8 Apr 2014 : Column 188
The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark): Order. I remind hon. Members that we are debating a possible 50p income tax rate. Could they try to focus their arguments and interventions on that?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I will do my best to abide by your ruling, Ms Clark—you probably want me to do more than my best.
Reference has been made to the fact that an historic event is taking place elsewhere in Parliament. I am sure that my colleagues will represent the Democratic Unionist party very well, but I have to attend this important debate. As a Unionist, I would have loved to see the President of the Irish Republic giving a speech to both Houses of Parliament with King Billy looking over his shoulder—I understand that King Billy is somewhere behind him while he gives his speech. Even better, tomorrow a republican will sit down to dinner with the Queen.
Things have changed in Northern Ireland, but the debate on the 50p rate has not changed. It is again a political football between Labour and the Conservatives. I want to make something clear at the outset. I do not wish to engage in a debate with some kind of class motive, or from the point of view of bashing the rich by imposing taxation on them. My party and I believe in lower taxation. Our record in Northern Ireland, where we have very limited power over taxes, has been one of keeping tax low. My basic philosophy, which may differ from that of some on the Opposition Benches, is that we should allow people to keep as much of their income as possible and to spend it as they see fit. That is the first point I want to make.
4.30 pm
My second point is that we can become distracted from the crux of the argument by the accusation that this is a bit of a cynical exercise—after all, for all the time the Labour party was in power it kept the tax rate at 40% and only put it up on the last day. The essence of the argument then becomes not whether we should have a higher rate of taxation for those who are better off, but whether this is some kind of political stunt which, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) said, can be milked week after week and headline after headline, but has no real substance. If we allow the debate to rest at that level, we miss a number of important points.
Any taxation policy must be predicated on two things. The economic impact on the policy is very important, but equally important is the political context in which the policy is introduced. If the Government cannot see beyond the fog of the amount of money the policy brings in and how, or whether, it helps to deal with the deficit—two points I will come on to later—to the political context, they are sadly out of tune with the people across the United Kingdom.
There is something to be learned from the experience in the Irish Republic. The austerity measures there have been much harsher than those in the United Kingdom, yet there has not been the same groundswell of opposition. One reason for that is that it was in much more desperate straits, but there was also an understanding that, to use the phrase that gets bandied around time and again, the policies
8 Apr 2014 : Column 189
ensured that they were all in it together: they were applied across the broad spectrum of society.
The hon. Member for Redcar talked about some of the tax policies introduced that have hit the rich more than the poor—capital gains tax and a number of other changes—but the truth is that people look at the headline issue. The headline issue in this context is what has been happening to income tax. Those on middle incomes have found their income being squeezed. Tax bands have not increased with inflation, so more people have been pulled into the 40% rate. At the lower end of the scale—I do not want to wander into welfare reform—welfare reforms have had an effect on the poorer groups in society, and the wage freeze has had much more of an impact on people on lower incomes. There is a belief that we are not all in this together.
A cynicism has developed as a result of ignoring the political context in which this policy change has been introduced. In the Budget the Chancellor told us that the years of austerity will last until 2020 and maybe beyond. Given that, it is important for the country that if people are to be told that difficult fiscal times still lie ahead, they understand that the burden of those difficult times is going to be shared. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) explained why he had not gone for an immediate change in the new clause: it cannot be done at this stage of the Bill. He has called for a review, as have the official Opposition, so that there could be some indication that Parliament is not ignoring the appearance of a gap when it comes to the burden sharing of the ongoing austerity measures. I have no doubt, given the level of debt and of ongoing annual borrowing, that there are difficult decisions to be made. However, if the Government really believe that, it is surely in their interests to show to the broad spectrum of the population that no one will be excluded and that there will be no privileged groups when it comes to dealing with this issue.
The argument from Conservative Members is that this is a necessary measure to deal with the deficit. “After all,” they say, “if we bring the rate of taxation down at the top level, fewer people will flee the country, fewer people will try to avoid tax through fancy schemes, and people will be given an incentive to work harder. As a result, we will bring in more money.” The first thing to ask is how accurate that assessment is. There are two ways of looking at it. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr talked about the Laffer curve and the point at which tax take can be optimised. If it were as simple as getting a formula and saying, “That is exactly the rate at which we will maximise tax revenue,” I suppose the Chancellor could sit down and coldly calculate the rate of taxation that should be set.
The truth is—this is why economists get these things wrong so often—that there is no exact science. If we are making predictions and we have to feed into an economic model assumptions that may or may not be right, the outcome can be radically different from what was originally expected. If we look at the elasticity of tax income, we see that the variations are large. Some estimates put it as inelastic whereas some put it at quite elastic. The Treasury have settled for somewhere in between, but let us bear it in mind that it is an estimate. It is not exact. The variations are large, so one cannot say with any degree
8 Apr 2014 : Column 190
of certainty that in theory the tax take should go up and that this is therefore a good policy which helps to reduce the deficit.
The additional thing contained in the figures is the behavioural aspect. Whether we are talking about the way in which people will try to avoid tax or the number of people who will not flee the country, as opposed to the number who did flee the country in the past, we are introducing a huge element of uncertainty, because we cannot accurately predict the way in which people will respond in certain circumstances. There are so many factors that will influence their behaviour.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I apologise for having left the Chamber. I had to address some young constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has made a number of good points. May I now ask him a question that I asked earlier? Why is there such a disconnect in the moral compass of the super-wealthy that they feel they would rather flee the country than pay a couple of extra pennies in income tax? Why do they imagine that they live in a different world, and that they do not need to sustain the public services on which everyone else relies?
Sammy Wilson: That is a very good question, but the fact is that we do not even know whether that is the way in which people behave. As has already been pointed out, many of those who pay the top rates of tax are employees, and many have their roots here. Their children are at schools here, they are involved in their communities here, and they have their families—their grannies, their mummies, their uncles and so forth. The assumption that people will suddenly cut all those ties when the marginal rate of tax is raised is extremely tenuous. I have not so far seen any figures that suggest that that happens. I can understand that if the marginal rate were raised from 45% to 90%, there might well be some incentive for people to leave, but when it is raised by only a few percentage points, is there really an incentive for people to avoid taxation by becoming exiles, given all the disruption that that may cause?
Ministers frequently refer to tax take predictions based on economic models, but it should be borne in mind that such predictions cannot specify the exact impact of tax changes with rapier-like incision. Their other argument is that, if the theory and the models cannot provide an exact picture, we should look at what has happened to tax revenue in practice over the past few years, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. No doubt the Minister will give figures showing an increase in tax revenue from this particular income group, in which case we must ask whether it is possible to separate the various elements that have led to that increase.
I believe that the Government made a rather cynical attempt to ensure that they would achieve the result that they wanted by announcing the tax reduction a year in advance, knowing that that would give people an opportunity to defer the tax that they pay, thus enabling the Government to point to an increase in tax revenue in the first year of the new rate. Of course, if people are given advance notification and a chance to delay their payments, we will see the predicted outcome. I suppose it would be best to see whether the trend continues over a longer period, because we do not have any figures yet.
We know that while the incomes of certain groups have been frozen, incomes have been much more fluid at
8 Apr 2014 : Column 191
the top end of the income scale than at the bottom end, where there has been a blanket 1% increase. Indeed, there have been wage decreases in some parts of the private sector, especially at the lower end of the scale. How much of the increase is attributable to the fact not that there is more tax take from the same level of income, but that there is more tax take from increased incomes because there has been greater fluidity at that end of the income scale? Even after consideration, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the reduction in the level of income tax has led to the increase in revenue.
4.45 pm
There are a lot of uncertainties, and it is for that reason that I make the following argument. The Minister could be correct when he says the public purse has benefited, but given the uncertainties as to whether that has been due to rising incomes, deferred tax payments or a range of other factors, against the political impact this has had and will continue to have as austerity measures have to be applied in the economy, serious consideration needs to be given to the proposal that the situation be reviewed.
In an intervention it was asked whether we would persist in going back to the 50% rate if the review showed that 48% is where we maximise. Given that there may well be a marginal difference, I think some of these decisions have to be made on what people believe, and the politics of the decision will dictate that as well. That is why I believe this is an important amendment.
One thing I have found in the context of Northern Ireland is that headline rates of taxation can have a very important psychological impact. In a previous occupation, I had many discussions with the Minister about a reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland. The problem we faced was that there was a 12.5% rate in the Irish Republic and we had a much higher rate in Northern Ireland. In fact, however, with all the concessions, firms in Northern Ireland probably paid less corporation tax than those in the Irish Republic. That was not the important thing, however. The important thing was that when businesses looked at corporation tax—
The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the 50p tax rate. A number of Members still wish to speak so perhaps he would address himself to the amendment before us.
Sammy Wilson:
The point I was trying to make, perhaps at too great a length, was that the important thing was the headline rate when people were looking at places to locate their businesses. It is the same with income tax. While there may have been other tax changes that have affected the rich, when people make a judgment on the Government’s sincerity about austerity, they will look at the headline rate, and what they see when they look at the headline rate for those on middle incomes, for those on lower incomes—not in terms of the headline rate of income tax, but in terms of what has happened to their income—and for the most well-off in society is that there is a disparity, and that breeds cynicism. I believe an amendment such as this one will at least help to restore some confidence that when this House looks at what lies ahead, it is genuinely trying to make sure the
8 Apr 2014 : Column 192
burden is shared equally.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I apologise to the Committee for being absent earlier; I was with a group of young people from my constituency who are interested in politics and in what is being debated in the Chamber today. I am glad to have a few minutes now to say a few words.
The new clause and the amendment are innocuous and harmless proposals. They simply ask the Government to be transparent and to produce a review within a few months to show the effect of a 50p tax rate on those whose taxable income is between £150,000 and £1 million a year. I have struggled to find many such people in my constituency. I have tweeted about this on social media, asking people whether they think our amendment would be a bad idea, but, unsurprisingly, no one has come forward to say that they earn that much.
It is in the Government’s interest, as well as ours, to have this transparency. It is also in all our interests to tell people that we get the message about proportionality and contributing to public services. There is an emerging trend among the Conservatives to describe themselves as being the party of the working class and of working families. If that is the case they should support our proposals, because they would create full transparency and allow a debate to take place on whether we should set a tax rate of 50%, 49% or whatever. The proposals would also allow them to explain to working people—not the ones who earn between £150,000 and £1 million a year, but those who earn about £20,998, the median wage in Ogmore Vale—and to Conservative supporters why they think it is not a good idea to say to people, “Pay your share. We are genuinely all in this together.”
The hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have made good contributions to the debate, and I made a couple of mischievous interventions on them earlier. I have faith in the wealthy and the super-wealthy in this country. We will not have many Gérard Depardieus fleeing the country and heading off to Russia, or wherever the British, Welsh or Scottish equivalent might be. They will say, “We have respect for the communities that we work and employ people in, and it will not bankrupt us to stay here. We are not going to flee overnight to another country like some carpetbagger. We are not going to up sticks and relocate our premises.” That is not going to happen; it did not happen before, even when taxes were at much higher levels. It is a discredit to those people to suggest that it would happen.
In preparation for the debate, I looked into a few examples of people who had said that a return to the 50p tax rate would be a disaster. I was about to say that it would be wrong to name them, but one of them, the chief executive of Kingfisher, has been very outspoken in saying what a terrible detrimental effect such a measure would have. He has said that it would be a disaster for the country, and that entrepreneurs and businesses would flee. Well, okay, it might be just a coincidence that Ian Cheshire is an adviser to the Prime Minister as well as being the chief executive of Kingfisher. It might also be just a coincidence that he was knighted in the new year’s honours list. I am sure that that is pure coincidence. However, he clearly has a direct influence on the Government. When he says, “This is not good”, things happen. It is not only him, however.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 193
It was fascinating to note the reaction of one other person, when this debate was raging about 18 months ago. I will not name this individual, but people can look him up in the Daily Mail. It is pretty obvious who I am talking about. He had said that he objected to a 50p tax rate on the basis that people like him would no longer be inspired to go out and earn money. He was reported in the Daily Mail as being about to sell his £3 million mock-Tudor home. He was explaining that he was now in a great place but when he had previously had trouble expanding the property, he had solved the problem by snapping up the property of his next-door neighbour. This was in an area inhabited by rock stars, football players and other highly paid celebrities. He had snapped up the house next door so that he could put in a swimming pool, a games room and a garage block for his Bentleys. We do not have many garage blocks in Ogmore. The properties were in a patrolled, gated community with private security.
My constituents who are on less than £21,000 a year think that that is another world. They think, “Why doesn’t that guy think he should be paying a couple of pennies more to keep the national health service going, because I can’t afford to have private health care or to send my children off to private school? I need what the state provides.” I know that this is like an old comedy sketch—“I look up to him because he is better than me.” But, that is not the case. The person I am talking about was one of those hardworking Tory supporters who some Government Members would like to appeal to now as the working Tory voter. Let us have a reality check. To those who say, “We feel really unhappy about this change, and it will drive us off”, I say, “Go.” They should subscribe to the values and ethos of this country—from each according to his ability to each according to his need. If they do not, they are not living in the country in which I was brought up. They should think twice about saying that they will go. Most people will sensibly recognise the skills and the quality of the work force, the good environment here for building up companies and our position in the European Union, and they will stay in the country and continue to work. All this amendment asks is that at a certain point in time, not too long in the future, we should be told what the impact is on those who are earning £150,000 or £1 million. Be transparent and tell us.
Ian Swales: I represent a constituency with similar income levels to that of the hon. Gentleman. However, does he regret the fact that a senior member of the Government he was in described himself as being “intensely relaxed” about the situation that he has just described?
Huw Irranca-Davies:
I would never use that same phrase. I do not find myself intensely relaxed about this. Sorry, what I mean is that someone playing for the Ospreys rugby team might not earn as much as a premiership footballer, but good luck to them. Let them make a lot of money. Let them do well for their families. Let someone travel to France and play for Perpignan and earn four times the money. Good luck to them, but I want them paying their taxes. When they are back here, I want them to contribute the right amount. I want to encourage the people in my constituency, and say, “If you have the abilities and the skills, and if you are willing to put in the effort, don’t accept that job that you are doing now. Work your way up and do what you
8 Apr 2014 : Column 194
can do. The sky is your limit.” But I want them also to contribute. I do not want this ludicrous situation in which people can say, “I tell you what, at a certain point I will leave the country.” I do not believe that they will leave the country. It will not happen. I have much more faith in them than that.
One of the major hedge fund operators, again a Conservative donor, told the Financial Times:
“There probably aren’t many votes in cutting the 50p top rate of tax, but among those that give significant amounts to the party, it’s a big issue, and that’s probably why it’s a big issue for the party too.”
Four months after he said that to the Financial Times, the Budget happened and we had the cut in the tax rate. It is probably just a coincidence again.
Let us look at the impact of this policy and the Government’s current policies on the wider population—beyond the wealthy and the super-wealthy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ figures on net income changes by 2014-15 show that overall, households are £974 worse off; a working lone parent is £1,335 worse off; a working couple with no children is £438 worse off; a working couple with children is £2,073 worse off. What about the millionaires? They get this enormous tax cut so that they can go out and buy a couple more Porsches. The Minister might say, “No, it is so that they can reinvest it in this, that and the other.” What about reinvesting in public services? Why does the Minister think that they want to escape from that obligation that we all have to each other to contribute? It may be 47p, 48p or 49p, but there is a message—there is clarity—about us all being in it together that comes with saying that it is 50p. If that 2p seriously makes a wealthy individual say, “We are leaving this country because it is a disgrace that any Government should come after me”, I would say that it is a disgrace that they are even thinking in that way. I have more faith in those people who have made wealth in this country. I believe that they will want to stay here and genuinely help us climb out of this economic morass. They will want to build jobs, grow the economy, skill the economy and lift up the wages of some of my constituents.
5 pm
Shabana Mahmood: I rise to support amendment 4, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our amendment seeks to require the Chancellor to publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate—the top rate—of income tax at 50%, but unlike new clause 4, our amendment requires that the report must also estimate the impact of the top rate in 2014-15 if it is set at 45% and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of £150,000 a year and of £1 million a year. Our amendment therefore seeks to prescribe somewhat more than new clause 4 what the report that must be prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should include. We intend to press our amendment to a vote at the end of the debate.
The Labour Government introduced the 50p rate, which came into effect in 2010-11. We have had a number of debates on the top rate of tax ever since, particularly since this Chancellor’s decision to reduce the top rate from 50p to 45p. That decision is an important indicator of both the Chancellor’s and his Government’s priorities. While ordinary people have been struggling with the cost of living crisis—based just on a measure of wages, they are £1,600 a year worse off, or, taking into account
8 Apr 2014 : Column 195
tax and benefits changes, they are £974 a year worse off—the Chancellor has seen fit to give a tax cut worth an average £100,000 to millionaires in our country.
When the Government came to power, they did not say anything in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate. In 2011, the Chancellor said that he was going to ask HMRC to look at the yields from the 50p rate. In 2012, with HMRC’s report, “The Exchequer effect of the 50% additional rate of income tax”, to back him up, he abolished the rate. The Chancellor knew that he needed cover for that deeply ideological decision and so was desperate, in my view, to claim that the 50p rate raised as little money as possible. Of course, if he could say that, he could justify with more of a straight face giving a tax cut to the richest in our country at the same time as knowing that on his watch ordinary people, those on middle and low incomes, have paid the price for his economic plan, which is failing on the terms he set himself when he came to power in 2010. This was a highly political decision driven by a desire to give a tax cut to the richest people in our country.
Reports at the time suggested that the Chancellor wanted to go further and cut the top rate back down to 40p, but was blocked from doing so by his coalition colleagues. As a compromise, 45p was settled on. Of course, we know that the Conservative party is chomping at the bit to see the rate lowered from 45p to 40p and it is a shame that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has not been in the Chamber for this part of the debate, although we did cover some of his views in this regard in the earlier debate on corporation tax and business rates. As a result of his comments and use of figures, we have in the past week seen efforts to try to bolster the case for reducing the rate back to 40p. I note that the Government have not explicitly ruled out such a change.
We know from the Government’s own assessment that the cost of cutting the rate from 50p to 45p was more than £3 billion, excluding all behavioural changes. Given that the sum is so large, how does one justify the tax cut? The Government say that most of that potential £3 billion revenue would effectively be lost as a result of tax avoidance. Once they have assessed revenue lost as a result of tax avoidance and other behavioural change, the Government go on to say that the cost to the Exchequer is only £100 million. That implies that this is a neat and exact science, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Kelvin Hopkins: I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Government have been soft on tax avoidance and tax evasion simply to make their figures work.
Shabana Mahmood: I will come on to the point about tax avoidance. One option open to the Government to protect revenue from the 50p rate was to do more on tax avoidance. This is a Government who like to trumpet their record on tax avoidance, but they certainly ducked the opportunity when it came to dealing with potential avoidance in relation to the 50p rate.
Ian Swales: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Shabana Mahmood: I will not, because of a lack of time.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 196
The HMRC report says that all the analysis and estimation is highly uncertain, as does the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The scale of behavioural change is ultimately decided by Ministers, and it is primarily based on an assessment of taxable income elasticity—TIE. The IFS says that there is a huge margin for error. Staying within that margin, one could easily say that, depending on the TIE, cutting the rate could cost £700 million or could raise £600 million. That gives us an idea of the range of figures that we are talking about and how uncertain the projections are.
It might have fitted the Government narrative for them to imply that they knew for certain that the 50p rate would raise only £100 million, but even on their figures and HMRC’s report, there is a huge margin for error and this is all very uncertain. That is not the only thing that was wrong with the analysis. The HMRC report was based on only one year’s worth of data—the data related to 2010-11—which is a weakness in itself. It came too early. Given the history of the introduction of the rate and the Government’s decision to cut it, the reliance on year one is a further weakness in the Government’s argument, because we know that incomes were taken earlier to avoid the 50p rate and as a result incomes in 2010 and 2011 were artificially lower, suggesting a lower yield. Hence our request for a review.
The original HMRC analysis does not give a true picture, was done too soon after the rate had been introduced and was based on only one year’s worth of data. Income figures for that year were lower than otherwise might have been the case because people brought their income forward to 2009-10 before the rate came into effect. No one has redone the analysis so we are still going on the figures from the 2012 Budget. The Government should, at the very least, update the analysis based on the more recent data and prepare the report that our amendment and new clause 4 call for. A comparison of 45p and 50p rates for those on incomes over £150,000 and £1 million would be instructive to the public debate about the top rate, especially as some Members on the Government Back Benches want to reduce the rate to 40p.
Mr Gauke: The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. When her party announced that it would reintroduce the 50p rate in the next Parliament, she wrote in the New Statesman:
“latest figures from the HMRC show that people earning more than £150,000 a year paid almost £10 billion more in tax”
than was taken into account in the assessment that HMRC made. Is she happy to put on record the fact that the HMRC assessment took into account the numbers that she was talking about, and that the claims that she and her colleagues made at the time of the announcement of the 50p policy were in fact wrong about that?
Shabana Mahmood:
Our analysis was based on projections that were available to us at that time, and on those projections that analysis was correct. The truth is that everyone accepts that all analysis in relation to the 50p rate—HMRC’s analysis and everyone else’s—is uncertain because we did not have the rate in place for long enough to make a full and thorough assessment. Now HMRC has available to it records for the following two years when the 50p rate was in place and it could update the report that was used for Budget 2012. That would give a much clearer picture to all of us who are
8 Apr 2014 : Column 197
relying on other figures and forecasts.
Just as people shifted income into 2009 and 2010 to avoid the 50p rate when it was introduced, once the Chancellor had said in his 2012 Budget that he would abolish it the following year in 2013, unsurprisingly people effectively decided to delay their bonuses and income until the new tax year 2013-14 began so that they could avoid paying 50p and pay 45p instead. That is what accounts for the revenue from 45p being higher, which in our earlier debates Government Members sought to rely on in support of cutting the rate further to 40p. The Government clearly reward tax avoidance at 50p with a tax cut to 45p, and their Back Benchers are now calling for 40p on the basis of revenue that they know is inflated owing to income shifting, which may well have cost the Treasury millions in lost revenue—warped priorities if ever there was a case of them.
The Chancellor is on record as saying that he considers tax avoidance to be “morally repugnant”, but as I have just said, he has rewarded a particular form of tax avoidance with a tax cut. I wonder if that has ever happened for people on middle and lower incomes. I think not. This is a Government who always tell us how proud they are of their record on tax avoidance, but I wonder how much effort they put into thinking of ways in which they could protect revenue from the 50p rate. The Government have introduced the general anti-abuse rule, the GAAR, which may have helped. They could have thought about a targeted rule. They could have looked to HMRC to do more. I understand that no specific measures are taken within HMRC to protect revenue from the 50p rate. Before rushing to abolish the rate, the Government could and should have looked at protecting revenue first. The truth is that there was no justification for giving a huge tax cut to the richest in our country. Bonuses, we now know, are up by 83% for those in the financial sector, while ordinary people are worse off now and will be worse off in 2015 compared with 2012. That certainly makes a mockery of the now not very often repeated phrase, “We are all in it together.”
I think the Government have been hoping that if they keep going on about the increase in the personal allowance, people will forget that they have made a political decision, a political choice and a political priority to cut taxes for the richest in our country. The truth is that the Government have given with one hand and taken away much more with the other. As I said, if one looks at wages, ordinary people are £1,600 a year worse off, and the combined effect of tax and benefit changes means that households will, on average, be £970 a year worse off.
This cut to the 50p rate cannot be justified at a time when the deficit is high and will not be eliminated towards the end of the next Parliament. Labour in government will increase the rate back to 50p to help us to get the deficit down in a fairer way. Just as we have said that we want the OBR to have powers to audit manifestos ahead of the next general election, because we believe that scrutiny will add to public understanding about the choices that are being made, so too we think that a review as envisaged in our amendment would help the public to understand the impact of the top rate of tax so that they can make up their own minds about who is standing up for them and other working people like them. Therefore, we will press amendment 4 to a vote.
Mr Gauke:
It is a great pleasure, Mr Amess, to serve under your chairmanship. Before I deal with our annual
8 Apr 2014 : Column 198
debate at this stage in the Finance Bill on the 50p rate, I want to say a word or two about clause 1, which is included within the group, which ensures that income tax will be collected in 2014-15. Income tax is the Government’s biggest revenue source and the annual charge legislated in the Finance Bill is essential for its continued collection. There will be around 30 million income tax payers in the UK in 2014-15, and clause 1 states that these taxpayers will pay income tax this year at the same rates as in 2013-14. The basic and higher tax rates remain at 20% and 40% respectively, and the additional rate is 45%.
Clause 1 also means that the Government are meeting their commitment of raising the personal allowance to £10,000 one year ahead of schedule. The increase of the personal allowance to £10,000 reduces the income tax bills of another 255,000 low earners to zero and gives 25 million taxpayers an average gain of £50 in real terms. In other words, increasing the personal allowance by £560 will put an extra £112 of cash in the pockets of typical basic rate taxpayers in 2014-15.
Allow me to explain how these changes will help the Government to meet their objectives. When this Government came to office, the personal allowance was only £6,475. In 2010, everyone, including those working on the national minimum wage, had to pay income tax at the basic rate on incomes above this low threshold. Let me give an example of what this meant in practice. Someone working full-time on the October 2010 national minimum wage would have had to pay over £860 in income tax in 2010-11 alone. Thanks to this Government’s increases to the personal allowance, this year someone working full-time on the higher October 2014 national minimum wage will pay nearly £500 less than that.
5.15 pm
We have enabled people to keep more of the money they earn to reward those who work hard for their families. The gains from our personal allowance increases are spread widely. Altogether, this Government will already have taken more than 3 million low earners out of income tax by the end of April. That number will further increase to more than 3.2 million by April 2015, when the personal allowance will be more than £2,800 higher than under the previous Government’s plans.
Kelvin Hopkins: Ministers have talked a lot about low incomes, and that is all very well, but is not the reality that the better off people are and the higher the rate of tax they are on, the more they benefit, so in fact higher-rate taxpayers benefit more than lower-rate taxpayers?
Mr Gauke: That is not correct, because of the way we have done this. I will not spend a lot of time on the matter, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in preparation for this speech I have seen various responses from those raising concerns about higher-rate taxpayers not benefiting from the increases in the personal allowance in the way that basic-rate taxpayers have. Indeed, those earning more than £100,000 a year do not benefit from increases in the personal allowance because it starts to be taken away.
The reality is that basic-rate taxpayers have benefited most from the measures that we have taken in increasing the personal allowance. More than 26 million taxpayers
8 Apr 2014 : Column 199
will be up to £570 better off in real terms in 2015-16 as a result of this Government’s changes. In 2014-15, basic-rate taxpayers already pay up to £700 less income tax than they would have done four years ago. By 2015-16, the Government will have cut their income tax bills by over £800 per year. Together, all the personal allowance increases since 2010 mean that this Government have cut the number of income tax payers more in five years than any Government in a similar period since records began.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister correct what may be a misunderstanding? Is it correct that 13,000 people who earned more than £1 million a year would have benefited to the tune of £100,000, on average, from the reduction in the top rate of tax?
Mr Gauke: Amendment 4 and new clause 4, tabled by Opposition parties, deal with familiar matters that we debate every year. They propose, once again, that within three months of passing the Finance Act, the Chancellor should publish a report reviewing the impact of setting the additional rate at 50%. In addition, amendment 4 asks for an assessment of the impact of setting the additional rate for 2014-15 at 45% and at 50% on the amount of income tax currently paid by those with taxable incomes of over £150,000 and over £1 million per year. Needless to say, such an analysis, in order to be credible, would need to take behavioural impacts into account, as did the HMRC report on the additional rate published at Budget 2012. When increasing taxes, it is not enough merely to look at theoretical income tax liabilities. Let me assure hon. Members, once more, that this Government already consider the impact of any policy decisions taken. The HMRC report on the additional rate concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast due to large behavioural effects. It even said that it is possible that the 50p rate could have reduced income tax revenue instead of increasing it. It would be illogical and unfair to reintroduce a tax rate that is ineffective at raising revenue from high earners and that would end up making ordinary taxpayers pay more and risk damaging growth.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I genuinely thank the Minister for trying to explain that to me, but he has just described the top-end tax cut as a theoretical tax cut when my understanding is that it is a very real tax cut whereby 13,000 people who are millionaires or richer have each saved more than £100,000 per year. At this very moment, my constituency is digging deep as a result of cuts to school transport. Will the Minister confirm that the tax cut is not theoretical, but real, and that 13,000 people who are millionaires or richer have each saved to the tune of £100,000 as a result of it, when the median wage in my constituency is sub-£21,000?
Mr Gauke:
Let me see if I can find a point of consensus with the hon. Gentleman. We want—and I suspect he wants—to ensure that the wealthiest make a fair contribution towards reducing the deficit, and the challenge for any Government is to work out the best way of doing that. Let us look at this Government’s record on raising money from the wealthiest. Budget
8 Apr 2014 : Column 200
2010 increased the higher rate of capital gains tax and Budget 2011 tackled avoidance through disguised remuneration—a policy that was opposed by the Labour party, even though it addressed avoidance by high earners. Budget 2012 raised stamp duty on high-value homes and autumn statement 2012 took action to reduce the cost of pensions tax relief, while Budget 2013 and autumn statement 2013 announced further measures to tackle offshore evasion by high earners. In 2013-14, the richest 1% of taxpayers contributed a larger share of income tax receipts than in any other year, including every year under the Labour Government.
The point is how we raise money from the wealthiest. The 50p rate is not the most effective way of doing that, because the behavioural effects are so strong that it fails to raise money. Now that growth is finally picking up, the Government will not consider any actions that might put the UK’s recovery at risk. Despite reducing the additional rate, the richest now pay more income tax than they did in any year under Labour.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister was generously trying to find a point of consensus and I want to build on that, following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The Minister talked about what might be raised by closing avoidance loopholes for the very richest, but what about the 13,000 honest millionaires who my hon. Friend says have benefited from a tax cut of £100,000 each? Will the Minister address that specific point and confirm that those honest millionaires—this is not about avoidance and loopholes—will each benefit from a tax cut of £100,000?
Mr Gauke: I suppose we are talking about the people who for almost the entire time the Labour party was in power were paying a lower rate of income tax, a lower rate of capital gains tax and a lower rate of stamp duty. I hear the Labour party’s position. [Interruption.] If we are trying to build consensus, let us look at what some Labour politicians have said. The noble Lord Myners, a former Treasury Minister, has said:
“The economic logic behind Ed Balls’s thinking would not get him a pass at GCSE economics,”
“Ed Balls takes us back to old Labour and the politics of envy.”
Lord Jones, the former trade Minister in a Labour Government, described the policy as “lousy economics”.
Mr Gauke: To be fair, Lord Jones was a Minister in a Labour Government. The Mail on Sunday has reported a key supporter of Tony Blair as saying of Labour Front Benchers:
“The trouble is they are economically illiterate and have no understanding of business or profits.”
Huw Irranca-Davies:
The hon. Gentleman gives us examples of people arguing that the policy is economically illiterate, but we are politicians, not economists. I will try to reach consensus with him by saying, although perhaps I should not, that the policy is in his party’s interests. The biggest segment of those who donate to the Conservative party—providing more than half its donations—are from financial services. To say to them,
8 Apr 2014 : Column 201
“We are all in it together. You will have to accept a little bit more pain”, would be a good political signal, let alone an economic one.
Mr Gauke: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his political advice. I cannot but notice that he talked about wanting to uphold the values of the British people and then quoted Karl Marx—but there we go. My point is that the wealthiest are making a bigger contribution in income tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty, and that this Government are taking further action to deal with avoidance and evasion more effectively than any previous Government have done.
Ian Swales: It is not for me to disagree with the mathematics of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), but assuming that he is right, does his point not prove that 13,000 people were paying £100,000 less tax in the year up to April 2010?
Mr Gauke: I suspect that my hon. Friend may well be right, so I am grateful to him on that point.
Clause 1 will help the Government to achieve our aim of a tax system that is fair for everyone, while rewarding those who want to work hard and progress. We will achieve those goals by cutting income tax for the vast majority of income tax payers, including those in greatest need of support, while making sure that the tax system remains easy to understand. I again stress that the reports proposed in amendment 4 and new clause 4 are entirely unnecessary. The impact of reducing the additional rate of income tax has been examined in great detail. The 50p rate was ineffective and meant risking the recovery for which everyone in this country is working hard. I therefore commend clause 1 and urge the House to reject the amendment and the new clause.
Jonathan Edwards: We have had a very interesting debate. We heard excellent speeches from the hon. Members for Redcar (Ian Swales), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and my good friend the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as well as from both Front Benchers.
My new clause 4 is rather harmless, if I may say so. It calls for a review that might make the case for the Government’s policy—they might want the evidence to back it up—or the case for my party’s policy of a 50p top rate. With all three Westminster parties signed up to continuing austerity, whoever wins the next Westminster election, we need transparency to ensure that the wider public are confident that everybody is paying their fair share. I regret that because the Government have not accepted my new clause, I will have to divide the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee divided:
Ayes 231, Noes 295.
Division No. 246]
[
5.28 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Barron, rh Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shuker, Gavin
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Mike Weir
and
Pete Wishart
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, rh Sir Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greening, rh Justine
Gummer, Ben
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, rh Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Ward, Mr David
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Gavin Barwell
and
Harriett Baldwin
Question accordingly negatived.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 202
8 Apr 2014 : Column 203
8 Apr 2014 : Column 204
8 Apr 2014 : Column 205
5.42 pm
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 1 April).
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Charge, rates, basic rate limit and personal allowance for 2014-15
Amendment proposed: 4, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of setting the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent.
( ) The report must estimate the impact of setting the additional rate for 2014-15 at 45 per cent and at 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of—
8 Apr 2014 : Column 206
(b) £1,000,000 per year.’.—(Shabana Mahmood.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided:
Ayes 231, Noes 296.
Division No. 247]
[
5.42 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Barron, rh Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, rh Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Kane, Mike
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shuker, Gavin
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Susan Elan Jones
and
Bridget Phillipson
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, rh Sir Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, rh Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fuller, Richard
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greening, rh Justine
Gummer, Ben
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lopresti, Jack
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Sir Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, rh Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Sir Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Penning, rh Mike
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thornton, Mike
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Ward, Mr David
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Harriett Baldwin
and
Gavin Barwell
Question accordingly negatived.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 207
8 Apr 2014 : Column 208
8 Apr 2014 : Column 209
8 Apr 2014 : Column 210
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess): I have to report to the Committee that the tellers for the Noes in the Division on amendment 2 have reported to the Chair that they wrongly reported the number as 289 and not 288. I will call for the record to be corrected accordingly, showing 288 Noes.
Childcare provision
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of ways in which changes to the tax and childcare systems could be used to increase the affordability of childcare before April 2015, with particular reference to—
(a) the cost of childcare for parents in work; and
(b) the cost of childcare, including the impact of changes in the tax and benefits system during this Parliament.
The Chancellor must publish the report of the review within six months of the passing of this Act and lay the report before the House.’.—(Catherine McKinnell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. New clause 1 draws attention to the rising costs of child care for working parents since 2010, and seeks to commit the Government to addressing their failure in that regard. It also seeks to establish ways in which the tax and benefit systems could be used to make child care more affordable before April 2015, so that hard-working families experiencing a cost of living crisis can have the help that they need now, especially in the light of the challenges that they face as a result of changes made by this coalition Government.
The new clause gives us a welcome opportunity to explore one of the most pressing issues that face millions of parents throughout the country, and to address the
8 Apr 2014 : Column 211
fact that millions of families are facing a child care crunch. It is important to set the issue in context by revealing just what has happened to child care costs on this Government’s watch. The average bill for a part-time nursery place providing 25 hours a week has risen to £107, the highest level in history. The cost of nursery places has risen by 30% since 2010, five times faster than pay, and the average weekly cost of a full-time place has risen to £200 or more. That means that parents working part time on average wages would have to work from Monday until Thursday before they had even paid their weekly child care costs.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): The hon. Lady has given statistics showing what has happened since 2010. Did child care costs increase before 2010, and if so, what did the last Government do about it?
Catherine McKinnell: The point of putting the issue in context is that the rise in child care costs since 2010 is astonishing, and has made child care unaffordable for many parents. I shall say more later about the number of parents, particularly mums, who feel that the cost of child care prohibits them from going to work. I think that rather than questioning the statistics, Government Members should get real and do something about that. Waiting until 2015 to make a promise for tomorrow is just not good enough, which is why we tabled our new clause.
According to alarming new research from the Family and Childcare Trust, families are paying more on average for part-time child care than they are spending on their mortgages. They are handing over a staggering £7,500 a year or more for child care for two children, which is about 4.7% more than the average mortgage bill. Rising prices have been matched by the fall in the number of child care places. The number of places provided by nurseries and childminders has fallen by more than 35,000 since 2010, at a time when the number of four-year-olds has actually increased. Most worrying of all, there are 576 fewer Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010, which means that an average of three are being lost each week. At least, that was what we were seeing before the Government took their database down.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): The point about children’s centres is really important. Many of those centres have simply reorganised the way in which they work, and now have operational entities in different places and a single administrative centre. That is why the headline figure suggests that children’s centres are closing. In fact, very few have closed, and those closures have been due to rationalisation rather than cuts. I find it very upsetting that Labour Members insist on making an assertion that is not correct.
Catherine McKinnell: The figure that I gave is correct. It is from the Government’s own database, before they took it down. Goodness knows what the number is now, but we know from our local communities that even the Sure Starts that remain open are offering reduced services, and that a huge number of Sure Starts are under threat as local authorities struggle to meet their current budget requirements.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 212
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): Government Members might like to know that Salford city council, owing to the budget cuts amounting to £100 million that have been forced on it, will have to cut eight Sure Start centres this year, leaving us with only four. Government Members must stop being in denial about this issue.
Catherine McKinnell: Yes, I agree that it is important that Government Members stop being in denial, because it will be a dreadful indictment of their being out of touch with reality if they fail to address this issue and instead stand by and watch our network of Sure Start centres disappear.
6 pm
Very much connected to that point is the recent ASDA-mumsnet survey which reveals that seven out of 10 stay-at-home mums consistently say going back to work simply would not make financial sense because the hefty child care costs would leave them worse off, and 52% rely on household salaries for child care and 35% rely on their family for child care. In this context it is still disappointing, if not surprising, that the Institute for Public Policy Research recently published a report showing that the UK’s maternal employment rates are far lower than those of our OECD competitor countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Does the hon. Lady agree that for many people with children if they did not have their grandparents or their aunties, the cost of child care would be too great for them to return to work? Does she feel that while the Government have made some concessions on child care, they have not given enough of an incentive for those people not to need to depend on their grandparents and aunts in order to be able to continue to work?
Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is a heroic army of grandparents out there providing that much-needed support within families to ensure that those really struggling with the cost of living crisis can still be in work, but unfortunately some people do not have that luxury. There are an awful lot of people who cannot rely on that support and who find the current cost of child care too prohibitive to go to work or find that, despite working all hours, they cannot put food on the table.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): While it is right to recognise that families will decide on the best ways of making arrangements and that grandparents and other family carers have an important role, do not children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds benefit the most from having access to formal child care, whether in a nursery or with a childminder? That gives them the best start in life and we need to do more to target families from the most disadvantaged backgrounds so that they can access child care.
Catherine McKinnell:
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a multitude of reasons why we should support parents and enable those who want to work to do so, one of which is the benefits for children of being in that child care setting. That is why Labour has made one of our key pledges—and we call on the Government
8 Apr 2014 : Column 213
to take it up in this Budget—to extend the free child care that is available for three to four-year-olds. We call on the Government not to wait until 2015, but to do it now and to pay for it through the increase in the bank levy that we have suggested and which the Government should take up—or at least they should certainly undertake the review we are calling for today to look at the viability of that in this year’s Budget.
Andrea Leadsom: Does the hon. Lady genuinely think it is realistic and practical to implement that policy right now bearing in mind that the Government are already rolling out their offer for two-year-olds and nurseries are already under pressure from the implications of the influx of two-year-olds?
Catherine McKinnell: The amendment is perfectly reasonable. I know the hon. Lady cares about this issue and I am sure she would want to see her Government doing everything they can to provide support and to help parents up and down the country who we know are struggling with this important issue. That is why the amendment we have tabled today calls on the Government to
“undertake a review of ways in which changes to the tax and childcare systems could be used to increase the affordability of childcare before April 2015”.
It is a perfectly reasonable amendment and I see no reason why Members on both sides of this House would not support it if it could bring about the changes that parents need today, not in 2015.
Returning to the issue of maternal employment rates, for mothers whose youngest child is aged between three and five that rate is currently 64% across the developed world, yet the rate in Britain is six percentage points lower at 58%, which is the equivalent of about 150,000 mothers not being employed. The rate in Sweden is 80%.
As the interventions today have demonstrated, it seems that Government Members prefer to gloss over the uncomfortable facts and figures that do not fit with their messages when they boast about the record numbers of people in employment, much as they do when they ignore the fact that almost 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work, a quarter of them for 12 months or more.
The child care crunch, like youth unemployment, is bad not only for families but for the country and the economy. Parents who want to work should be able, and supported, to do so. There have been consultations and numerous announcements—and, indeed, re-announcements —about the Government’s new flagship child care scheme, but we see absolutely nothing in the Finance Bill that will address the spiralling costs that families face now, rather than in 18 months’ time.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government announced in the Budget that the tax-free child care cost cap will be raised to £10,000, which will be worth up to £2,000 per child? I know that 6,000 families in Solihull will be grateful for that.
Catherine McKinnell:
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but that help for families will not arrive until 2015 and beyond, after the next election. Many families could do with some support over the next 18 months,
8 Apr 2014 : Column 214
not just beyond 2015. There are also serious concerns about whether parents will actually be better off when the Government’s policy is introduced. I will say more about that later.
I shall turn now to the second part of new clause 1, which focuses on the impact of the tax and benefit changes introduced in this Parliament. Just last week, the Opposition published an analysis of figures produced by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, along with analysis by the House of Commons Library, which showed that working families with children, and one-earner families in particular, had been the hardest hit by the changes introduced since 2010. Those changes, which were voted through by Government Members, mean that on average, households will be a staggering £974 a year worse off by the next general election. It is worth listing what those tax and benefit changes will mean for families with children. The constituents of Government Members will no doubt be paying close attention to their household budgets when it comes to casting their vote in May 2015.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): Will the hon. Lady tell us whether that analysis includes fuel duty? Does she agree that if this Government had kept the Labour fuel duty escalator going, petrol would cost 90p a gallon more today, the equivalent of £450 a year for the average family?
Catherine McKinnell: On average, by the time of the next general election, a family in which both parents are working will be £2,073 a year worse off. A family in which one parent works will be a staggering £3,720 a year worse off, and a family in which no parents work will be £2,114 a year worse off. A lone parent in work will be £1,335 a year worse off, and a lone parent who is not working will be £1,901 a year worse off. These changes are in addition to the impact of wages falling in real terms, which has left working people an average of £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. Households have faced 24 Tory tax rises over the same period. However, while millions of families have seen their real household incomes go down since 2010, millionaires have been given a huge tax cut by this Government. The top 1% of earners—85% of whom just happen to be men, by the way—have been given a £3 billion tax cut worth an average of £100,000 for those earning more than £1 million a year.
Andrea Leadsom: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Catherine McKinnell: I will give way to the hon. Lady, who I am sure is as disappointed as I am by that policy.
Andrea Leadsom: Will the hon. Lady confirm what the top rate of tax was during the last 10 years of the Labour Government? Will she also confirm that it changed only a couple of days before the last general election?
Catherine McKinnell:
The hon. Lady is well aware that we have a budget deficit that needs to be addressed. This Government promised to balance the books by 2015, but look set to be way off that target. Of course the increase to the 50p rate was part of a balanced deficit reduction programme that Labour would have put in place. Instead, this Government came in and made cuts
8 Apr 2014 : Column 215
that slowed growth and resulted in three years of a flatlining economy. The only people who seem to have benefited are the top-rate earners who have been given a tax cut by this Government.
Going back to the subject under debate, the same tax cut came from a Conservative-led Government who, in their 2010 manifesto, promised to make Britain
“the most family-friendly country in Europe.”
“We will help families with all the pressures they face: the lack of time, money worries, the impact of work, concerns about schools and crime, preventing unhealthy influences, poor housing.”
Of course—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) groans from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats claimed in their party’s 2010 manifesto:
“Liberal Democrats believe every family should get the support it needs to thrive, from help with childcare through to better support for carers and elderly parents. Liberal Democrats will improve life for your family.”
Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. Will she welcome the fact that one of the major newspapers today reports that wages are growing faster now than they have been in the past seven years, and that there are 1.6 million workers in private sector employment since 2010, which means that many more families are now able to afford their weekly household bill?
Catherine McKinnell: Any good news on the economy will always be welcomed, not just by Members of this House but by those out there who are struggling with the cost of living. No matter what good news we see in the coming months, it will not outweigh the fact that we have had three years of a flatlining economy in which wages have been squeezed and prices have risen much faster than wages, particularly in this area of child care costs. People will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. We know that a family in which both parents work will be £2,073 worse off by the next election. Perhaps the electorate will just have to add that to the ever-increasing list of Liberal Democrat broken promises.
The Prime Minister is currently touring the country, boasting about the rise in the personal allowance—I am surprised that Government Members have not raised that yet. Incidentally, the Deputy Prime Minister claims that the Conservatives were dragged kicking and screaming to every meeting on the personal allowance. The simple truth is that working families are thousands of pounds worse off now than they were in 2010 thanks to tax and benefit changes, falling living standards and rising child care costs, all of which this out-of-touch Government have continually failed to get a grip of, and all of which contribute to the fact that child poverty is set to increase rapidly under this Government. After an unprecedented reduction in child poverty under Labour, the IFS now predicts that an extra 400,000 children will be in relative poverty by the end of this Parliament and it is clear why that is. It says:
“Tax and benefit reforms introduced since April 2010 can account for almost all of the increase in child poverty projected over the next few years.”
8 Apr 2014 : Column 216
As we know that families will be significantly worse off by the next general election, let me turn to the Government’s proposals for tax-free child care, which were lauded in the Budget but which are missing from this year’s Finance Bill. Parents would be forgiven for thinking that they are in for a £2,000 subsidy of their child care costs, based on what Ministers have been claiming in interviews and articles in recent weeks. Let us be absolutely clear about this. Although any new money to help families facing soaring child care costs is undoubtedly welcome, this coalition will not fool mums and dads. When we scratch beneath the surface and go beyond the headline figures of £2,000 and 1.9 million families, we find that the facts very quickly come to light.
Only one in five families will receive help through tax-free child care, yet that one family in five would have to incur child care costs of £10,000 per child to get the maximum £2,000 that Government Members have been boasting about. Ten thousands pounds per child per year! How many families in Britain could possibly afford to spend the £8,000 required to receive the maximum support from the Government? Well, the latest annual child care costs survey by the Family and Childcare Trust suggests that over a year a British family spends an average of £5,487 for a nursery place for a child of two and above, which, incidentally, is £1,298 more than it cost in 2010, so in reality most families will receive at best just half the support being parroted by Government Members—[Interruption.] I am pleased that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has been enlightened by that, as he was so horrified when I enlightened him about the reality of this Government’s policy.
6.15 pm
Lorely Burt: On the one hand, the hon. Lady seems to be bemoaning the soaring costs of child care, but on the other she is bemoaning the fact that parents do not have to pay the full £10,000 to get the maximum child care support.
Catherine McKinnell: A family’s child care requirements are a family’s child care requirements. If somebody has to go to work and they need child care, they need to invest in child care for however many hours they need it for. The Government’s child care proposal does nothing to address the supply side issues, which is why Labour proposes to increase the number of free hours available for three to four-year-olds to help increase the supply of child care, which we have seen diminish under this Government.
Dr Thérèse Coffey: We have had this debate before in Westminster Hall. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the number of childminders fell under the previous Government? I realise that the point about quality has been made before; nevertheless, there were fewer childminders at the end of that Labour Government than at the start.
Catherine McKinnell: There are 3,000 fewer childminder places under this Government so I caution Government Members about trumpeting their success in this area, because it is far from a success for mums and dads who are struggling with soaring costs.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 217
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab): The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is right: we have discussed these matters at length before. Quality is important, and although the number of childminders has fallen in the past, if we want children to be properly looked after in a child care setting, we must ensure that setting is of the highest possible quality. Unfortunately, some childminders were not able to provide that high-quality care and did not want to continue. We are talking about the most vulnerable children who need high-quality care. Childminders who felt that they were not able to offer that any more and did not want to go through the Ofsted registration process might have been one reason behind that fall in numbers.
Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and heartfelt point and she touches on an important issue. We are talking about the quantity of child care that is available and the cost of that child care, but we must always factor in quality too.
Andrea Leadsom: I know that this is not an issue of party politics but a straightforward issue of quality, but I want to point out that over-regulation led many childminders to want to pull out of providing that care. I have spoken to many childminders who pulled out because of the complex box-ticking—the questions about what sort of doors they had, or what sort of facilities. The important thing for our society is that very young children should be cared for by people who genuinely love them and who will take good care of them. We risk the perfect being the enemy of the good if we go down the avenue of over-regulation.
Catherine McKinnell: I think we risk going down the road of debating the quality of child care and issues to do with Ofsted registration, but I would question some of the hon. Lady’s assertions about the requirements for regulation and the absolutely fundamental importance of ensuring the quality of all child care places, including those with childminders.
Let me return to the issue of child care costs, which is what our new clause 1 seeks to get the Government to address. Gavin Kelly, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, has pointed out in relation to the Government’s recent increase in the cap from £6,000 to £10,000 for tax free child care:
“About 80 per cent. of the gains from this will flow upwards to those in the top half of the income distribution. It’s also the case that it’s low- and middle- income parents who find the costs of childcare the biggest obstacle to taking on more work—so targeting support at them would make sense.”
I should be interested to hear the Minister explain how effective the scheme will be in supporting the very parents who need help the most. I should also be grateful if she could clarify the Treasury sums on tax-free child care because, welcome though any extra support is for families struggling with child care costs, it is curious that the Government have managed to tweak their sums so that an almost doubling of Government support per child has not cost even a penny extra.
I am sure that the IFS would also be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that question, as it has queried the matter. It said:
“Surprisingly, today’s announcements come with no new money. Extending the new Tax Free Childcare scheme to all children under 12 within its first year will cost money compared with a
8 Apr 2014 : Column 218
world where it was limited to children under 5, but the Treasury can make this announcement without altering its public spending plans because it has significantly revised down its estimate of how many families are likely to be eligible for the scheme (from 2.5 million to 1.9 million).”
It is not clear what has led to this dramatic change, so we cannot judge whether the new estimates are any more plausible than the initial ones, but the fact that the change is so large suggests that the Treasury would benefit from being more open about the way it costs new policies. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on these figures and how her Department arrived at them.
Ultimately, the simple truth is that, even if people spend enough to receive the full support, this help will not come until after the general election. That means no help with child care in five years from the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. Instead, Ministers have presided over soaring costs and cuts to tax credits for thousands of families, meaning that, even when this help comes, most families will still be worse off than in 2010.
Dr Thérèse Coffey: I recognise the hon. Lady’s genuine concern about working parents and her ambition that the Government get on with increasing child care, but she must recognise that the number of hours of child care has increased under this Government. She should be gracious enough to accept that.
Catherine McKinnell: It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentions that, because I will quote directly on this issue a little further on in my submission.
We know that the Government are good at con tricks, giving with one hand but taking much, much more with the other. For example, they made a U-turn last month when they decided to support 85% of child care costs for all universal credit claimants. That was a welcome reversal after the coalition decided in 2011 to cut the support for child care through the working tax credit from 80% to 70%—a decision that led to an average loss of £570 a year for low-paid working parents. It is just another example of this Government taking with one hand and giving with the other.
As Alan Milburn, chairman of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, has said, low-income families will still lose out, despite this increase in support for those most in need. He told The Independent on Sunday:
“The Government has taken half a step forward. The announcement that 85% of childcare costs will be met under universal credit from 2016 will help work pay for low-income families. This is very welcome. The sting in the tail is that this £200 million expansion in childcare support will come from within the universal credit programme…That risks robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Perhaps the Minister could also give a bit more detail on how she intends to pay for the increase in support. While she is at it, perhaps she could provide some clarity on when low-income families eligible for universal credit can expect to receive this support with their child care costs.
Under the original plans of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, most would have expected to receive the increased support when the tax free child care is introduced in 2015, but clearly that is not going to happen. Will the Minister clarify when the Government expect to introduce this support and whether it will be in the near future? Ultimately, as Opposition Members
8 Apr 2014 : Column 219
have made absolutely clear, parents facing a cost of living crisis will see through any child care con, because it does not make up for how much the families are now paying for child care under this coalition Government.
I come now to the first part of new clause 1 and the Opposition’s proposals for improving child care support, which we know will make a real difference to working parents. New clause 1 proposes that the Chancellor should undertake a review of the ways in which child care could be made more affordable before April 2015. We have done much of the work for him with our clear suggestions for supporting families on this pressing issue. We want to extend free child care for three to four-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents, which can be fully funded by increasing the bank levy. As with the 15-hour early-years entitlement, the new 25 hours would be for 38 weeks of the year, which would mean more than £1,500 of extra support per child each year. Perhaps most important, Labour’s plans will not demand that working parents spend £10,000 on child care in order to get the maximum promised help.
We also know that for school-age children, child care can become a logistical nightmare, with many parents increasingly struggling to find before and after-school child care, while the Government stick their fingers in their ears and hum. On the Government’s own record, 62% of parents of school-age children say that they need some form of before and after-school or holiday care in order to combine family life with work, but of those nearly three in 10 are unable to find it. To give parents of primary-age children peace of mind, the Opposition would set in law the guarantee that they could access wraparound child care from 8 am to 6 pm through their local school if they wanted it. This primary child care guarantee will benefit parents of primary-age children most, because those parents most need support. Of course, these plans will be in addition to all the support that parents will already receive, and they will not be contingent on spending thousands of pounds on child care in order to qualify.
At Prime Minister’s questions recently, following a Budget empty of any measures to address the problem now, I asked the Prime Minister to explain why his Government had failed to take the action to help parents with child care costs before the next general election. He answered:
“We are helping families with child care, not least by giving 15 hours…That is happening before the election; it has happened under this Government in this Parliament—15 hours of free nursery care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds…Opposition Members say it is not enough; it is more than Labour ever provided.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 344.]
That was not only a very complacent response but, unintentionally I am sure, misleading, and goes to show just how out of touch this Government are on this issue of child care.
The previous Labour Government introduced 12.5 hours of free nursery education for three to four-year-olds a decade ago, back in 2004, with the clear intention that that would be extended to 15 hours by 2010. Far from this being a coalition policy, the plan was inherited by the coalition from the previous Labour Government. As I set out, the future Labour Government will continue
8 Apr 2014 : Column 220
to build on this legacy, extend it to 25 hours a week for working parents, funded by an increase in the bank levy, and guarantee wraparound child care.
This was the Chancellor’s final opportunity to introduce policies that will really benefit parents before the general election, to give much needed support to working parents now, not in 18 months’ time. Parents have already seen their child care costs rise five times faster than their pay. They are already spending more on child care than on their mortgage. They have already seen the number of nursery places fall by thousands. They have already seen hundreds of Sure Start centres close, despite the Prime Minister’s promises to the contrary. Of course, most stay-at-home mums, as well as working parents, already see child care costs as one of the biggest barriers to their going back to work or increasing their working hours. A review of the issue is both due and urgent, and I commend new clause 1 to the Committee.
Mr Burrowes: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Essentially, she seeks to press a reset button in relation to a new Labour history—is it new Labour any more?—of child care. It seems that for Labour life started—or, it might say, ended—in 2010.
We did get to an element of truth at the end of the hon. Lady’s remarks when we heard reference to the previous Labour Government’s policies. When I came into Parliament in 2005, the Labour Government announced a new tax relief for child care benefits, which, as we heard, then went through various stages. In September 2009, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), fronted the extension of free child care for two-year-olds. We inherited those two policies. In the coalition Government’s first Budget, we confirmed that the previous Government’s measures were being taken forward. Therefore, any reference to the costs in 2010 must be a reference to the legacy of the previous Labour Government. By any logic, this coalition Government merely extended the previous Government’s policy on tax relief and free child care for two-year-olds. It is inappropriate, and a partial view of history, not to refer to the legacy inherited from the previous Government.
6.30 pm
I welcome the proposals on tax-free child care, not least the simplicity of accessing it. One of the big problems with the previous Government’s meddling relationship with child care was that it led to complexity and a lack of application and extension.
Bridget Phillipson: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong not to acknowledge the great strides forward that were made in child care in the 13 years of the Labour Government. For the first time, child care was taken seriously as a matter for Government. In the past, it had been regarded as a private family matter, but it is not; it allows women to play a full role in the economy. Perhaps he could acknowledge that in those 13 years many good things happened that supported women back into work and allowed children to take up these places.
Mr Burrowes:
I am a generous person, I hope, and I recognise that there were benefits, but we have to look at
8 Apr 2014 : Column 221
the history. Let us go back to 1990, when the then Chancellor, John Major, introduced the policy that meant employees would not be taxed on the benefits they received from using a nursery or play scheme provided by an employer. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to intervene to recognise the benefits of his proposal. He set in train a process to allow more affordable child care by ensuring that the tax system recognised the need to give benefits, in particular, to women who need to be out and working and to have affordable, accessible child care.
Andrea Leadsom: I certainly recall the efforts of Labour Members to try to sort out child care. I had two young boys at the time. I put my two little boys into a nursery and claimed the child tax credit vouchers, but then needed to get a nanny for them because my hours changed and the situation became impossible. It is rather like so many of the Opposition’s ideas: they might be all right in principle, but in practice they are absolute rubbish and do not meet the needs of our society.
Mr Burrowes: I am grateful for that robust intervention. There is obviously cross-party support for recognising that child care is a central and significant issue in dealing with parents’ ability to manage their budgets and go out to work.
The lack of affordable child care is one of the reasons for the increasing numbers of relatives looking after children, especially grandparents. Two thirds of grandparents—well over 5 million—regularly look after their grandchildren. It is important to recognise the wide variety of child care. As we properly extend formal child care, I encourage the Committee, and the Minister, to recognise the role and value of informal child care for the millions of parents and grandparents who are out there saving a lot of money—thousands of pounds a year—for working families. Yes, the cost of child care is one of the reasons for the increasing number of grandparents taking on this role, and it is an important factor in parents’ decisions, but the significance of grandparental child care cuts across many areas. One in three families relies on it; one in two single-parent families particularly relies on it. It is relied on especially by families with disabled children. Often they may be living nearby, perhaps on the margins of poverty. Grandparents play a very significant role in providing emotional, financial and practical support, often through short-term care in times of crisis which then extends into long-term care.
Black and minority ethnic households are more likely than other households to have a grandparent living under the same roof as the parents and the child, taking on caring responsibilities. As we extend formal child care, it is important to acknowledge the calls from vulnerable families in particular for more flexibility in terms of tax-free relief and, as has been said in other debates, unpaid leave for grandparents who are in work.
It is important to talk not just about pounds and pence, but about child care and development. A review on child development conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Nuffield Foundation asked parents to rank the factors that motivated them to ask grandparents to care for their children. The top-ranking factor was trust and just below it was love. We have to recognise that. Yes, more affordable child care is needed to relieve
8 Apr 2014 : Column 222
the strain on grandparents and other family members, but at the same time what parents want is for the person looking after their child, particularly in their early years, to have a trusting, loving relationship with them. The report was published in 2012, but it still holds good. It provided evidence that care from grandparents often results in high vocabulary and socio-emotional development.
It is obvious to parents and, indeed, those relatives and friends who know their children best, that the love and general interest shown by grandparent carers is invaluable. It is hard to quantify in financial terms, but it is certainly valuable. Relatives put themselves out on a personal level and that is what we want for all our children. We want them to have that type of care, whether it be in a nursery, from a childminder or, more often than not, from a grandparent or relative. We want them to receive that extra support on a personal level, which is of immense value to the child’s development and care.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): I am not knocking grandparents, who obviously play a valuable role in many cases, but there are studies that clearly show that grandparent care does not necessarily mean a higher level of early-years education for children, and that care in a formalised or trained setting can be better for child development.
Mr Burrowes: I appreciate that and I have looked at various parts of that evidence, but it is important to recognise that the Nuffield Foundation and IFS report noted that, while being in formal child care appeared to make children initially more school ready,
“being cared for by grandparents did not significantly put children at a disadvantage in school readiness compared to children not in formal childcare”.
Andrea Leadsom: I challenge the concept suggested by Opposition Members with regard to formal versus informal child care. It is incontrovertible neuroscience that a baby’s brain develops through being stimulated by the love of an adult carer, and that is what gives a baby its lifelong potential. Of course early-years education has its place, but in those very early, vulnerable periods in the first couple of years of a baby’s life, there is no doubt that the love of an adult carer—a primary or secondary attachment figure—is far more important than whether they are in a formal or informal child-care setting.
Mr Burrowes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on “The 1001 Critical Days”, which highlights the importance of attachment, care and attention. Parents seek to find such care in a formal as well as informal child-care setting, but the reality is that families, particularly disadvantaged families, rely on the help of grandparents and relatives who are close at hand.
Undoubtedly, the Government are right to take important steps to make child care affordable, because obviously one of the key routes out of poverty is work, which we all support, but we should also support quality child care in all its forms.
There is also a need for flexibility. I have been seeking to make the point that we must have a wider understanding of child care. It involves more than grandparents, because
8 Apr 2014 : Column 223
at least 300,000 children are cared for full time by relatives, friends or other people. That often starts in a crisis or an emergency, when friends and family members step in, particularly those in the extended family—perhaps an older sibling, an uncle or aunt. Those people may have their own challenges. They may be in work, but have to stop work to care for a friend’s or relative’s child. They may be on a pension giving a fixed income, and there may be a significant impact on them. We must therefore recognise that there is a considerable impact on carers. A significant number of children are cared for by that group of people.
It is therefore right for the Government to focus on encouraging more people into work and to ensure that it does pay to work. We must recognise the impact on families on different earnings. Reference has been made to poverty. Statistics from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation show that 52% of children living in poverty are in single-earner families. One answer to that is the straightforward one of providing the single earner’s spouse, through the opportunity of affordable child care, with the choice of going into work.
We must recognise the Government’s statistics. The “Childcare and early years survey of parents 2012-2013”, which was released this January, had some interesting findings on parents. It is important to recognise that 71% of parents at home were there by choice, while only 13% of them cited cost as a problem. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) speaks from a sedentary position. If she wants to intervene, she may do so. I am simply citing a Department for Education survey from January 2014. Some 37% of working mothers said that they would prefer to stay at home and look after the children if they could afford it, while 57% said that they would like to work fewer hours and spend more time looking after their children if they could afford it.
According to the Netmums survey on “The Great Work Debate”, which had some 4,000 respondents, 33% of part-time working mums said that they would prefer to be at home. I am not here simply to bang the drum, but it is interesting that when one raises the issue of stay-at-home mums, there is immediately an artificial dividing line between yummy mummies exercising a lifestyle choice and those unfortunate mothers and others who want to work. I know that hon. Members will not want to make such a distinction, but it does happen and it can be paraded in that way in the media.
As a Conservative, I believe in freedom and aspiration. Freedom must include freedom of choice. People should be free to work, and we must ensure that affordable child care is available for them. However, we must also recognise that a considerable number of parents want to be able to choose to be at home. That involves income strands, and income is particularly relevant, as I have highlighted. Households on lower income levels, which are on the margins of poverty or indeed in poverty, often want to call on relatives and friends or their own family structures to support them. It is important to allow them the choice and flexibility to do that, and to recognise the impact on such family members in the tax system.
We can all agree that we must support aspiration as well as freedom. Aspiration includes the aspiration
8 Apr 2014 : Column 224
to work, and the aspiration of mothers or indeed fathers who want to give up their career or take a cut in their income to care for their family at home. The question is about how we can provide support. We will have a similar debate tomorrow on the transferable married couple’s allowance, which would provide some recognition of that.
We can also all agree that raising children needs time. It needs time to cultivate relationships, and that can happen in a variety of forms. Such time is what many parents are striving for. Many parents look back on the fact that, because of all their other commitments, they did not have enough time to spend with their children. As Members of Parliament, we are probably the last people who should talk about that. We have our own concerns about that, and we can certainly declare an interest about our lack of time. I have six children, so I can understand that.
We also have to recognise that many parents—from looking at some surveys I would say most parents—want more choice and more opportunities to have time with their children. They also want to be sure that if they do not have the opportunity to care for their children at home because of the choices that they have to make, or if they prefer not to, there is a guarantee that they will be able to entrust their children’s care to others who will be able to give them the time and commitment that they need.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will make massive strides in providing support for affordable child care. However, let us ensure that we do not lose sight of the need for greater flexibility, freedom and aspirations for families, so that we can support good-quality child care whether it takes place in a formal setting or through grandparents, parents or other relatives.
6.45 pm
Meg Hillier: This is such an important issue that I hope we do not end up with a false party political divide. The new clause is a sensible and proportionate measure that we should all support, because it would not tie anyone to anything much. It simply suggests that we should assess the impact of changes to the tax and tax credits system, to ensure that we all work together to make the system fairer, simpler and more cost-effective for parents and better for children.
The issue of child care is about both supporting supply and ensuring that it is affordable for the user, and both parts of that need to be simple. We have seen problems in the system, because without subsidy at the supply end there is a disincentive to provide supply. I have suggestions about how we might address that through the tax system, which I will come on to later.
Governments of all parties often talk about the difference between child care and early years education, and we have heard a little of that divide in this debate. However, I am sure that all of us who have had experience of the matter would like to see the two combined in most cases. When Governments talk about early years education, which is inevitably expensive, they mean providing 15 or 25 hours a week, not the number of hours that would be needed for somebody to work full time. I recognise that that is unaffordable at the moment, although I have ambitions on the matter—I do not speak for my Front-Bench colleagues, but I have aspirations for what they will achieve in time.
8 Apr 2014 : Column 225
Child care needs to be different for different children. I will come to the issue of older children, but whether it is after-school care or pre-school care, flexibility is the key. I concur with the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), although not completely—she decided to rubbish the Labour Government’s achievements, and I will make no apology for what Labour achieved through Sure Start, with a massive increase in the quality and availability of child care and reductions in cost in many places. As she, I and other Members recognise, flexibility is vital, because people, particularly in London, do not work nine-to-five as much as is often believed.
Andrea Leadsom: I am moved to intervene as the chair of the all-party group on Sure Start children’s centres. I once wore a hat in the Chamber so that I could take my hat off to the Opposition for having created Sure Start. However, I hold to the fact that, brilliant as the idea was, there is still a huge amount to be improved on. I urge the hon. Lady to agree that we do not do nearly enough to focus on the developmental needs of the very young.
Meg Hillier: There is cross-party support for all of that, because I agree that Sure Start was a revolution in early years support. I felt that it should continue so that there was Sure Start at the ages of five and 11. We would stray off the debate if I got into that territory, but my constituency still has 37% of children living in poverty and it is a young constituency. Families of all backgrounds have used Sure Start, learned from each other and got support. Whatever their background, people have challenges with their children at an early stage, and children really have got a sure start. Titles of Government initiatives often become glib, but Sure Start meant something to me and to many of my constituents.
The London assembly Labour group carried out a study on the London cost of living, and it found that flexibility in child care was particularly important in London, where there are long commute times and variable hours. One of the benefits of the child care voucher system, which is not universal, is that where it has been taken up it has provided a good deal of flexibility for parents to buy into properly qualified, registered child care. Again, the study proposed by the new clause could investigate how to support quality through a tax voucher system. Of course, we have seen a reduction in tax credits, although I welcome and support what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said about the U-turn on universal credit paying 85% of child care costs. The key point is that we can have Government initiative after Government initiative, but parents want the system to be kept simple. They want to know what money they have to play with and where they can spend it, which means that both the supplier and the purchaser of a service, in this case the parent, can understand the system.
We need cross-party agreement so that we have a system that sticks and is not tinkered with time after time so that people do not have to work out, “Does that apply to me? My child is going to be that age on that date, so does it apply to them? Oh, they have missed that cut off by one day, so that whole term will be more expensive than it will be for the neighbouring child, who got in by one day.” There are all sorts of silly little bits
8 Apr 2014 : Column 226
of the system that make it complicated for people to understand. Such things can be disincentives for accessing child care and ensuring that people get the right support, particularly mothers who are going back to work.
I am a London Member, and the new clause would particularly benefit people in London, because child care costs in London are inevitably higher. The costs of premises are higher. Although there is a minimum wage, child carers are rightly paid more, and in London their wages will be higher than in other parts of the country. Research by child care site Findababysitter.com found that a quarter of parents in London who were not in work were prevented from getting a job because of high child care costs. The Resolution Foundation found that one in five mothers who were already employed would like to take on an extra 10 hours’ work a week on average but could not do so because they would need the commensurate extra child care—not just 10 hours extra but enough child care to allow them to travel to and from work.
A parent in London buying 50 hours of child care a week for a child under two would face an average annual bill of nearly £14,000, if they can find a child care setting that opens during the hours that they need to work. In the current climate, in which people are expected to work longer and harder for their money, 50 hours of child care is the bare minimum. Anyone who is not working regular hours, as the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, would need the flexibility of having someone come to their home, or a very flexible childminder. That might be manageable for a child under two, but things get much more complicated with children above that age who are looked after outside the home.
Just over a year ago, I called for child care to become a top priority, and it is heartening that we are having more debates on the issue, but talking about it does not mean that the Government are getting it right with the offer of so-called tax-free child care. I will not repeat the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, but the Government’s offer depends on how much people spend, and it is complicated for people to understand. I know a number of people on low incomes who have a simple approach to the tax system and who will find the proposal complicated. They will not benefit to the same extent because of the amount of child care that many of them will access because of their working hours.
I represent one of the youngest parliamentary seats in the UK. More than a fifth of residents are under 16 and more than a third, about 34%, are under 24, so child care is a big concern. I am stopped on the streets of Hackney South and Shoreditch by mums, childminders and others who want to raise that concern. When I ask any working parent what the toughest part is, they say that it is sorting out the child care, which is a logistical challenge as well as a financial challenge. I know that, because I am a working mother of three, and I am lucky to be well paid enough to buy in that flexibility. For anyone who does not have a salary as generous as mine, buying in that flexibility is very difficult.
Nationally, we know that 70% of working parents do not work nine-to-five Monday to Friday, and in London, because of the journey times, doing a full day’s work means long and expensive child care, if parents can get it. We have the most expensive system in the world. The
8 Apr 2014 : Column 227
review proposed in new clause 1 could consider examples from around the world. In Denmark, a day care Act means that local councils provide child care for all between 8 am to 5 pm, with parents and the Government—this is where new clause 1 would come in—contributing to the cost. Child care is free for families on the lowest incomes. The subsidy is tapered, depending on the family income—in this country, it would need to be done sensibly through the tax and tax credit systems—which means that three quarters, 76%, of Danish women are working. That is a huge improvement on the number of women working in the UK. I will touch on the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on women wanting to stay at home, but we need women to be economically active. This is not just about child care, but about giving women their rightful place in the work force. Hearteningly, women outnumber men in the Chamber at the moment. I applaud my male colleagues of all parties for being here, because this is not just a women’s issue. Women who play their equal role in society and in the work force are more satisfied, better role models and better parents as a result, if we make things as stress free as possible, which is about providing flexibility.
Andrea Leadsom: That is such a sweeping statement. It completely undermines those women who choose to do the utterly groundbreaking and profoundly valuable job of staying home to raise their children. The hon. Lady is not being fair to those people.
Meg Hillier: I will come to that point in a moment. I am saying not that women who want to stay at home and who can afford to do so should not make that choice, but that it is important that women have the choice to work and to be economically active and play their full role in society in that way. Even women who stay at home to look after their children for a period of their child’s early years may well need or want to work at a later stage. That choice is therefore important whatever stage we are talking about. We should not conflate being at home with a very young child under five with being at home all the time. Under the hon. Lady’s Government’s benefits system, parents have to work or they will seriously lose money, and their children will be pushed into greater poverty.
In Hackney South and Shoreditch, women’s average earnings are higher than men’s, which shows what could be achieved if that was applied across the workplace. A decent universal system of child care will pay for itself in the long run. More parents working and paying taxes, and not claiming tax credits and benefits, more than pay for the state’s investment. I do not speak for my party on this, but I hope that those who do take that mantle and look towards the overall goal of a universal free child care system that will pay for itself. That is an aim we need to work towards. If the Government agree to new clause 1, we will be set on a cross-party basis along that route. It would not solve the problem overnight or mean that things will be easy, but it would mean that we can look closely at the options.
As I have said, child care costs in London are higher than in the rest of the country. I will not go into the details but, for instance, a nursery place for an under
8 Apr 2014 : Column 228
two is £140 a week typically in London compared with a UK average of £109. I know many people who pay a lot more than that. There is an idea that people have choice, but it is not often the case. Many parents take the option of what is available at the time, which is why we need to provide incentives at the supply end.
I have a couple of suggestions that the study proposed in new clause 1 could consider. It could examine the idea of a London weighting in universal credit for the provision of child care. It could also consider more family-friendly approaches by employers. Practices such as working from home arrangements and on-site nurseries could be fuelled by tax breaks. Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, we would clearly need to monitor that to ensure that it was not abused, but the brilliant brains in the Treasury, including the Minister’s, could probably work through such a system.
We need to push private and public sector providers to extend the hours available to parents, particularly late in the evening and weekends. That could happen through a tax incentive or a tax break system. There are an awful lot of opportunities. The Minister is nodding. I am sure that she, as a working mum, will recognise the challenges and needs.
I commend to colleagues the London cost of living report by the London assembly Labour group. Although it is a Labour report, it can be read by other parties. I read it as a cross-party report. The Institute for Public Policy Research has done a big bit of work on child care. It has found that directly funding child care facilities, which happens in other European countries, can function better for parents and be more cost-effective, because there is a guarantee of a place. We have to monitor and ensure that the money is not wasted, but it would mean certainty for the supplier, which means certainty for the parent trying to buy.
I want to pick up on some of the comments made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate talked about the importance of informal child care and I think we would all agree with that. Any parent will use informal child care at some point, whether for an evening out or as part of a longer-term arrangement with grandparents. Let us be honest, though. Not every grandparent wants to take on child care. I meet grandparents, and those whose own parents are caring for their children, who say that they do not necessarily want to take on child care but feel they should to support their child. Many of those grandparents are young and give up work to look after their grandchildren. That is fine if it is a matter of choice, but it is a real issue if they feel they have to step in because of the lack of availability and options. There is a danger of creating generational issues. For every individual who wants to work but cannot, we reduce the tax take. We need to bear that in mind.
7 pm
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire talked movingly about the loving bond in early years. I completely agree that that is important, but it is not exclusive to informal or formal early years education or child care, and I hope she did not interpret any of my comments in that way. It is not either/or: love at home and in a child care setting are both very important. Of course, some children do not get that love in the home in the same way that others do, and some get it more in their child
8 Apr 2014 : Column 229
care setting. I will resist the temptation, Mr Amess, to thank all the fabulous child carers my children have had over the years in different settings, but when my children love their child carer I am happy about that, because I want them to be loved and happy when they are not with me. That should come in all settings, but I also want to ensure that they are getting the education and support that I am not there to give them when I am here in this Chamber discussing child care, rather than delivering it. No one disputes that a loving bond is necessary, but I think we would all agree it can come from all settings and, hopefully, in all cases.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate talked about choice. New clause 1 touches on this issue, particularly in relation to early years. Maternity leave, a great breakthrough of the Labour Government, is now allowed for a year. It is not paid in most cases for a year, although some generous employers do. We could consider proper paid maternity leave for a year to match the entitlement, so that mothers are not pushed to go back to work if their household income relies on their salary. Shared care is coming in, but even that does not necessarily solve the problem for women who really want to be at home with their children. I would have loved that. I did not have that option and I would love to see it for other women if it could be found to be affordable. There may be ways, through the tax system, to consider that.
Finally, tax incentives and simplification could be extended to childminders and other flexible child care, as I touched on earlier. Childminders are a backbone for many parents in providing flexible child care. Thankfully, childminders are now professionalised so we do not have cowboys in the business. I pay tribute to the 40 very active childminders in our childminders’ network in Hackney who bang the drum positively for quality child care. They are small business women—I think they are all women—and there may be ways to encourage more people to be childminders by making it simpler to set up that sort of business. This is not a point about regulating the quality of child care—I am firmly of the view that that is vital—but there may be ways of making the tax paperwork easier. That could be easily considered if new clause 1 was adopted. I would also like to see support for alternative models, such as social enterprises and co-ops, by making sure that the tax system allows support for them as suppliers.
New clause 1 is proportionate and measured. It does not ask the Government to spend a lot of money or commit to a great deal. It asks them to set the ball rolling, so that we can have an open and honest debate on the costs and benefits of child care. We need to consider carefully and closely what incentives can be brought in through the tax system and how they could impact on both supply and demand. That would be a good start and a good basis for us all to work from, so that at the next general election every politician—not just the women who form the majority in the Chamber today—and the party leaders will be talking about child care as a vital issue for the future of our country.
Andrea Leadsom: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), with whom I agree on many aspects of early years.
The first thing I want to say is that children are everything to those of us who have them, and to those
8 Apr 2014 : Column 230
of us who have young nieces, nephews and grandchildren. Children are at the centre and heart of our world. They make incredibly selfish human beings become extraordinarily unselfish. It is when a child is about to get run over that a parent gets superhuman strength to push them out of the way. People are capable of the most enormous sacrifices for the sake of their children. It is clear to us all that top quality child care is vital.
In my case, with three kids of my own—aged 18, almost 16 and 10—I have had just about every form of child care that can be imagined. I was fortunate to start off with my stepfather acting as my nanny until my second son was five years old. Therefore, I thoroughly recommend informal child care. There are not many childminders who will take two little boys out—one in a backpack, one in a frontpack—and explain to them for hours what a worm cast is, build little toy forts and play with toy cars. Even today, I cannot get to Parliament until I have dropped one off at a friend’s, sorted out another with some A-level revision and got the third out of his bed, basically. For us, particularly mums, our children and the child care at whatever age they are—I talk to people with older children who are still looking for food, money or a taxi service—are at the centre of our lives. We all spend a lot of time thinking about the safe and happy lives of our children. Child care is a vital part of whatever we can offer to support those at work in our society.
We also need to support thoroughly the choices that families want to make. They may want an au pair and to deal with someone who is living in and who, perhaps, does not speak very good English. I asked one au pair I had to make a salad. She peeled some parsnips and gave us the peel, nicely dressed, as a salad. That was an interesting one. There are also childminders although, sadly, not nearly enough of them. There is also the formal child care setting; some truly superb, others truly awful. Unfortunately it was the formal child care setting—the nurseries—that led to the old joke about “hair or care”; in other words, someone not smart enough to be a hairdresser could try to become a nursery nurse. That was the reality 10 years ago where some young girls—themselves barely out of their teens—would become the carers looking after our very young children in nurseries. Care for our children comes in all shapes and sizes.
I also want to say a word on behalf of those heroic mums—I would have loved to have been one—who have stayed home and looked after their children themselves, giving up potentially lucrative, satisfying and successful careers. They might feel very depressed about their lack of self-worth, certainly in the eyes of too many politicians. I want to pay tribute to those women who decide to stay home and raise their own children.
Meg Hillier: I just want to go back to the point about au pairs and others. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that with the cost of housing and the overcrowding in many cases in London, the idea of someone living in your home is not an option, which is why the formal setting is particularly important in a city such as London?