Independent Banking Commission Report
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
As I said in my initial statement, an important part of this report—it will not be at the top of the evening news tonight, but it is important—is the proposals to enhance competition on the high street and create a new challenger bank, so that customers have real choices. There is also a proposal for a free service that would enable anyone who wanted to switch their current account to do so almost immediately, with all their direct debits and all the other things attached to their account switched too. That will really help customers to shop around—at the moment, customers do not switch their current accounts because they think that it would be too difficult and cumbersome—and is one of the most retail-friendly proposals in the report.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If there is one class of people more unpopular than MPs, it is bankers—and I know where all the populist pressure is coming from. However, regulators do not create wealth; they stifle it. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have to live in the real world and that London’s pre-eminent position is based on the fact that we have the lightest regulatory regime in Europe? Will he undertake to preserve that for the sake of our wealth creation and not kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
Mr Osborne
Well, it was not much of a golden egg, unfortunately, in recent years. It is important for this country that London, Edinburgh and other centres remain globally competitive and that London remains the pre-eminent global centre for finance. Some of the changes taking place in the City, such as the one I mentioned, involving trying to develop an offshore renminbi market, are all part of London being a competitive place to do business. However, being a competitive place in which to do financial services does not mean that there has to be a huge taxpayer subsidy for universal banks and their retail banking arms in the UK. John Vickers explicitly deals with the competition issue. People might have expected him to come to a different conclusion on this, but one of the interesting things he said was that we should not impose additional capital-to-equity ratios on investment banks, precisely because he does not want us to make them internationally uncompetitive.
Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
We are clearly making a momentous decision today with the biggest change in the royal finances since 1760, so it is obviously important that we should have a full debate. We had a full debate a fortnight ago and we have that opportunity again today. Given the fact the statements have run on so long, the Chancellor is correct to say that we have a difficulty. The Opposition will be happy to have a full debate on clause 1 stand part and obviously the sooner we start that debate, the better.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just need your guidance as I have a particular general point that I wanted to make. It pertains to clause 13 but I would normally have made it on Second Reading. Will you immediately call me to order if I seek to raise it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think we will need to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am humbled, Mr Evans, that you should have called me before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I am grateful that there is somebody who is even more royalist and reactionary than me in the Chamber; my hon. Friend reminds me of one of the French courtiers who was plus royaliste que le roi—more royalist than the king—and that is no bad thing.
Of course I agree with the substance of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is trying to do today, but I hope that he will accept a couple of bits of advice or warnings. The constitutional position of the monarch and Back Benchers is rather similar: we warn and we advise. The difference is that the Queen does so in private and is listened to and we do so in public and are never listened to, but we will try our best. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps we are listened to sometimes. I am a bit worried about some parts of the Bill, particularly about how fixed in concrete the sum of money is.
We all know that there is no point having the British monarchy as a cycling monarchy or having it on the cheap. I know from my experience of looking at the accounts during the last two Parliaments that they are right on the edge of the £34 million. If one was trying to maintain extremely expensive buildings—I am not just talking about Frogmore now, but about large and complex buildings such as Buckingham palace or places such as Windsor great park—one would struggle. Some people, particularly in this House and particularly those with a slightly republican bent, might say that we are all making sacrifices, but this is part of our national heritage and it is not as if they are living in anything like the whole palace. They have a modest flat: as we know from one of the tabloid stings, the Queen lives very modestly with her Tupperware in a small flat in Buckingham palace. Ultimately, we, the public, are benefiting from Buckingham palace, Windsor and St James’s palace and they must be properly maintained. I am not sure whether we might need looser arrangements so that—I will not use the phrase “raid the reserves”—there is some sort of mechanism to handle that. Will the Chancellor comment on that when he sums up? It is terribly important that there should not be a constant constraint on the treasurer of the royal household to skimp on maintaining the royal palaces, because that is clearly happening at the moment.
Paul Flynn
One example of many of royal spending was a trip by Prince Charles and Camilla from Buckingham palace to Balmoral for which the taxpayer—[Interruption.]
Paul Flynn
I shall ask the question again. Is it an example of people with financial limits skimping when the heir to the throne and his wife take a journey that costs £29,000 without any public engagements being involved—the journey was a private one—and send that bill to the taxpayers?
Mr Leigh
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He is making the precise point I want to make, although we come from different directions, of course. That is the danger. As so often happens in the House of Commons, we are rushing at things and there are many unforeseen consequences; it would have been preferable to consider the Bill more closely and for longer. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be made in the Public Accounts Committee and such subjects will be dragged into the public debate.
Why do I think that is dangerous? Let me make it clear that I am not against the move in any way. I welcome it and I am grateful that the Chancellor had a private word to brief me on this before he made his announcement. I am grateful for what he is doing, which is in response to the constant campaign that we members of the PAC have waged for many years to have greater transparency. No present or previous member of the PAC and nobody in Parliament doubts that we want more transparency about the public duties, the official travel, the official expenses and so on. That is modern, transparent and right.
The difficulty is where we draw the line. I am worried that the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General will gradually be dragged into the debate on precisely the sort of point that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has made. How will the system work? The CAG will effectively be able to look at everything, but a defence is built into clause 13. The clause states:
“Any reference to the support of Her Majesty’s official duties includes the maintenance of Royal Palaces and related land.”
That is fair enough. Subsection (9) states:
“Any reference to the Royal Household if limited to that Household so far as it is concerned with the support of Her Majesty’s official duties.”
The clause also states:
“Any reference to the use of resources is to their expenditure, consumption or reduction in value.”
I suspect that subsection (9) was included to try to prevent the whole debate from widening to cover the private travel, private expenses and private servants of the royal family. Why is there a danger?
Mr Leigh
May I make some progress first? I want to develop this point and if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied he can come back to me.
If the PAC was a normal Select Committee that set its own agenda, we would have some people who were very pro-royal family and some who were not so pro, and there would be tremendous pressure on the Chairman in private sessions, with people saying, “We want to look at this aspect of travel,” “Why did the Prince of Wales make this official trip and spend all this money,” or “Why did they bring all their servants?” There would be a great argy-bargy. At the moment, our defence is that, uniquely, the PAC’s agenda is set not by the Committee or politicians but by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That acts as a kind of backstop to protect the royal family, but the changes could bring a real danger for them. Why? It is because we do not live in an entirely fair world.
The royal family is not like the Department for Work and Pensions—I shall not labour this point because I made it in the last debate on this. When the PAC looks at the DWP or another Department, it does its work and investigates the spending of billions of pounds, which is sometimes spent wisely and often not so wisely. With those reports there is limited public interest and the report tends to get into The Times, the Financial Times or the serious pages of The Guardian. With the royal family, things are completely different: not only is there massive public interest and huge pressure from journalists, but some newspapers have an agenda of constantly attacking the royal family and its members.
Mr Leigh
Let me go on a bit and then I shall give way to both hon. Members, as I want to be fair to both sides.
When I was the Chairman of the Committee I put no pressure on the Comptroller and Auditor General, but members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who is present, Mr Alan Williams and others quite rightly had serious questions about the royal family. They took a particular view and were always agitating for us to do more work, but I was able to say that it was not my decision. It was the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, frankly, took quite a conservative approach and did not allow many reports to come to the Committee or do much initial work. Although there is massive public and media interest in this issue, particularly in the tabloid press, there is much more important work that we need to be doing on public expenditure.
Hon. Members might ask what I am worried about, given that we can surely rely on the Comptroller and Auditor General—although I think that he will be under a lot of pressure via members of the PAC because they are eternally under pressure from the media to raise these sorts of questions. Why am I worried about all this? It is because I wonder whether clause 13 is an adequate defence. How do we define exactly what are the private affairs of the Queen? We know what she does in the homes that she owns—in Sandringham or Balmoral. We know about the gardener and the cook she employs and about private travel around the estate. That is completely out of all this. but what about what goes on in Buckingham palace and Windsor great park? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General going to be under pressure to investigate value for money, the number of servants and what happens with the private office? When does official travel start and when does private travel start? There have been attacks on Prince Andrew for taking official trips and then going on elsewhere to play golf. There will be more and more pressure mounting all the time and that could be extraordinarily damaging to the royal family, which is a very fragile institution. In no other major country is there a royal family; it survives on public opinion and I am afraid that there are some people, particularly in the tabloid press, who simply are not fair and who want to go on pushing and pushing because they want as damaging a story as possible. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Newport West because he asks about precisely the sort of story that they will try to raise through the National Audit Office and the PAC.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I am sorry that he has not answered my question about why a multi-millionaire should send a bill to the taxpayer for a private visit. May I take him back to his previous speech to the House on this issue in which he spoke as the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—the guardian of the taxpayer’s interest—when he said that he had approved royal spending that he described as “fantastically wasteful”? Is that the way to guard the taxpayer’s interest?
Mr Leigh
The fact is that we must take everything in the round. I was making comparisons with the Heads of State of Germany and Italy, which are republican institutions that cost more and have virtually no public impact whatsoever and do nothing for the economy. I am afraid that it makes absolutely no sense in providing value for money to Great Britain plc to get rid of the monarchy. I do not accept that the institution of the monarchy is fantastically wasteful.
Mr Spencer
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are talking not only about the Head of State but about the next in line to the crown of this great nation of ours, they should be allowed to travel in such a manner? Can he imagine a circumstance where the President of the United States arrived in the UK on easyJet? We should be proud that the head of this nation is allowed to travel in such style.
Mr Davidson
I am grateful to the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for giving way, and I have to tell my colleagues that he is not nearly as bad a man as he often appears. Does he accept that there is a difference between what the royal family undertake as their public duties, which should, quite rightly, be examined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or a similar organisation, and what they undertake in their private lives, which should not be accessible to the public? Does he accept that extravagances in their private lives should not be charged to the public purse? That really is the difference. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that we do not wish to intrude into every element of that family’s life; but if they do not want us to intrude, they should not charge such things to the public.
Mr Leigh
I am not sure whether the Queen or the Prince of Wales charges “extravagant” aspects of their private lives to the public purse, but what worries me is that if Prince Charles went on an official trip to America and took so many hairdressers, butlers, private secretaries and all the rest, the media and the hon. Gentleman, if he was still a member of the PAC, would immediately demand a public inquiry, and there would be a gradual drip, drip of attacks in the tabloid press against the royal family. We should be aware of that and warn about it. That is why the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is absolutely crucial; he is not a politician. The reason I am making these remarks—if he reads Hansard—is that he must stand firm and make an overall judgment.
Mr Davidson
I can assure the House that, when I have travelled abroad, I have certainly never taken a hairdresser with me.
The sort of rules that apply to the Prime Minister ought to apply to the royal family in this context. The Prime Minister and senior members of the Government must have a certain degree of support and status when they travel abroad on parliamentary and official business. The royals similarly ought to have some status when they travel abroad. However, the two ought to be comparable. To be fair, the Prime Minister has never taken hairdressers, butlers, valets, chauffeurs or anything similar with him.
Mr Leigh
This debate is useful in a way, because it shows precisely the problem. I understand that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have taken extremely modest entourages and staff on previous trips. Apparently, the Duchess has had more than 37 different changes of outfit in America and Canada. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister or even the hon. Gentleman changes his outfit 37 times when he goes on Select Committee trips abroad. There is a completely different order of scale between a Head of State, who is part of the ornamental part of the constitution and who represents our country, and even the Prime Minister. If we are now to have questions and relentless pressure in the PAC about how many dresses need to be taken on every royal trip, it will be ridiculous, and it would start to make the royal family look more and more ridiculous. That is what I am warning against.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman think that this country’s defence budget should subsidise the royal flight? If we believe what was reported in The Mail on Sunday last week, the Ministry of Defence did the right thing by charging the going rate for use of the royal flight. Only because of complaints to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Prince of Wales was that amount reduced. Therefore, every flight that the royal family takes is being subsidised by the defence budget. That cannot be right.
Mr Leigh
All that I know—the Public Accounts Committee having had all those accounts over the past two decades—is that steps are constantly being taken to deliver a better-value-for-money monarchy. If that is not true, why has the cost gone down from £49 million to £34 million? I shall sit down now, because we are only on clause 1 stand part.
Mr Leigh
I will not give way; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to emphasise this point to the Chancellor: I hope that there is a flexible arrangement, so that we can protect the structure of the royal palaces. I sincerely hope that the Comptroller and Auditor General will take a very conservative view of his responsibilities when he draws up reports, and that he will focus them absolutely and firmly on the public duties of the royal family, in the spirit of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) giving way, or has he sat down?
Stephen Phillips
I am not sure that I have ever been desperate to get into anything. I think it was in 2005, when my hon. Friend was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Committee published a report, which he will probably remember, that drew attention to a potential conflict of interest between the Duke of Cornwall and future Dukes of Cornwall. That is not addressed at all in the Bill. Does he share my hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with that point in his wind-up, and that the Government will look at the issue in future?
Mr Leigh
That is a serious and important point. We have had mention of the Duchy of Cornwall; I should say that we did some trailblazing work in our hearing about the duchy. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West will remember that we ranged widely over all aspects of its management. One of the issues that we raised was whether we should maximise resources—income and capital—for the present Duke of Cornwall, or for future generations. I hope that the Chancellor can also reply to that point when he winds up.
Civil List
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is the current Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Under my chairmanship and hers, the Committee has for many years fought a relentless campaign on this issue, but I never thought this day would come. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has risen to such distinction, but I remember his being a member of our Committee when he was a very new, young Member of Parliament, and he may recall a visit we made to Kensington palace together. The trouble with dealing politically with royal family matters—I know this from my many years of chairing the Public Accounts Committee—is that whereas an incredibly worthy report about tens of millions of pounds, or even hundreds of millions of ponds, being wasted in the Department for Work and Pensions will end up only on page 15 of the Financial Times, if we are lucky, something involving the royal family gets much more interest. I think that the visit we made to Kensington palace was on pages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Daily Mail. There is enormous public interest where the royal family is concerned.
My right hon. Friend is to be commended for being the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the guts to take this issue on and deal with it. As I said, I thought this day would never come. When we started this campaign and really tried to gear it up, we were looking at three areas in which we thought that parliamentary accountability was absolutely vital: the royal family and all aspects of royal finances, the BBC and the Bank of England. Those three great institutions stand without Parliament and we were told for all sorts of reasons why it was quite inappropriate for the National Audit Office to crawl all over their accounts. It has been like pushing water uphill, but I think that after many years and many bloody battles we are going to drag the BBC to full accountability—and not a moment too soon. That is quite right. Again, I commend the Chancellor for what he is doing. The Bank of England is a more difficult issue and we are still struggling on that, but we have a great victory today. For the first time since this modern settlement was made in 1760, Parliament will, through the Public Accounts Committee, be able to scrutinise all aspects of royal finances.
Although there has been great resistance to this proposal, I have to say that in all my many conversations with the royal household I never detected any resistance from it. I think it has been Governments who have worried about certain republicans on the Public Accounts Committee crawling over the royal finances. I should like to pay tribute to a great and wonderful parliamentarian, who has not been mentioned yet and who is a personal friend of mine—Mr Alan Williams, a former Father of the House, who served with great distinction for many years on the Committee. We all know that he gave the royal finances a good going over. Unfortunately, another personal friend of mine, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), is not here, but I am sure that if he were still on the Committee he, too, would be giving the finances a good going over.
This will be tough for the royal household—there is no doubt about that—and there will be strong questioning in the Committee, as there is on all these subjects, but that is absolutely right because that is what we are about: accountability. I think they have absolutely nothing to fear. As the shadow Chancellor made clear—we do not need to labour this point, because we all know it so well—the Queen has throughout her reign acted with incredible grace and wisdom and with such enormous constitutional propriety. We know all that, but what is not so well appreciated—certainly not by the general public and perhaps not by many Members of Parliament—are the enormous strides that the household has made in delivering efficiency savings and cutting costs. I am pretty confident that when the Committee, working with the National Audit Office, is allowed to crawl over the accounts, it will find a first-rate, modern institution.
It is unfortunate that up to now the Committee has been able to deal only with royal travel and palaces and not with the rest. That seemed a strange state of affairs. We managed to save the royal train, by the way, which is, in terms of modern accountability, a fantastically wasteful but noble instrument of royal travel. [Interruption.] It is necessary. It is so old that it can only travel at night.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend and his colleagues saved the train but unfortunately not the yacht. Is there any chance that for the diamond jubilee we will get the yacht back?
Mr Leigh
Well, some stingy previous Government, whom I will not mention by name, got rid of the royal yacht. What a tragedy. It is not the working part of the constitution but it is an important part. As for the royal train, it is quite right that this wonderful elderly lady should sometimes be allowed to sleep on the royal train so that when she visits Newcastle or Manchester she can wake up and perform her duty refreshed, and not be forced out of bed at 5 am to take a plane. We saved the royal train; that, I think, is something that the PAC achieved.
The PAC, then, will not cause any unnecessary trouble. Although I cannot speak for the new Committee, I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Barking, and I know that she will handle the matter in an effective and completely non-partisan way. I am sure that the Committee will do a wonderful job.
Before I finish, I want to say something about royal palaces. We paid that visit to Kensington palace, and we visited Buckingham palace. We found a lot of peeling wallpaper there—there was a lot of under-investment.
Mr Leigh
Yes. This is the Head of State. She should not be in a palace that is falling down, and we should not be mean and stingy about that. I think that the Government had been a bit stingy. Perhaps these new arrangements will allow her to look after her palaces better.
There is one scandal that I want to raise: Frogmore, the royal mausoleum. It is falling down. As I understand it, under the new arrangements there will be an opportunity for the royal household to have greater control of its own affairs so that it can rehabilitate Frogmore, which is an important national monument and in an appalling state. It is a national scandal that the mausoleum for Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort is in such a derelict state that the public can no longer be admitted. That shows some of the problems with the royal finances. The Queen and her household have been making enormous strides in creating efficiency savings, but they simply have not had the independence or the resources to try to maintain the whole of the estate. It is vital for the nation that they be allowed to do so.
In conclusion, I warmly commend the Chancellor, and say well done for finally getting parliamentary accountability. We now want to continue doing battle with the BBC and the Bank of England, and make sure that this Parliament can audit all aspects of our national finances.
Mr MacShane
I actually believe that a plane should be made available for the use of senior Government Ministers, including the PM. He had to scrounge a lift from Prague to Brussels with the Czech President the other day. He got something out of it, but frankly, every senior Minister in most democracies has that mode of transport available to them. Our planes are continually available to any member of the royal family, while elected Ministers come second.
We then have the problem of explaining why the present monarch and the next one are such giant landowners. Is that an issue that we might be able to debate, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Of course we all enjoyed the royal wedding celebration this year and we will enjoy the diamond jubilee next year. Roman emperors promised their subjects panem et circenses: the current Government are doing their best to reduce the quota of panem with their cuts and cruelties imposed on the poor and handicapped, but they are increasing the availability of circenses through the royal shows.
I do not believe that there is any kind of republican mood in the country. It was interesting to hear the oleaginous loyalty, if I may put it that way, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who had a tremendous enthusiasm for the monarchy, which has surprised many of us. I remember the silver jubilee in Rotherham in 1978, when I am told that 41,000 Union Jack flags were sold in the socialist republic of South Yorkshire.
If we look at the European Union, we see that the states that are monarchies—Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and even, with all its troubles, Spain—enjoy less partisan and less conflictual politics. When it comes to growth, distribution and a fair social settlement since the second world war, we find that the EU’s monarchies generally have a much better record than the EU’s republics. The royal families, however, are also much cheaper there. In Spain, with its King, Queen and wonderful royal palace where I had the privilege and honour of having dinner with the Crown Prince of the Asturias and the lovely Princess—and Prince Charles—a few weeks ago— [Interruption.] The food was free, but I paid for my own air fare. The total cost of the whole Spanish monarch is €8.4 million, while the Queen of the Netherlands gets by on €828,000.
I ask only that we do some comparative analysis before simply continuing with an arrangement that, even with the Chancellor’s proposed modernisations, remains deeply anachronistic.
Mr MacShane
I do not really want to get into discussions about German lineages. I recall a previous German President who actually walked the length and breadth of Germany in his summer holiday, and he did not receive anything remotely like what we pay our official Head of State.
It is interesting to note that Scotland’s First Minister, Mr Salmond, has ditched his party’s original republicanism and now asserts that an independent Scotland—if that unlikely event were to take place—would keep the monarch as its Head of State. However, I would like to see any future monarch living a lifestyle in tune and in touch with that of the nation. We can see the Duke of Cambridge, who serves with RAF officers, and his wife living a lifestyle much closer to that of the rest of the nation.
Finance Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford
The new clauses would provide tax relief on medical insurance premiums for people above a certain age. “Pensioners” might be a better description of them. As a very part-time dentist, I must declare a potential interest, but I had better declare a further potential interest, as birthdays keep relentlessly coming upon me—and the rest of us.
As in much of the south-east, life expectancy in Surrey is somewhat higher than the England mean. The average life expectancy in England is about 78 for males and 82 for females, while in Surrey the figures are about 82 and 86 respectively. Moreover, the proportion of those aged 65 and over in my constituency is about one in five, or 20%. It is obvious to me, as one with a professional interest in health and as an observer of my constituents’ health, that that longevity brings with it a higher demand for health care and imposes large demands on health services, especially cardiac, carcinoma and orthopaedic services. A planeload of Surrey Saga tourists would really set the airport metal detectors buzzing as the hip and knee replacements proceeded towards take-off.
The Mole Valley constituency is served by three good national health service hospitals: East Surrey hospital, Royal Surrey County hospital at Guildford, and Epsom hospital. Those hospitals have expanded in certain health areas to meet the increasing demand for treatment from the elderly, the best example being Epsom, which has a special orthopaedic unit where more than 3,000 hip and knee replacement operations are carried out annually, almost entirely on elderly people from surrounding areas such as Mole Valley. As a result of those medical problems there has been a call for an enhanced and enlarged cardiac unit at Epsom as part of the retention and refurbishment of that much-loved hospital. I have given those two examples to illustrate the increasing demand for national health service care from, predominantly, those aged over 65. That increasing demand is not specific to Mole Valley or even Surrey, but is, to a greater or lesser degree, nationwide among that age group.
My older constituents are also served by private hospital services. Some are relatively local and some are in London, but there is choice for patients. Approximately 12.5% of the United Kingdom population are currently covered by private health insurance, and about 70% of that cover is corporate while about 30% is individual. On retirement, many may wish to take over their corporate private health insurance, but the personal cost becomes a heavy factor. Additionally, many of those who fund their health insurance personally may not feel able to do so when a regular personal income is just a pension or savings. That means that, just as their need for health care is likely to increase, those individuals turn to the national health service and absorb facilities and costs that they would not use if they could be persuaded to retain or take out private health insurance and use the private sector.
Before March 1997, when tax relief was available to those over 60, it was estimated that tax relief was paid in respect of 400,000 contracts to cover about 600,000 individuals.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his new clause. Is he aware that a ComRes poll of 150 Members of Parliament found that 66% of Conservative MPs supported the return of tax relief on private insurance for pensioners? That is hardly surprising when even the Major Government gave that elementary service to our elderly people.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my hon. Friend. One of the delightful things about his intervention is the increase in my education.
Over seven years from 1990, tax relief for the over-60s cost £560 million. However, that included a period when the relief was across all taxpayer rates. In 1994, that was reduced to apply to the basic rate of tax only. Unlike in my proposal, the relief started then at 60, not at 65, so my proposal would reduce the cost to the Revenue in real terms compared to pre-1997.
In 1997 the Labour Government cancelled the tax relief for pensioners, and Western Provident Association estimated that 40% of pensioners would discontinue their private health service. Which? magazine reported in 2002 that private health insurance coverage was lowest in the 65-plus age group. Those who choose to have personally funded private health insurance pay twice for their health—premiums and tax. It would be safe to assume that nigh on 100% of those aged 65 and above are personally funding their health insurance. It is their choice, and for many it may mean sacrificing other choices that may affect their lifestyle.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the new clauses. I have to say that it is pleasing to see the real Conservative party still alive and kicking on the Back Benches, wanting to create a privilege for a small section of the population. I understand that when tax relief was in operation, it affected only about 5% of the population. It feels as if we are going back in time a little, because if we accepted the new clause we would be stepping back to the late 1980s, when the Conservative party introduced relief on private health insurance—I acknowledge that the new clause would apply to the over-65s, rather than to the over-60s, as was the case then. That was introduced to address a lot of the arguments put by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford); the aim was to try to ensure that people would be given choice. I hasten to add that people have a choice if they can afford it, but they have no choice whatsoever if they cannot. I believe, as I understand the Conservative Front-Bench team does these days, that we should seek to improve the health service and opportunities for all, rather than give a tax cut and perk to a very small section of the population.
Mr Leigh
Surely the point is that the proposal applies to pensioners, that they have paid tax all their life and that, just at an age when they might need private medical care, they find that their insurance premiums rocket. Surely it is only elementary natural justice that they should get tax relief on those insurance premiums.
Mr Jones
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why a low-paid worker in South Stanley in my constituency who has worked hard all his or her life should be given no tax relief or assistance and should pay their taxes just to give a tax relief and perk to individuals who not only might be able to pay for care, but who have an advantage over them. We should seek to ensure equal access to health care.
I understand what has been said about waiting lists and the health service, but when I was elected in 2001 my constituency contained two old hospitals, one of which—the old workhouse—was a disgrace. We now have two new hospitals, thanks to a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned hip and knee replacements, and I can tell him that the industrial legacy of a mining community meant that my area had a long waiting list; it was not uncommon for people to wait for more than two years. I recall people coming to my surgery arguing about how they could get up the list any faster. Waiting lists have more or less been abolished over the intervening 10-year period, which is testament to the changes the previous Labour Government made and the investment we put in. Investment in the health service should be about ensuring equal access to care, not about giving a tax perk to a very small section of the population—the less than 5% who actually have private health insurance—as this proposal seeks to do.
Mr Chope
It is a matter of seeing what the countervailing benefits would be, because obviously, if as a result of my hon. Friend’s new clause a lot more people who are not contributing anything towards the cost of their health care started to do so, thereby reducing the burden on the NHS, the dead-weight cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentions would be exceeded by the overall benefits, and a reduction in the overall burden of taxation. More people who are getting health care in this country would be paying for it, or contributing to its cost, rather than relying on the state and the taxpayer to do so.
Mr Leigh
The dead-weight cost argument is always used against ideas such as school vouchers or tax relief for health insurance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of such proposals is to help the people in the middle? Quite rightly, Parliament is concerned about the people at the bottom of the heap, and the rich can always buy their way out, but this part of the Conservative party should help the people who struggle all their lives, and pay tax all their lives.
Mr Chope
Of course, the original scheme was brought in on the basis that it would apply to everyone over the age of 60, and initially would give full tax relief to higher-rate taxpayers, so the figures would be nothing like as high under the new clause, because its proposals would apply only to people over 65, and would give only 20% in tax relief.
Mr Leigh
Is my hon. Friend not being very moderate? Surely there is an argument for giving everyone tax relief, which is how we would move to a continental-type system with much better health outcomes, and blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors. That is what we, as Conservatives, should believe in.
Mr Chope
I absolutely agree, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who tabled the new clauses, is a gradualist by nature; that goes back to his time as leader of Wandsworth council, when he was preparing for his time in Parliament and knew that things could not be done immediately but must be done gradually. He can speak for himself when he contributes to the debate, but perhaps that gradualism is part of his thinking.
I will finish soon, because many Members wish to contribute, but let us first put this suggestion in perspective by thinking about roughly how much it would cost. Let us suppose that an average health premium is about £2,000, which a pensioner or pensioner family would be faced with paying, and which previously their employer had paid as part of a contributory or non-contributory occupational scheme. Many pensioners would not pay that, but if we gave them the tax relief, which would amount to more than £400, I submit that many of them would carry on paying for their insurance, thereby contributing towards the cost of the health service, which would be a benefit.
The last time I spoke in a debate on a Finance Bill on Report it was about insurance premium tax. The insurance premiums paid for health insurance are already subject to tax, which the Treasury keeps increasing, so an alternative way forward might be to abolish the insurance premium tax paid on health insurance contributions. That is a separate argument and not the subject of this group of new clauses, but it serves as an example. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury would obviously say that we could not afford that—but does he realise that if we increased the number of people taking out health insurance, the Treasury would receive a lot more in insurance premium tax? I am sure that he will take that into account when he—in due course, having done the proper research—tells us the costs and benefits of the proposals in the new clauses.
We should not forget that the dynamic effect of these taxation changes could deliver great benefits and dividends. It is important to send a strong message to those who can afford to contribute towards their health care costs but who currently do not do so, that this would enable them to contribute at a lower cost than would otherwise be the case. I think that it is a well-rounded and sensible proposal, and I am delighted that it is getting so much support from colleagues on the Government side of the House.
Mr Hoban
That is the Treasury’s latest estimate, and it is a number that we are going to stand by.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said that he wanted to restrict the tax relief to the basic rate, but subsection (3) of new clause 1 would not have that effect. It suggests that the relief could be obtained at the highest marginal rate that a person paid. He has used the 1990 legislation, whereas in the 1994 legislation the relief was restricted to the basic rate.
Mr Leigh
Why does my hon. Friend think that the social insurance systems on the continent, where there is much more blurring between the public and private sectors, produce much better health outcomes? Also, why does he think that the Major Government followed this policy, which we all supported at the time? Why is this proposal different from the policy of the Major Government, which we all—or some of us—supported?
Mr Hoban
I am pleased that my hon. Friend added that qualification. I entered the House only in 2001, so I was not in a position to support the Major Government or to disagree with them. We need to look at this measure on its own merits.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that the way in which his new clause has been drafted means that tax relief could be gained at someone’s highest marginal rate, which could mean relief of up to 50%.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to new clause 5. Fiona Bruce. Not moved?
New Clause 5
Transfer of personal allowances between spouses
‘After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert—
“37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses
(1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if—
(a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, and
(b) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc).
(2) If—
(a) the allowance exceeds the individual’s remaining relievable income;
(b) the individual makes an election, and
(c) the individual’s spouse makes a claim,
the individual’s spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the excess.
(3) The individual’s remaining relievable income is found by—
(a) taking the amount of the individual’s net income, and
(b) subtracting any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year.”’.—(Mr Leigh.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Leigh
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the last Parliament the Prime Minister and other senior Conservatives repeatedly expressed their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. There were some very strong statements, particularly by the Prime Minister. For instance, in Glasgow, in July 2008, he said:
“And when it comes perhaps to the most important area of all, families, we will take action not just to support marriage and family stability”,
because he wanted to say
“to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.”
That was the leader of our party speaking during the last Parliament. This was the key policy response to the challenge of social breakdown, or the “broken Britain” phenomenon, and it became an important manifesto pledge at the 2010 election—a manifesto pledge on which every Conservative MP was elected. It was a sacred bond, as it were, with the electorate to support marriage, which was considered to be an absolutely key part of dealing with broken Britain. We put that in our manifesto.
I know that our party did not win an outright majority, but the commitment, most importantly, got into the coalition agreement with a provision for our Lib-Dem friends to abstain. I am not asking them to do anything, but I am asking our Front-Bench team to fulfil the pledge that they solemnly made in the manifesto and put in the coalition agreement. We are still waiting for it, which is why new clause 5 is so important and why I believe that, whatever else has been going on in the background this afternoon—I need not go into that—it was my duty to move it. If it had not been moved, many people involved in the Christian community or in the Christian Institute or in churches would have wondered why this new clause—clearly on the agenda this afternoon, and a vital part of what we are trying to achieve for Britain—had suddenly been withdrawn. I was not prepared to let that happen. I have therefore moved it to allow a debate, to which the Government should be made to respond.
Since the election the Prime Minister has reiterated his commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system on a number of occasions, including at his second Prime Minister’s Question Time—but no action has yet been taken. Given that the manifesto pledge is backed by the coalition agreement and pertains to the period between 2010 and 2015, the fact that the Government have not yet acted to recognise marriage in the tax system is, I hope, no cause for alarm. This debate is important: the Minister will have to respond to it later, when he can assure us that although it has not been possible to do this yet, it is definitely going to happen in this Parliament because it was in our manifesto and in the coalition agreement. At the very least, I want the Minister to say that.
Since the commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system was made last year, there have been some significant changes, which in my personal view greatly increase the need for swift action. In this context, the tabling of new clause 5 on Report to recognise marriage in the tax system is an important step. It provides an opportunity to put on the record the standard arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system and, more importantly, to set out the changes over the last 12 months that have greatly increased the urgency of taking action in this area. As I have said, the Government are obliged to respond and engage with the implications of the changes as they relate to the importance of recognising marriage in the tax system.
Let us go into a bit more detail. Apart from married couples with at least one spouse born before 1935—a number that will clearly reduce over the years—and couples in which at least one partner is blind, everyone in the United Kingdom is taxed on an individual basis. Unused tax allowances cannot be transferred from a non-earning spouse to an earning spouse.
Under the system of transferable allowances, which we have constantly promoted as a party for several years and as is envisaged in our coalition agreement, a non-earning spouse would be able to transfer the whole or part of the basic income tax personal allowance to their earning spouse. Depending on how it was introduced, the whole allowance or part of it could be transferable, and it could be limited to couples with children under a specified age, or limited to tax at the basic rate. The Government can decide what they can afford and they can bring it in gradually; there need not be dead-weight costs or the other problems that were aired in the previous debate. Moreover, I am not at all sure that it is appropriate to talk about dead-weight costs in this context at all. For 2011-12 the personal allowance is £7,475; if the whole allowance were transferable it would be worth up to £1,495, so we are not talking about huge sums of money.
Let us look at what other countries are doing, because it is important to nail the untruth that this idea comes just from the right wing of the British Tory party, or from the Christian community, when it is very common throughout the world. In fact, Britain is unusual among developed countries in failing to recognise marriage in the tax system. This is something that we did as a country, with cross-party agreement, as it was considered absolutely the right thing to do, right up to 1999-2000. Only 24% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system in one way or another, and most of those live in just three countries—Mexico, Turkey and the UK. We are very much in the minority in not recognising marriage through our tax system. Why should we not recognise marriage when most countries and tax administrations in the world think that marriage is a force for stability? It is not unusual to want to recognise that. Other developed countries such as France, Germany, Italy and America all recognise marriage. In that context it was hardly surprising to learn that, according to the latest figures—published in May 2010—the resulting tax burden on single-earner married families in the United Kingdom was one third greater than the OECD average.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of marriage, but I am not convinced that it is appropriate to encourage and recognise it through the tax system. The hon. Gentleman mentioned unfairness, and I think the question of fairness is the nub of the issue, for if the money were spent on benefits or tax credits for children rather than on a married tax allowance, far more children could be lifted out of poverty.
Mr Leigh
As so often in Finance Bill debates, the devil is in the detail. The hon. Lady has made a perfectly reasonable point. However, I hope to establish in my speech that the present system is unfair and, specifically, militates against single-earner families. That applies especially to those who are struggling out of poverty, but it is not necessarily the very poorest about whom we should be concerned. We should also be concerned about families on fairly modest earnings who are desperately trying to look after their children, and who decide that someone, usually the mother, should stay at home and care for them. But, as I have said, the devil is in the detail, and I will try to deal with the hon. Lady’s point later. It is important, and we need to tease the answer out of Ministers. We want to know why action has not been taken.
Mr Leigh
That argument has been used against transferable tax allowances. It is true that it is impossible to create a transferable tax allowance that helps everyone, but I do not consider the fact that in certain circumstances, through no fault of their own, people will not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such allowances to be a good argument against trying to help others—and that is all we are trying to do.
Let us examine the extent of support for marriage in Britain. It is no surprise that marriage rates are at an all-time low and family breakdown is a massive problem, affecting many different areas and, it is estimated, costing us directly between £24 billion and £41 billion per annum. The “Breakdown Britain” report motivated the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, to come up with this policy—our policy—and launched the debate. It was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; although he is not present today, I pay tribute to him for his fantastic work.
Mr Leigh
I will in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress. Others will want to contribute to this important debate.
There is no doubt that the lack of support for marriage gives rise to some family breakdown, not primarily through the breakdown of existing marriages but by making marriage a less attractive and more costly option for some people than it would otherwise be. I do not pretend that that applies to everyone, but undoubtedly our present system, which is very unfair on single earners receiving relatively low wages, is a disincentive for some. As the “Breakdown Britain” report demonstrates, a child born to unmarried parents has a nearly one in two chance, before reaching the age of five, of seeing its parents split up, whereas for children whose parents were married, the figure is just one in 12. That is unmistakably a huge difference. It is, I believe, a commonly held view that marriage is a good thing.
A more recent piece of research, “Family breakdown in the UK”, set out the problem of the lack of support for marriage in the following terms:
“the problem is not divorce. While marriage accounts for 54% of births, the failure of marriages—i.e. divorce—accounts for only 20% of break-ups and 14% of the costs of family breakdown, amongst all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80% of the break-ups and 86% of the costs.”
The report also states:
“These new statistics demonstrate dramatically that family breakdown is a huge and growing problem and that the main driver of family breakdown is the collapse of unmarried families. A failure to acknowledge these key points will lead to the inevitable failure of any government policy aimed at strengthening families.”
That is why many Government Members believe that this policy is so important.
Chris Williamson
Given the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that the tax system discriminates against single-income households and could cause couples to break up, what does he think of the Government’s decision to force through a change in the child benefit rules for single-income higher earners with, say, three children, whose families will lose up to £3,000 per annum? If he believes that family breakdowns result from financial circumstances, he must surely believe that that will lead to even more of them.
Mr Leigh
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made clear my belief that our policy of fiddling around with child benefit is entirely wrong. Child benefit works because there is no fraud and no error, and because it is a flat tax. I strongly oppose the Government’s policy, because it will attack families who are on the margin just as they get into work and emerge from poverty. I predict that we will see a U-turn on that policy, and if it is the 23rd U-turn, it will be one of the best of them.
Why does the lack of stability in marriage matter? We all recognise that most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances—I noted earlier interventions on my speech to that effect—and they must enjoy our full support. Nothing that I am saying constitutes an attack on them. However, policy must be based on evidence, and the evidence is very clear. It shows that, on average, children who are brought up in single-parent families do less well than children brought up in two-parent families according to every significant measure: educational attainment, health, the likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse. I do not think it wrong for the Government to try to recognise what works when it comes to bringing up children.
Some may be tempted to respond to what I am saying by suggesting that the principal cause of the different outcomes is not marriage but wealth, and that it just so happens that wealthier people are more likely to get married. However, the facts do not support that. No one is trying to argue that marriage is the only important consideration, or that wealth is not relevant—of course it is—but data show substantial differences in family stability between married and unmarried couples in the early years of parenthood, even after the discounting of socio-economic factors such as age, income, education and race.
Most notably, the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting couples is sufficient that even—this is an important point—the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. It is foolish to make ourselves the odd one out in comparison with other developed countries such as France, Germany and America. Why do we not recognise marriage in our tax system, and why has the Minister not fulfilled the pledge that we made in our manifesto?
As we all know, recognition of marriage in the tax system specifically through a transferable allowance brings heightened child development benefits. In a culture that encourages parents to go back to work as quickly as possible, even though research demonstrates that this is a key time for developing attachment which has huge implications for the later development of a child, the provision of a transferable allowance makes it easier for one parent to stay at home to be with their children. I am not saying that everyone will want to do it, I am just giving an opportunity. I am not requiring anybody to do anything.
Mr Leigh
I have given way to the hon. Lady once. I will make a bit of progress and if she is really desperate, of course I will let her in because I am very fond of her, as she knows, and we have served together in a Select Committee.
Polling demonstrates that staying at home is a choice that parents want to exercise. That is all that we are talking about here; we are talking about choice—no requirement. For instance, a 2008 YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Justice, run by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, found that 88% of parents thought that more should be done to help parents who wish to stay at home and bring up their children in the early years and 97% agreed that the Government should do more in that area. What other policy has 97% support?
A 2009 YouGov poll for the Centre for Policy Studies found that only 12% of mothers wanted to work full time, 31% did not want to work at all. Only 1% of mothers with children under five thought that the mother in a family where the father worked and there were two children under five should work full time, 49% thought that she should not work at all and fathers, when asked the same question, offered an almost identical response. So the facts are there in the opinion poll data. Only 2% thought that mum should work when her husband worked and the children were under five, and 48% thought that she should not work at all.
Many people are forced into work. Many mothers want desperately to be at home looking after their children when their children are very young, but they simply cannot afford to do so. No one suggests that a transferable allowance will solve the problem of family breakdown or make it incredibly easier for families to cope, but it will be a step in the right direction and a small gesture that we in Parliament could make to mothers who desperately want to stay at home and look after their young children.
Many women, rightly, want to work; they have good jobs. Why should we be forcing young women with very young children into low-paid jobs when they want to be at home looking after their children? Why should we create a tax system that militates against women making that choice?
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me. He makes a powerful point. Many mothers of small children want to work part time. I worked part time as I am sure did many other hon. Members. I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the facts. When the tax system changed from one that included a transferable allowance to one that did not, was there evidence of any impact on family breakdown?
Mr Leigh
I confess that I cannot go back to 1999 and I do not know what data were then available to the Chancellor, but the hon. Lady cannot deny that our tax system is unfair because it militates against the choice to stay at home. Surely I can take the hon. Lady just this far, if no further—that it should be a free choice for women with young children whether they work or not, and the tax system should be neutral. That is all that we are asking for. The hon. Lady can make a speech later if she disagrees with me. I do not doubt her sincerity. I am just saying that the system is simply unfair.
Britain’s failure to recognise marriage in the tax system meant, as of May 2010, that it was out of line with other developed countries, with the effect that, far from supporting the best child development environment and being family friendly, it was placing a significantly greater proportion of its total tax burden on this family type than was the case in comparable countries. In that context, it is not surprising that family breakdown, the key driver of the broken Britain phenomenon is particularly pronounced and the case for recognising marriage in the tax system is clear and compelling. So all the arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system stand in one key area. The tax burden on one-earner married couples with children in the UK has now risen such that it is over 40% greater than the OECD average.
Mr Leigh
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not suggesting for a moment that people get married in order to get tax allowances—I have never said that. All I am saying is that the current system is unfair, because it militates against a family on modest earnings where one person wants to stay at home to look after children. Of course nobody gets married in order to get a little tax allowance, but why should we have an unfair tax system?
Mr Jones
I actually do not understand why all this is unfair, because the new clause would give an advantage to people who are married but do not have children. I do not know how the new clause does what the hon. Gentleman is proposing in terms of keeping family units together and alleviating child poverty.
The important point relates to what was in the Conservative manifesto. What came out of that Conservative think-tank was the idea that marriage was an important point in keeping the family unit together and ensuring that children and wider society were not disadvantaged by a breakdown in the family unit. The manifesto made a commitment to “recognise marriage” in the tax system. It proposed that couples and civil partners who were basic rate taxpayers should be entitled to transfer just part of their allowance—this was worth, in effect, up to £150 a year. That is very different from what is contained in the new clause, because it makes no mention of civil partnerships. Given the names of the people who are supporting this proposals, I suspect that this has come from the wing that has not quite gone all the way in being the new cuddly Conservative party in terms of even envisaging the idea that civil partnerships, with or without children, could constitute a family unit.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned briefly, the policy came unstuck in the coalition agreement because this proposal is clearly not supported by the Liberal Democrats. I believe that during a general election television interview, the Deputy Prime Minister called it “Edwardian”.
Jim Shannon
I can tell the House that when I married, I married for love. I am one of those old-fashioned boys; that is just the way I am.
Mr Leigh
In the light of the intervention from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), it is important to point out that we are not trying to penalise single-parent families or families in which there are two earners. All we are trying to do is remove the severe penalty on families in which there is only one earner, because our system is totally out of step with most of the rest of the world in that regard.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for providing a bit of focus to this debate.
Given that the agreement pertains to a full Parliament, one ordinarily would not be concerned at the failure to action a commitment in just over a year. What we need is for legislative change to be approved by the coalition Government, to move forward and perhaps see this legislation coming through in two years. The latest publication of the international tax comparison, CARE’s “The Taxation of Families 2009-10” puts things in a very different light. It demonstrates that we are now headed to a place where the tax burden on a married family with children with one earner on an average wage is growing so much that it will soon be more than 50% greater than the OECD average. That breaks new ground, taking us into territory that not even new Labour dreamt of occupying.
Some will no doubt respond by saying that this is a result of the tax burden having to increase on everyone in the context of the debt crisis. I understand that, but it is not exactly the case. Let me quote a director of an influential think-tank, who said:
“Given that it will take some time between changing the law and implementing the actual recognition of marriage in the tax system, it is important that the Government makes this a priority, takes swift action. The change, or at least a recognition of it, should be made”.
I very much hope that that report can be taken seriously, that the Government can look further at the issue and perhaps bring it forward in future legislation.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman has raised a useful point. However, given the existing pressures on families I do not think that the new clause is sufficient to allow that to happen, although it may be a step in the right direction. The argument presented by, mainly, Members in a particular corner of the Chamber is that on one hand that this is about incentives and on the other hand that it would make a financial difference, and I think there is a weakness at the heart of that argument.
Members have produced evidence relating to what happened at the time of the change in the tax system. My own marriage took place in 1999 and was not related to tax considerations; I am pleased to say that other factors were operating. I suspect that, given the way in which tax has risen and fallen in every Budget, if such decisions were based on tax policy we would see a huge flux in the nature of relationships and marriage.
Mr Leigh
The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly honourable speech and his party’s position is entirely consistent, but, as possibly the only Liberal Democrat speaking in the debate, will he confirm that, given the coalition agreement, he would be perfectly relaxed if our Government produced such a transferable allowance? Surely the Liberal Democrats could simply abstain.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am generally a relaxed person. We in Cornwall are famed for being laid back and not wanting the hectic pace of life that some other constituencies thrive on. I am focusing on the debate about the Government’s policy in the Bill and whether the Government will choose to accept the new clause that the hon. Gentleman proposed in such an able and distinguished manner. I hope that the Government will not at this juncture look to act on the proposal in the new clause.
I am happy to update the House that during the course of the debate news reached me that Julia Goldsworthy, the former Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has announced her engagement, which I am delighted to hear. Whether she and Chris have been watching the debate and decided that this was it is unclear. I think it is unlikely, but I am delighted that the institution of marriage is taking a step forward in terms of our political life in Cornwall.
Hon. Members’ speeches have made it clear that the new clause is an attempt to send a signal to a group of people in society, but I am not convinced that we should use the tax system to send a signal. There are other ways in which we could support marriage.
Mr Chope
If there is a defect in the wording of the new clause and it fails to recognise everything that the Prime Minister said—he certainly referred specifically to civil partnerships—the hon. Gentleman may have a point about that, but he does not have a point about much else, in my submission.
Mr Leigh
I am happy to make the concession to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who spoke at some length on this point, that if the new clause is defective, I am happy to withdraw it and for the Government to bring back a new clause that includes civil partnerships. I make it absolutely clear that we have nothing against civil partnerships.
Mr Chope
My final point is that there is a read-across between the new clause and the conundrum that the Government face in the debate about the withdrawal of child benefit from families that comprise at least one higher rate taxpayer. That issue is causing a lot of angst among our constituents, particularly for parents in single income households in which one parent stays at home to look after the children. As I have said in correspondence with the Minister, in some cases one parent stays at home to look after a disabled child. If there is one parent who is the breadwinner and he is a higher rate taxpayer on an income of about £45,000 or £50,000, he will be above the threshold and will be deprived of his child benefit.
Mr Gauke
We have heard a lot in this debate about single parents. One group that will be affected if teachers go on strike and schools close on Thursday will be single working parents, who will face substantial disruption in dealing with child care. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will strongly urge teachers to go to work on Thursday.
Mr Leigh
I am quite prepared to accept that we are only Back Benchers and that the new clause may be defective, but I would be prepared not to force it to a vote if my hon. Friend now gives a firm and solemn pledge that during this Parliament the Government will honour our manifesto pledge to recognise marriage in the tax system. If my hon. Friend gives me that pledge, I will not force the new clause to a vote; if he does not give that pledge now, I will force it to a vote.
Mr Leigh
I am afraid that the Minister has not answered the specific question that I asked him. It is not good enough to say that we will honour a commitment, but then give no date for when that commitment will be honoured. I am very sorry, but there is not a cigarette paper between what my hon. Friends and I are proposing in new clause 5 and what the Prime Minister said, which I shall repeat:
“I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition”—
notice that he mentioned the coalition, because this is about now, in this Parliament; he was not talking about some time in the future—
“will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 428.]
Mr Leigh
I will not be shouted down by the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for most of the debate anyway.
We made that pledge, and we should now respect it. I was hoping to be able to say that the new clause was defective, and that we would be quite happy to withdraw it and to redraft it to enable civil partnerships to be recognised. We would be quite happy if the Minister then said that it could be introduced during the course of this Parliament. However, he has not said that. I am afraid that he has not answered the points that we have put to him. We had an hour’s speech by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), most of which did not address what we are trying to say. I want to end by saying that none of us is trying to penalise two-earner families or single parents. We are simply trying to remove the severe penalty that this country imposes on one-earner families. The United Kingdom is completely out of step with most of the world in that regard. Nothing in our proposal is radical; it is sensible and it is right, and I think that we should now have a Division on it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Speaker
Order. Open the doors for a further minute, owing to the extreme congestion in one Division Lobby.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The way to provide that guarantee and certainty is to pass the Bill before us today, which sets up the Office for Budget Responsibility—but does so, critically, as an independent organisation that will make its own forecasts. In so doing, it will contribute to being independent of Governments and provide credible official forecasts for the first time in our country. That will give us the certainty we need. I will come on to explain later how we ended up needing official forecasts to be done independently, referring to the problems that had arose prior to this Parliament.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Government have a serious political difficulty, to which the Justice Secretary referred over the weekend, giving rise to a considerable amount of publicity. All over the country, local authorities are loading cuts on to front-line services, yet we read today that scores of local authority executives earn more than the Prime Minister. What is the Minister’s message to local authorities? Will she insist that they deliver real efficiency savings to avoid these cuts in front-line services, which are so politically damaging?
Bank Bonuses
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Osborne
The deal that the previous Government signed with RBS as a condition of being part of the asset protection scheme stated that it should not pay bonuses in 2009, but that for the bonuses awarded in 2010—the period we are talking about now—it should pay the market rate. That was the deal that Labour signed up to. I am trying to reduce the RBS bonus pool, and I have made it very clear—as has the Prime Minister—that it should be a back-marker, not a market leader.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is not the problem with the leading bankers that they are often arsonists and firemen rolled into one? The trouble with the previous Government is that they left the arsonists in charge of the haystack. They bailed them out, but they did not protect the depositors adequately, and now they want to shoot the firemen. What is that going to achieve?
Mr Osborne
Well, I think we still have the haystack at the end of all that. My hon. Friend makes an important point, however. Of course I understand and share the feeling of anger that if we do not get a change of behaviour, these bonuses could be paid, and that is what we are addressing. However, this House will have an equally important—indeed, possibly even more important—issue to deal with later this year: the report from the Independent Commission on Banking, which we have established, again in the face of Labour opposition, to look at the whole issue of “too big to fail”. That is what my hon. Friend was talking about. The commission will look at how we can ensure that the British taxpayer does not stand behind the banks, but that the banks can be allowed to fail in an orderly way without bringing down the British economy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what he said about Ireland on 8 May 2007:
“The Irish economy has enjoyed a good deal of success over the past few years. The corporation tax regime has contributed to that, but there have been a number of other factors”.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2007; c. 19.]
The truth is that the Irish economy, like our economy under the previous Government, had a banking sector that was poorly regulated and out of control. It is because we have tackled the legacy of the Labour Government that we are in a position to help Ireland.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Given the misery that economies on the periphery of Europe, such as Ireland, are suffering from the imposition of a single currency throughout Europe, will my hon. Friend advise his European partners that any future plan should be motivated by what the markets demand, and not what grandiose politicians want?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He may have read the shadow Chancellor’s remarkable statement last week, that the euro had had no impact on the problems in Ireland. It is important that the right mechanisms are in place to tackle the problems in the eurozone, and that those solutions are owned by the eurozone. That is why the permanent mechanism that will replace the financial stability facility will be a eurozone-only body.
Autumn Forecast
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I said right at the beginning of my remarks that these are economic forecasts and that we should treat them with the caution with which one should treat all economic forecasts. At least we explicitly acknowledge that and the forecasts are independently produced. What we have here is a central forecast; previously, Chancellors just gave a number and asserted that that was the forecast come hell or high water. That is not what the OBR is doing today. However, one can take confidence that its growth forecast for next year is in line with those of most independent commentators and forecasters. It happens to be very close to the numbers that the European Commission produced today, which were not available to the OBR or the British Government until today. We can have confidence that it is part of a group of people who look to the UK and see it growing sustainably over coming years and jobs being created.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
All the talk is of cuts, but with spending still rising despite these so-called cuts and with debt as a proportion of GDP rising to a staggering 70%, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that, to coin a phrase, there is no alternative to further massive efficiency savings, particularly in ring-fenced Departments such as Health where there has been a catastrophic decline in productivity in the last 10 years?
Mr Osborne
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that an essential part of this programme for public expenditure is getting greater productivity in the public services. As the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he has much to offer. The Treasury is engaging with him on this, I hope, and will engage further with him in the coming months. He is absolutely right that, in a period when there is less money available, if we do not have reform, we will have deterioration in the service. That is why we have got to have reforms and why Parliament is being asked to support those reforms in the next few months.
Financial Assistance (Ireland)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I seem to remember plenty of Labour Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box praising what Ireland was doing to make itself competitive, to reduce its corporate tax rates and to create a flexible labour market. That is the tragedy—it did so much in that direction to make itself competitive, but it did not properly regulate its banking system. We in the UK know the price of that.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On reflection, does the Chancellor believe that our Irish friends might have been better off remaining faithful to sterling rather than eloping with the more flighty euro, and does a warm welcome await our friends if and when they return?
Mr Osborne
I am a believer in national sovereignty, so I do not propose to tell other countries what they should do with their currencies. I would just make this observation, since this has been a debate I have heard in recent years: Ireland has all its sovereign debt denominated in euros.