[News] Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 25 June 11.30am

UKParliament

Note - This is an alert for upcoming business inside the Chamber of the House of Commons. It is posted here due to the diverse range of topics it covers. We encourage discussion and comments concerning the topic or content of the debate.

The debate will be streamed live on Parliament.tv Player
(Silverlight or Windows Media Player required to stream live TV)

Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
To take place on Tuesday 25 June at 11.30am following prayers. Oral questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The questions drawn for Tuesday's question time include:

*2: Jason McCartney (Colne Valley): What assessment he has made of the effect of the pensions triple lock on pensioners. (161219)

*4: John Howell (Henley): What assessment he has made of the effect on living costs of changes to the personal allowance. (161221)

*6: Laura Sandys (South Thanet): What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector. (161223)

*7: Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on fiscal incentives for the construction of affordable housing. (161224)

*10: Andrew George (St Ives): What progress he has made on implementing the housing market measures announced in Budget 2013. (161227)

*12: Ian Mearns (Gateshead): What recent estimate he has made of the rate of increase of average earnings compared to the rate of consumer price inflation. (161229)

*15 : Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts): What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of long-term unemployment. (161232)

*16 : Richard Graham (Gloucester): What progress he has made on his policy to withdraw child benefit payments from higher earners. (161233)

*18 : Mr David Amess (Southend West): What recent fiscal steps he has taken to support small businesses. (161235)

For the full list of questions please go to: Oral or Written Questions from Tuesday 25 June 2013

Please note - it may not be possible for all questions to be asked in the time allocated. If questions are similar, the Minister will group them together and answer them collectively.

If the Chancellor does not have time to answer all the questions tabled, he will provide a written response to the MP and this response will also be available in Hansard – the written record of the House of Commons.

At 12.15pm: Topical Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Topical questions will last for 15 minutes. During the 'topical questions' slot, MPs can ask supplementary questions on any subject relating to the department's responsibilities.

Transcripts of proceedings in the House of Commons Chamber are available three hours after they happen in Today's Commons Debates

Which questions being asked to the Chancellor are you most interested in hearing the response to?

UKParliament

The transcripts for the responses to yesterday's Question Time to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now available on the Parliament website.

There is not enough time for the Chancellor to answer all questions during the hour-long question session so those that were not answered were provided with written answers.

Those questions answered by the Chancellor inside the Chamber of the House of Commons are available on House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jun 2013

Questions with a written response can be found on House of Commons Written Answers for 25 Jun 2013

To watch Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer please go to Parliament.uk Player.

UKParliament

2. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effect of the pensions triple lock on pensioners. [161219]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): The triple lock means that the level of the full basic state pension is now £6.85 a week higher than it would have been if it had been uprated only by earnings since 2011-12. That equates to about £356 a year. The average person reaching state pension age in 2013 with a full basic state pension can expect to receive an additional £12,000 in basic state pension over their retirement, thanks to the triple lock.

Jason McCartney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the triple lock will prevent a repeat of the disgraceful situation in which pensioners received a pension increase of only 75p?

Danny Alexander: I certainly can confirm that. Putting in a floor of a 2.5% increase in the basic state pension will prevent that disgraceful situation, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, thanks to the triple lock, the basic state pension now represents a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992.

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op): Let me be clear that we on the Opposition Benches do support the triple lock on pensions. However, at a time when our NHS and social care are under such pressure, why do the Government think it is a priority to continue to pay the winter fuel allowance to the richest 5% of pensioners?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Lady says that Opposition Members support the triple lock, but they did not introduce it when they were in office. The shadow Chancellor wishes to include the basic state pension in his short-term cap of welfare spending. Let me tell the Labour party what that might mean. Last year, the welfare forecast increased by £2.3 billion; if the pension had been included in the welfare cap, as the shadow Chancellor suggests, it would have meant freezing the basic state pension this year, not increasing it as planned. That is what Labour really means on pensions. I am certainly willing to look at the payment of winter allowance to wealthy pensioners; I am sure it will be a matter to discuss at the next election.

UKParliament

4. John Howell (Henley) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effect on living costs of changes to the personal allowance. [161221]

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): It was announced in Budget 2013 that the Government would increase the annual personal allowance by a further £560 to £10,000 in April 2014, thus meeting a key coalition commitment a year ahead of schedule. By that date, as a result of the combined effects of all personal allowance increases under this Government, a typical basic-rate taxpayer will have gained by more than £700 a year in cash terms.

John Howell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way of tackling this issue is to put cash into people’s pockets, and that taking 2.7 million people out of tax altogether is an excellent way in which to proceed?

Mr Gauke: I do agree. What we have done is quite a contrast with what was done by the last Government, who increased the amount of income tax that some low earners would have to pay by £232. Now the equivalents of those people have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): If everything is better for the average family, why did the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the average family was £891 worse off? Was the IFS wrong?
Mr Gauke: We do not accept those figures. What I will say is that we have been prepared to tackle the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. We have taken measures to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing, with no help from the Labour party, which has opposed every measure that we have taken to do that.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have taken 3,000 low-income people out of tax altogether in my constituency, and have cut taxes for 40,000 low-income residents? Is this not a Government who are on the side of the poor?

Mr Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He could have added—and I am surprised that he did not do so—that we have taken action on fuel duty as well.

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): Money in people’s pockets is one thing, but since the financial crash, food prices have increased by 18% compared with inflation of 13%. It is not just a question of the money in people’s pockets; it is also a question of what they have to pay when they go to the shops. Does the Minister really believe that families in my constituency feel that they are better off?

Mr Gauke: It is because of the need to deal with the cost of living that we have taken measures such as controlling increases in council tax. That is why fuel duty is lower than it was in the plans that we inherited, and why we have taken the measures that we have taken in regard to the personal allowance. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is muttering about VAT. Let us be clear about this. Labour Members did not vote against VAT; then they said they were against VAT. Last week they said that they would not change VAT; now the shadow Chancellor is complaining about VAT. It is just chaos and confusion from the Labour party.

UKParliament

6. Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector. [161223]
14. Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD): How many jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010. [161231]

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): Private sector employment has been growing robustly, with 1.3 million jobs created in the sector since the start of 2010. At Budget 2013, we announced the £2,000 employment allowance, which will support businesses aspiring to grow by hiring their first employee or expanding their work force. Businesses will be able to employ four adults or 10 18 to 20-year-olds full time on the national minimum wage without paying any employer national insurance contributions at all.

Laura Sandys: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of an enterprise zone and a regional growth fund that has been supporting jobs in my area following the Pfizer closure, and which the Chancellor very kindly opened, has delivered 750 new jobs in one year? We hope to be announcing a further 200 jobs in the next couple of weeks. Does that sound like a private sector success?

Mr Gauke: It certainly does, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done for her constituency. Discovery Park is proving to be a success, with help from the regional growth fund and as an enterprise zone—and long may that success continue.

Simon Wright: The 2010 autumn statement confirmed the dualling of the A11, raising investor confidence in Norwich as a destination for growth. May I urge Treasury Ministers to be similarly bold in their spending review in relation to the A47, where investment has the potential to create up to 10,000 more jobs for the region?

Mr Gauke: I am grateful for that question, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be listening attentively to any announcements made later on in the week. His constituency is another example of where private sector growth has been very strong, reflecting the national pattern.

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): How many jobs will high-speed rail create?

Mr Gauke: Over time, tens of thousands.

Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): Following the success of last week’s G8 summit, Northern Ireland is now looking forward to the international investment conference in October. Will the Treasury work closely with the Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we maximise private sector investment in Northern Ireland, both in 2013 and 2014?

Mr Gauke: Yes, absolutely. There needs to be a much stronger private sector in Northern Ireland, as has been accepted by this Government and by all the parties in Northern Ireland.

UKParliament

10. Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): What progress he has made on implementing the housing market measures announced in Budget 2013. [161227]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): The Government have made excellent progress in implementing the measures. For example, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme has helped 4,000 individuals and families reserve a new build home already and the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme will be in place by January 2014.

Andrew George: In high house price and low wage areas such as mine, where four times more properties are sold to second home buyers than to first-time buyers, intermediate market solutions—shared equity and affordable homes with section 106 planning restrictions—are often the only way for local families to get a toe on the housing ladder, yet the equity loan scheme does not have the rules to enable them to take advantage of it. Will the Government reconsider the rules to help local people in such circumstances?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. He will have upmost in his mind the fact that under Labour, house building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s. The Government are supporting hard-working households who have saved but who do not have a large deposit from the bank of mum and dad to help in buying their own home. The Help to Buy equity loan scheme he mentioned will help 74,000 families and has already helped 4,000. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that 20% of the £1.8 billion of additional funding we have promised for affordable homes will go to shared ownership.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the Help to Buy scheme help to increase the supply of housing? I am not talking about buying capacity; will it specifically increase the supply of housing?

Sajid Javid: The short answer is that it most certainly will, and it has been welcomed by the Home Builders Federation. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is now concerned about the issue. House building fell to its lowest levels since the 1920s under the previous Government. The number of affordable homes decreased by 421,000 over 13 years and local authority waiting lists almost doubled from 1 million to 1.8 million under Labour—a shameful record.

UKParliament

15. Pamela Nash: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on the level of long-term unemployment. [161232]

Sajid Javid: The UK labour market is showing some signs of recovery with more people in work than under any previous government. To support long-term and vulnerable jobseekers, the Government launched the Work programme in June 2011, which has delivered personalised support to around 850,000 people so far, as well as an intensive regime of post-Work programme support for the very long-term unemployed from June 2013.

UKParliament

12. Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of the rate of increase of average earnings compared to the rate of consumer price inflation. [161229]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): The best way to deal with today’s cost of living challenges is to have paid employment. In 2012, the number of people employed in the UK has risen faster than most of our competitors, including the US, France, Germany and Japan. As a result, household income has risen by 2.1% more than consumer prices over the past year.

Ian Mearns: Despite what the Minister has just said, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that living standards for many will be lower in 2015 than they were in 2010. Is it not the case that, while the rich and super-rich benefit from tax cuts, working people and their families are worse off? Is not the truth that we are not all in it together?

Sajid Javid: No, certainly not. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The hon. Gentleman became a Member of Parliament in 2010, and he will know that in the last term of the stewardship of the previous Government, his constituency saw paid employment fall, and unemployment rise by a staggering 67%. Paid employment is the best way to raise living standards, and 1.3 million new private sector jobs have been created in the past three years. More people are in employment than at any other time in the history of this country.

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): On living costs and standards, can my hon. Friend tell me how much more my constituents would have to pay to fill a tank with petrol if we had adopted the previous Government’s fuel price rises?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend highlights an important point. We scrapped Labour’s fuel duty escalator; we have frozen their escalator. Petrol prices are 13p per litre lower than if he we had kept the policies of the previous Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Does the Minister see any correlation between wages being £1,300 a year less than they were at the time of the election and the number of people who are in work turning up at food banks?

Sajid Javid: What I see is jobs being created in the private sector at a record rate in this country—1.3 million jobs in the past three years; a faster rate of job creation than any other G7 country last year. If the hon. Gentleman really cared about his constituents, he would welcome that.

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): What has the effect been of Government policies not just on petrol but on keeping interest rates low, freezing council tax, cutting income tax and helping pensioners?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of interest rates. If we had not had a credible policy to deal with the record budget deficit that the previous Government left behind, interest rates would be a lot higher. In fact, in the last Budget delivered by them, interest payments on Government debt would have been £30 billion higher in this Parliament. If interest rates were just 1% higher, mortgages would rise by almost £1,000 a year for the average household.

UKParliament

16. Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): What progress he has made on his policy to withdraw child benefit payments from higher earners. [161233]

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke): In January 2013 a new income tax charge was introduced to reduce or remove the financial benefit of receiving child benefit for those on high incomes. For taxpayers with incomes between £50,000 and £60,000, the amount of the charge is a proportion of the child benefit received. For taxpayers with income above £60,000, the amount of the charge is equal to the amount of child benefit received. Eighty-five per cent. of families with children continue to benefit in full from child benefit. Entitlement to child benefit payments remains universal and will continue to be paid to all those who claim it.

Richard Graham: I am delighted to hear about the savings that will be achieved, especially given that those of us who supported them were told by the Labour party that they would destroy the universal principle, and that they were complicated, unfair and unworkable. It now appears that they are workable, and the Opposition have accepted that they will not change the policy. Will my hon. Friend share with us what vital provision of services those savings can achieve, and will he also consider means-testing the winter fuel allowance?

Mr Gauke: There is a substantial saving to the Exchequer through child benefit. It was not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition said that millionaires should receive child benefit because
“it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits”.
It appears that that is no longer the case, although all we have is briefing. On winter fuel payments, the Prime Minister made it clear that they would continue in the course of this Parliament and we will fulfil that commitment.