Taxation (Living Wage)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend has an interesting idea, which I would like to explore further, but I believe that the focus of all the resources that the Treasury has, which of course are not much, should be on restoring the 10p rate, for the reasons that I will go on to describe. I have argued that we need a solution for everyone, not just for the lucky few. That is why I was pleased to see Kevin Maguire in The Daily Mirror today supporting the 10p campaign.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important subject. I want to take him back to the point that he was making about tax credits supposedly allowing employers to pay lower wages. Presumably the basis for that argument is that tax credits raise the take-home pay for the worker at no cost to the employer. However, why does he not employ the same argument to the tax reduction that he is advocating, which again will raise the take-home pay of workers? In a properly competitive labour market, would that not allow employers to pay less?

[Robert Halfon]

That is where the philosophical difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me lies; I believe that we need to move away from a handout society, in which people’s taxes are recycled to hand out to various groups, to a hand-back society, in which people are handed back their own money through the tax system.

Some people on the right, especially in the think-tank world, oppose the 10p tax rate on the grounds that it is not radical enough. They say that it might undermine the case for a flat tax in some future Parliament. The problem with that—again, as the IFS has set out—is that a flat tax would be deeply regressive and it would be hard to defend as fair. While that remains true, a flat tax is unlikely to happen.

For example, the IFS has shown that merging income tax and national insurance contributions to a flat rate would literally take from the poor and give to the rich, unless the state was shrunk to a size that is politically impossible. Where I agree with people on the right, and with thoughtful commentators such as Ryan Bourne from the Centre for Policy Studies, is that the Government must do much more to generate support for broader tax cuts. My point, however, is that surely the best way to achieve that is to show that tax cuts are moral—to use a Blairite phrase, “for the many and not the few”—and that they will help millions of hard-working people, not just millionaires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I hope not to be as challenging for the Hansard reporters as my Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. He is a worthy champion of such issues and I hope to give him my support.

Although my Cleethorpes constituency is best known as the premier resort of the east coast, it is a highly industrial area that takes in a large section of the Humber bank. Although there are highly skilled and well-paid jobs in some of the factories, my constituency, and indeed the region, is an area in which pay is considerably below the national average.

Seaside resorts are heavily reliant on part-time, often seasonal work. In some cases, that is not necessarily what people would like, but it is what is available. For other people, the work fits perfectly with their family responsibilities and is a useful supplement to the family income. The Conservative party has traditionally been the low-tax party, and so it should and must remain, but it must be low tax for all, with the emphasis on the low-paid. The coalition Government have done an awful lot in that respect, most notably through the massive increase in personal allowances. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, we risk jeopardising much of the political benefit if we allow our opponents to paint us wrongly as the party of the rich and privileged.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

The hon. Gentleman refers—rightly, I am sure—to the importance of part-time, often low-paid workers in his constituency, but does he accept that the coalition’s withdrawal of working tax credit from part-time workers has hit those workers very hard and represented a disincentive to work, which is contrary to his argument?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I accept that the Government have increased the personal allowance, but their other policy changes have impacted on those very people whom they purport to be helping, with a real-terms effect on families up and down the country. In fact, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes admitted that his constituents are certainly not happy about some of the changes and their impact. I know for certain that my constituents would agree, but the shocking fact is that almost 5 million people across the UK are currently paid less than the living wage, and 3 million of them are women. The Government may believe that the way to motivate people on low incomes is to pay them less, and the way to motivate those on the highest incomes is to pay them more, but the Labour party believes that this is an issue of dignity at work and social justice.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

My hon. Friend is doing a very good job of batting off the attacks from Conservative Members. Does she agree that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) must not be allowed to rewrite history? The Conservative party argued vigorously against not just the level of the minimum wage, but its very introduction. It said that it would destroy jobs, but after it was introduced, 1 million extra jobs were generated in the economy. I think the Government now accept the point, but the hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with rewriting history.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important point. I said that there was fierce opposition, particularly from Conservative Members, when the national minimum wage was introduced, and he has given some colour to the debate that took place at that time. We are moving on to the next stage, and the Labour party is backing the living wage campaign, which is a perfect example of how we can deliver a one-nation economy in which everyone has a stake, and prosperity is fairly shared. That is why Labour councils are delivering a living wage throughout the country, despite straitened economic circumstances for many and in the face of swingeing Government cuts. We believe in doing the right thing for low-paid employees. Those local authorities include Islington, Lambeth, Wigan, Camden, Oxford, Preston, Southwark, Hackney and, from November last year, my city council, Newcastle, which is meeting the cost of paying the living wage entirely from a reduction in management costs.

Labour councils are paying a living wage because it is a powerful symbol of the change that the Labour party wants to see in our economy. We do not want the race-to-the-bottom approach backed by the Government, who seek to erode workers’ rights and make it easier to sack staff. We want to aim for a higher skilled, higher waged and more productive economy that can genuinely compete on the global stage so that workers are not forced into several jobs with no chance of spending proper time with their families.

It is vital that the Government, both central and local, take a lead, but it is not enough, as hon. Members have said, for just the public sector to implement the living wage. It is great news that around 140 private sector employers have taken that step, including notable firms such as KPMG, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, PWC, Lush, Westfield shopping centres and InterContinental Hotels Group. Many of those firms have been clear about the positive impact that paying a living wage has had on their companies. KPMG has reported higher employee morale, motivation and productivity alongside a reduction in staff turnover and absenteeism since the policy was implemented.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the really important commitment is not just that large organisations commit to the living wage, but that they require their contractors and subcontractors to do so? Otherwise there is a risk that they will simply outsource their low-paid jobs while taking credit for paying the living wage to their direct employees. We want everyone to have it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will come to the Government’s approach to procurement in the private sector as the ripple of understanding of the benefits that the living wage can bring spreads to employers throughout the supply chain.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing it. He has such a reputation for being a strong representative of his constituents that it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) might even believe that his constituency was named after him—I know that Harlow is a new town, but a change of name might not be appropriate. However, he does a splendid job on behalf of his constituents as a whole and he does a particularly good job of representing hard-working, low-paid people up and down the country. If I may, I shall describe them as strivers, and my hon. Friend represents them very well. He sets out the case for a 10p rate clearly, with great eloquence and understanding, and I hope to respond to his points.

I thank other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, particularly those who have made speeches: my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also thank other hon. Members who have participated through their interventions.

During my remarks, I hope to set out what the Government are doing to help the very people that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow identified as being in need of support: those hard-working, low-paid individuals who are taxed in circumstances where they do not have a lot of money. None the less, they have income tax deducted from their salary, and I will set out what we are doing to help such people.

I would like to take us back to the abolition of the 10p rate, which has obviously featured heavily during our debate this afternoon, and set out a little more information about the arguments that were made at the time and perhaps discuss some of the difficulties that those of us who were in the House had in getting to the truth of the impact of the 10p rate’s abolition—perhaps I should say the doubling of the 10p rate of tax, because that, in truth, is what happened.

In 1997, the Labour party’s manifesto stated that it was Labour’s long-term objective to have

“a lower starting rate of income tax of 10 pence in the pound.”

In the 1998 Budget, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), confirmed his intention to bring in such a starting rate

“When it is right for the economy”.—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1104.]

The measure was implemented from April 1999, with taxpayers paying only 10p in the pound on their first £1,500 of taxable income. The rationale was to put work first and to ease the poverty trap, whereby people on low pay were discouraged from climbing the earnings ladder due to high marginal deduction rates. The 10p rate remained in place until the announcement in the 2007 Budget, which was the last to be delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Those of us who were there will remember that the intention behind the abolition was pretty clear. It was a theatrical coup to conclude the last Budget by that Chancellor with a reduction in the main rate of income tax from 22% to 20%. Other measures were taken with regard to the indexation of personal allowances for those aged 65 and above and the retention of the 10% rate for savings income, but what was clear was that great, theatrical moment just before the then Leader of the Opposition stood up, not able to see all the details, and there was this surprise tax cut. Of course, questions then started to be asked about how that was to be funded in what was a fiscally neutral set of tax measures.

At the time, it became clear, once we saw the Red Book, that the Government estimated that the removal of the starting rate of income tax would yield the Exchequer an additional £7.3 billion in 2008-09, so where would the extra cash come from? It was a little difficult to get all the answers at the time. The Budget book at the time set out a list of all the people who would be winning from the changes, and the Budget statement said that four out of five households would either gain or remain in the same position as a result of the Budget measures, but we did not get much detail on the one out of five households that would lose.

The IFS confirmed that 5.3 million households would lose. A senior Treasury official, giving evidence to the Treasury Committee—I should inform hon. Members that I was a member of that Committee at the time—confirmed that that number was in the right ball park. The very next day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came along to answer questions on the Budget. He was asked five times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) about the 5.3 million households that were going to lose out, and five times he refused to confirm that number. There is a lesson to be learned from that whole episode. We should be more transparent about the impact of policy decisions, and the present Government have taken significant steps to do that.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

In the light of that commitment to transparency, will the Minister give us his estimate of how many people lost out through the vote last night?

[Mr Gauke]

The reality is that one has to look at all the measures that we are undertaking, which is what I would seek to do. It is worth pointing out that working households will gain an average of £125 in 2013-14 as a consequence of all the measures that we are undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point—I shall return to the 10p rate in a moment—but let us remember the context in which we are having this debate now about the steps that we can take.

I will set out a case about the way in which the Government have taken substantial steps with regard to the personal allowance to help low-paid workers. We have done that at a time when we inherited an enormous deficit, and we have had to make difficult decisions about how we reduce that deficit. We have been clear in the distributional analysis of where the contributions are coming from. The facts are very clear. The top 20% of earners are making the biggest contributions, not just in cash terms but in relative terms, to reducing the deficit.

Let me return to the people who lost out from the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. People under the age of 65 with non-savings income between £5,435 and £19,355 would have paid more, because they lost more from the abolition of the 10% rate than they gained from the cut in the basic rate. It is worth reminding ourselves that a Labour Government took that measure and that those low-paid workers would have paid more tax. The loss was greatest, at £232 a year, for someone earning £7,755—the top of where the 10% band would have been. Those most affected by the abolition of the 10p rate appear to have been those below the age of 65 with an income under £18,500 who were in childless households. The effect was greatest on those households where no individual was above the age of 60, because the household would not then benefit from the higher winter fuel allowance. That is the legacy of the last Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

Let us now consider what we have done in this difficult financial situation. We should remember that 2007 was still the age of apparent plenty; we have been in a much more difficult situation. Rather than reintroducing the 10% rate of tax, we have taken steps by increasing the personal allowance; we have taken real steps towards making the first £10,000 of income free from tax. I am grateful to a number of hon. Members for supporting that policy this afternoon. Since 2011, we have announced successive increases in the personal allowance, totalling £2,965. That includes a £1,100 increase announced in the 2012 Budget and a further £235 announced in the autumn statement last month. Following those announcements, the personal allowance rises by £1,335—the largest cash increase in history—to £9,440 from April 2013. Taken together, those changes will benefit 25 million individuals and provide a real-terms gain of £443 to most basic rate taxpayers in 2013-14. More than 2.2 million individuals with low incomes will have been taken out of income tax altogether.

I shall give some more examples of how the changes work. Let us take the context of the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) referred to the personal allowance matching the national minimum wage for full-time employees, but let us examine what has happened to a person on the national minimum wage in full-time employment. In 2010-11, someone earning the national minimum wage would have had earnings of £10,979 and paid income tax of £901. In 2013-14, someone earning the national minimum wage will have estimated earnings of £11,691 and pay estimated income tax of £450. In other words, their bill will be halved. Another way to look at it is that, in 2010-11, such a person would have been able to work only 22 hours a week tax free; they can now work 29 hours a week before starting to pay income tax.

Another way to look at the situation is by comparing the approach that we have taken in increasing the personal allowance with the approach that the previous Government took in doubling the 10p rate of income tax. I talked about those who earn £7,755 a year and lost the most—£232 a year—as a consequence of the doubling of the 10p rate in 2008-09. In that year, an individual would have paid £344 in income tax. Under the present Government, in 2012-13, such an individual, with income adjusted for inflation to £8,299 a year, will pay about £39 in income tax—not £344 but £39 in tax, which is a saving of £305. In 2013-14, again with income adjusted for inflation, such an individual will pay no income tax at all. That is a contrast that I am very happy to highlight.