in place to make sure there is no domino effect?

[Mr Osborne]

As I say, the primary responsibility lies with the eurozone and the European Central Bank, and they have put in place better mechanisms than they had three or four years ago. The European Central Bank has its outright monetary transactions mechanism, we have the European stability mechanism—in other words, bail-out funds—and the European Central Bank is also taking a supervisory role, so they are better prepared. However, I was very clear in my statement that however well prepared they are, a Greek exit from the euro would be a substantial financial shock, which would have an impact on the European financial system and on us. That is why we have taken steps to make sure our banking system is better prepared than it was seven or eight years ago.

Productivity

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman, who will, I know, have plenty to contribute on the subject.

Our economic prosperity depends on maximising the output from the efforts of working people and the resources available to business. The amount of output per hour worked is a useful way for us to measure whether our economy is advancing and adding value, or whether we are just treading water. Creating a more productive economy means creating a virtuous circle of higher growth, higher living standards and, as a consequence, more effective deficit reduction. When working people can produce more and they have the tools and the skills to create output more efficiently, employers can afford to pay them more, tax revenues become more buoyant and our GDP can grow in a more sustainable way.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will give way to my hon. Friend after I have given way to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier).

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I will send the hon. Gentleman the anthology of Chris Leslie’s speeches, because I am sure that he will be keen to find out every occasion—in 2013, 2014 and 2015—on which I have talked about productivity. I have been talking about it for a very long time. We must not think of it as simply a parliamentary issue. The CBI has emphasised the importance of higher productivity as the only way to secure long-term and sustainable wage growth. In the words of the Governor of the Bank of England,

“productivity growth—doing more with less—is the key determinant of income growth. Our shared prosperity depends on it.”

As Paul Krugman famously put it:

“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.”

We need a cross-party approach to the challenge.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Chancellor is always very keen to make economic comparisons between the United Kingdom economy and G7 counterparts, but UK output per hour is 17% below the G7 average and a huge 31% below the USA average. Is not that the root cause of this problem?

[Chris Leslie]

We can see that the problem is particularly stark when we make those international comparisons. Our productivity growth rate has plummeted to the second worst in the G7. The UK was ranked 29th out of 36 OECD countries for GDP growth between 2010 and 2014. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Surely the most important thing is the delivery of the Budget, not just the speech. The delivery of the Budget was all about things such as digital communications infrastructure, housing, science, innovation, freezing fuel duty, doing something for the oil and gas regime, the sharing economy and backing business by launching a comprehensive review of business rates. The most important thing in government is what is delivered.

The Chancellor announced four weeks ago—way before the hon. Gentleman tabled a motion or wrote an article—that we will publish a productivity plan: a plan to make Britain work better. I will remind the hon. Gentleman of that speech, because he was there with various Labour leadership contenders, minus the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Curiously, he seemed to have been missed off the CBI invitation list, but he may be up for an invitation in the future. The Chancellor said:

“Let me be clear”—

perhaps he was not clear enough for the hon. Member for Nottingham East—

“improving the productivity of our country is the route to raising standards of living for everyone in this country.”

I am sure the shadow Chancellor will recall that, because he was there.

It speaks volumes that the Treasury ministerial team announced in May by the Prime Minister includes Jim O’Neill, one of the most respected economists in the country and an authority on productivity. His input is more about deeds than words and it will be vital as we put in place the policies that will turbo-charge our economy.

Our productivity plan will build on the significant supply-side reforms we have put in place over the past five years. It will be wide-ranging and ambitious. It will look to the long term. It will help rebalance the economy and build the northern powerhouse. It will improve our infrastructure and reduce burdens on businesses; increase our support for childcare; ensure that many more affordable homes are built; expand apprenticeships and equip us with the skills we need for the 21st century; and make a bold next step in this country’s remarkable economic recovery.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Can the Chief Secretary confirm whether the success or otherwise of his productivity plan will be assessed by the Office for Budget Responsibility? Will it cut across all Government Departments to ensure that some of the regional imbalances that he has mentioned will be tackled across Government?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course the OBR looks at all Government proposals at the appropriate time, and I do not think that there will be any exception for this.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I was also going to say that it was a pleasure to be in the company of so many Members who had participated in Finance Bill Committees during this Parliament, but one by one they have disappeared from the Chamber—even the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been one of the most assiduous Committee members—which is a shame as I was looking forward to hearing the usually very robust views they express, when we are upstairs in Committee at least. Presumably they have something else on their mind today.

The period we are in, which spans one VAT increase to possibly another, is a very interesting one. One of the things that the Government are trying to say—interestingly, some of the other parties are trying to say the same—is that there is no difference between the policies of the Government and the Opposition and that we would all have to make the same decisions. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly stated that there is a huge difference between the forward plans of the Government and those of the Opposition. Our policies involve a different attitude towards spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit over a period. That is what we said back in 2010; we were clear that we would be following a different pathway. We were not deficit deniers, as was sometimes suggested, but we were clear that we had a different view on how this could best be handled and that there would therefore be fairness in our measures. That remains the case because, prior to the Budget, the IFS said that, given our forward plans and taxation proposals, in contrast to the £55 billion of spending cuts the Conservatives would have to find, the Labour Opposition would be looking to make only £4 billion of spending cuts. More recently the IFS has said that in order to carry out our plans we would not need to make any further spending cuts in the forthcoming Government. So that is a very big difference in our policies. From that point of view, we are in a position to say not just that we would not increase VAT, but that we have a different and much fairer road to go down.

It is right for us to ask what the Government—whether the coalition or the Conservative party; it is not always clear—would be doing. Not only have they said that they need to find those spending cuts to carry out their deficit reduction proposals, but they have also suggested further tax reductions through the continued raising of the tax threshold. At no time since that announcement was made by the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference has there been any clarity as to where that money would be coming from. So not only are they clearly tied to making substantial departmental spending cuts, but they have not shown us how they are going to close this financial gap. That is why people are saying, “We think it’s going to be VAT.” It is hard to tell where else it might come from. Of course, if it is coming from somewhere else, we would expect that to be said. So the Prime Minister stands up and says, “Oh no, we won’t be increasing VAT,” but the other half of that statement has not been made. We do not know how he is going to square this circle.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

As we saw in 2010, what the Prime Minister says this side of an election is not necessarily the same as what then happens in future Conservative Budgets. Has my hon. Friend also pondered the quandary that they might stick to their pledge not to increase VAT this time, but they have not ruled out extending the scope of VAT to currently exempt items?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is clearly another way the Conservatives might seek to close this gap they have opened up for themselves.



We need to know a lot more about this going forward, and so do the electorate. As hon. Members have said, VAT is a regressive tax. Even though those who have bigger spending power sometimes spend more and so may, in cash terms, spend more in VAT. It is a regressive tax, as are all these indirect taxes. Our position on this is clearly different: we do not believe it is right that people on low incomes should be taxed, in effect, to give other people tax cuts.

We have said a great deal about the 50p issue, which we will discuss later this afternoon, but one of my big concerns for some considerable time has been that low-paid workers already under the tax threshold were being offered nothing from the Government, who constantly talk about raising the tax threshold further. They have no plans to help those people any more. Those people face a real risk that if VAT is increased, they will end up paying the price of a reduction in income tax from which they will not benefit by one penny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I was not a Member at that time, so I was not a part of that Government at all, but I am proud of the previous Government’s record over 13 years. The hon. Gentleman will know that we raised the top rate of tax to 50p in response to the global financial crisis, and that was the right thing to do—[Interruption.] He asked about the minimum wage and mentions it yet again from a sedentary position, but we were the Government who introduced the minimum wage in legislation. That was one of our proudest achievements, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) told me last week that the last all-night sitting of the House of Commons was when the Labour Government introduced the national minimum wage. Labour Members were in the House at eight in the morning to vote it through and they were absolutely right to do so.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the importance of the national minimum wage to many people in this country. Of course, tax changes are one side of the equation, and the other has been the changes to tax credits, which benefited many people under the previous Government. Is it not the case that we have seen a £3 billion cut for the very richest with the cut in the 50p rate, at a time when average families are £1,100 worse off as a result of the tax and tax credit changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is exactly the point. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to fear from all the data being out there for us to interrogate, they should accept our amendment and get on with the review that we have called for. They should have got on with it when we first called for it, immediately after they made the change to the rate. Our amendment genuinely seeks to shine light on what has been happening to people’s incomes and the impact of changes to the top rate of tax. When the Government commissioned their report, the data were not extensive, and the report has been contentious from the minute it came off the printer. The reasons for that go to the thrust of what the Financial Secretary was asking me earlier, and I will come on to those points shortly.

As we have heard, the Labour Government introduced the 50p rate. It came into effect in 2010-11 and was a decision made after the financial crisis as we sought to get the deficit down. There was nothing in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 HMRC was asked to look into it and the yields it produced. It did not take a genius to work out that the Chancellor was thinking about cutting the top rate of tax, and in 2012 with HMRC’s report, the Exchequer effected a 50% additional rate of income tax to back up the Chancellor cutting the rate to 45p.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend talks about the work done by HMRC. Is that almost the same piece of work that the Labour amendment would require the Government to do, in that it would show an analysis of how much money the 45p rate is bringing in and how much the 50p rate would bring in? It would also allow hon. Members to have a proper debate about the proportion of taxes that should go towards deficit reduction as opposed to spending cuts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is precisely to get that additional data that we have tabled this and similar amendments ever since the change was made. Why would the Government go through the process of looking at yield and getting HMRC to produce a report in 2011? That is important, because everyone knew—both at the time and ever since—that there were not enough data to come to an accurate view about yield as the rate had not been in place long enough. To put it bluntly, the Chancellor probably felt that some people might not agree with his decision to give people earning more than £150,000 a massive tax cut, given the state of the rest of the economy and the crushing of people’s living standards on his watch. What he needed to back his decision was a report that said that the 50p rate hardly raised anything at all, which is precisely what the HMRC report said. After analysing a host of facts and figures, the report concluded that a cut that would, by the Government’s initial estimates, cost £3 billion— the so-called static cost, excluding all behavioural changes— would cost only £100 million.

The trouble with the report is that, as everyone acknowledges, there are too many uncertain variables to be anywhere near sure that the figure of £100 million is even close to reality. The report was based on only one year’s worth of data relating to 2010-11. That is a significant weakness, since we know that some incomes were taken earlier to avoid the extra tax. Further detail is now available, including for the tax years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 when the 50p rate was still in place. The writers of the 2011 report did not have those data available, so their report is therefore lacking. That could be remedied were the Government to accept our amendment.

The report attempts to quantify behavioural change. The scale of behavioural change is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—basically the extent to which taxable income changes when the tax rate changes. The IFS says that there is a margin of error within calculations for the 2011 report, and that staying within that margin of error one could easily say, depending on taxable income elasticity, that cutting the rate of tax could cost the Exchequer £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives an idea of the range of figures we are talking about and of how uncertain such projections are.

I return to my central point: more data are now available and could help to calculate a truer picture of the yield of a 50p tax rate as opposed to a rate of 45p. If Conservative Members are so certain that their position on the abolition of the 50p rate is true, why will they not agree to the scrutiny that the amendment suggests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We are making further progress. The hon. Lady has now explicitly said that the 50p rate will not raise £3 billion. [Interruption.] She has explicitly said that, because she has accepted that there will be a behavioural effect that will bring the amount down. I do not know why she is complaining and chuntering, because she has just made the unarguable point that the amount raised will be less than the static cost. That is not the point that the shadow Chief Secretary was trying to make.

Labour politicians are generally very good at saying, “It is a £3 billion giveaway”, in an attempt to give the impression that it will be a £3 billion increase in revenue. I accept that the shadow Chief Secretary probably misspoke, and that when he said that the 50p rate would raise £3 billion, he was getting a little carried away. Labour politicians usually avoid saying, “It will raise £3 billion”, for the very good reason that that is a completely unsupportable position. To be fair to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, she is not making that case today. However, I wish to point out that even the Labour party does not believe that the 50p rate will raise £3 billion, which it clearly will not.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I appreciate that we are five and a half weeks from a general election, so we can exchange party-political knockabout. Having said that, I would politely say to the Minister that the point he is making—very eloquently, I must say, if I am being fair to him—is precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). There is a degree of uncertainty. Is that not exactly why he should support the amendment?

[Mr Gauke]

I accept that I can be carried away with party-political knockabout. I look to the hon. Gentleman as a statesman who rises above such lowly behaviour, and I shall always seek to emulate his balanced and considered approach to the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is not a theme developing today: the extent to which tax cuts and spending cuts should contribute towards deficit reduction and, with regard to tax cuts, who should benefit? As with the debates on VAT and the 50p tax rate, we are arguing for greater consideration to be given to small businesses, because larger businesses have already benefited from corporation tax cuts.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right. This comes back to the impact of the choices being made—who is being prioritised and who is not, who is bearing the greater share of the burden and who is not. That is the material point.

We know that the Government’s impact assessment prepared for the 2014 Budget estimates that the cost to the Exchequer of the corporation tax cut would be some £400 million in 2015-16, £785 million in 2016-17 and £865 million the following year. In the 2015 Budget Red Book the estimates are revised upwards: for 2015-16 £550 million, for 2016-17 £1.045 billion, and for 2017-18 £1.1 billion. Those are not insignificant sums for a policy that affects a relatively small number of businesses. That is exactly my hon. Friend’s point.

The Government estimate that some 40,000 businesses pay the main rate of corporation tax and a further 41,000 businesses pay at the marginal relief rate. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that the UK has some 5.2 million private sector businesses, the majority of which—3.9 million—are sole proprietorships, and 1 million have fewer than 10 employees. Clearly, if about 81,000 businesses benefit from the corporation tax cut, the opposite is also true—5.1 million businesses do not benefit in any way from that rate change.

The Government believe that a further cut in the corporation tax rate makes UK plc a more attractive place to invest and a more attractive destination for business to locate. The Minister and I have often debated the importance of the headline rate of corporation tax when that judgment call is made by businesses. It is important—a point that I have made on several occasions—but it is worth noting that on the former point it is far from clear that this is the case. We know that business investment fell from 8.2% of GDP in 2010 to 7.8% in 2013. That should not come as a big surprise.

Businesses tell us that they face a range of issues and that their decisions about where to locate and where to remain and invest are not based only on the headline rate of corporation tax. They take many other factors into account, such as infrastructure and the skills available in the labour market. Businesses often say that these factors are very important to their decision making, but they worry that under this Government those areas of policy have not gone in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), who I am almost certain will be back in the next Parliament to pursue these cases vigorously with the next Labour Government. I was tempted to speak by the Minister’s generosity in likening me to a future statesman. I appreciate that I have some way to go, although I have not handed him the Red Book across the Table, as I did to his Liberal Democrat counterpart on Thursday.

The debates we have had today really come down to one issue: balance and priorities. It is about the share we expect to take from tax or the share we expect to take from spending cuts to deal with deficit reduction in the next Parliament. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), the issues are the same whether it is the VAT debate, the 50p debate or the debate we are now having on business rates and corporation tax.

[John Robertson]

The best way to get the tax contribution is to give people real jobs with real pay; then we will get the money in.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that goes to the nub of the issue today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood eloquently set out from the Opposition Front Bench, the numbers are clear. In respect of corporation tax, we are talking about a very small number of large businesses operating across the country. The benefits of that tax cut will not necessarily be felt throughout the wider economy. I would argue—I know my hon. Friend makes the same argument—that targeting the same amount of money on a business rate cut for the first year and a freeze for the second year is much smarter, because it would affect 5.1 million small and medium-sized businesses and others. That is the right thing to do for the struggling high street.

I therefore urge the Minister to consider very seriously what the Labour Front-Bench team is asking for. We are not asking him to implement Labour party policy, as much as I would like him to, and we are not asking him to freeze business rates or to cut them. We are asking him to conduct a review so that we can have a proper debate on whether his approach of cutting corporation tax is the right one, or whether, as we argue and believe, cutting and then freezing business rates is a much smarter way of using the same amount of money, as it would create a bigger boost for the economies of towns, villages and cities across the country.

I want to add one note of caution. I am very supportive of the devolution agenda in England. As a Greater Manchester MP, Members would expect me to say that I very much support the efforts by the Greater Manchester combined authority and the 10 local authorities—eight are Labour, one is Conservative and one is Liberal Democrat controlled—and recognise the benefits of the conurbation working together. The Government’s announcement included the retention of additional business rates from growth, but I urge caution. I support the proposal, but we have to approach it on a conurbation, city region and county region basis. Growth areas in cities and counties are often located in particular geographical areas, whereas needs are spread across whole areas. With that, I urge the Minister to accept Labour’s amendment, which requires nothing more than a report that I think would back our plans 100%.

[Mr Gauke]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who spoke in this debate as he has done in so many Finance Bill debates over the past five years. He has always provided a voice of calmness and sanity. I have not agreed with everything he has said, but he has mostly made helpful contributions, and thoughtfulness is a consistent characteristic of those contributions.

The corporation tax rate is set in legislation a year in advance on an annual basis. Clause 6 sets the corporation tax rate and charge for the financial year beginning on 1 April 2016. The House will be aware that in 2013 legislation was passed cutting the main rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20% for the 2015 financial year. The cut will take effect in seven days and give the UK by far the lowest rate in the G7 and the joint lowest rate in the G20. The clause confirms that the rate will remain at 20% in 2016.

The Government have made it clear that we want a business tax regime that is competitive and fair, and since 2010 we have made clear strides towards that goal. The main rate of corporation tax was 28%. We have cut it by almost a third to make the UK more competitive and to support growth and investment. At the same time, we have taken significant measures to clamp down on tax avoidance, and on Second Reading we debated the diverted profits tax introduced by the Bill.

Low corporation taxes enable businesses to increase investment, take on new staff, increase wages or reduce prices. Overall, the corporation tax cuts we have delivered since 2010 will save businesses £10 billion a year from 2016. To give Members a sense of scale, that is the equivalent of giving businesses enough money to hire 270,000 new employees. Oxford university’s centre for business taxation estimates that our reduction in the corporate tax burden will increase business investment by £11 billion; and as well as supporting businesses already operating in the UK, lower rates of corporation tax make the UK more attractive to international businesses. Last year, UK Trade & Investment reported a record number of inward investment projects that led to the creation of 66,000 new jobs and safeguarded 45,000 more.

The corporation tax cuts and other reforms, such as the introduction of the patent box, have completely changed perceptions of the UK tax regime. Five years ago, businesses were leaving the UK because of our tax regime. That regime has now become an asset that attracts firms to the UK. In surveys, the UK is now regularly cited as one of the most competitive regimes in the world. The clause embeds the message that the UK is open for business by affirming that the UK rate will remain at the record low of 20% in 2016.

The Opposition amendment proposes a review of the impact of a 1% cut to the main rate of corporation tax for the financial year 2016. A great deal is already known about the impact of corporation tax policy. We know that lower rates encourage growth and investment, and that stable and simple taxes give businesses confidence to invest and expand. The clause refers only to a single rate because we have already legislated to unify the main rate and small profits rate of corporation tax and to scrap the complex marginal relief system for all companies, except those with ring-fenced profits.

These changes will take effect next week and give the UK for the first time a single headline rate of corporation tax and provide administrative savings for a huge number of businesses, particularly the nearly 50,000 companies that pay the marginal rate of corporation tax each year. The move was recommended by the Office of Tax Simplification, and I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Michael Jack, John Whiting and the team for all the work they have done since we introduced the OTS at the start of this Parliament. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also been supportive of our reforms. In a recent report, it said:

“The simplification of moving to a single rate of corporation tax…is a real achievement of the coalition government’s tax policy, and it is one that should not be reversed.”

The evidence on corporation tax is clear: low rates and a simple system support business and support growth. In our view, the proposed review would provide little benefit, so we are not minded to accept the amendment.

As far as business rates are concerned, the Government recognise that they represent a fixed cost for businesses. That is why during this Parliament we have continued to double the small business rate relief schemes, supporting 575,000 businesses, of which 385,000 pay no rates at all. We have capped the inflation-linked increase in the business rates multiplier at 2% for two years, and we have provided a £1,000 retail discount this year, rising to £1,500 next year for small shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants, supporting the high street.

Labour said it would cut business rates by 1% for lower-value properties in 2015-16. Under its plan, the smallest single properties would pay more. A property with a rateable value of £5,000 saves £1,165 under this Government compared with the Opposition’s proposals. The high street would also lose out. A shop with a rateable value of £30,000 saves £1,080 under this Government when compared with the original proposals. We have published terms of reference for a wide-ranging ambitious review of Budget business rates to report back to the Government. That is, of course, on top of what we have done on fuel duty, which helps small businesses, and the employment allowance, which does the same.

In conclusion, cutting corporation tax has been a central part of our economic strategy—a strategy that is working. In 2014, growth in the UK outstripped that of every other G7 country. Employment is at record levels, business investment is growing rapidly, and this clause ensures that the rate of corporation tax for 2016-17 will remain at 20%—an extremely competitive rate and a foundation of tax system designed to support growth and investment. Reversing the progress we have made would be a big mistake and send a terrible signal to businesses around the world. That is why I believe the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Amendment of the Law

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I know from reading Hansard that he said to the House a year ago that

“for all the huff and puff, when it comes to what it actually puts into and takes out of the economy, the Budget represents a 0.3% change . . . That is somewhat worrying when we consider the very big challenge we face on deficit reduction”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 993.]

I share his concerns about the Chancellor’s track record, and I am going to set out our alternatives in a moment.

Before I do that, let us go back to the Chancellor’s claims yesterday. He seems to have been telling the media this morning that he has retreated from his commitment to austerity, but the OBR’s document sets out the truth. Its verdict on the Budget is that it represents

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years.”

It goes on to give the details on page 130, where it sets out in graphical form the cuts in public spending that we shall see from the Chancellor. Paragraph 4.108 states:

“One implication of the Government’s spending policy assumptions is a sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services and administration in 2016-17”.

I am going to set out a better way to do this, but first I will highlight what the Chancellor is actually doing. The reason he has to set out such deep cuts to public spending—deeper in the next Parliament than in this Parliament—is that, as the OBR confirms, and as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) knows very well, in this Parliament he has failed to balance the books. Yesterday’s numbers confirm, according to the OBR, that the Government are borrowing £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. The deficit is set to be not balanced, but £75 billion. For all this Chancellor’s boasts about national debt falling, public net debt in 2015-16 is £217 billion higher than he was forecasting in 2010. He now claims that the national debt is going to be falling. That is based on his forecasts of short-term, one-off money coming in from the sale of bank shares. In 2014-15, he was planning on the national debt falling from 69.4% to 67.4%. In fact, his forecast yesterday has the national debt in 2015 at 80.4%, falling to 80.2%. It takes some hubris for a Chancellor to borrow over £200 billion more and then claim he has succeeded. That is the reality, and we know why. As the OBR confirmed yesterday, income tax and national insurance receipts have come in short of the 2010 forecasts by £97 billion cumulatively across the Parliament.

The result is the deeper spending cuts that the Chancellor had to set out yesterday. The IFS said back in the autumn that these were colossal cuts; they are still colossal cuts. The OBR said in the autumn that this would take spending on day-to-day public services back to the level of the 1930s. The Treasury tried to tell us yesterday that that was no longer the case. Its special advisers tweeted that they are only the deepest cuts since 1964. It comes to something when they have to boast that we are cutting our public spending to a level not seen for 50 years. In fact, the small print of the OBR tables reveals that 2018 spending, on the historical comparative measure that the OBR uses—day-to-day spending on public services—falls to its lowest level since not 1964 but 1938.

The Chancellor claimed that he had changed the position, but he has confirmed the reality—even deeper cuts in the next three years than in the past five years. That is the truth. These are, in my view, cuts that will be impossible for our police services, our defence and armed forces and our social care to bear. Even this Chancellor cannot make this scale of cuts to our armed forces, our police forces or our social care, so he is going to have to end up doing what he always has to do—raise VAT and cut the NHS. That is the reality.

The Chancellor wants us to believe that this does not have to happen. He says that he can instead cut welfare and tackle tax avoidance. The problem is that his record on both is miserable. He is promising £12 billion more cuts to welfare, but he cannot tell us where they are going to come from. We know he has brought in the bedroom tax, but he cannot tell us what else he has in store. In this Parliament, he has overspent on his welfare plans by £25 billion.

Apparently the Chancellor is now going to crack down on tax avoidance. This is the Chancellor who has seen the tax gap—uncollected tax—rise by £3 billion. This is the Chancellor who, with the Prime Minister, appointed Lord Green—who, it turns out, had presided over HSBC’s industrial-scale tax avoidance. Despite repeated questioning, the Chancellor still cannot tell us whether he actually talked to Lord Green about tax avoidance. Why will he not, between now and the general election, come clean and tell us whether he had conversations with Lord Green about tax avoidance? No wonder the Chancellor did not come to Treasury questions a couple of weeks ago. No wonder he does not want a head-to-head debate. We now know why. One member of the Tory Cabinet does not want to talk about Michael Green, and another member of the Tory Cabinet does not want to talk about Lord Green. One is a deluded fantasist who has great problems with the truth, and the other is the chairman of the Conservative party. To be fair, only the chairman of the Conservative party changed his name—although, then again, perhaps the Chancellor did too.

This is the truth: the Chancellor promised to make people better off, and they are worse off. He promised to balance the books in this Parliament; that pledge lies in tatters. He promised, “We’re all in this together”, and then cut taxes for millionaires. Now he is forced to confirm extreme and risky cuts to public spending in the next Parliament, bigger than in this Parliament.

We need a fairer, more balanced approach to the deficit and living standards. That is why Labour is now the only centre-ground party in British politics. We will cut the deficit every year and balance the books, with a surplus on the current budget and the national debt falling, as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Unlike the Conservatives, we have no unfunded commitments on welfare or on taxes. We were the party that wanted the independent OBR to audit all our manifestos—blocked by this Chancellor.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentions the OBR. I do not know whether he has had a chance to look at the online version of the Liberal Democrats’ document “An alternative fiscal path beyond 2016-17”, table 2.A of which is entitled, “Scenario input assumptions”. Can he guess who the source is? It is not the OBR, it is not the IFS: it is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

[Ed Balls]

We know from the autumn statement that the OBR confirmed that the scale of these spending cuts was agreed by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary, and the same thing is clear about this Budget document. The OBR says:

“This profile is driven by a medium-term fiscal assumption that the Treasury has confirmed ‘represents the Government’s agreed position for Budget 2015’ and that was ‘discussed by the Quad and agreed by both parties in the Coalition.’”

The Liberal Democrats now come along and say that they were not really in favour of the bedroom tax, and not really in favour of these fiscal plans, but we know the truth. That is why we need a fairer and more balanced approach.

We will have sensible spending cuts in non-protected areas. We will cut winter fuel payments for the richest 5% of pensioners. We will cap child benefit at 1% for two years. The shadow Chief Secretary has been setting out in our zero-based review of every pound spent by Government cuts from rooting out waste and inefficiency in policing, in local government, in defence, and in schools. We are going to get rid of the police and crime commissioner elections. We are going to get rid of the free schools. We are going to stop the overpayment of housing benefit. We are going to deal with the issue of—[Interruption.] I meant new free schools. The shadow Chief Secretary has set out ways in which we can make those sensible cuts in non-protected areas.

We will also make fairer choices. We will reverse—[Interruption.] If the Chancellor wants to intervene, I will happily give way.