Household Support Fund

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I understand why people want to make interventions, but if they are that long, colleagues will be reduced to around two minutes each.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I noticed that the leader of Manchester City Council wrote to the Prime Minister today, on behalf of the eight core cities, calling for the household support fund to be extended, making the point that it would be “catastrophic” for many people in our poorest communities if it is not. Given your remarks, Mr Hosie, perhaps I should not give way again.

I have no doubt that we will hear examples of the positive impact of the household support fund. At the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we heard from the head of benefits and advice at the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Like many councils, Greenwich has used the fund to support, in the school holidays, families entitled to free school meals. She told us how important it has been to those families to receive that £15 a week per child during the holidays. If the fund is not renewed, those families will have problems buying food in the Easter holiday.

One group that depends on the household support fund consists of hard-working, law-abiding families from overseas—often with children born in the UK—who have leave to remain in the UK but not yet indefinite leave, and who therefore have no recourse to public funds. They cannot claim universal credit, however tough their situation. Many councils have been able to support those families through the household support fund. Without it, there would be nothing.

The household support fund contributed £9.6 million towards essential white goods and furniture in 2022-23. The fridge of a pensioner in my borough, Newham, was not working. She is the guardian for her two grandchildren, one of whom has cancer. She was able to buy a fridge thanks to the household support fund.

The need for the fund to continue is clear. One-off help has always been needed, but gas and electricity prices are respectively 60% and 40% higher today than in 2020. The Trussell Trust, which had a reception in Parliament today, gave out 1.5 million emergency food parcels between last April and September—16% more than in the previous year. The continuation of the fund is crucial.

The current uncertainty is bad for everyone involved. One local authority told End Furniture Poverty:

“Part of the nightmare of this funding is, out of a team of 26, I have three permanent members of staff…we’re constantly onboarding and training people.”

Another said:

“Delaying the decision and failing to give local authorities sufficient notice has made it impossible to plan.”

This is no way to govern.

The Government can take some pride in the household support fund, but uncertainty undermines it. At a webinar attended by nearly 200 people yesterday, comments in the chat included:

“Without it, there will be no localised welfare assistance in Warwickshire.”

“In Brighton and Hove, our 50+ emergency food providers will have no way of coping if HSF is removed.”

“On the Isle of Wight we have used some of HSF to provide much needed funds for…food banks so they can purchase sufficient food to keep up with demand as donations have depleted drastically.”

Barnardo’s told us that it will publish a report about this precise issue next week.

Let me conclude by quoting a single mum of three in Greenwich. She said of the household support fund:

“It is a lifesaver…I hope and pray it continues.”

I agree, and I hope the Minister will too.

Finance Bill

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Stephen Timms

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman into thinking that the figure was reduced by only £3 billion as result of the previous Government’s efforts. I did not say that at all. I would be happy to go through in more detail the efforts of the previous Government on this issue, but the crucial initiative was the disclosure regime, which we introduced in 2004 to great howls of protest, yet it has undoubtedly saved many billions in tax that would otherwise not have been collected. The total figure is certainly a great deal more than £3 billion. As to whether addressing this problem could be the sole solution to the problem of the deficit, however, I agree that it could not.

[Stewart Hosie]

The shadow Minister makes a point about the success of the disclosure scheme. It has been successful, but does he now regret not implementing a pre-commencement validation system with the Revenue before such avoidance schemes were put in place rather than a post-commencement disclosure, when the money has to be clawed back through retrospective legislation? Is it not better to avoid any avoidance happening in the first place?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman, who knows a lot about these matters, is right that this is one of the subjects that will have to be considered in looking at a general anti-avoidance rule. The problem, I think, is HMRC having to respond quickly to potentially huge numbers of pre-clearance requests of that kind, which would be a massive additional burden. If I were in the Minister’s shoes, before going down that road, I would press very hard for some cast-iron assurances on the part of HMRC that those clearances could be provided quickly. The problem is that a lot of new bureaucracy would be required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I understand the argument and I have heard it before—last year, in fact. I welcome what the shadow Minister is saying, but given the concept of promoters or introducers of these schemes—effectively a clear register of people who might engage in this kind of activity—might it not now be easier than it would have been even two or three years ago?

[Stephen Timms]

I think it would still be difficult, complex and cumbersome. A judgment will have to be made about whether it is the right thing to do—effectively, the benefit of reducing avoidance would have to be worth the additional complexity. I am sure that this debate is still to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I rise to seek the following clarification. Am I right that it was in fact the previous Government who—sensibly—allowed unused tax assets to pay, at least in part, for the asset protection scheme to protect all of us against non-performing and toxic assets?

[Stephen Timms]

Indeed, and I am certainly not arguing against the long-established mechanism allowing tax losses to be used in that way. I am simply querying, just as a matter of fact, whether that is the reason why this Bill only makes one of the four promised year’s reductions in corporation tax. I have certainly not come across any other suggestions as to why the Bill is doing that in that way. People who have deferred tax liabilities—as opposed to the banks having deferred tax credits—would benefit from early enactment of the lower rate. Typically, that is people such as manufacturers. If that is the reason, this is, sadly, another case of helping out the banks at the expense of manufacturers.

Surely the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is right to say that

“to provide better certainty for businesses”

there should be legislation

“as soon as possible for the proposed reductions in the main rate of corporation tax”.

When will the Government legislate for the remaining reductions? Will they do so in the Finance Bill that we have been promised in the autumn? Are we really going to have to wait for four years of Finance Bills to complete these reductions, as the Chief Secretary suggested, or can we look forward to legislation in the Finance Bill No. 3 of 2010? If certainty for business is the aim, it surely must be done this year at least.

When do the Government intend to introduce their changes to the rate of capital allowances and the annual investment allowance? I listened carefully to what the Minister said about that and perhaps I missed the point but I did not quite grasp which piece of legislation he envisaged those changes being made in. Will they be in the further Finance Bill in the autumn or will they await next year’s Bill? By that time, I suppose we might have some further data on the actual change in business investment in the next 12 months and how that compares with the change on which the Chancellor is pinning his Budget arithmetic.

There is something else about which the Bill is silent but on which we might have expected some change: the differential compared with the main rate of corporation tax inside the North sea ring fence. The ring fence for North sea operations rightly prevents taxable profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK and the UK continental shelf from being reduced by losses from other activities or by excessive interest payments. The ring-fenced corporation tax rate was the same as the main corporation tax rate, until the previous Government reduced the main rate from 30% to 28% from 1 April 2008; we left the ring-fenced rate at 30%. Now that the main rate has been announced as falling to 24%, do the Government intend to leave the ring-fenced rate at 30% throughout the next four years, thus trebling the differential from two to six percentage points or is a reduction to the ring-fenced rate being considered, perhaps along with some other changes to the fiscal regime for oil and gas extraction?

Let me finish by asking one further question. As I reminded the House, it was the previous Government’s explicit aim that corporation tax in the UK should be the lowest among the G7 economies, and we succeeded in achieving that aim. That is one of the reasons why the UK has been so successful over the past decade in attracting so much overseas investment into our economy. Do the present Government intend to ensure that we continue to have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7? Will that commitment be maintained?

As I explained at the outset of my remarks, it is not my aim to oppose this clause, but I hope that the Minister will provide some explanation for the omissions I have highlighted, and in particular give an account of why the remaining reductions in the rate of corporation tax have been delayed, and say when the legislation for them will be introduced.