House of Commons
Tuesday 21 July 2015
The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Business Before questions
Queen’s Speech (Answer to Address)
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with its Address of 27 May, was pleased to receive the same very graciously and give the following Answer:
I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2015
European Union (Finance) Act 2015.
Oral Answers to Questions
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
Long-term Economic Plan
1. What progress he has made on his long-term economic plan. 
The long-term economic plan is working, but when it comes to building a Britain that lives within its means, we now need to finish the job. Today I am launching the spending review, which will support our priorities such as the national health service and national security. Savings will have to be made in other areas, but we have shown that, with careful management of public money, we can get more for less, and give working people real control over the decisions that affect them and their communities. The spending review will deliver better government and economic security, and the results will be announced to the House on 25 November.
The summer Budget took clear steps towards the delivery of a higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-benefits society, with the new national living wage as the centrepiece. Does that not clearly demonstrate that the Conservatives are the natural party for hard-working people and their families?
My right hon. right Friend is absolutely right. We are building the higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-welfare economy that our country needs if it is to compete in the future and give real opportunities to working people. The new contract that we offer is this: businesses will pay higher wages and pay lower taxes and people will receive bigger pay cheques, but there will be lower welfare. That, I think, is a contract that the British people support.
The Chancellor’s plan will not look very well planned or very long if it does not include some reference to productivity, higher-quality management, and, indeed, manufacturing. What is he going to do about those key issues?
We entirely acknowledge that we need to improve the productivity of the British economy. That is why, after the Budget, we published the productivity plan, which will introduce, for example, an apprenticeship levy to ensure that young people are given the skills and training that they need, and roads funds that will help to ensure that we have the right infrastructure for our country’s future.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged this morning in an interesting tweet, I think it was, the Labour party is going back to the 1980s. Those were his words. Unfortunately, the sensible voices of the old intake—
—are being drowned by those of the new intake.
Chancellor, sit down, man! I told you to sit down, so sit down! Mr Andrew Tyrie.
I am sorry about that, Mr Speaker. I thought that the Chancellor was just getting into gear.
Growth will, of course, depend partly on what the Bank of England does. Over the past five years, the Chancellor and Parliament have granted the Bank huge new powers over not only monetary but, in particular, financial policy, which directly affect millions of people. Does that not make the reforms of the way in which the Bank runs itself that the Chancellor will propose, along with greater accountability for its new board—for which the Treasury Committee, among others, has been pressing for a long time—all the more essential?
I pay tribute to the work that was done during the last Parliament by the Treasury Committee, some of whose members are still in their posts, and I again congratulate my right hon. Friend on remaining Chair of that Committee. Today we are publishing the consultation document on the new Bank of England Bill, which will come before Parliament in due course. The Bill follows the reforms announced by the Governor of the Bank, which built on the work done by the Treasury Committee and others. It will ensure that a modern Bank of England is able to exercise the leadership that is required for the delivery of economic and financial stability. Moreover, for the first time—this is crucial, and I think that Parliament will appreciate it—the Bank will be open to the advice of the National Audit Office, and the value for money that that can deliver.
The success of the economic plan, long-term or otherwise, and the potential to improve productivity must be driven in part by sustained infrastructure capital investment, so can the Chancellor confirm that, instead of doing that, the plans he laid out in the summer Budget show total capital expenditure down every single year between 2015 and 2019-20 compared with the March Budget?
We made some in-year savings in this financial year in capital budgets that were not going to be well spent. We want to deliver value for money for Scottish taxpayers, as well as for taxpayers across the United Kingdom, but we will be spending more as a percentage of national income on capital investment in this decade than occurred under the last Labour Government.
That is a fascinating answer, because of course the real answer is that in cash terms the spending is down—from 2015-16 onwards down £1.2 billion, £0.8 billion, £0.9 billion, £0.7 billion, and £1.3 billion by the time we get to 2019-20. So we know the forecasts are reduced, we know the Chancellor is cutting more than he needs in order to run a balanced budget, and we know he is undermining the potential for long-term growth, so why did he ignore all the advice, particularly from the OECD who told him two days before the Budget that “gross investment is low” and
“Transport infrastructure investment is poor”?
Does he really expect us to believe every—
Order. Questions are too long. We have got the general drift of the argument; let’s hear the answer.
We are investing a record amount in our transport system, and the new roads fund will help with transport investment in England, but there will be consequentials and money for Scotland as well. I make this general observation to the hon. Gentleman: if the Scottish Government think we are not spending enough in Scotland, they can raise taxes on the Scottish people and spend all the money in Scotland. They should have the courage to make that argument to the Scottish people.
My constituents would like to commend the Chancellor on the long-term economic plan, which is seeing great success in Wimbledon. Does he agree that the Budget measures, such as the apprenticeship levy and the drop in corporation tax, provide an incentive for employers to take on more apprentices and to reduce the productivity gap in the economy, and see further success in the long-term economic plan?
I thank my hon. Friend for the support he has given and welcome the fact that the people of Wimbledon understand that economic security is the bedrock on which we can support the aspirations of working people. The apprenticeship levy addresses the key problem of the lack of skills in the British economy that has bedevilled us for decades. We are now going to introduce a system whereby companies that train their workforces get rewarded, and companies that do not have to make a contribution to the training that they free-ride off.
Was it always part of the Chancellor’s long-term plan to scrap the maintenance grants for students from lower-income backgrounds? The Institute for Fiscal Studies said this morning that this change
“will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve Government finances in the long run.”
Can the Chancellor tell us why this was not in his manifesto?
We put building a first-class university system right at the heart of our manifesto, and I think the person who made the best observation about this is the person the hon. Gentleman is backing for the leadership of the Labour party: the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). This is what she said in the House of Commons in 1998 when the last—[Hon. Members: “1988?”] There was a Labour Government then, who abolished grants and introduced loans, and this is what she said:
“I ask the House, having listened to the debate this evening, not to vote for”
maintenance grants which have
“not helped my constituents, but to take the radical approach, to go for the new, fair student loan system”.—[Official Report, 8 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 831.]
There we have it: support from the right hon. Lady. The hon. Gentleman is old Labour.
Well, that fell a bit flat. I was asking about the Chancellor’s manifesto and what he promised. Taking away maintenance grants was always part of his plan, but he did not have the guts to tell students and their families before an election. However much he spins it, he is hitting students with more fees, more repayments and more debt—much more debt. Will he confirm that the poorest students will graduate not with the current £40,000 of debt, but now with an average of £53,000 of debt?
We are increasing the maintenance support that students have. We heard all that in the previous Parliament, when the Opposition said our reforms would put off people from low-income backgrounds going to university. In fact a record number of students from low-income backgrounds are now going to university. The Labour party that he is a member of once supported getting rid of grants and introducing loans, but this shows the distance it has come—that it now opposes this measure to support our university system. It has a new intake of old Labour MPs dragging them back to the 1980s, and we know the direction they are heading in: left, left, left—away from the centre ground of British politics and away from support for working people.
Some of these answers require a bit of practice, because they suffer from the disadvantage of being not just a bit long, but far too long—hopelessly long.
2. What steps he is taking to ensure as many policy holders as possible are identified before the Equitable Life payment scheme closes to new claimants on 31 December 2015. 
The Equitable Life payment scheme has already gone to great lengths to find policyholders, including checking against credit histories, a national advertising campaign and sending letters to last-known addresses. Thanks to that, almost 90% of policyholders have been paid. Where possible the scheme is now tracing all those remaining who are due £50 or more against DWP, national insurance numbers and address records.
I accept that this Government and their predecessor have done much—more than anybody before did—to right an injustice that was done, but Equitable Life policyholders were victims of a regulatory failure, for which ultimately Government is responsible. As the economy grows, is it not time, out of decency and fairness towards that diminishing group of elderly people, to revisit the amount to be paid in compensation?
I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his excellent summer Budget, did in fact announce that all eligible non-annuitant policyholders in receipt of pension credit will see their lump sum payments doubled.
Government Support: Savers/Homeowners
3. What steps the Government are taking to support (a) people with savings and (b) home ownership. 
We need to move Britain from an economy built on debt to a society built on savings and investment and home ownership. That is why we have reformed pensions and rewarded savers. To back home ownership we are building more starter homes, and our new Help to Buy ISA will be available from the beginning of December, because this Government support the aspirations of working people to buy their own home and provide for their future.
In my weekly surgeries in Kingston and Surbiton a constant theme is how difficult it is to get on the housing ladder in London. Will my right hon. Friend explain how his Help to Buy policies will help my hard-working constituents? Does he agree that plans for more tax, more borrowing and more spending would put house building and families striving to save for a deposit at risk?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are going to help his constituents to buy their own home. The Help to Buy scheme has helped 100,000 people; the new Help to Buy ISA will help the families he represents save up for that deposit; and of course we all still want to see more starter homes being built. We have to address the acute housing shortage in London, and we have the policies to do it.
Why are the Government abandoning people with savings and those who own their own homes? They are going to be forced to spend their savings and sell their homes to pay for their social care costs. The Chancellor raised the hopes of those older and vulnerable people before the election with a pledge that no one would have to sell their home to pay for care. Those people will feel badly let down by the Government’s U-turn. Did he ever intend to keep that manifesto pledge?
We are going to introduce that cap on care costs in this Parliament. It is a bit rich coming from a Labour party that was in power for 13 years and did absolutely nothing to cap those costs. That is why we are introducing the cap. We have also already introduced the changes that enable people to provide for their future care costs without having to sell their home. We are making those changes, alongside the support for savers and pensions, so that we move away from the society and economy built on debt that was left to this Government to an economy that builds and rewards savers.
4. What steps he is taking to support the creation of new enterprise zones. 
In the summer Budget we announced the opening of the bidding round for a new wave of enterprise zones throughout England. This round will focus on ensuring that all places in England can benefit from the programme, including rural areas where appropriate, and the Government encourage towns and districts to work with local enterprise partnerships to develop bids. Details of the application process will be released in due course.
I thank the Chief Secretary for his answer. I can advise that, in Corby, we are busily getting together to put in a bid. Corby is also taking in very considerable housing growth. Does he agree that areas that are taking in such growth should also receive the benefit of new jobs and new infrastructure?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is of course right. During the course of the previous Parliament, the performance of the programme improved, and it was absolutely right to create strong incentives for local areas to take part. That was consistent with our long-term economic plan. We are looking forward to examining his case for an enterprise zone in his Corby constituency in due course.
When the Government come to review the success of enterprise zones, especially those in the last wave, which includes one in my own constituency, will the Chief Secretary undertake to ensure that job creation becomes a major focus of enterprise zones as they are rolled out across the United Kingdom?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Job creation is vital in the enterprise zone programme. Over the course of the previous Parliament, the programme supported more than 15,000 jobs, which brought in £2.1 billion of private investment.
19. My right hon. Friend will know that there is already a successful local enterprise zone within the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP, of which Lichfield is a member. Will the Government now accept invitations from LEPs, which already have zones, for further zones? 
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government have opened up the bidding round for new enterprise zones, and are encouraging LEPs to work with towns and rural areas to develop new sites. The bidding round is open to all LEPs across England, but only those sites with strong commercial propositions and value-for-money cases will be accepted.
5. What estimate he has made of the number of people who will receive a net reduction in income as a result of the policies on tax credits announced in the summer Budget 2015. 
The Government want to move from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a higher-wage, lower-tax, less welfare-reliant society. That means more emphasis on support to hard-working families on low incomes by reducing income tax, increasing the personal allowance, increasing wages and topping up low wages through tax credits.
Many large, profit-making employers currently pay low wages and enjoy a state subsidy of their staff costs via the tax credit system. What ideas and options did the Treasury team consider for clawing back that subsidy from the employers before it decided to take it from the low paid?
The hon. Lady highlights an important point and agrees, I think, with the analysis of Alistair Darling who said that an unintended consequence of the tax credit system was that it would end up making that subsidy in this way. We are introducing the national living wage. For someone working full-time, that will be worth £5,200 more in cash terms by the end of the Parliament.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of people losing out will be vastly outweighed by that of those who will benefit from the higher minimum wage, the higher tax threshold, and the incentive to be out there looking for work?
I can confirm that, when we take the fiscal measures of the summer Budget altogether, eight out of 10 families will be better off.
The consequence of this Budget is that 1.8 million women in low-paid work across the UK will lose an average of just over £1,000 a year over the next five years. Cuts to child and working tax credits will hit 2.8 million women in total, two-thirds of those affected. Why is it that this Government’s policies are having a disproportionately negative impact on this country’s women?
I can confirm that Scotland has the second lowest rate of female unemployment in the European Union, and the second highest rate of female employment. Women will disproportionately benefit throughout the UK from rises in their personal allowance and the introduction of the national living wage.
When tax credits were first introduced by Gordon Brown, he said that it would cost £2 billion a year. It is now costing £30 billion, which is twice the Home Office budget. Surely the prudent thing to do is to address that ballooning expenditure, which too often simply subsidises low-paying employers.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the cost of tax credits has ballooned. They had trebled in the 11 years to 2010. To get the country back into the black, it was absolutely necessary to take control of it, but doing so at the same time as taking these other key measures.
Research from the House of Commons Library shows that the effect of the Chancellor’s decision to increase the tax credit taper from 41% to 48% is that workers earning above the income tax personal allowance threshold will face a marginal effective tax rate of 73% in 2015-16, which increases to a staggering 80% in 2016-17. How does the Minister reconcile the Chancellor’s rhetoric about standing up for workers with the reality of a marginal effective tax rate of 80%, which is a hefty work penalty by any measure?
The great reforming summer Budget is an integrated package of measures and people cannot just take one element alone. It includes the new national living wage, the increases in the personal allowance and a lot more support that the hon. Lady did not mention on childcare and on skills building. When all those things are taken together, it is a Budget in which the great majority of people will be better off and more are supported into work.
High tax rates are normally loathed by Conservative Members, but obviously not when they affect ordinary working people. The Chancellor has been busy trying to suggest that his national living wage will compensate for this work penalty, but he knows that the real living wage is calculated on the basis of a full take-up of tax credits—the very thing he has now cut. Is it not the case that, regardless of the rhetoric, all that this Budget has delivered for ordinary working people in our country is a hefty work penalty and a living wage con?
As the hon. Lady knows, the Budget contains a large number of measures to help hard-working families, including the rise in the personal allowance, allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Of course the big reform of universal credit is still to come, and it will further help on incentivising work. Throughout all this it is important to help to support people into work and to see them progressing through the hours, particularly through our increases in childcare support, which are worth thousands of pounds to some families.
Does my hon. Friend agree that working families will be enormously helped by the 30 hours per week of free childcare, which, speaking as a father of two-year-old twins, I particularly appreciate?
Indeed, families with twins will get double the benefit, but everybody with children aged three and four will get that particular benefit, which is part of a suite of increases in childcare support, including through universal credit and tax-free childcare.
6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policy of the European Commission’s decision that part of an exemption from the aggregates levy constituted unlawful state aid; and if he will make a statement. 
In March, a European Commission state aid investigation into the aggregates levy exemptions found almost all of them to be lawful. The Chancellor announced in his summer Budget that these lawful exemptions will be reinstated from August. However, the Commission decided that part of the exemption for shale aggregates provided unlawful state aid. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is in contact with potentially affected businesses, and we will minimise the impact as far as possible.
I thank the Exchequer Secretary for his answer. He will be aware that shale is fundamental to the quarrying industry in my constituency, so can he explain to the House: what persuasive case was made by the Treasury to the Commission in that regard?
I appreciate how important the shale industry is in County Down. Of course we are very disappointed that the Commission made this judgment on part of the shale exemption, having previously found all the exemptions to be legal in 2002. I say to the hon. Lady that if any businesses in her constituency have particular issues to raise, they should talk to HMRC, and it will continue to provide support through the staged payments of other taxes through the time to pay scheme.
7. What fiscal steps he is taking to support businesses. 
In addition to the measures we took in the last Parliament, in the summer Budget we announced that we will: cut the main rate of corporation tax to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020; publish a business tax road map by April 2016, giving businesses the certainty they need to plan for long-term investment; support business investment by increasing the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £200,000—its highest ever permanent level; and increase the employment allowance from £2,000 to £3,000.
The announcement that national insurance and corporation tax will both be further lowered will be welcome news for businesses in my constituency and across the country, as we take forward our long-term economic plan. The Labour party went into the election promising to increase tax on businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the wrong approach and that it is by lowering taxes that we best back businesses to create the jobs needed by our families?
First, may I express my sympathies to my hon. Friend’s constituents affected by the tragic incident in Bosley on Friday? I know he raised that matter in the House yesterday. I agree with him that if we want to improve investment in the UK, and therefore productivity, we should be looking to cut corporation tax, not raise it. It would have been a big mistake to have reversed the progress we have made.
Actually, Labour’s plan at the last election was to cut business rates for small businesses. The Chancellor neglected to mention business rates in the Budget, so can the Minister tell us how the review is going and give us a guarantee that it will not result in an increase in business rates?
I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that Labour’s manifesto included a plan to increase corporation tax. A review of business rates is being undertaken, and it will report by the end of the year. Remember that it was the previous Government who in 2013 announced a package of business rates cuts worth £2.7 billion, and only this April we introduced a further set of measures that reduced business rates by £1 billion, so we have a proud record on this.
18. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy in Cornwall. While many are thriving under the policies of this Government, those in the tourism industry are experiencing a downturn in business as a result of families not being able to take their children out of school during term time. Is the Minister prepared to meet me to look at the economic impact that policy is having on the Cornish economy and the challenges those businesses are facing? 
Pupils should be in school during term time, and we believe that needs to be properly enforced. We have said that schools should have greater flexibility in setting their own term dates, which might help address the matter. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this, but I know that he has already done so with Education Ministers.
Let me bring the Minister back to the important issue of business rates, because we have a crisis on our hands. There are reports that the valuation office is now having to deal with 500 appeals a day. Will he just throw businesses a rope? They do not believe that the Government will change a thing, so will he offer them an interim report on their review in September?
We are pressing ahead with various proposals to improve the administration of business rates, but I remind the House that it was the previous Government who brought in measures such as the rebate for retail and the 2% cap, so we have introduced measures to help on business rates and we are introducing measures to improve their administration as well.
Employment Support Allowance
8. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effect of proposed changes to employment support allowance on levels of employment. 
We created 2 million jobs in the previous Parliament, and our objective is to create a further 2 million in this Parliament. A crucial part of that is the welfare reforms that we have introduced to help make work pay, which is consistent with our long-term economic plan.
Of course we all want to see work pay, but a large section of the community are sometimes unable to work for short periods of time because of illnesses such as sickle cell disease. The Minister seems to have overlooked that group of people.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Our welfare reforms are based on the principle of fairness; fair on those who receive the benefits and fair on those who pay the tax. With regard to a specific group, there is clearly a difference between the work-related activity group and the support group, and we are happy to look at those differences. She is clearly not satisfied with what we are doing, but she is also one of the 48 Labour Members who rebelled last night on welfare, so I do not think that she is satisfied with her Front Benchers’ position either.
9. What fiscal steps he is taking to support small businesses. 
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and the Government are committed to helping them grow and prosper. In the summer Budget we announced that we will increase the employment allowance from £2,000 to £3,000 to help small businesses with the cost of employment, and support business investment through the highest permanent level for the annual investment allowance. We will also transform the tax system over the course of this Parliament by introducing digital tax accounts.
The Government’s policies are creating a climate of economic confidence. However, they are also having the effect of strengthening the pound against other currencies, particularly the euro, which many small exporters in my constituency tell me is making the price of their exports uncompetitive. What advice and support can my hon. Friend give to those small and medium-sized exporters in Hazel Grove so that they can continue to lead our economic recovery?
We recognise that the recent weakness in our European trading partners has presented a particular challenge for SMEs trying to export. The Government are working hard to help British businesses export to a wider variety of destinations, contributing to strong recent performance in key emerging markets. That help includes a £20 million package of support this year for first-time exporters, but we need to do more and our productivity plan sets out how we will do that.
Will the business rates review help small businesses? It is a simple question for a simply smart Minister.
I am grateful for that question—I think. It is a review; I do not want to judge in advance what the conclusions will be, but we have engaged very fully with small business organisations and listen very carefully to what they have to say, and we will report by the end of the year.
10. What progress he has made on his deficit reduction plans. 
Since 2010, the Government’s long-term economic plan has halved the deficit as a share of GDP, but the job is not yet done. At 4.9%, the deficit remains too high. The summer Budget set out the action that the Government will take to eliminate the deficit and run an overall surplus and start paying down debt. The Government will reduce the deficit at the same rate as over the last Parliament, to reach an overall surplus of £10 billion in 2019-20, according to the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Future Governments need flexibility to respond to economic shocks. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Charter for Budget Responsibility and plans to run a fiscal surplus are sensible measures that will provide that flexibility?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and he is absolutely right. The reliable way to reduce debt effectively over time is to run a surplus in normal time. Public sector net debt as a share of GDP reached 80.8% last year and the Government are committed to getting debt falling as a share of GDP from here on.
I note that the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) is a new Member. Perhaps he might have forgotten that before 2015, the Chancellor said that he would eradicate the deficit by this election. May I ask the Minister to confirm that due to the recent fiscal changes in his July Budget, the OBR forecast that an additional £26.8 billion would be borrowed by the public sector between 2016 and 2017, and is it not the case that the Government have missed every single one of their deficit reduction targets?
What I can confirm is that the surplus will be higher at the end of the Parliament and debt will be lower. But the hon. Lady was a Member in the last Parliament and she voted against every single one of the spending reductions and other measures that we took to deal with the deficit, and all the time she wanted higher deficits, higher debt and higher spending.
11. What estimate he has made of the net change in revenue to the public purse that will arise from tax changes announced in the summer Budget 2015. 
The change in revenue from tax changes announced in the summer Budget is shown in the Budget document. It shows that net receipts increase by between £4 billion and £6.5 billion in each full year of the forecast period. The Government pledged to raise £5 billion per year from tax. The measures announced in the Budget mean that by 2019-20, the Government will have delivered on their targets, raising £5 billion from avoidance and tax planning, evasion and compliance, and imbalances in the tax system.
Ernst and Young points out that the rise in household taxes is reducing disposable income, with £47.2 billion of tax rises, including the insurance premium tax and vehicle excise duty. Does the Minister accept that over the course of this Parliament, these tax rises are twice as big as any tax cuts?
We said at the election that we would raise a further £5 billion in tax, but we have one question from a Labour MP complaining about the deficit being too high, we have Labour voting against any measures to control spending, and now we have Labour complaining about any tax increases. So where do they stand? We failed to find coherence from the Labour party in the last Parliament and there is no sign of it in this Parliament.
20. Over this Parliament, the UK will pay £27 billion more in EU contributions because the EU has failed to cut farm subsidies. Would it not help our revenues if the EU actually kept their word? 
My hon. Friend is of course aware of the historic deal that the Prime Minister achieved in February 2013, when for the first time ever we saw a real-terms cut in the EU budget. That was a significant achievement, and we obviously want to preserve and build on it.
The Chancellor has made some noise—indeed, the Minister mentioned this—about closing tax avoidance schemes exploited by private equity and hedge fund managers, specifically the “Mayfair” tax loophole. Can he confirm that he intends to close these loopholes?
We achieved a huge amount in the previous Parliament on tax loopholes. In the Budget, the Chancellor set out plans for additional resources for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to raise even more in dealing with tax avoidance and tax evasion. The particular example that the hon. Gentleman mentions relates to the long-standing treatment of the capital gains tax applying to private equity—something that has existed for many years and applied in most other countries. The Budget contained a number of measures that were designed to close loopholes for the private equity and hedge fund industries.
12. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of employment. 
Employment stands at 31 million having increased by 265,000 over the past year, driven entirely by more people being in full-time work. We are now moving into the next phase of our recovery, with high-quality employment helping to boost productivity and raise living standards across the country.
The security of a good job and a regular pay packet are of fundamental importance to people in my constituency. Can my hon. Friend assure us that he will keep backing business across the country to create more jobs?
I can. The Government’s long-term economic plan is working. Since 2010, we have seen the creation of 1,000 new jobs a day, but the job is not yet done. The Government will continue working through the plan to secure Britain’s economic future.
The Minister will know that the OBR analysis shows that the number of high-skill jobs in the UK economy is shrinking at a time when the number of low-skill jobs is increasing. Is he proud of that record?
There has been a growth in the number of jobs in low and medium-skill sectors, and we should all welcome that. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I meant high and medium-skill sectors. The Government’s focus on the productivity plan is all about making sure that as we move into the next phase we are boosting those highest-value-added sectors.
22. May I point out to the Minister that jobs in the agricultural, food production and dairy sector are of vital importance to my constituents in North Dorset? Will he ensure that the Treasury team do as much as they possibly can to support those vital sectors? 
Indeed. The food sector, from farming through to retail and catering, is hugely important, contributing £103 billion to the economy and employing one in eight people. In fact, food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. We will absolutely continue to keep its importance, in Dorset and more widely, at the front of the plan.
Perhaps the Minister has forgotten that unemployment in the UK rose in the three months to May—the first rise in two years—but actually fell in Scotland. Will he now go to Scotland to talk to the First Minister about her long-term plan for growth?
With the growth and employment levels that we have seen in Scotland, it becomes increasingly difficult every day for Scottish National party Members to continue to peddle their line, although I am sure they will. It is true that in the most recent short-term figures there was a slight adverse movement. As we move closer to full employment, we will not see the same large increases in employment every month, but year on year, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the position has improved.
13. What assessment he has made of the likelihood of the Government meeting its 2020 export target. 
The 2020 export target of £1 trillion is ambitious. UK Trade & Investment has doubled the number of businesses it helps since 2010. The productivity plan sets out steps to take this further by mobilising the whole of Government behind helping our great British businesses to export much more.
Britain needs export growth, not just cuts, to clear the deficit, but the Chancellor is set to miss his export target by a massive £350 billion and to deliver the worst peacetime trade deficit since 1830. What action are the Government taking to combine the creative industries with our manufacturing base to target emerging middle classes in BRIC countries—in particular, China and India—to fire up growth and not rely solely on hitting the poor with cuts?
We can see the disarray in the hon. Gentleman’s personal life, given that he walked through the Lobby to support one leadership candidate last night, while publicly backing another who abstained. He mentions the importance of exporting to emerging markets. I can confirm that UK exports to China have increased by 72% since 2010, while exports to South Korea—many of them in the creative industries—are up by 148% and to Hong Kong by 63%.
Does my hon. Friend agree that British business would find it easier to export to the rest of the world if it did not have to comply with the red tape imposed on it by Brussels bureaucrats?
My hon. Friend is an example to Opposition Members in the consistency of his political viewpoint. He is right to point out that the euro area has indeed been sluggish. One of the reasons we are experiencing slow growth in the euro area is that our goods exports have been falling to that part of the world. That is why it is so important that we refocus British businesses on exporting to some of the faster growing parts of the world.
16. That was an extraordinarily complacent answer from the Minister. On this Chancellor’s watch, the UK’s current account deficit has become the largest of any advanced economy, and the value of UK exports is largely what it was in 2010, when the Government came to power. Crucially, that cannot be put down to the sluggishness of the eurozone, because exports to non-eurozone countries have been equally static, and the figure the Minister gave for China reflects demand in the Chinese economy. Does she accept that whatever the strategies the Government have deployed so far, they simply have not worked? 
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that it is very important for us to help British businesses to export more. We have some fantastic British businesses, and many of them have started to export. UKTI has doubled the number of companies that it has helped in the past five years. He is absolutely right that we should aim to be very ambitious in this area. I would like to point out that export volumes outside the EU have actually grown by 24% since the first quarter of 2008.
Rebalancing the Economy
14. What steps he is taking to rebalance the economy away from London and the south-east. 
The Government are committed to rebalancing the economy and strengthening every part of the UK. The summer Budget announced new commitments to rebalance the economy, including devolving further powers to city regions, inviting a new round of bids for enterprise zones and launching an ambitious transport package for the north of England.
I thank the Minister for that response. Currently, northern cities with elected Mayors have below-average economic performance in their region, whereas northern cities with above-average performances do not yet have elected Mayors. Why are the Government making a fetish of elected Mayors?
I know the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing point of view in this regard. The important point is that we want to empower local economic areas to grow as fast as London and the south-east. Among the important measures in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill are the strong and accountable governance arrangements for, for example, Mayors.
Last but not least, I call Mr Green.
Wage Growth and Inflation
15. What comparative assessment he has made of the rates of wage growth and inflation. 
The hard work on economic recovery is now paying off as people see their pay packets growing faster. The most recent data show real pay growing at 3.2%. Inflation is low: the price of fuels has fallen by 10.5% in the past year and the price of food by 2.2%.
As the MP for Bolton West, I strongly welcome the Government’s northern powerhouse plans to invest in transport infrastructure and in science and skills. What are the Government doing to ensure that Bolton West is increasingly attractive as a place for high-tech business to invest, so bringing in high-skilled jobs and higher wages for my constituents?
The Budget contained measures that will boost skills and support high-tech businesses across the north, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Greater Manchester local enterprise partnership is invited to bid in the new round of enterprise zones, there will be new regius professorships to support universities and there is an ambitious transport package that will provide much needed infrastructure for the north of England.
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. 
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
We hear from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the gross impact of the higher minimum wage will be about £4 billion, but that the cuts to tax credits represent about £6 billion. The proportion of children in poverty who are from families in work rose from 54% to 63%, and that statistic can only get worse. It is little surprise that the Government want to redefine child poverty. To change a definition is to change the truth—
Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman had a background in the financial world. He cannot have been allowed to prate on at that length when he was busy making important decisions with commercial substance involved. He will really have to practise.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman a figure: 200,000 workers in Scotland will gain from the new national living wage, which is 9% of the workforce. The Budget is offering people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom higher wages, lower taxes and, yes, lower welfare, as part of a new contract whereby this country lives within its means. That is one reason why jobs are being created in Scotland.
T2. I welcome the Chancellor’s recent announcement on Sunday trading hours. What steps can he take to ensure that neighbouring authorities take a joined-up approach, so that consumers have confidence in the consistency of Sunday trading hours and we provide the maximum possible benefit to our economy? 
I remember visiting a vibrant high street in my hon. Friend’s constituency before the general election. It is for local areas to decide whether to extend Sunday opening hours and to work in partnership with other local authorities. My personal view is that doing so will help to protect the high street because an increasing amount of online shopping is done on Sundays. However, it will be for local people and local authorities to make that decision.
T5. The Treasury loses out on hundreds of millions of pounds each year by allowing high-earning hedge fund managers to pay capital gains tax at 28%, rather than income tax of 45%, on carried interest payments. Does the Chancellor agree that we should close that loophole so that we can invest the money in properly paid apprenticeships and tackling child poverty? 
Under the last Labour Government, such people were paying 18% tax. Indeed, people in the City boasted that they were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned for them. We have changed that and increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%. As a result of the Budget, we are also insisting that that rate is paid across the venture capital industry.
T3. I am delighted that in the Budget an allocation of £7.2 billion was made for transport infrastructure in the south-west. Will the Chancellor kindly confirm that that allocation includes funding for the much needed upgrade of the A358, the Henlade bypass and junction 25 of the M5, all of which will pave the way for a new strategic employment site? 
The short answer is yes. All those vital projects for Somerset and the south-west are included in a massive investment in the transport of the south-west.
T7. How can the Chancellor justify making people who go out to work worse off while he spends £1 billion on cutting inheritance tax for people who are already wealthy? That is not rewarding hard working; it is rewarding the fortunate few. 
We have increased the personal allowance, taking low-paid people out of tax, and we are now introducing a national living wage, but we make no apology for supporting aspiration and the human instinct that people have to pass something on to their children. If the Labour party is against that as well, it really is moving backwards rather than forwards.
T4. The Chancellor’s announcement on the living wage was widely welcomed, but what assurances can he give to residential care homes that offer subsidised places, of which there are many in Worthing, which will suffer from the proposed changes but will not benefit on the other side from the record reductions in corporation tax? 
The reduction in corporation tax now applies to small companies as well as larger ones, and we have increased the employment allowance, which will help with the national insurance bills of companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are of course aware of the pressures on the social care system, and that is one thing we will address in the spending review.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out last week that although the number of workless households in poverty has fallen, that fall has been matched by a rise in the number of working households in poverty. Will the Chancellor acknowledge the scale of in-work poverty, and does he accept that cutting tax credits for working families and repealing the child poverty legislation will make the situation worse, not better?
I do not accept that cutting people’s taxes and introducing a national living wage will in any way hurt working people—it will help working people. The people who suffer most when we cannot afford Government services and welfare are the poorest in our country, and we saw that when Labour was in office. We have taken the approach of entrenching economic security by making sure that Britain lives within its means. Last night this House voted through the important welfare package. Now we have launched the spending review to finish the job.
T6. The announcement that the free childcare available for working parents of three and four-year-olds will double to 30 hours a week in 2017 is excellent news for families across Pendle. Does not the fact that we are delivering that commitment demonstrate that only by taking tough decisions can we afford to provide the high-quality services that hard-working families deserve? 
My hon. Friend is right, and he does a brilliant job representing his constituents, bringing in investment, and supporting working people in Pendle. Working parents now have the added help of 30 hours of free childcare, which his Labour opponent in Pendle—and indeed Opposition Members here—have still failed to welcome.
The Northern Ireland Assembly faces a £600 million overspend on its budget this financial year as a result of the blocking of welfare reform changes. What steps does the Chancellor intend to take to deal with this fiscal anarchy that is causing disruption in schools and hospitals and for all those who depend on public spending, and drives a coach and horses through spending limits?
We are well aware of the difficult situation with the finances of the Northern Ireland Executive, and of the objections in some quarters of the Assembly to what are, I think, sensible welfare reforms that will help people in Northern Ireland into work. We are working with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to resolve that impasse, but it is clearly not sustainable to allow a devolved Administration to ignore the controls placed on them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party support that position, and we are working with him, and others, to resolve the issue.
Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage Opposition Members to support our Budget proposals, noting that the legislation for a budget surplus comes before the House later this year?
There will be another interesting question for this House when we vote on the new fiscal rules. Two weeks ago the shadow Chancellor said that he supported a surplus, yet he has objected to every single welfare change that is being introduced in this House, and he refused to support our legislation last night. We shall see what he says about the spending review in the next few hours, but we cannot will the ends if we do not will the means, and that means difficult choices to ensure that our country lives within its means.
This Chancellor has missed every one of his own deficit reduction targets, and borrowed more than any other Chancellor in history. Will he confirm that, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, the fiscal changes in the summer Budget mean £26.8 billion more public borrowing in the next two financial years, and that since 2010 he will have borrowed a full £200 billion more than he planned?
I think that is exactly the same question that was read out about half an hour ago—I am not sure that it says much for improved productivity on the Labour Benches.
In her reply to my Westminster Hall debate last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury spoke warmly of bank sharing. Will she join me in encouraging HSBC and NatWest, which are proposing to close their branches in Barton-upon-Humber, to delay that closure so that sharing can be seriously considered?
Residents in Barton-upon-Humber are very fortunate to have such a champion as my hon. Friend representing their interests. I am sure that as he has raised the matter in the House the banks in question will have noted his point, and he has represented his constituents well.
I call Callum McCaig. No? I call Mr Skinner.
May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I was not confusing him with Mr McCaig? I thought Mr McCaig wished to ask a question earlier. The hon. Gentleman is unique, we all know who he is and we want to hear him.
And I am a little bit older than him.
I was too polite to make that point.
I can do it any day of the week.
Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer not got a bit of a cheek to be constantly using Question Time to attack the Labour leadership elections—[Interruption.] Take your time! The Chancellor is involved in an election himself. Every time he opens his mouth, it is directed towards the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and the Home Secretary. Does he not realise that the Home Secretary has already knocked him out with the water cannon? Remember, some of us are watching that contest very carefully. The Chancellor should be careful he does not knock himself out.
With particular reference to his Treasury responsibilities, I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He started it: you heard him!
I hear everything in this Chamber.
What the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party fail to understand is that we cannot stand up for working people unless we create a strong economy that lives within its means. I would only make this observation: he has a Labour party he is very happy with now, and so do I.
Does the Chancellor agree that the national living wage will not only improve the lives of working people on lower incomes but will improve the gender pay gap, because it is often women who are the worst paid?
My hon. and learned Friend is right. The good news is that the gender pay gap is at its lowest level in history, but we have more work to do and that is why we have introduced the new audits for companies. Of course, women will be the biggest group of winners from the national living wage.
I listened to the Minister and Chancellor talking about tax credits earlier, but here is a bit of reality. A couple in my constituency told me that as carers for a disabled child, they work part time and will lose around £2,000 in tax credits under the Chancellor’s reforms. But they will not benefit from a higher minimum wage because their jobs are professional level and their hourly pay is already above that rate. Does the Chancellor think it is fair that his reforms will make families with disabled children poorer?
We have to look at the entire Budget package, because that is the new contract. Part of that is a tax cut, which I suspect will help the hon. Lady’s constituents, because we have increased the personal allowance. They may also be eligible for the new 30 hours of free child care. Many more of her constituents will also benefit from the national living wage. But what is the alternative? It is to have an unsustainable welfare system, the cost of which goes up and up and squeezes out spending on infrastructure, education and science, and puts our country at risk from economic storms abroad. That is what we lived through 10 years ago and we do not want to go back there.
The Chancellor is the darling of beer drinkers throughout the country, with his three tax cuts on beer and getting rid of the tax escalator. Will he continue his support for the brewing industry? Should he do so, it may even help any leadership bid that he may or not make at some time in the future.
I shall take that as an early representation for next year’s Budget. We have been able to help by reducing beer duty and ending the beer duty escalator that was putting pubs out of business. Other measures, such as those on apprenticeships and the employment allowance, are also helping the pub industry which is such a big employer of young people in our country.
The Scottish renewables sector supports more than 11,000 jobs, as well as contributing to a sustainable economy. Will the Chancellor please explain his reasoning for the removal of the climate change levy exemption for renewables, and tell the House whether he plans to start charging alcohol duty on soft drinks next?
I can certainly rule out the latter point. The point about the renewables levy is that it was introduced before the framework that we now have in place to support long-term investment in renewable energy through the levy control framework and the renewables obligation. We found that a third of the money, which after all comes from the electricity bills paid by the people we represent in Parliament, was going to overseas generators, so it was not really a fair approach. The approach we are taking now—supporting long-term investment in renewables and building up the UK industry—is the right one.
Several hon. Members
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. Treasury questions is a box office occasion and demand tends always to outstrip supply. We must now move on.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on his commitment of 24 June to publish Department for Work and Pensions data on the number of people in receipt of employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit who have died since November 2011, including those found fit for work.
The Government intend to publish mortality statistics, but before doing so the statistics need to meet the high standards expected of official statistics. Once we have completed that important work, we will publish them.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not here in person to explain why he has not yet honoured his commitment of 24 June to publish the data. On 30 April, the Information Commissioner ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions should publish data on the number of people in receipt of employment and support allowance and incapacity benefit who have died since November 2011, including those who had been found fit for work. The Government have since appealed the decision, stating in their appeal that the publication would be
“contrary to the public interest”
and that the publication of mortality statistics is “emotive”. To date, more than 240,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Government to publish the data.
As the House will be aware, on 24 June the Prime Minister was asked, at Prime Minister’s questions, by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) about the publication of the data. He said:
“let me reassure the hon. Lady that the data will be published; they are being prepared for publication as we speak. I think that it is important that we publish data, and this Government have published more data about public spending than any previous Government.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 886.]
I have since raised this issue in two points of order, at a Westminster Hall debate on 30 June, by writing directly to the Prime Minister and by tabling a named day written question to him, which his office decided to transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions and to which I received a non-answer yesterday from the Minister for Employment.
I have some specific questions. First, when will we see the data published, including on those who have been found fit for work, given the Prime Minister’s comment of nearly four weeks ago? When are they being prepared for publication? Secondly, will the Minister commit to publishing the actual numbers of deaths, as well as the DWP’s proposed age standardised mortality rates, as they did in 2012 when the actual number of deaths was published?
Thirdly, will the Minister inform the House how much the Secretary of State’s Department has spent on staff and legal fees in the decision to refuse the initial freedom of information request and now to contest the Information Commissioner’s ruling? Fourthly, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to publish the details on any of his Department’s 49 peer reviews into social security claimants who died, including, most importantly, changes his Department has brought forward as a result of them?
Finally, what assessment has been undertaken on the potential impact on the health status of those on incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance, given the measures introduced in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill?
Just four weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised urgent action. Now is the time to deliver—to be open, transparent and publish the numbers the public and Parliament are calling for. Without that, this House is brought into disrepute.
I cannot be clearer than the Prime Minister, who last week set out the position very clearly. The data—[Interruption.] Would Labour Members like to listen to my response before they start chuntering away? I will restate what I said in my initial response: the data will be published and are being prepared for publication as we speak.
If the hon. Lady will let me respond, I will tell the House exactly that.
You are the Father of the House!
If I may respond directly—
Order. I respect the fact that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is trying to help his Minister, but he should calm down, as should everybody. Let us hear the Minister’s answer.
The position on data publication has not changed. The data are being finalised and will be published shortly. They will be published very soon, and no later than the autumn.
I say to Labour Members chuntering away and shaking their heads that Labour had 13 years to publish the data and failed to do so. Is it any coincidence that they are now showing some interest in this area?
I say to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that we were the first Government to publish ad hoc statistics in this very area. [Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads because they do not like the fact that we have published data previously.
I say to the hon. Lady chuntering away that I am not misleading the House. I am informing the House that data publication will happen. I restate for the benefit of all Members that the data will be published no later than the autumn. We were the first Government to publish ad hoc statistics in this area, and I think this is quite audacious of the Labour party, given that it never published any such information when in government.
Several hon. Members
Order. I wish to say two things. First, I remind the House that moderation and good humour are underlined in “Erskine May” as being of the essence of good parliamentary proceedings. Secondly, it is important to say at the start that this urgent question is a narrow one, not an opportunity for a general exchange about employment support allowance or incapacity benefit, or the merit or demerit of the Government’s policies on those matters. There have been many such debates. This is an occasion for a narrow focus on the issue of data, upon which the urgent question was focused, so our proceedings will be tightly constrained. I do not intend there to be long exchanges on this matter. Perhaps we can be led, in a statesman-like manner, from the Government Back Benches by Dr Andrew Murrison.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the well-established link between good health, particularly good mental health, and work. Will she ensure that in the long term her Department gathers information that will support or refute that assertion?
Absolutely; we will be doing exactly that.
There is huge disquiet among disabled people, as story after story surfaces in the media about disabled people being found fit for work and dying shortly afterwards—last week another story appeared in the Daily Mirror about a disabled man who died two weeks after his assessment. The shenanigans in the DWP around the release of the statistics are concerning—and puzzling, if the Department has nothing to hide. First, the Secretary of State told Parliament that the DWP did not collect the data, in the teeth of the Information Commissioner’s ruling to release them. Within days, he was flatly contradicted by the Prime Minister, and now we hear that the DWP is appealing publication of the data that the Secretary of State first said were not collected.
Will the Minister come clean before the House? She said the data would be published “shortly”, “very soon” and “no later than the autumn”. Why is it taking so long? On what grounds is the DWP appealing publication, and will the data, when eventually published, be timely? It is feared that by the time this procrastination has finally resulted in publication, the data will be so out of date as to be pretty well useless. Will the raw data be published, and what analysis will accompany them to meet the high standards for the publication of Government statistics to which she claims the Department aspires? Finally, will she explain why the Secretary of State first claimed the data were not being collected, when blatantly they were and are, as he now apparently acknowledges?
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think it is fair to say that, as I stated earlier, the Government are going to publish these statistics. Despite the scaremongering and the gross misrepresentation from the Opposition—scaremongering about suicides, I should hasten to add, which is a complete misrepresentation —I should say that Labour introduced the work capability assessment back in 2008, and at that time Labour Members did not say that it was leading to people committing suicide.
When it comes to publication, this is complex statistical information. As the hon. Lady and, I am sure, all Opposition Members will know, we are bound as a Department by the Statistics Authority on the quality of information that is published, so it is very important that we get this right. Let me emphasise that officials are working as we speak to prepare the data, and we will be publishing them very soon. I have said it already and I will say it again: we will publish before the autumn this year, and once the data are published I will be very happy to take questions on the content and any other aspect of the data that the hon. Lady and hon. Members see fit.
Will the Minister commit to releasing data pre-2010, from under the previous Labour Government, who introduced work capability assessments, so that we can fully assess the impact that the Labour party’s policy had?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When we publish the data, they will cover all the relevant periods to which he has referred.
I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) every good fortune in awaiting a reply to a letter to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that in the last five years I have had exactly one letter from him, and that was after I had received a letter from No. 10 signed by somebody who did not exist.
I say to the junior Minister that she needs to take some lessons from her boss in dealing with questions in this House, because whatever the nature of his replies, he replies with courtesy. She needs to learn about that as well. Let me put it to the junior Minister that yesterday the Government broke a pledge about providing information and conducting consultation, and today we have a further example of the Government breaking a pledge. Will she explain whether this is simply arrogance or incompetence?
With courtesy to the Father of the House, I would re-emphasise that the data will be published, and when they are published, he can review them.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any death is of course a tragedy, but that individual tragedies should not simply be rolled into a set of statistics and then plucked out by people who obviously have a political agenda to push?
My hon. Friend raises a very valid point. When it comes to deaths, these are personal and individual tragedies, in circumstances—[Interruption.]
These are personal and individual tragedies that affect both the individual and, obviously, their families as well. It is absolutely wrong for any political party to engage in handwringing and scaremongering to the extent that we have seen in this House.
May I also thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for tabling this urgent question and assure her that I am getting the same answers to written questions as she is?
Too often, we hear stories in the media about people who have died having been found fit for work or who have been driven to their deaths by the Government’s pernicious benefits sanctions regime. We have heard from the Department for Work and Pensions that it currently investigates all deaths of benefit claimants
“where suicide is associated with DWP activity”,
and in other cases where the death of a vulnerable benefit claimant is brought to its attention, through a system of internal peer reviews. A freedom of information disclosure shows that, since 2012, the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out 49 peer reviews following the death of a benefit claimant and that 10 of the peer reviewed claimants were sanctioned.
Is the Department for Work and Pensions still pursuing an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s ruling, or is it abandoning it in the light of the data being published? If the Department is going to publish that information, can we be given a clear timetable for the publication of the data, not just “very soon” and “the autumn”, because they are complete opposites?
Lastly, the Minister will be aware that, last June, the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee called for an urgent review of the benefits sanctions and conditionality regime, and in March the Work and Pensions Committee in this place published a report calling for a full independent review of the benefits sanctions process. Having been asked by two cross-party Committees in two Parliaments, will the Government now go ahead with an independent review at the earliest possible opportunity?
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. It is right that the Department reviews complex individual cases, including those in which claimants have died, to ensure that all processes have been followed correctly. As I have said on previous occasions to Scottish National party Members, I am happy to look at specific cases. On the point about sanctions, unemployment benefits have always been conditional, and benefits sanctions have been part of the system for the last four decades, as is right and proper. As regards the appeal and the publication of the data, I have already said that we will, as requested, publish all aspects of the data in the right format as is required of the Department.
I welcome the Minister’s pledge to publish the data in the autumn. Does she agree that, if we are to form a judgment, it is very important that comparative data are published, not least longitudinal data for the cohorts involved, to see whether the situation is improving, and perhaps some international comparisons?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will publish all the relevant data in this area.
Does not the Minister accept that although of course each case is a personal and individual tragedy, we aggregate and analyse data to see whether a pattern emerges? Does she accept that as long as she drags her feet on this issue, people will conclude that the Government may have something to hide?
On the contrary, I find that question astonishing. I take no lessons in transparency or the publication of data from the Labour party. The last Government were more open and transparent in data publication than any other. In the wider context of statistics, I have said it once and will say it again and again that we intend to meet the high standards expected of official statistics when publishing these data, and that is what we will concentrate on doing.
The Minister will be aware that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and I sat on the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament and took part in its inquiry into benefits sanctions, which reported just before Parliament dissolved. She will be aware also that we called for the publication of these data, but that we made a more subtle point, which is that the data are meaningful only if they include information about each individual’s experiences before contact with the benefits system. To publish the data in raw form would overlook the integration that they may have with the health service, mental health services and any other public agencies involved before the individual encountered the DWP. Will the Minister ensure that that information is included?
My hon. Friend, from his time on the Select Committee, knows the significance of such information. He is absolutely right, and we should not make assumptions about such data.
Does the Minister recognise that accusing Opposition Members of scaremongering is hugely insulting to those constituents who have contacted us because they are deeply worried about this matter? Does she recognise that, to them, it looks as though the Government are hiding this information, reinforcing concerns that this is a punitive regime designed to hurt people who are disabled? The Government have already rushed out 17 written ministerial statements today, the last day that the House sits before the recess. Why will the Minister not add a statement on this matter?
Contrary to the hon. Lady’s point, we will be the first to publish this information. I say again for the record—not for the second, third or even the fourth time—the data are coming. They will be published, and we have nothing to hide.
I agree that transparency is important, but where data are sensitive, their interpretation and the human stories behind them are important too. I have had amazing help from the Minister and the Secretary of State, who have visited my constituency and met individuals with complex needs. I am very grateful for the troubleshooting and assistance being given, and I look forward to that continuing over the summer. While data are important, people’s ongoing needs are important too.
My hon. Friend will know from her background as a doctor in her constituency that people have different needs, and individual cases are very complex. She is right to say that we can make no assumptions just by looking at data; it is about putting people first and understanding their needs.
Just over a year ago, 130,000 people signed a petition and there was a debate in the House calling for a cumulative impact assessment by the Government of the welfare changes on people with disabilities. These data are just one element of that. The House decided without opposition that the Government should undertake that exercise. Are they giving any consideration to conducting a cumulative impact assessment?
The last Labour Government never published a cumulative impact statement, and our focus right now is on publishing this set of data, as we have committed to do.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that the data will be published soon. Does she agree that, when they appear, it is important that they are analysed and that any lessons are learned, because data are pretty useless if we do not do that?
My hon. Friend is right. As I have said, data are complex and we should not simply read them and make assumptions; they need analysis.
I entirely agree that one should not make assumptions and that the last Government had a better record on transparency of statistics than some previous Governments, albeit the Office for National Statistics repeatedly criticised Ministers in the last Government for misusing statistics. The Minister accuses Opposition Members of scare- mongering and hand-wringing, but how can she know—I do not—unless she already has the statistics?
As I have said, the statistics will be published, and the hon. Gentleman can then make his own informed decision.
As the Minister stated, unemployment benefits have always been conditional. Will she tell the House how often these statistics were published by the Labour party when it was in government?
It is a very short answer—never.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are appealing against the decision on publishing the data, what costs have been incurred and why the Secretary of State did not make the House of Commons aware of the appeal in the first instance, instead of stating that the figures were not being collated?
We will publish the data, and Opposition Members can then make their own judgment.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if inaccurate or rushed data were published, she would then be accused, including by Opposition Members, of gross carelessness, given the sensitivity of those data?
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is hugely ironic to hear the remarks of Labour Members, whose Government never published any information or data in this area. We are expected to meet the high standards required for the official publication of statistics, and that is exactly what this Government will do.
With all due respect to the Minister, she has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer). Will she appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision? Will the data be backdated to November 2011? Given that 200,000 people, including many of my constituents, have signed a petition calling for the data to be published, will there be parliamentary time to scrutinise it?
The data will be published. The urgent question is specifically about the publication of mortality statistics.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that she will provide the data requested and will look at it analytically, in the way that other Members have suggested. Does she share my slight concern that the phrasing of the urgent question, particularly the inclusion of the words “found fit for work”, implies something sinister? We all know of people not only found fit for work but actually working and fit while working who have died in sad circumstances, including former Members of the House. This issue should be handled very sensitively when the data emerge.
My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I think it is fair to say that the fit for work assessment was introduced by the Labour Government. Our focus now is on the fact that—I remind the House—those data are coming, and will be published before the autumn.
DWP Ministers tried to sit on information from internally generated data which suggested that one in five deaths of benefit claimants had been linked to sanctions. Perhaps we can be forgiven our scepticism about the Minister’s definition of autumn: after all, this Government publish their autumn statements in December.
More important, what steps will the Minister take to look into cases that have led from morbidity to mortality? In my constituency, the failure of Atos to pay home visits to severely ill people on some occasions has caused real health problems. A constituent of mine had motor neurone disease, but failed the assessment for employment and support allowance.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Atos. We, of course, terminated that contract. [Interruption.] It was part of the Labour legacy that we were there to clear up. As for the data, they will be published, and they will be published before the autumn.
Several hon. Members
Order. I do not intend these questions to last longer than half an hour in total, so there is pressure on colleagues to be brief. I call Mr Skinner.
I think the Minister should tell us whether there is to be an appeal. She has been asked that several times, and she has not answered. I am thinking of the family of David Cowpe, who lived in my area, and whose case I raised with the Prime Minister more than two years ago. He lost his sight, he lost his hearing, and then cancer took his life when he had been waiting 11 months for an appeal. A lot of promises have been made, but nothing seems to be forthcoming. I have to say that this delay almost emanates from the Secretary of State, whom I call the Minister for Delay, and it has gone on for too long. I think it is high time that this matter was resolved. I say to the Minister, “Stand up at that Dispatch Box and say that you are not going to appeal, and that you are going to get on with it.”
The hon. Gentleman has raised the tragic case of his constituent, but he has also raised the need to resolve this matter by publishing data, which is exactly what the Government will be doing.
This sorry story underlines the immense importance of the role of the Information Commissioner. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that, notwithstanding what is in the review, she will not make her Department take any action or demand any changes that restrict the availability of information and data?
Not only will we publish the data, but we will publish all aspects of the data that we have been asked to publish.
Given that autumn lasts from the September equinox until the December solstice, will the Minister spell out exactly what work her civil servants will be doing? She must have some idea of what is needed, because otherwise she would not have specified that timescale. What will those civil servants be doing during the intervening weeks and, possibly, months?
We will be doing all that is relevant. This is complex statistical information, so it is important that we get it right, and that is precisely what my officials are doing.
Exactly how much have the prevarication and delays cost the British taxpayer?
There is no prevarication or delay. We have been very clear—[Interruption.] I hear sniggers on the Opposition Benches, but we were the first Government to publish data in this area, and I think it shameful that the Labour party has not done so. This Government now intend to publish the statistics, and that is exactly what we will do.
Each month the Department for Work and Pensions publishes vast amounts of information on employment figures, wages and benefits. It has always done so, and, by the way, Ministers never seem to be shy about placing their own interpretation on those data. Should it really be so difficult for them to tell us whether people are alive or dead?
We do not place our interpretation on data that my Department publishes, because we are bound by the UK Statistics Authority when it comes to how they are presented. As I have said, these data will be published. Let me also reiterate once again that ours is one of the most transparent Governments ever, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
The Minister has said that the data will be robust, but I simply do not accept the Government’s narrative that some people in receipt of employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit are not ill, because those are good epidemiological considerations when it comes to public health indicators. Why will the Minister not do the decent thing and publish the data in full today?
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed by my response, but the data will be published. He should remember, when he criticises these schemes, that his Government set them up prior to 2010, and that it is we who are reforming the mess that we inherited.
How many meetings and discussions have taken place between Ministers and officials over the past 12 months about the compilation and presentation of the data?
I have already said that we will publish the data. [Interruption.] We were the first Government ever to publish such information, which we did back in 2012. This is work in progress: my officials are now working on the publication of the data.
I think the public will be appalled that the Government have adopted the tone that we heard in the Minister’s response today. May I pursue the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson)? The Minister said that we would have the data by the autumn. Having looked it up, I have established that autumn will begin on 21 September. Can the Minister confirm that she will come to the House during the two weeks following our return in September, make a statement, and hear our responses to it?
As I have said, the data will be published. Once they have been published, I shall be happy to take questions about them from Labour Members and, indeed, all other Members.
Given some of the Minister’s replies today, it is clear that she likes repetition, and now I am going to copy her. Will she please answer the question that has been asked by my hon. Friends, and tell us whether she will appeal against the decision?
Let me say again, for the record, that we will publish the data—[Interruption]—and that, before the autumn, we will publish all the aspects of those data that we have been asked to publish.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some Members will be aware of the recent tragic events in Bosley, south of Macclesfield, following an explosion at the wood treatment mill site on Friday. Three people are still missing. I am very grateful for the support of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), and we thank the emergency services for all that they have done, and continue to do, in such challenging circumstances.
I should be grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for any advice that you can give about how I could best draw the incident to the attention of the House more widely, and convey to the families and friends of those who have been affected by this tragic incident that the thoughts and prayers of Members are with them at what is a very sad and difficult time.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has largely achieved his purpose by what he has said and the way in which he has said it. He has spoken for Members throughout the House who will empathise with him, and who will feel enormous sympathy for the families of those involved in this tragic event. As for the wider issues of help for those who have been affected and questions to be raised about the precise sequence of events, they can be aired subsequently in a variety of forums in the House. The hon. Gentleman is dexterous and innovative in his use of those forums, so I am sure that we shall hear from him further as appropriate. I thank him for what he has said today.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the House completed the process of setting up departmental Select Committees and their equivalents. However, one Committee remains as yet unformed, and even its Chairman has not yet been appointed. That is the Intelligence and Security Committee. How can we ensure that the Government will proceed with some speed to set up a Committee whose members are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister?
As the hon. Lady has implied, that particular Committee is in a different category from the others with which the House has dealt. However, her point of order is not a matter for me. It is possible that she would like it to be, but it is not. It is a matter for the usual channels, the most senior representative of which is sitting, statesmanlike, on the Treasury Bench, and will have heard what has been said.
In the interests of the House as a whole, I hope that these matters will be attended to before very long, but, knowing the hon. Lady as I do, I am sure that if they are not, she will return to the charge.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have seen that the Home Office has sneaked out a written statement on the last day of term about a short consultation on the funding arrangements for the 43 police forces in England and Wales. There is much concern in areas such as Merseyside—which has already lost 23% of its budget and over 700 police officers—about what this will mean for the years to come. Have you, Mr Speaker, received any indication from the Government that a Minister is intending to come to the House and give an oral statement on this important issue?
I have received no such indication. Of course the method by which the Government intend to communicate their message on this subject is a matter for the Government and they have chosen to do so through the device of a written ministerial statement. There will be opportunities for the matter to be raised and probed further, but realistically that will have to wait a period of weeks. I recognise that that will disappoint the hon. Lady, but that is the factual answer to her inquiry.
Constitutional Convention (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Graham Allen, supported by Mr David Davis, Tim Farron, Jon Cruddas, Jeremy Lefroy, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Lucas, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to make provision for a convention to consider the constitution of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 61).
Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.
Wind farms are contentious. Some argue passionately that they are a great public good and the solution to global warming while others equally passionately believe they are a waste of money. This Bill takes no side in that debate. It is narrowly defined to one aspect of public interest: it requires the operators of wind farms, who are in receipt of £797 million of public subsidy a year, to organise their affairs so that they are able to meet the costs of any nuisance imposed on people living near them.
In 1995 the World Health Organisation recommended that to prevent sleep interruption low frequency noise should not exceed 30 decibels. However, in 1996 the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit—ETSU—set the noise limit for wind turbines at 43 decibels. That is an enormous difference; on the logarithmic decibel scale it is approximately double the WHO limit. We still use those standards today.
In the last five years no planning application was refused on noise-related grounds, but there have been 600 noise-related incidents arising from wind farm operations. The majority of complaints arise as a result of amplitude modulation, which is the loud, continuous thumping or swishing noise regularly described by those living near wind farms.
Numerous studies have identified that sleep is disturbed on a regular basis even at distances over 1 km away from turbines, yet under the ETSU standards turbines can be installed just 600 metres away from residential property. The wind farm companies are acutely aware of this, and all the more so since a member of the public, Jane Davis, sued a wind farm near her home for noise nuisance. The matter was settled out of court, and there is a gagging order preventing us from knowing the details, but the settlement is rumoured to have been in the region of £2 million.
Since this case, some dubious measures have been taken by the industry to obstruct perfectly legitimate claims for nuisance. The use of shell companies in the wind industry seems to be the commonest trick. The parent company provides a loan to a specially created subsidiary to set up the wind farm, then leaves it in control of operations. The subsidiary’s balance sheet typically comprises the wind farm physical assets, but they are more than offset by a very large loan from the parent company, with a resulting net liability. Profits from energy generation and large amounts of public subsidy are siphoned off to the parent company. The subsidiary is left as a financial shell, with very few liquid assets and total liabilities greater than total assets. That makes it impossible to bring litigation against a wind farm, simply because there is nothing to win from them. As such companies have negative net assets, even liquidating them would generate no cash to pay either damages or a legal bill.
One of my constituents bought his house in my constituency to enjoy a quiet retirement with his wife. After living there for more than a decade a 10-turbine wind farm was built near the house. The closest windmill is just over 600 metres from his home. He was assured at the planning stage that the wind farm would not trouble him, yet he has suffered the misery of regular noise and turbine blade flicker which has rendered his home almost unliveable. The low frequency noise from the turbines easily penetrates the double glazing. The couple have had to change bedrooms in order to sleep, but even so the persistent noise from the wind farm has taken its toll on his wife’s health; she now suffers heart palpitations and is prescribed anti-depressants on a permanent basis by her doctor.
My constituent, fearing his retirement has been ruined and his home thoroughly devalued, attempted to use his legal insurance to claim for nuisance from the wind farm operators. While there was a good chance of success in court, the company’s finances were organised so that there was no realistic prospect of recovering either damages or the legal costs of bringing the case. That being so, his insurers would, quite understandably, not cover his legal costs. That is despite the fact that the eventual owner of the wind farm is AES, a multibillion dollar international company involved partly in renewables but largely in coal and gas, that paid its chief executive $8.4 million last year. It laughably claims in its annual report to be a “World’s Most Ethical Company”.
It is not alone in its hypocrisy. In March I raised this disreputable practice with Falck Renewables, prospective operators of a wind farm near my own village in my constituency. I asked it whether it was going to do the same. It did not reply.
My constituents have no way to recover the tranquillity of the lives that they thought they were going to enjoy when they first moved to rural Yorkshire. They can neither sell their house nor get any financial recompense to enable them to afford to move, so they are trapped in this misery.
My point is a simple one. My constituents are just individual representatives of a situation that is repeated up and down the country. Wind farm companies must be adequately capitalised so that there can be a reasonable prospect of financial success for prospective litigants whose way of life they have damaged. It is not only the noise that is a nuisance, of course. When the sun is low in the sky behind a turbine it creates a “strobe effect” which can be harmful to health and wellbeing, and there are also now concerns that some wind farms could be abandoned at the end of their operational lifespan, creating another sort of visual blight, this time in perpetuity.
The simple solution that I propose in this Bill is to require wind farm-operating companies to hold enough cash in hand to manage a legal case at any time, and in addition a financial bond—a guarantee, or insurance policy—as a security against potential liabilities, including all public nuisance and final decommissioning costs. Any wind farm that fails to do that should lose its right to subsidy—which, as I said, amounted to £797 million in one year for the industry. This would ensure that citizens could reasonably sue when they suffer damage, but, just as importantly, it would be a strong incentive for the companies to operate wind farms in such a way as to avoid public nuisance, which is causing great distress in some cases, and would mean that when the turbines are decommissioned there is money or insurance to cover the cost of clearing the wind farm, avoiding a situation whereby the local council has to pick up the bill.
Whatever our stance on onshore wind, companies in receipt of public subsidy should be required to meet their public responsibilities. This measure seeks to ensure that the big wind farm companies can truly be held liable when they are at fault and gives families the protection they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
That Mr David Davis, supported by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tom Pursglove, John Mann and Jim Shannon, present the Bill
Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be presented (Bill 62).
I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Mr Angus Robertson, on behalf of the Scottish National party.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, the British economy is fundamentally stronger than it was five years ago. The deficit has been halved as a percentage of GDP; for the first time since 2001-02 debt as a share of GDP is falling; the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2014, and we are expected to repeat that in 2015, too. We have more individuals in work than ever before, and wages continue to rise above inflation.
Having come so far, we need to stick to our long-term plan for economic recovery. The first Finance Bill of this Parliament demonstrates this Government’s commitment to continuing the plan to build a productive, balanced and secure economy, which delivers for working people at every stage of their lives.
I shall happily take interventions this afternoon, but let me first set out to hon. Members the order in which I intend to discuss the measures in the Bill. I shall begin by talking about those measures that are intended to support working people through the tax system. Next, I shall set out how the Bill will help put the public finances in order by tackling tax avoidance, evasion, non-compliance and imbalances in the tax system. Finally, I shall talk about how the summer Finance Bill 2015 will take the first steps in implementing measures to improve the UK’s productivity.
I shall begin with those measures designed to help hard-working people keep more of the money they earn, a principle to which this Government are committed. We have a proud record on reducing tax for the lowest paid. As a result of action taken in the previous Parliament, 27.5 million individuals saw their typical income tax bill reduced by £825. This Finance Bill makes even further progress, by increasing the tax-free personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18. As a result of those changes, a typical basic rate taxpayer will be £80 better off in 2016-17 compared with in this tax year. Further, the higher rate threshold will also increase from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in 2016-17—£300 more than the amount announced in the March Budget. That will take 130,000 individuals out of the higher rate of tax by 2016-17.
It is the firm belief of this Government that individuals working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why this Finance Bill will enshrine that link in law for future increases in the personal allowance. Once the personal allowance has reached £12,500, it will always be at least the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage. Until that point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have a legal duty, when setting the personal allowance, to consider the financial impact on an individual working 30 hours on the national minimum wage. This Finance Bill also delivers another legislative commitment to low levels of taxation. It introduces aspects of the five-year tax lock by ruling out increases in income tax and VAT for the duration of this Parliament.
Finally, this Government know that the wish to pass something on to one’s children is the most basic human aspiration. To give hard-working people the security of knowing that they can continue to provide for their families after they have gone, this Bill phases in a new £175,000 per person transferable allowance when a person’s home is passed on at death to their direct descendants. This means that by the end of this Parliament, the effective inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners will be £1 million.
At the same time, to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders continue to bear the biggest burden, this new allowance will be gradually withdrawn for individuals with assets of more than £2 million. This reform will be paid for by cutting down on the £34 billion that the Government spent on pensions tax relief in 2013-14 —two thirds of which goes to higher and additional rate taxpayers. The benefits of pensions tax relief for top earners will be restricted by tapering away the annual allowance for those with a total income of over £150,000 from April 2016.
These are important measures, rewarding and supporting the efforts and aspirations of working Britain—and doing so in a fair and balanced way.
In the previous Parliament, under the previous Government, one outcome was that the wealthiest in the country paid a higher proportion of tax than they did under the preceding Government. Do this Government intend that to continue to be the case in this Parliament?
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that will continue to be the case. We have set out a Budget that is balanced, ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders continue to bear the greatest burden.
I now turn to the way in which the summer Finance Bill 2015 will help to fix the public finances. We know that the UK’s economic recovery is well established, with growth at 3% in 2014, and continued robust growth for 2015 and 2016, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast. But this country needs the economic security of running a surplus, and, if we are to achieve that, a further £37 billion in fiscal consolidation is required over the course of this Parliament. To deliver that, the summer Budget included measures to tackle tax avoidance and tax planning, evasion and compliance and imbalances in the tax system, which will collectively raise £5 billion a year by 2019-20.
This Finance Bill implements a number of those measures. First, it includes provisions preventing private equity and some hedge fund managers from exploiting tax loopholes to avoid paying the full rate of capital gains tax. Secondly, it removes the ability for companies to use UK losses and reliefs against their controlled foreign company charge. That will improve the effectiveness of the UK CFC regime in countering aggressive tax planning by multinational companies. Thirdly, the Bill legislates to stop a potentially significant tax planning risk, whereby corporate groups exploit tax rules for asset transfers between related parties. This puts it beyond doubt that the tax rules cannot be manipulated to prevent profits from being charged to tax.
The International Monetary Fund recently said that developing countries lose £212 billion a year through corporate tax avoidance by multinational companies. Transparency will be absolutely crucial in dealing with that, but the Bill makes no mention of public country-by-country reporting. Will the Government look carefully at that, and at any amendments that might come forward, given that it would enable people in the developing world to see the taxes that companies pay locally for their benefit?
The UK has been instrumental in bringing in country-by-country reporting to tax authorities as part of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which will be of great assistance to tax authorities. We want to ensure that developing countries can benefit from that co-operation between tax authorities and from greater use of data. The publication of country-by-country reporting is best approached multilaterally.
But we should all acknowledge the progress that has been made. For example, much more information is now available to tax authorities, enabling them to assess large companies’ tax strategies. One proposal in the Budget earlier this month was to make UK-based multinational companies publish their tax strategies. Such information would help to incentivise behaviour away from aggressive tax avoidance, which Members in all parts of the House wish to address.
Does the Minister accept that the target of £5 billion is really small beer when one considers the amount of tax that many multinational companies, including those that operate here in the UK, avoid paying by moving their profits around?
No, I do not accept that. Indeed, if one looks at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ tax gap publication, which identifies where the tax gap falls, one sees that, in terms of avoidance and acting contrary to the intention of Parliament, we should not overstate the element that is corporation tax avoidance by large multinationals. It is important that we address it, but one should not believe that it amounts to a huge pot. We have taken a number of steps in this area, some of which are operational. For example, we have supported HMRC to expand its large business service. Again, further progress on that was announced in the Budget. We have introduced the diverted profits tax, which came into force earlier this year. That is a very significant measure to address aggressive tax avoidance. We want to take further steps. Indeed, the base erosion and profit shifting project, which the OECD is running, means that we can hopefully take further steps in future. But those areas are best dealt with on a multilateral basis, and the UK has been very engaged in ensuring that there is progress in that area. I hope that there will be further progress on that front later this year.
Once again, this Government have introduced a Bill that makes it clear that avoidance and evasion by corporates and wealthy individuals will not be tolerated. But fixing the public finances also means that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax. The vast majority of people pay their tax on time and in full, but a small minority of taxpayers refuse to pay what they owe despite having the money to do so. The Finance Bill introduces direct recovery of debts, giving HMRC the power to recover tax and tax credit debts directly from debtors who have debts of over £1,000 and more than £5,000 in the bank.
The UK must remain competitive as a global financial centre, but it is only fair that the contribution banks make reflect the risk they pose to the UK economy. The Finance Bill introduces a new supplementary tax of 8% on banking sector profit, while gradually reducing the full bank levy rate over the Parliament. That will ensure that banks contribute a further £2 billion to the short-term task of deficit reduction, while ensuring the lowest tax rate of banks’ profit in the G7 nations.
In the shift to the new tax on banks, the Government are sweeping in mutual banks, building societies and the smaller challenger banks. That creates problems both in capital accumulation for the mutuals and in the ability of the new challenger banks effectively to gain capital to take on the larger banks. Is that an accident, or has some decision been taken to penalise those organisations?
The first point I have to make is that banks with the smallest profits do not pay the surcharge. There is a minimum level to protect the very smallest banks. The bank levy that was introduced early in the previous Parliament reflected some of the issues that existed at that time. It was designed in part to encourage a different type of behaviour that would reduce risks. Regulatory changes have rather addressed that particular point. The move to a surcharge—a higher level of corporation tax—is sensible and timely given some of the changes that have been made. It is not possible in those circumstances to carve out those institutions that we like and dislike beyond putting in that de minimis level. That was a sensible approach to take.
Perhaps the Minister can clarify the intention of the levy. Is it to continue modifying behaviour? Do we need it because we have concerns about systemic risk, or because we want to close the deficit?
Essentially, it is to ensure that the banking sector, which poses particular risks and which benefits from implicit guarantees, makes a fair contribution to the public finances. I hope that provides some clarity to my hon. Friend.
The Financial Secretary seems to imply that the banking levy, which was developed at the start of the previous Parliament, was essentially an ephemeral need that has now been taken care of by subsequent regulation. Banks have been able to cope with the fact that they have, essentially, a too big to fail subsidy—the VAT exemption. They have been able, with the levy, to absorb record-breaking fines for their own misbehaviour. Now he is saying that that is all to the good and that we do not need that same system of taking from the banks. Surely we do, though. They need to make a contribution to the public purse.
There is no disagreement over the need for a contribution from the banking sector towards the public purse. We have concluded that the better way to make that contribution is through a corporation tax surcharge, and that is what we are introducing. There was also a particular argument in 2010 about trying to influence behaviour, but, to some extent, that has now been addressed by a new regulatory regime. I agree that there is a need for a contribution. What we have here is a new surcharge on the banking sector, which performs precisely that task.
Britain’s insurance premium tax is also well below rates in many other countries, such as Germany, so this Bill proposes an increase to 9.5%. but that applies to only one fifth of all premiums. The Government are also committed to meeting their climate change objectives in a cost-effective way. Over the next five years, the climate change levy exemption for renewable energy is due to cost £4 billion, one third of which would subsidise overseas projects that bring no benefit to the UK. This Finance Bill therefore takes urgent action to stabilise CCL revenue.
Finally, to make the tax system fairer, the Bill restricts the amount of tax relief landlords can claim on property finance costs to the basic rate of income tax. That will ensure that landlords with the largest incomes no longer receive the most generous tax treatment. We are tackling tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporates, addressing imbalances in the tax system and taking bold steps to ensure that it remains fair.
The hon. Gentleman made a point a moment ago about the removal of the climate change levy for green energy. Does he recognise that that measure, by being retrospective and incredibly disproportionate to the ends he is trying to achieve, will seriously disrupt the green energy sector? The sector is already massively concerned about that. He talks about the importance of cost-effective measures to reaching green energy outcomes. Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective energies out there, but his measures are undermining it.
I do not accept that point. Removing this exemption will achieve better value for money in the Government’s support for low-carbon generation by targeting support directly at generators and preventing UK taxpayers from subsidising overseas renewable projects that bring no benefit to the UK. That was the weakness; that was the failure of the existing regime, and it is right that we address it.
I now wish to deal with productivity. As my right hon. friend the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, the rate of UK productivity has been a historical problem. It is vital to increase our productivity, because that is one of the fastest routes to creating jobs and raising the standard of living for everyone. Earlier this month, we published our productivity plan, setting out how we will tackle this long-term challenge. This Bill implements a number of measures taking this plan forward. A stable tax regime with competitive rates and strong investment incentives is essential to drive productivity forward. In the previous Parliament, the main rate of corporation tax was cut from 28% to 20% as a central part of the Government’s economic strategy. This Bill goes further, by cutting it to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020, saving businesses more than £6 billion by 2021 and giving the UK the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20.
The Minister will know that the Stormont House agreement contains plans to have a lower rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland, if the Assembly and the Executive so decide. He knows the problems that exist on the implementation of that agreement. Will he undertake to continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive—with those parties that want to make progress economically in Northern Ireland—to ensure that that corporation tax relief is introduced as quickly as possible?
I am happy to give that undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman. We have always been clear that the devolution of corporation tax was dependent on stability in the finances for Northern Ireland, and I believe we agree on that point. We want to be in a position to implement that policy and I know he is also keen to implement it, but it is dependent on proper progress being made, and I entirely agree with him on that point.
To provide certainty to business and encourage investment in plant and machinery, the Bill also sets the annual investment allowance at the permanent higher level of £200,000. Improving productivity also means prioritising investment in infrastructure.
The reality surely is that the AIA is being cut from the de facto £500,000 per year to £200,000, so it is not an increase. Doing that at the same time as cutting corporation tax runs the risk that firms’ accumulated reserves will be used to buy back shares rather than to go into productive investment, thereby meaning that the productivity growth the Government are seeking will not be achieved.
I do not accept that point. First, the increase to £500,000 was temporary, as we always made clear. Very strong representations were made by business groups that what was important was putting a permanent level in place. We have the highest permanent level ever; at £200,000 it is twice the level we inherited in 2010, at a time when corporation tax rates are substantially lower. This is therefore a much more generous regime than we have had before. Our changes to corporation tax rates are an important measure in encouraging investment. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not believe it was that long ago that the Scottish National party was advocating a corporation tax rate of 18%. I am sure the SNP is delighted that there will be a rate of 18% across all the United Kingdom.
Before the Minister moves off the issue of support for businesses, may I say that although there are many measures in the Bill to support businesses that we welcome, many of my local small businesses are eagerly awaiting the Government’s review on business rates later this year? Will he give some indication that those small businesses in my constituency will not end up worse off as a result of changes that may be planned to the business rates?
Our record on business rates is that we have consistently looked after the interests of small businesses: we have extended small business rate relief on numerous occasions; we have introduced the rebate for retail premises; and we have made a number of reforms to business rates to assist small businesses in particular, as well as capping increases in business rates. A review is ongoing and I am not going to make any announcement today, however nicely the hon. Gentleman asks me what its contents will be. It is ongoing and the consultation period has only relatively recently finished. We are keen to progress this and we have brought forward the timetable by which we will complete that review; we will have something by the end of the year.
Improving productivity also means prioritising investment in infrastructure. Our road network has suffered from decades of underinvestment. This Bill implements reforms to vehicle excise duty to support the creation of a roads fund. The reforms will ensure that VED still incentivises purchases of the cleanest cars, while putting revenues on a sustainable long-term footing.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I completely disagree with him, but it is not just me, as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also says that this change to VED means that the take-up of low-emission vehicles will be disincentivised. How can that be a positive thing to do? He talks about productivity and in other places about the importance of air quality, but these measures, again, undermine both.
That is an unlikely alliance, but what I say to both the hon. Lady and the SMMT is that there is still an incentive in the first year and the evidence suggests that that is most important in influencing behaviour. There are incentives within the system.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; an even more unlikely alliance might be about to be formed with the hon. Lady.
I can assure the Minister that there is not likely to be an alliance between me and the hon. Lady or her party. The revenues will apply to a roads fund for England, but what arrangements does the Minister intend to put in place for the tax that is collected in places such as Northern Ireland and for that money then to be diverted to infrastructure projects for roads in that part of the United Kingdom?
I understand the good point that the hon. Gentleman is making. There will be a need for discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we reach a sensible conclusion to reflect the various requirements across all the United Kingdom. I hope he appreciates that we understand the point he is making.
Through backing businesses and supporting infra- structure investment, this Bill will take important steps to boost our productivity, creating growth and prosperity for all.
Before I conclude this speech I would like to comment briefly on the Government’s tax policy making process. At the start of the last Parliament, the coalition set out its ambition to improve the tax policy making process, through high levels of consultation and legislative scrutiny. That approach was welcomed by tax professionals, and I am delighted to inform the House there have been real achievements. More than 150 formal and informal consultations on tax changes took place over the past five years, and our commitment to publish the majority of Finance Bill clauses in draft was met. I can confirm that this new approach will continue into this Parliament. Indeed, since the recent Budget, we have already published more than 10 consultations on tax policy proposals for future Finance Bills. I should also add that we are establishing the Office of Tax Simplification on a permanent footing as from today, and I am delighted that we are able to do that.
The Finance Bill before us today, at the start of the new Parliament, sets out the priorities and direction of this Government. Our direction is simple: towards stability and prosperity. The Bill rewards work and supports aspiration through lower taxes for working people; helps fix the public finances by tackling avoidance, evasion and imbalances in the tax system; and takes important steps in improving the UK’s productivity. I am delighted to commend it to the House.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on the measures set out in the Bill. It is a somewhat strange Finance Bill, because many of the most contentious measures announced in the Chancellor’s emergency Budget are not actually in it. Indeed, the Bill is almost as significant for what is not in it as for what is. It is important to reflect on that, and on the fact that the Budget exposed a real difference between the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the reality of what he is delivering, particularly for ordinary working people in our country.
It was certainly not the Budget, and this is certainly not the Finance Bill, that working people needed. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us that 3 million working families will be around £1,000 a year worse off. The Budget clearly leaves working people worse off. Despite what the Minister has said about productivity, as a package it fails the test of building a more productive economy to bring down the deficit in a more sustainable, stronger and fairer way.
The Bill does not provide for the contentious changes to tax credits, which the Minister and I have debated several times already over the past week or two, or the reduction in the work allowance and the increase in the taper rate, which will hit working people on middle and lower incomes. We discussed those changes during Treasury questions this morning, particularly the high marginal tax rates that people who earn just above the personal allowance threshold and are currently in receipt of tax credits will be facing. I understand that those changes will be made by delegated legislation, which we expect later this year. They will be hotly debated and opposed, because choosing to make 3 million working families £1,000 a year worse off is the wrong choice, regardless of how the Government try to dress it up.
The Bill also does not set out the changes to the minimum wage. Despite what the Minister and the Chancellor have been saying over the past week or so, what the Government have announced is not a real living wage.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Just because the Chancellor calls an increase in the national minimum wage—welcome though that is—a national living wage does not make it “the” living wage. Is she as concerned as I am that the IFS has said that it is arithmetically impossible for the increase in the national minimum wage to match the losses that will result from the changes to tax credits?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been busily trying to claim that the changes to tax credits will result in no real change because the new national living wage, which is effectively only an increase in the national minimum wage, will make up for that. The IFS has made it clear that that is arithmetically impossible. That is a pretty damning indictment of the messages that the Government have been trying to put out since the Budget on 8 July.
I feel for the hon. Lady, because she has only one Labour Back Bencher here to support her—perhaps because the de facto Opposition are now the Scottish National party. On that specific point about the national living wage, which she calls an enhanced national minimum wage, will the Labour party be supporting or opposing it?
It is quality that counts, rather than quantity, and Labour Members will show their true quality, as opposed to those sitting to my left—literally to my left, that is—on the SNP Benches. We will of course support the measures that will bring in what is effectively the new national minimum wage, but it is important to expose the fact that it is not, in fact, a living wage. The living wage is calculated on the assumption that there will be full take-up of tax credits, which is exactly what the Chancellor has cut. Given the cut to tax credits, the real living wage will be significantly higher than anything the Chancellor has set out. The effect of his decision is that in 2016 he will be offering the people of this country the 2011 living wage. That is an important point to get on the record. That is why the IFS has said that compensating ordinary working people for the loss of their tax credits with the changes on wages is arithmetically impossible.
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that while many under-25s will lose their tax credits, they will not be covered by the national living wage? On the one hand they will have money taken from them, and on the other hand the compensatory element will not be available to them, so work is certainly not going to pay for that group.
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Taken alongside the changes to student maintenance grants and other measures, the Budget will leave young people, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, worse off. It will have a real impact on their life chances. As those measures are brought forward, it is important that we keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire on the impact they are having on young people.
Changes to the national minimum wage are normally made by statutory instrument, but given the change in the name—the Chancellor’s rebadging exercise—they might need to be done by primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how the Government will go about making those changes. If primary legislation is needed, I am rather surprised that the changes are not set out in the Bill. It would be good to have the Government’s further comments on that.
The Bill contains nothing more on productivity, notwithstanding the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. Solving the productivity puzzle is absolutely imperative if we are to experience much stronger economic growth and get the deficit down more fairly. The Conservatives’ record on productivity is one of failure, given the difference between productivity in our country and in our competitors’ economies. I am afraid that the Budget simply offered more of the same.
Despite the Chancellor’s boasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised productivity down next year, the year after, the year after that, and the year after that. His belated productivity plan was simply a patchwork of existing schemes, rather than a substantial reform to boost skills, business growth and wages. The Bill should also have included legislation on big infrastructure decisions, which the Government appear to have ducked.
To tie the issue of productivity, by which I think the hon. Lady means the record on labour productivity, to that of tax credits, does she feel that there is an argument to be made that the widespread nature of tax credits during the last recession played a significant role in the willingness of workers to job share and accept reduced wages in order to maintain themselves in employment, because they knew that the state was going to top up their income if it fell? Therefore, although I support the changes to tax credits, research is still needed into the beneficial impact they can have on maintaining employment in times of recession.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. When we debated tax credits before the Budget, I discussed, I believe with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the way in which, in the last recession, tax credits assisted people to remain in work—to accept a reduction in hours, knowing that they would have the safety net of tax credits to help them through that difficult time. More research is needed; the Government should have looked at the way in which tax credits have assisted people. There is a real danger in removing tax credit support from people without having already embedded into the economy the high-skilled, high-paid jobs that we all agree are needed. If our economy had been transformed—if the Government had brought forward proposals that meant that vastly larger numbers of people were in higher-paid work—there would be no need for tax credits and it would be possible to move to a system where we could phase out or decrease the support.
A modern economy needs a modern infrastructure, but the Government have pulled the plug on electrification of the railways. They have pulled the rug out from under investment in renewable energy and flunked the decision on airports. I was interested to see that the Home Secretary was very willing to take on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when it came to water cannons. The least the Chancellor could have done was to take on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip when it came to the decision on airports. It would have been good to see this Finance Bill at least start that process.
My hon. Friend knows that several Greater Manchester MPs have already voiced their concern about the pause of the electrification of the line between Manchester and Leeds, not least because that is absolutely crucial for the economic growth that we need across the Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire “northern powerhouse”, as the Government like to call it. Does she also appreciate the frustration of Greater Manchester MPs that the only mention under the heading of “infrastructure” in the Budget was a plastic Oyster-style card to use on our Pacer trains?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The northern powerhouse has very clearly got a power cut, and it remains the case that with changes to local government funding, we cannot empower local government and local people if we impoverish them. At the same time, there remain important critiques of the Government’s policy making in this area. He is absolutely right that the Budget, the Finance Bill and all the attendant documents that were published on 8 July certainly did not go far enough on infrastructure, and the example that he gives powerfully highlights that.
Can the hon. Lady confirm that it was put on record during the election campaign that if Labour had formed the next Government, they would have cut infrastructure projects in my area, such as funding for the A27?
Infrastructure projects must be proceeded with on the basis of an economic case, and that was the underpinning of the announcements that we made during the election campaign, but it is also the case that under the hon. Lady’s party, infrastructure spending is down compared with 2010, and she should accept that the record of her Government and her party on infrastructure post-2010 is certainly nothing to write home about. A Government who were really serious about narrowing our productivity gap would be majoring on infrastructure. They certainly would not be kicking big decisions into the long grass for party political reasons and because of leadership ambitions, especially when it comes to airport expansion.
Who are you backing?
I assume that the hon. Gentleman will be backing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he so loyally sits behind whenever we debate the economy.
The Budget and the Finance Bill have not lived up to some of the most pressing needs in our economy, and instead have actively imposed a work penalty and what can only be described as a living wage con. We will abstain on Second Reading. This is a relatively short Finance Bill, and we support a number of its measures, including raising the personal tax allowance threshold and the increase in business investment, particularly in respect of the annual investment allowance. We will want to scrutinise some of the other measures in much greater detail. We are concerned about the impact of some of the Government’s decisions, so we will return, especially in Committee of the Whole House, to issues on bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing the House that the official Labour party position is to abstain. Will she clarify: is she speaking for her Back Benchers today, because it does not always follow?
That was not quite the cutting put-down that the Minister might have envisaged. That is our position, and that is what all our party will be doing today.
Given that the official Labour party position on the important Welfare Reform and Work Bill yesterday was to abstain and that its position on this Finance Bill is to abstain, can the hon. Lady clarify that it is the intention of the loyal Opposition to abstain on every major piece of legislation in this Parliament?
That question probably sounded more cutting in the development in the hon. Gentleman’s mind than in the delivery. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) chunters from a sedentary position. He is welcome to intervene on me if he so wishes. I will be delighted to give way to him.
I say to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and others that abstaining on Second Reading, as he well knows because he is a veteran of debates on Finance Bills, both in Committee and in the Chamber, does not mean that we will not press matters to a vote later in the Bill’s passage. Indeed, on the second sitting day in September we will be considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, where we will have tabled amendments, on which we will be voting, on other important measures including bank taxation, the climate change levy and the insurance premium tax. We can all have a lot of fun then when it comes to voting on amendments and debating them at great length.
Will the Opposition be supporting the reasoned amendment, opposing it or abstaining on it?
We will be abstaining on the reasoned amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. There are measures in the Bill that we definitely support. There are other measures that we wish to return to when the Bill receives detailed scrutiny in Committee of the Whole House and in Public Bill Committee, and we shall return to those issues and press some to a vote. On others, we will table probing amendments to gain greater understanding of the Government’s detailed intentions.
The Opposition Front Bench were saying similar things yesterday about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, but they supported and tabled a reasoned amendment, so it is possible to abstain on a Bill but support a reasoned amendment. What is wrong with the reasoned amendment that would prevent the Opposition from supporting it?
I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat debate with the hon. Gentleman, but the SNP did not support our reasoned amendment last night. In my opinion, the measured and sensible way to take the Finance Bill forward, as we have done with previous Finance Bills in the previous Parliament, is to scrutinise it in detail. There are more opportunities with Finance Bills because we have Committee of the Whole House as well as the Public Bill Committee, and we shall press important measures in the Bill to a vote when we reach the latter stages of the Bill’s passage; but given that there are very important measures that we do support, it is important that we signal that by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.
One issue to which we will return in Committee of the Whole House is bank taxation. The Government will decrease the rate of the bank levy from January 2016 and will at the same time introduce a surcharge on profits of banks over a threshold of £25 million, which represents a switch from a tax on balance sheets to a tax on profits. Those measures are contained in clauses 16 and 17.
We will debate those in detail in Committee of the whole House in September, when we will seek to increase transparency regarding revenues from the banking sector. We will also push the Government for further details about the impact that these measures will have on the diversity of the financial sector, including any disproportionate impact on building societies. That is one of the things that people have been warning about since the measures in the Bill were unveiled.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted, by 2021 there will have been 13 tax rates in 10 years as the bank levy is gradually reduced from 0.21% to 0.1% by January 2021. This measure will cost £1.8 billion from 2021 onwards. Because from 2021 UK banks will be taxed on liabilities in the UK and not worldwide, that represents a fairly significant giveaway that it is important to test further in Committee. In contrast to what is happening to the bank levy, the 8% corporation tax surcharge, in effect, on bank profits from January 2016 raises £1.3 billion. There are a number of questions on the rationale for moving to this form of taxation for banks, as well as on the original intention of the bank levy and whether that will continue to be met in the new regime. It is important that hon. Members have the chance to test this further in Committee. The Minister will know that the bank levy was designed to discourage risky leverage, but whether it has been successful in doing so is a matter for some debate. Moving to a system of having a tax on profits possibly introduces a risk that there may be some discouragement from declaring UK profits. It will be important to analyse what risk that might pose in the banking sector.
There is a particular problem with regard to challenger banks, which were not subject to the bank levy but will fall within the new surcharge. Challenger banks are important for the overall health of the financial sector, because we need them to challenge the dominance of the big four or five banks. The Government will say, rightly, that the £25 million threshold is partly designed to prevent too much of the impact from being felt by challenger banks. Nevertheless, the Government will also be aware that a lot of the commentary since publication of the proposals has focused on the genuine concerns of challenger banks, which are worried that despite the £25 million threshold, they will still be disproportionately affected, with a significant impact on consumer choice as well. We will need to look at those issues further.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s confirmation that she and her party support much of what is in the Bill. Will she confirm that she agrees with its general direction, which is fundamentally towards an economy characterised by higher wages, lower taxes and less welfare?
I will shortly turn to insurance premium tax, which is a very significant tax-raising measure that the Government have not been quite as keen to trumpet as other measures in the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber—it is significant that most of the very contentious changes in the Budget, particularly in respect of working tax credits, are not in the Bill but will be made in delegated legislation Committees. I dispute the Government’s characterisation of these measures, because I believe that they will leave working people worse off. That is not necessarily directly relevant to all aspects of the Bill, but it is relevant to the overall package of measures introduced in the Budget.
There is serious concern about the impact that the 8% surcharge will have on building societies. Of the six main building societies—Nationwide, Yorkshire, Coventry, Skipton, Leeds and Principality—only Nationwide currently pays the bank levy. Based on the most up-to-date profit figures from 2014-15, it is estimated that the building societies will pay about £126 million a year through the corporation tax surcharge, equating to about £630 million up to 2020. The building societies point out that the primary way in which they build their capital is through retained profit, so a tax on profit has a disproportionate effect on them. Moreover, they do not have shareholders, unlike public limited companies, so this is, in effect, a tax on the customers who own them—retail savers and mortgage borrowers. It will be important for the Government to explain their thinking on building societies and what analysis there is of how these changes will play out for them in practice.
The next key issue that we will return to in Committee relates to the climate change levy. Clause 45 removes the climate change levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. I am afraid that this is another example of the Government undermining investor confidence in renewable energy. They have already tried to halt the development of the cheapest form of clean energy by pulling the plug on onshore wind, and this continues that trend. It would be fair to say that since taking office they have put placating their Back Benchers’ more strident views about renewable energy generation above the jobs and investment that would be created across our economy if we were genuinely able to move towards a low-carbon economy.
We will particularly seek to push the Government on a suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that they produce a road map, as they have done previously on aspects of taxation policy—in particular, corporation tax policy—setting out their plans for the future of environmental taxes to help the renewable energy industry, and business more generally, to take long-term investment decisions. That could be an important way for the Government to set out their intentions for the life of this Parliament and for us to test whether they mean it with regard to charting a course towards a low-carbon economy for our country.
Insurance premium tax, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), is a significant revenue-raising measure. Clause 43 increases the standard rate of the tax from 6% to 9.5% with effect from 1 November 2015, raising £1.6 billion. There are very important questions about the distributional impact that that will have and whether those on middle and low incomes will bear the brunt of the increases. It is interesting that the Chancellor did not focus on the very significant revenue-raising measures in his Budget. Indeed, the rhetoric and narrative that he has been pursuing suggests that it is a Budget of giveaways. He will not be surprised that we will not let him get away with that characterisation.
Insurance premium tax has been described as a stealth tax. Ministers will be aware that several industry figures have warned that increasing it could prompt policyholders to buy less cover, possibly exacerbating problems caused by under-insurance, particularly with regard to car insurance. Again, we will wish to test those areas further in Committee when we will look carefully at any analysis by Government of the possible impact on under-insurance. The AA has said that insurance premium tax on the average car insurance policy is equivalent to a fuel duty increase of almost 2p per litre, so either way drivers are being hit in their pockets. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the measure’s overall distributional income, what conversations the Government have already had with the insurance industry and what this means for future changes to fuel duty.
As I have said, we support other measures in the Bill, particularly the so-called tax lock both for income tax at the basic, higher and additional rates, and for VAT. I remind Treasury Ministers that, back in 2009, the current Chancellor was very critical about Chancellors passing laws to ensure that they fulfil the promises they make in general election campaigns, and I think that that criticism applies just as much to him now. However, we support the principle of the lock. We have pledged not to raise VAT, national insurance or the basic and higher rates of income tax, so we welcome those measures.
I commend my hon. Friend and the shadow Treasury team, because that particular lock would not have been introduced were it not for the valiant efforts of Labour Front Benchers in the run-up to the last general election in highlighting that the Government would probably have to raise VAT or other taxes. She has already described some of the stealth taxes that have come to fruition since the election.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I wonder whether we would have the tax lock had it not been for the VAT bombshell poster we unveiled or for the exchanges at Prime Minister’s questions ahead of the general election. Ministers were certainly very quick to write such a law, and despite the Chancellor having suggested in 2009 that passing laws to ensure promises on taxation are kept was a very bad idea, he was very quick to convert to that cause. Nevertheless, they are passing a law on the tax lock. It was Labour party policy, and we are very pleased that we pushed the Conservative party into our territory in agreeing that the rates for ordinary people on lower and middle incomes should not go up.
Another change we support is on the annual investment allowance. I am pleased that the direction of travel has been set out for the whole Parliament. That contrasts very strongly with what happened during the last Parliament, when lots of chopping and changing on capital allowances definitely undermined business investment. Even if the deal is less generous, with a decrease from £500,000 to £200,000, it is important that businesses at least know that the deal they are going to get will last a lot longer than it previously did.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned with respect to the expected changes on corporation tax, there is a lack of concrete proposals for business rates. The Financial Secretary has raised expectations and hopes of real change on business rates when the consultation is finally unveiled later this year. We will certainly look at whether the business rates burden will come down for small and medium-sized companies.
The hon. Lady mentioned corporation tax. The Bill includes measures to reduce it first to 19% and then to 18%. Will the Labour party support those reductions, oppose them—after all, that was its position—or abstain?
As the Financial Secretary knows because we have already had such an exchange—I feel we are reliving our greatest hits—on a number of occasions in the past couple of years, our policy at the general election was our manifesto commitment not to go ahead with the corporation tax cut from 21% to 20%. We would not have gone ahead with that additional cut to 20%, but instead used all the money to pay for a cut to business rates this year and a freeze next year. It was a direct switch spend. We wanted to make a commitment to small and medium-sized businesses in our country to do something practical on business rates, but we needed to find a way to pay for that, and we chose to switch-spend in respect of the additional corporation tax cut. We of course lost the election, and the Government are proposing a further decrease of the corporation tax rate. We will support the corporation tax measures, but we will ask questions about what that means for the future direction of travel.
Following an intervention, the Financial Secretary mentioned the BEPS project. On corporation tax more generally, it is important—given how some companies seek to shift profits and game international taxation rules—to have international agreement. Concern has already been expressed in some quarters that some of the countries with which we need to do business and with which we need to agree international tax rules might start to see us as a tax haven. I disagree with such a characterisation, but there is such a risk in getting agreement within the OECD BEPS process. I would welcome it if Treasury Ministers could, in Committee, provide further details about what is happening and about how our friends in the BEPS process are reacting and responding to the Government’s proposal on the headline rate of corporation tax.
One measure we have already voted against relates to inheritance tax. Clause 9 introduces an additional residence nil-rate band for inheritance tax when a home is passed to the direct descendants of the deceased on or after 6 April 2017. The provision, which runs to more than 400 lines, is extremely technical, but it in effect allows parents to pass on a house worth £1 million to their children free of inheritance tax. We have made it clear that the focus of tax cuts should be to help people on middle and lower incomes and to tackle tax avoidance. The Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy. Their priority should be to help the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own, rather than a further cut to the rate of inheritance tax at this stage.
I must say that I am listening to the hon. Lady with a degree of sadness. Last night, we saw the Labour party abstain on welfare. Today, Labour Members are yet again failing to provide an effective opposition to this Government. Is it not time that they came across to our Benches and to SNP Members, who are providing the real opposition that Labour Members are failing to provide?
The hon. Gentleman rather forgets that the Scottish National party is not a national party; in fact, it is committed to breaking up our Union. If he and his colleagues aspire to be an official Opposition, they may wish to stop being a party of only national interest and stop trying to break up our country. We did not merely abstain on the welfare Bill. As he well knows, we voted for our reasoned amendment, which is exactly what his party plans to do today. If that approach was not good enough for us yesterday, why do he and his colleagues think that it is good enough for them today?
If the hon. Gentleman has been listening to my now very lengthy remarks, he will know that I have gone through the Finance Bill and the Budget in detail and made it very clear that the Bill does not contain many of the most contentious of the Chancellor’s Budget decisions. We will debate and oppose such measures when they are brought before the House as statutory instruments, but those measures are not in this Bill. I have laid out in depth our approach to all the different measures in the Bill, including those that we support and those on which we will ask further questions and to which we will table amendments, which we will vote on, as the Bill continues through its stages in this House.
The Government have published further changes to the direct recovery of debts from bank accounts and in relation to carried interest. That has excited some interest in the inboxes of Members’ email accounts with the campaign by 38 Degrees. We had a manifesto commitment in respect of carried interest. I am not sure that the Government’s proposals in the Finance Bill go as far as we were hoping to go, had we been elected. As I say, we will test the detail in Committee.
In short—sorry, I mean “in conclusion”, as I have been on my feet for a while—many of the most contentious elements of the Budget are not in the Finance Bill. It contains a mixture of measures that we support and measures that we will return to in great detail when we get to Committee of the whole House. I look forward to debating with Ministers as the Bill progresses through the House. I hope that in winding up, the Minister will deal with some of the questions that I have raised in respect of bank taxation, the climate change levy and insurance premium tax.
It is a pleasure to follow a Minister and a shadow Minister who, although it will not surprise you to hear that I agree with one rather more than the other, Madam Deputy Speaker, always speak with passion, clarity and a deep understanding of and care for the issues that we are debating.
It is a pleasure to speak on a Finance Bill that has responsibility, security and the delivery of one nation policies at its heart. It is an ambitious Finance Bill that seeks fundamentally to reform our national finances and create a new settlement for the country. It sets out a clear plan to move Britain from the low-wage, high-tax and high-welfare economy of the past to a higher-wage, lower-tax and lower-welfare society, ensuring that those who work hard, do the right thing and take responsibility are able to get on and have their aspiration rewarded.
To working people and those who can work, the Bill says, “We will take more of you out of tax. Our new national living wage will ensure that you get a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work, but fewer taxpayer-funded benefits.” The Budget says to businesses, “We will support you to grow through lower taxes but, in return, you must play your part, pay people more and help train our young people for work.” Doing that means taking tough decisions and not being diverted from a long-term economic plan that is working.
Let us not forget the scale of the Chancellor’s achievement over the past five years. His inheritance in 2010 was employment down, housing starts down and GDP down. The only things that were up were borrowing, debt and deficit. Since 2010, employment has gone up by 2 million, the economy has grown, GDP is up by about 3% and the deficit has been halved. Much has been done, but there is much still to do to ensure that, as a nation, we live within our means and spend only what we can afford.
This Budget package—it is a package that must be viewed as a whole with the other measures that we have debated in recent weeks—sets out the plan to finish that job and ensure that our economy remains stable and strong in the years ahead, better to weather any future global economic storms. Key to that is the welcome road map to the elimination of the deficit in this Parliament and the transition to a budget surplus by 2019-20, which will allow the UK to start paying down its national debt. The ambition to further reduce Government spending to 36% from about 40% of GDP is laudable. The state should always seek to take only what it needs in tax, and no more.
This package will help deliver another 1 million jobs by 2020, projected growth of higher than 2% per annum, a raised tax threshold to ensure that those who earn least keep more of their hard-earned money, cuts to taxes on business to deliver growth and a national living wage to ensure that work always pays. In parallel, the deficit and debt reduction will be achieved. The package requires spending in areas such as welfare to be reduced to make sure that we live within our means, but in a way that ensures that the overall package will see a majority of working families better off.
One aspect of the Finance Bill that I want to touch on in a little more detail is the tax avoidance and evasion measures that the Minister mentioned. We believe in a low-tax economy, but one in which people and companies pay the taxes they owe and contribute their fair share. Between 2010 and 2015, the last Government did more than any previous Government to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. I am pleased that the Finance Bill continues that important work. I see from tables C.3 and C.5 of the Red Book that tax receipts are projected to grow. While I am sure that much of that flows from the growth that our national economy continues to enjoy, I hope that it also reflects the improved recovery of taxes owed. I hope that the Government will continue to close tax loopholes as they are identified and finish the job of putting fairness at the heart of our tax system and, where possible, simplifying the tax system without compromising its rigour.
I strongly support the Finance Bill, which seeks to remake our country and to deliver a strong economy, economic security and one nation. Its individual measures are justifiable and necessary, but taken as a package, the logic and coherence of the Finance Bill and related Bills are irresistible.
The hon. Gentleman talks about logic, but one aspect of the Bill is the removal of the climate change levy exemption for green energy. Applying the climate change levy to green energy production is just about as illogical as one can get. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?
It is absolutely right that we remove the levy to ensure that, over time, we bring energy prices down and so that we do not subsidise an industry that I do not believe should receive those subsidies.
To conclude, this is a package that rewards work, pays down the deficit and debt, drives growth and productivity, and puts the country securely on track for a secure and stable economic future, with everyone having the opportunity to benefit.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I will not, because I am about to conclude.
This is a Finance Bill that truly reaffirms the position of the Conservatives as the genuine party of one nation and of hard-working people and families.
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because it fails to address the real economic needs of the country, continues to deepen the social divide between those who have and those who have not, restricts the financial discretion of the Scottish Government over its resources, fails to tackle the iniquity of the Scottish Police and Fire and Rescue Services being unable to reclaim VAT, creates unintended consequences for small challenger banks and building societies whose capital comes from retained profits, removes the exemption from the climate change levy of renewable energy resources and, in combination with welfare changes announced in the Summer Budget 2015 and inheritance tax changes, takes from people on low and middle incomes and gives to the very richest.”
I am proud to lead for the Opposition. I felt sorry, in many ways, for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), as she sat there amidst the gathered masses of five Labour Members, which have now declined to three. I noticed that the Minister managed to attract 12 interventions, only one of which was from Labour.
You should have paid more attention to what I was saying.
Paying attention? That would be a good idea for the Labour party. You mentioned quality. If you stopped chuntering and listened, you might get a bit of quality.
We are going to do something that the Labour party has refused to do, which is to test the Finance Bill. The hon. Lady spent the first 12 minutes of her speech talking about other things because she said that there was nothing of any great substance in the Bill. I am going to try something rather unusual and talk about what is in the Bill.
I hesitate to be mean-spirited to the hon. Gentleman, but it is obvious from his remarks that he was not listening to my lengthy remarks in which I set out not that there is nothing of any substance in the Finance Bill, but that there are measures in the Bill that we support and measures that we have further questions about. That is different from the Budget, which contains measures on which we have a very real difference of opinion with the Government. We will test those when they come before the House in delegated legislation Committees.
So that, no doubt, explains why you could not think up a reasoned amendment.
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman get away with it the first time, but now that he has done it for the second time, I must point out to him that when he says “you” he means me, not the hon. Lady. I am quite sure that he is addressing his remarks not to me, but to the hon. Lady.
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our amendment starts by stating:
“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because it fails to address the real economic needs of the country”.
As I sat through the Budget speech last week—in growing incredulity, it must be said—my greatest concerns were threefold: first, the crude and brutal attacks on protections for the most vulnerable in our society; secondly, the failure to address adequately the challenge of productivity in our economy—despite the remarks of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today, I will try to demonstrate why the Bill fails to address those requirements; and, thirdly, the impact on regional and national economies, not least in Scotland.
On receiving a copy of the Finance Bill and its associated papers, my concerns have not abated. Indeed, through reading the detail in the Bill, further concerns have come to light, and it is therefore my intention—and that of my colleagues—to table a series of detailed amendments in Committee.
Yesterday’s debate on the Welfare Bill exposed many of the negative effects that Government policy will have on the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, the young, and in-work families. The Finance Bill adds another burden on hard-pressed families who will face a rise in national insurance premiums as a result of the increase in insurance premium tax.
Does my hon. Friend agree with concerns expressed by the British Insurance Brokers Association, which stated that the rise in IPT is actually a tax on protection and will affect behaviour by limiting people from taking on that protection? It also states that that will affect young people disproportionately, and it is regressive in that it disproportionately affects families in lower socio- economic groups.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it must be a concern that the measure will lead many families not to take out necessary insurance, with those that do placing themselves in further hardship.
Those negative effects on the poor are matched by giveaway proposals for the rich. The extent of the commitment given to the rich is perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the Government devote no fewer than 13 pages of the Finance Bill to inheritance tax, ensuring that many loopholes are possible for the benefit of those with high-value homes. There is even a proposal to increase the allowance each year, based on the consumer price index, and to round that up to the nearest £1,000 in case the poor dears find it hard to cope.
The fact that the Government find it so essential to make changes that benefit holders of great wealth in our society, at the same time as they cut support for the most vulnerable, says much about the moral choices that they make. There is also a wider economic cost to such choices. The combination of sucking demand out of local economies by penalising the poorest in our society, combined with the largesse bestowed on the wealthy —who will no doubt find ways of spending or saving that do not benefit local economies—makes the simple point that the Government care more about rewarding their friends than about fixing the economy.
Let me move on to the Government approach to very high earners, who for years have found ways of avoiding and evading tax. I admit that I liked some of the Chancellor’s rhetoric during his Budget speech about closing tax loopholes and ensuring a fairer return from those with high earnings—often, people who earn more than £1 million per year—but looking at the detail in the Bill, it is clear that there is still a considerable distance to travel. For example, much more needs doing to close the so-called Mayfair loophole. It cannot be right that private equity fund managers will be able to continue paying capital gains tax at only 28% on so-called carried interest, rather than income tax at 45%. It is probably not unreasonable to estimate that more than £300 million extra revenue could be gained by tightening the rules in that area alone, and that would enable at least some mitigation of the worst excesses of the Government’s welfare proposals.
The Chancellor is undoubtedly highly skilled politically in his presentation—indeed, in that regard he may have been taking lessons from my predecessor in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. As always, however, the devil is very much in the detail, and the detail leaves too many loopholes.
Let me now address measures that are necessary to tackle some of the areas contributing to weaknesses in productivity—a matter that the Minister addressed.
If the Government are serious about improving productivity, should they not also be serious about improving capital investment?
Absolutely, and I am glad my hon. Friend raised a matter that I will come to shortly. Investment is critical for productivity in this country.
I am struck by how the detail of the Finance Bill suggests that, rather than addressing key issues in a positive manner, the Government present some highly counterproductive measures on productivity. I and my colleagues initially welcomed s