Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

When we had the referendum result, and given the bitterness that existed during the referendum, I had absolutely no doubt that, despite the overwhelming vote, we were going to see guerrilla warfare conducted against the will of the people of the United Kingdom. We have seen it over the past year and a half—fall-outs in this place and fall-outs in TV studios, newspapers and so on. The amendments to this Bill fall into one of those two categories. People will give a whole variety of reasons, but, basically, they want to move amendments to this Bill to keep us in the institutions of the EU, which has bound us for so many years and from which people voted to be free. On the other side, there are those who wish to remain true to the vote of the people and make sure that everything is done to deliver on the promises that were made during the referendum.

Unfortunately, Northern Ireland, which has featured in nearly every speech here tonight, has been caught in the crossfire of that guerrilla warfare between those who wish to keep us in the EU and those who wish to honour the result of the referendum. The Northern Ireland border, the Good Friday agreement and the peace in Northern Ireland have been thrown around willy-nilly. To be quite frank, the people of Northern Ireland feel abused in this whole process. I have heard people in this place talk about the Belfast agreement as if it were their bedtime reading. They probably do not even know what the document looks like.

It has been suggested that if we do not abide by those who wish to keep us in the customs union and the single market, we will have a hard border in Northern Ireland, which will affect the peace. I do not know what this hard border will look like, but I can tell Members one thing: if they think that a couple of border posts along the main road at Newry, the main road into Londonderry and the main road into Enniskillen will represent a hard border that will somehow protect the EU from the incursion of goods that they do not want, then they do not even understand what it means. It could be that they think that a hard border means a minefield around the border with watchtowers so that no lorries can sneak across the 300 or so roads, or that people cannot build sheds in the middle of field where they put goods in one side in Northern Ireland and they come out the other side in the Irish Republic. It is a ridiculous suggestion, yet it is thrown at us all the time.

We heard the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talk about the impact on the border and that the World Trade Organisation would insist on the provisions because it would have to protect trade. The Irish Republic currently brings in goods from the rest of the world. Does it stop every container that comes in? No, it does not. Does it stop 10% of the containers? No, it does not. It does not even stop 1%. In fact, Gambia stops more trade coming through its borders than the Irish Republic stops. The idea that, somehow or other, every good that comes into the EU via Northern Ireland and then the Republic will have to be stopped does not even match with common-day practice.

When it comes to collecting taxes, 13,000 lorries a year cross the border carrying drink to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is duty to be collected on that, but not one of them is stopped because the duty is collected electronically through pre-notification and trusted trader status. We can protect the border and meet WTO rules without having all the kinds of paraphernalia suggested here tonight.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there seem to be an awful lot of people who do not really understand what goes on at the border now. Why would anyone who supports Northern Ireland even think of voting against new clause 37 tonight? The new clause clearly puts it out there that we want Northern Ireland to be treated the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, so in voting against it, people would actually be supporting the Republic of Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the whole point of new clause 37. First, it would deliver on the promises made by the Government; it puts those promises into law. Secondly, it would avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom and the kind of nonsense that we are going to hear from the Scottish National party—that we can redefine the United Kingdom to exclude Northern Ireland when it comes to trade issues. Of course, that would be against the Belfast agreement, because the Belfast agreement does not actually say a great deal about borders, but it says a lot about the integrity of the United Kingdom—that it cannot be changed by diktat from the EU or by demands from Dublin. It can only be changed with the will of the people of Northern Ireland. Yet the suggested backstop arrangement is at the behest of the EU, which seems to disregard the most important part of the Belfast agreement and has destabilised Northern Ireland as a result.

Customs and Borders

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That is right. Many of these manufacturing towns and areas may well have voted to leave the European Union, but they will also argue strongly for support for manufacturing jobs within their communities. We should be listening to their voices.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; she has been very generous. If she wants to unite the House on staying in “the” customs union, or “a” customs union, would it not be much better to show the European Union that we are united in wanting a free trade deal, instead of giving the EU the opportunity to play us off against one another?

[Yvette Cooper]

A customs union should be at the heart of that free trade agreement. Whatever the trading or future partnership agreement should be with Europe ––and we clearly need a close, continuous trading arrangement––my argument is that, for the sake of manufacturing and of Northern Ireland, a customs union should be the central part of it. That is what is in our interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I very much think that I will not need to take cognisance of your allowing me longer than Members who will speak later.

I see the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—my constituent—regularly and I congratulate him on his speech. He said that he agreed with every single word of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who moved the motion, and I can say—very carefully—that he will probably not agree with a single word that I say. I feel a little alone today. We will have an important debate about this issue in a few weeks’ time, when there will be a very different tone in the Chamber, and I hope that saying my few words today will not stop my being called when it comes to our real debate on this issue.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said in the final sentence of his speech that we should stay in the customs union and the single market, but there is no doubt that he was really saying that we should stay in the EU. I am afraid that a lot of Members in the Chamber are using the issue of the customs union as a way of restarting the process of trying to stay in the EU. They will not achieve that, but they are sending a message that the European Union will love. The EU will love seeing such division in this Parliament and that we cannot unite in telling it that we want a proper agreement in which we do not need tariffs and under which we can work with the EU as we would want to work with the rest of the world.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but then I will not give way an awful lot.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady does not normally use a European debate to make the allegation that this is just a subtle way of staying in the EU and defying the referendum. She will recall that during our eight days in Committee on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, no amendment was tabled as an attempt to stay in the European Union. Nobody has cast a vote in this House to stay in the European Union. Although there have been only two speeches so far, there have been many interventions, and nobody has stood up to demand that we stay in the European Union. Of course, the private opinion of many Members—the majority, I think—is that it would be better if we stayed in the European Union, but we are working on the premise that, if we do leave, we must minimise the damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

My point, of course, is that if we were to stay in the customs union, that would be seen as a transition before going back in again. For a start, staying in a customs union is not taking back control of our trade, and I will come back to that in a moment.

Members who want to stay in the single market have lost that argument because the previous Prime Minister was very clear in public, on television and in the House that a vote to leave the European Union would be a vote to leave the single market. The public who voted to leave, and even those who voted to remain, understood that a vote to leave was a vote to give up the treaties of the European Union. Within those treaties, of course, is where we find the customs union.

I have been in this place long enough to remember the great and wonderful MP for Eton and Slough, Joan Lestor. She was a principled and doughty champion of the developing world. I remember, and have since looked up, one of the speeches she made back in 1971 opposing the UK joining the European Economic Community. I cannot remember whether the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was here in 1971—I know he was here a very long time ago—but he knew Joan Lestor well. Sadly, she is no longer with us. It is worth reading part of that speech:

“The political significance of British entry into Europe will have far-reaching effects upon the third world, the developing world.

Because of the protectionist policies of E.E.C. we shall not close the narrow channels between the rich and poor nations but rather widen them. Much has been said about the ability of E.E.C. to increase assistance to the developing world and to guarantee that the Community will continue to be outward looking in the future.

I cannot understand—and nobody has explained this to me from either side of the House—how an organisation like E.E.C., which everybody agrees is based on a protective tariff wall to which this country must agree as part of the price of entry and which will mean erecting a fresh tariff barrier against helping other parts of the world, can be said to be outward-looking. I do not believe the interests of the E.E.C. are identical with the interests of the smaller, developing and weak nations of the world.”—[Official Report, 21 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 954.]

I will take Members back a little further to 1962—I genuinely do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was here then—and the words of Clement Attlee:

“I think that integration with Europe is a step backward. By all means let us get the greatest possible agreement between the various continents, but I am afraid that if we join the Common Market we shall be joining not an outward-looking organisation, but an inward-looking organisation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1962; Vol. 244, c. 428.]

All these years later, some things have changed, but the European Union is still an inward-looking organisation. Do we really want our future arrangements to be tied to that?

The EU customs union is not a progressive policy, and it is certainly not one that anyone who vaguely calls themselves of the left should desire to retain. That is probably why there are so few customs unions in the world. The protectionist external tariff around the entire European Union prevents poor developing countries from accessing our markets on equal terms, as many of us saw when we met members of the Commonwealth who were here last week. They are desperate for the changes that would come about if we were no longer in the customs union. For months if not years, we have heard the people behind the motion proclaiming that the EU market is singularly valuable, yet this policy denies the poorest people in the world the ability to freely trade with us or with the rest of the EU market. To make matters worse, the tax paid is largely siphoned off to Brussels, with UK consumers seeing little or no return.

In 2018, surely we want the development and growth of the poorest nations so that they are successful through trade, not reliant on aid. The customs union is a deliberate and persistent barrier to realising that. Outside the customs union, the UK could immediately reduce or remove these tariffs, becoming a great friend to the world’s poor.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady but, with respect, she is rehearsing familiar arguments. What is her answer to the point on Northern Ireland that has been expressed?

[Kate Hoey]

The hon. Gentleman might remember that not a single person who has spoken so far has even mentioned this, so I urge a little patience.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We spend a lot of time in this Chamber developing new regulations and rules that put costs on business. They might be environmental regulations, workplace regulations or animal welfare regulations. If the hon. Lady is talking about doing a free trade deal with nations that do not have such high standards, would she not be putting UK businesses at a significant disadvantage?

[Kate Hoey]

There is an issue there, but it is something that we can solve through negotiation and discussion. We do not solve it by putting up an immediate barrier to countries that desperately want to benefit from trading with us but are currently prevented from doing so.

The public’s expectation when they voted to leave, or even when they voted to remain, was that if we chose to leave, we would regain our trade policy. I do not think that we can do that other than outside the regressive customs union.

I will move on to Northern Ireland in a moment, but let me respond to a number of points that have been made in various ways. Why should we not want to trade with the rest of the world? Why are we being weak? Why can we not get our own trade deals? The EU takes so long to get a trade deal. We have seen how long it has taken, and we can do so much better.

[Ruth George]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Hoey]

I will not. Well, I had better give way to one Member from my own side.

[Ruth George]

Businesses in my constituency have expressed huge concern that, when we leave the EU, we will cease to receive the preferential tariffs that we currently enjoy with 188 countries outside the EU. Those businesses will cease to have the same competitive level playing field with EU countries that they have now, and by the time we have these free trade agreements, they will have lost their trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

The problem with our staying inside a customs union is that we would then be subject to the decisions of a European Union of which we are not a member. Let us not forget that many businesses in this country do not trade with the EU at all, but are bound by all the rules, regulations and paraphernalia that go with EU membership. In any kind of customs union, I cannot see that the EU would allow the kind of things for which some of my colleagues are pushing.

While the EU accounts for 40% of our trade, that is because the arrangements imposed on us by our EU membership concentrate trade within this protectionist block. Although the proportion of our trade with the rest of the world is rising, I believe that the customs union holds us back and we could be doing so much better. We do not seem to have much confidence in our own country and our own businesses. Despite what the EU has insisted on, those businesses have still managed to export, trade and do very well. We could do so much better if we were outside the customs union.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Kate Hoey]

Oh, all right.

[Mr Clarke]

I will not intervene again, I promise. It is very courteous of the hon. Lady to give way.

Let us look at China as an important market. Germany exports four or five times as much—I am probably understating it—to China as the United Kingdom does. It is not held back in some curious way by being in the EU, and nor is the growth of all our trade with the wider world held back in the slightest by the customs union or the single market.

[Kate Hoey]

The right hon. and learned Member and other Members have said that, and we have to make a lot of changes in this country to ensure that we can do much better than has been the case inside the European Union, but being outside the EU and the customs union will be almost a catalyst by ensuring that our businesses have that opportunity and freedom to do better than they are doing at the moment.

Those people who pushed for the Norway option during the referendum campaign and even since seem to forget that Norway is outside the customs union and is doing well. In fact, when I went to a conference in Norway recently, the feeling among people there was that they wanted to get out of the European economic area as well. They are looking to us to make a successful transition from the EU and they will probably follow us.

[Helen Goodman]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Kate Hoey]

No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend.

I should like to move on to the issue of the border and Northern Ireland. Under the Tony Blair Government, I was one of those who went over and campaigned for a yes vote. I was very keen to see what happened happen, and I pay tribute to all those who made that happen. There is no doubt that there is an issue relating to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but the European Union is seizing on divisions to pursue certain demands that are just not necessary. It is certainly using the Irish border as an issue with regard to the customs union. EU officials recently said that they had systematically and forensically annihilated the Prime Minister’s proposals for a loose customs arrangement, but in fact they did not do that—they simply refused to discuss any creative compromise. They talk down every British proposal, and they are being helped by some in this Parliament who talk down everything positive that is said about what might be done. Proposals are talked down and talked down.

People need to remember that there is already a legal border in Northern Ireland for excise, alcohol, tobacco, fuel duty, VAT, immigration, visas, vehicles, dangerous goods and security. Indeed, the primary function of the hard border of the past was to be a security border, not a customs border. People forget that because they want to forget what happened during those long years of troubles. Today all those border functions are enforced without any physical infrastructure, so adding customs declarations and marginally divergent product standards to the long list of functions that the border already implements invisibly does not require a huge, drastic change to the nature of the border.

Even in the most complicated area—agriculture —the director of animal health and welfare at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already given evidence to Parliament that sanitary and phytosanitary-related risks would not be altered by Brexit from what the authorities are already managing across the border pre-Brexit, and that additional infra- structure at the border would not be needed. There are already cameras—not at the border itself, but further away—and checks are going on all the time. There is intelligence all the time. There is no reason why businesses on both sides of the border that need to move back and forth every day will have any problem.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I can assure her that I do not forget the appalling years before the signing of the Good Friday agreement.

Will the hon. Lady please address the worrying issue that, if there is in any shape or form a harder border than what we have at the moment, Sinn Féin will exploit that and agitate for a border poll, which would jeopardise Northern Ireland’s constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom? I, as a Unionist, will not tolerate that, and we need to be careful that we address that issue.

[Kate Hoey]

Of course Sinn Féin would love a border poll, but as the hon. Lady knows, there are regulations about when a border poll can be held, and there has to be a certain ratio of contentment before that can happen. It is almost as if we are being blackmailed by Sinn Féin and those who have been responsible for violence in the past. It is as if we have to shape our whole economic policy and future according to whether some dissidents will start to do dreadful things again. That is not how we should tackle it. We should take those people on and put them in jail, and we should make sure that decent, ordinary people can go about their lives without being attacked and threatened by the idea that if we do not do Brexit in a particular way, terrorism will start again.

[Hywel Williams]

At the recent meeting of the Brexit Committee in Northern Ireland, the Deputy Chief Constable said that he was absolutely against a physical border post. Was he blackmailing us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

No, he was not at all. The problem is that people think of a hard border as big cameras, lights, structures and so on. I remember those, as does my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon); we all remember what that looked like. No one is talking about having that again, but some people are using it as a way to change the fact that the people of this country voted to leave the EU, the single market and the customs union.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

No.

I believe that the EU is using the border to try to change our policy. It is obviously unhappy that we are leaving and is doing everything possible. It is being helped by the Irish Government, but the Irish Government should be terribly worried that we will end up with no deal, which is not what anyone wants, because that would really hammer the Republic of Ireland. Varadkar and the Irish Government should get in there and use their position to get the European Union to see some common sense. Such a small proportion of total European Union trade relates to the Republic of Ireland, yet the Irish Government have got into a position where it is their country that the European Union is listening to.

There is a whole dishonesty about the debate in this Parliament, and I hope we do not see that. I mean that not in the sense of people being dishonourable, but in the sense that we are not really saying what we want to say. I hope that I am saying what I want to say: we should leave the customs union and the single market—that was what people voted for. The country will recognise the way in which the debate is now being pushed by those who fought so hard to remain, and people will see though that. We have to go ahead with getting out of the EU, getting our trade deals, getting our laws, and not being subject to the European Court of Justice, which we would have to be if we stayed in the customs union. I hope that today will be the preparation for what will be a very big and serious debate in a few weeks’ time.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Canary Wharf Bombing: Compensation

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and commend him for securing this important debate on a subject that is of particular importance to his constituents and on which he has campaigned consistently. I also commend the hon. Members from four different political parties who are attending this debate.

The docklands bombing of February 1996 was an horrific event—a black day for London and the United Kingdom. I add my condolences to all those whose lives were affected by the terrible events that day. The horror will not be forgotten. Two people died and 39 were injured, some permanently. It was a breaking of the IRA ceasefire and a failure of humanity. The involvement and support of the Gaddafi regime in this and other events marks a low point even in Gaddafi’s reign of terror. It is right that those whose lives were affected by these senseless bombings seek redress and compensation, and we will do what we can to ensure they get it. I know how important this issue is to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members who are here today.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the Libyan assets frozen in the UK, and the potential use of those to compensate victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. To answer that, it is important to set out the background of how those assets came to be frozen in the UK, and to explain the limits on the use to which they can be put.

In 2011, the United Nations took action against those involved in, or complicit in, ordering, controlling or otherwise directing the commission of serious human rights abuses against persons in Libya. This included, among other measures, the imposition of an asset freeze against a number of individuals and entities, including Muammar Gaddafi and some members of his family. On 2 March 2011, the European Union implemented these asset-freezing measures through regulation 204/2011, which has direct effect in the UK. The UK Government have no additional domestic freezing measures under the Libyan sanctions regime.

The approximate aggregate value of funds frozen in the UK under the Libyan financial sanctions regime is just under £9.5 billion. It is very important, for the purposes in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, to recognize that the whole Libyan Government are not subject to sanctions. A small number of entities associated with the Libyan Government are subject to asset freezes. The names of those entities are published in the Treasury’s consolidated list of financial sanctions. They include the Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan African Investment Portfolio, which are subject to partial asset freezes, which means they are free to deal with new funds generated after 16 September 2011. The Libyan Government additionally hold further unfrozen funds in the UK and elsewhere. Therefore, existing financial sanctions would not prevent the Libyan Government from agreeing compensation with victims and making payments to them from unfrozen funds.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Given that it could be some time before there is a genuinely workable Libyan Government, why could this Parliament not—the Minister will tell me if this would not be legal—decide to unfreeze a certain proportion of those frozen assets so that we can sort out the issue of compensation to victims in the UK?

[Damian Hinds]

I will come to that. As for the financial sanctions that are in place, an asset freeze means that the assets of the individual or entity must be frozen where those assets are. The funds continue to belong to the individuals and entities listed under the sanctions regime and are not seized or held by the United Kingdom Government. The funds remain frozen in the bank account they were in at the time of designation and, for individuals and entities subject to a full asset freeze, interest may be credited to those accounts provided that the interest is also frozen. The sanctions prevent any person from dealing with those funds or making funds available to the individuals or entities listed under the sanctions regime without a licence from the competent authority—in the United Kingdom, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, the competent authority is Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Access to frozen funds can only be licensed in accordance with the grounds set out by the United Nations and the European Union, and there are seven licensing grounds applicable to this sanctions regime. To summarise, the grounds allow for payments in the following categories: first, for the basic needs of the designated person; secondly, for the legal fees of that person; thirdly, for fees for the routine maintenance of frozen assets; fourthly, for the extraordinary expenses of the designated person; fifthly, for the satisfaction of judicial or administrative orders enforceable in the EU; sixthly, for humanitarian purposes; and seventhly, for obligations arising under contracts prior to the imposition of sanctions.

To clarify further, a Treasury licence would not compel a payment to be made, but would simply provide that the payment would not be a breach of financial sanctions. It is clear that none of the licensing grounds would allow the Treasury to select a frozen account at will and require that funds be paid from it to a third party.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Kate Hoey]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail in answer to that question, but of course the sanctions regimes are not unique to the UK and are governed by international law and UN and EU conventions.

A great wrong was inflicted on innocent victims on that day in 1996, and a key part—

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make progress.

[Kate Hoey]

You have three minutes.

[Damian Hinds]

Will the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse be responding, Ms Dorries?

European Union Referendum Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. Indeed, I wrote that exact thing in the notes I made before the debate.

Many of us accept that there are anomalies. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said that this is a once-in-a-generation vote. I have never voted on it, so I accept that: as someone in her late 50s, my time has come and I am looking forward to voting in the EU referendum. However, if the logic of the argument is to be based on this being a once-in-a-generation vote, what about 15 and 14-year-olds? Where do we stop? This House has accepted that there must be an age limit for voting in UK parliamentary elections. That age is 18, and therefore those young people below that age will live with the consequences.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the proposal would be a huge change and that it therefore should not be made for just one type of vote, namely the referendum? If we are going to do it, we should consider it properly and address all the anomalies. It is ridiculous that 16-year-olds would be able to vote but not buy a cigarette. We should look at the issue as a whole and get it introduced for a general election, if that is what Parliament wants.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, is absolutely right. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister alluded to that point.

The SNP may well feel that it had it just right in Scotland, but it was its privilege to do that. I fundamentally disagree with the SNP argument that we should explain to the young people of Scotland why they cannot do it again. Frankly, that is ridiculous and bogus. This House has voted on numerous occasions that this Parliament does not wish to extend the franchise. The back-door method of using their lordships’ overwhelming majority to outvote this place is a very dangerous precedent to follow. To simply tack on such a fundamental change—as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has so wisely referred to it—is not the way to do it.

Finance Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am not going to say that I did, but I put through an Act of Parliament, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, both to protect women and to promote their interests, with massive support from all parts of the House, so I want no suggestion that I am backward in coming forward on these issues.

New clause 7 contains weasel words. It does not solve anything. It is not in the interests of the United Kingdom not to deal with the problem properly.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I have raised the issue over a number of years, and I am pleased that we are debating it tonight. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is one of the ridiculous things that the European Union does, and that we need to get back in our own country control of how we levy VAT, which is why we should vote to leave the European Union?

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s last remark, for the reasons that she has given. We need to get back control over our own power to make laws, levy taxation and deal with all the matters which we do not need to go into today. The supremacy of this House affects tax, spending, and the way in which we run our own country. We have a right and a duty to return to the people of this country the right to govern themselves. This happens to be an extremely good example of the kind of thing that would help women in a way that I would much like to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

Well, we have the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which are accountable to their respective Governments and, of course, the Commission itself is in many ways accountable. I would like to see reforms to some of the accountability mechanisms, but as the old saying goes, “you’ve got to be in it to win it”. On Europe, as on climate change, inheritance tax and the debate taking place in the other place on tax credits, we have seen in virtually every clause debated this evening that this is not the new modernised Conservative party; it is the same old right-wing Tories. They have hung their Chancellor and Prime Minister out to dry, and I hope that the Opposition’s reasonable, centre-ground amendments will be supported by Members from all parts of the House.

[Kate Hoey]

I welcome new clause 7 and hope that everyone can unite in supporting it. I do not think it goes far enough, but it is a great step forward, and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on introducing it. Many people watching the debate tonight—and I hope many millions of women will be watching it—will have started to ask why we still cannot proceed on the basis of what I think everyone in the Chamber believes, which is that sanitary towels and tampons are not a luxury and we should have the right to decide the level of tax on any product in this country. The people who have listened tonight will know that whatever we say about negotiations and working with our EU partners—let us not forget it is the EU, not Europe—we will not be able to win the argument because the reality is that the European Union wants to maintain control of how we run our affairs in this country. This is the beginning of a hugely important debate on the referendum, and important issues of this kind would never be recognised by the European Union. I hope that the Prime Minister will go and at least negotiate, although I do not think he will get anywhere.

If the Minister really believes in democracy in this country, and given that our Parliament wants this tax reduction, why do we not just do it? What would the EU do if we did? I hope that every Member will support new clause 7 tonight.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on his debut at the Opposition Dispatch Box—and what a debut it was, consisting of a speech lasting more than an hour. In the time that is available to me, I shall attempt to respond to his speech and, indeed, the many other speeches that we have heard this evening, but let me first deal with the measures that we are discussing.

New clause 9 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a comprehensive review of the inheritance tax regime within one year of a current budget surplus. Amendment 89 would remove clause 9 from the Bill, as a result of which the additional transferable nil-rate band for all individuals who leave their home to direct descendants would not be introduced. Clause 9 represents a commitment that was made in the Conservative party manifesto—a promise made to the British people—and recognises that more hard-working families face an inheritance tax bill than has been the case at any time since the introduction of the system nearly 30 years ago.

Last year, 35,000 estates had an inheritance tax liability. It has been forecast that that figure will nearly double, rising to 63,000, in 2020-21. Thousands more worry about leaving their families with inheritance tax bills when they die. The additional transferable nil-rate band will simply return the number of estates with an inheritance tax liability to 37,000 in 2020-21, broadly the same level as in 2014-15. I remind the Opposition that that level is still higher than the level in any year between 1997 and 2010. Furthermore, we have ensured that the wealthiest will make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax. It will not be possible for the largest estates to benefit from the new allowance. It will be gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million.

Those who support amendment 89 demonstrate that they do not understand those who wish to save, pay their taxes, work hard to own their own homes, and pass them on to their children and grandchildren without facing a hefty tax bill. We believe that it is right for people to be able to pass on their homes to their descendants rather than the taxman.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West expressed what sounded like concern about the fact that no properties in his constituency—or very few—would be affected. He also said that he opposed measures taken by the last Labour Government to introduce the transferable nil-rate band. I remind him that in the year in which those measures were introduced, 4.3% of estates paid inheritance tax. If we do not act, some 11% will pay it by 2019-20.

Given the comments that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, suggesting that they wish to raise more revenue from inheritance tax, I rather suspect that their desire for a review is connected with their perception of it as a potential cash cow. If I have misunderstood, I am happy to withdraw what I have said, but that seems to me to be the direction in which Opposition Members want to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Doing full justice to that question in the five minutes available for me and for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West would be a challenge. This has been part of the VAT regime since 1973, but on this specific area, as we have heard, time has moved on and it is right that we look again at it.

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister just respond to my question: if this is so dreadful and we all want a change, why do we not just do it? What would the EU do if we did?

[Mr Gauke]

It is not just a matter of the EU law; the UK courts would ensure that we have to comply with the law, one way or the other. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would be happy to explain the position to the hon. Lady, but it would not be lawful for us to reduce that rate.

Greece

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I have not seen that analysis, but I will have a look at it and report back to my hon. Friend.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want to dictate to the Greek Government what kind of currency they should use, but will he have a word with the Prime Minister about the possibility of the two of them pointing out during their next conversation with the Greek Prime Minister that there is a bright future outside the eurozone, and suggesting that the Greeks look at the example of the United Kingdom and leave the eurozone—which, of course, we never joined?

[Mr Osborne]

My experience of the Greek Government is that they are very well versed in events here in the United Kingdom. They have certainly noticed our economic revival. I repeat, however, that it is not for us to say which currency they should use.

European Union Referendum Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in order to allow other Members to speak. I will speak primarily to amendments (a) and (b) to amendment 11, which stand in my name, but also in support of amendment 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I thank my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the positive way in which they have engaged with the entire party on these questions. We are grateful for that dialogue. I think that absolutely proves that we are not in some re-run of previous grief. This debate is not even about Europe; it is, in fact, about how to conduct a fair referendum.

I have some experience of referendums, because I set up the “North East Says No” referendum campaign in 2004, which turned around a two-thirds majority in favour of a north-east Assembly into a 4:1 defeat. We operated under the provisions laid down by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which worked pretty well. The purdah provisions restricted what the Government did, although they are probably not tough enough. They did not prevent the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, changing the Government’s policy on what powers that putative Assembly would have only a few days before the postal votes went out. When we rang up the Cabinet Secretary to complain that the Deputy Prime Minister had breached the purdah rules, we were told, “That’s a matter for the Minister, not for me.”

That underlines the argument that the purdah rules are not tough enough, rather than that we should not have them at all, because they prevented civil servants from becoming embroiled in referendum questions, or being used by Ministers to promulgate the case that the Government wanted them to promulgate, and that is the vital protection. It is principally towards the impartiality of civil servants that I want to address my remarks, particularly given that, I am proud to say, I have been elected unopposed to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I very much hope to persuade my fellow members of the Committee to address some of these issues during this Parliament.

I am disappointed that the Labour party has abandoned the principled position it adopted on purdah when it implemented the 2000 Act, which is quite extraordinary. I ran into Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, this morning, and he was thoroughly disappointed to hear that the Labour party was backing off from supporting the constitutional legislation that it had implemented. Those ideas did not just come out of nowhere; they were ideas for a fair referendum that arose from the unfairness of the conduct of the first Welsh referendum, which were addressed by the Neil committee, which became the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the key is in the name. It was regarded as essential to have a period when the machinery of government cannot be involved in supporting one side or the other in a referendum campaign. The Electoral Commission would like 10 weeks, rather than just four weeks.

There are certain myths about purdah. The Government do not grind to a halt during a general election. Ministers even attend meetings of the Council of Ministers during general elections. However, during a general election a Minister cannot use their Department to promulgate information or to brief the press in a manner that is intended to affect the outcome. We want the same to apply in the referendum.

The letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, which the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has now seen, does not actually provide the reassurance that is required. In fact, by explaining what is contemplated, it confirms precisely the opposite. For example, it states that the Government,

“having taken a position on the outcome of our negotiations with the rest of the EU, will naturally be obliged to account to Parliament and the British people.”

There is absolutely no problem about accounting to Parliament in any purdah period about any matter at all, because it is privileged. There are no purdah rules that apply to anything that any Minister would say on the Floor of the House of Commons.

But are we seriously to believe, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) indicated, that civil servants should be used to put out press releases on matters that are being addressed by the referendum question, because that is what he is saying? That is precisely what should not be allowed. The idea that this will prevent Ministers from saying anything, and that somehow Ministers will not be able to take part in the referendum campaign, is clearly tosh. I seem to recall the Prime Minister being very vociferous in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, right to the last day of the campaign. However, he was unable to use his ministerial car, fly at ministerial expense or use the machinery of government to promulgate the messages he wanted to get across. There might have been a rather frustrating moment when he said, “I want to put out a statement”, and the Cabinet Secretary would have had to tell him, “I’m sorry, Prime Minister, but you can’t do that now that we are in purdah. You will have to do that through the no campaign or through your party.” That is exactly right. What is the point of the expenditure limits for the yes and no campaigns if the Government have 80 special advisers and thousands of press officers able to issue press releases, brief the media and organise media tours for Ministers? That is precisely what should not be available to Ministers during the closing stages of a referendum campaign.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I support that amendment, of course. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be even worse if we happened to get to a situation in which the leadership of the two main political parties were campaigning on one side? That is an even more important reason to have a proper purdah, if the referendum is to be seen as a free and fair.

[Mr Jenkin]

It is a simple matter of principle, which is why I think we would be right to press this to a vote if necessary, unless the Government accept our amendment. I really hope that they will, because it would simply put purdah back into the Bill, where it should be. I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying that he wants dialogue on what the problem actually is and on how it can be addressed by amending the purdah regime, rather than scrapping it altogether and relying on assurances based on advice from civil servants who have clearly got it wrong.

I want to focus in my final remarks on the impartiality of civil servants, because this is really about what they can and cannot do. They must be in a position to protect their impartiality. They must be able to say to a Minister, “No, Minister, we are in purdah, so I cannot do that now. You must do that yourself or through some other organisation.” If they are not subject to purdah, it is the job of civil servants to support the Government of the day by carrying out the instructions of their Ministers, so they will be obliged to put out press releases, to help Ministers make the case and to use the machinery of government unfairly to support one side or the other.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the report that the Public Administration Committee produced just before the general election, “Lessons for Civil Service impartiality from the Scottish independence referendum”. The report shows that the Scottish Executive abused their position by sending out a rather political White Paper, some parts of which read more like an SNP manifesto than an objective Government document—that is always the danger with Government publications—but at least they did not send it out in the purdah period, at the most sensitive moment.

Not only that, but the advice of the permanent secretary at the Treasury, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, on currency unions was published in a completely unprecedented move on the basis that he had to “reassure the markets”. That was his excuse, and I am afraid that we regarded it as only an excuse. Are we to say that Ministers will agree to civil servants publishing their advice during the purdah period? Perhaps they might even be instructed to publish their advice during that period.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

The result in Scotland was pretty conclusive, so the expenditure of Government money was not the crucial thing that made the difference to the result. The result speaks for itself. But we can always learn from past experiences. For my choice, I do not favour the expenditure of public money on interfering in elections and referendums. I am known to be careful with public money anyway, and I would not want the money to be spent on this area. It is for individuals to decide what they wish to do by way of political intervention, and they can make their own decisions. If we let them have more of their own money to spend, they may wish to spend it on interventions in elections. That is how I would rather it was done. In this case, it would be particularly counterproductive for the European Union to spend some of our money, which we send to them, on intervening on one side. It would cause enormous resentments. Indeed, the no campaign might even welcome it as it would be a cause in itself which it would make use of if this became a clear use or abuse of public money.

[Kate Hoey]

I raised the issue of the EU on Second Reading. I had a helpful letter back from the Minister for Europe this week. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on his final paragraph? He says:

“I would trust the proper diplomatic relationships with Governments and institutions, and encourage them to stick by their duty to respect the right of the British people to take their own decision responsibly.”

I do not feel that I can trust the EU on this very important issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that?

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that I do share some of the hon. Lady’s worries. I would like to see that clearly stated in writing and as an act of policy from the EU itself. That would probably be much appreciated in many sections of the United Kingdom, so that we can be sure that there would not be clumsy, unwarranted or unwelcome interference. It would be a double irony if the EU were using our money to do it. That is what makes it particularly difficult. UK taxpayers of both views would be paying the money to the EU, but only one side of the argument would be funded by that money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I have just had a letter from the European Movement signed by the current chair, Lord Kinnock, who worked for the European Commission and will presumably have an EU pension, which he will have to declare. The European Movement has asked us all to join because it wants to campaign to keep the United Kingdom in the EU. That is a classic example of EU money being used directly to further the cause of those who wish to stay in the EU, whatever reform comes about.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady is receiving a lot of letters this week, including one from the Minister for Europe and one from the European Movement. People are obviously interested in her views and she seems to have a great deal of sway on the Labour Benches—if only—as to how the debate will go forward. She is right.

I do not want to pick on the European Movement. I have many friends in the movement. I suppose I should declare an interest as a former Member of the European Parliament, I believe I have a pension that is nestled away out there for my dotage. However, I am very wary of the fact that the European Movement can fall on only one side of this debate, funded by British taxpayers’ money channelled through the European Commission. Will the Minister be able to tidy up the regulations to ensure fairness in the way that taxpayers’ money is spent?

There are a host of non-governmental organisations and some charities—this goes to amendments which the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) spoke about—to which European funding goes. Those organisations may then feel obliged to take part and push forward their own ideas on one side or the other in a European referendum.

EU Budget (Surcharge)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wants to leave, because we were just talking about the presence of the Labour leader. As the hon. Gentleman said at the weekend:

“‘I never believed the answer to Labour’s problems was to show people more of Ed Miliband.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is right; on 27 October, he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the position of the rebate. The Prime Minister said it was:

“One of the important questions that needs to be asked and properly answered”.—[Official Report, 27 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 30.]

He said that that is what we are seeking to do. So my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to have asked the question—of course nobody from the Labour party did—and that is why we were engaged in the intensive discussions to nail down the rebate.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor not agree that this whole fiasco just shows that we are paying far, far too much to the European Union, that we should be seeking ways of getting back control of our country, our own borders and our own system of justice, and that the sooner we get a referendum, the better?

[Mr Osborne]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I made the point at the end of my remarks that the whole episode demonstrated why we needed reform in Europe. She, of course, is one of a growing number of Labour MPs who join us in wanting to see that referendum—I hope she can persuade the Labour Front-Bench team.

Air Passenger Duty

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

It really comes back to the point made in an earlier intervention about chipping away at it and trying to use arguments to undermine the tax and its anomalies and to highlight its impact at the regional level. We took the view that it was most important that the long haul part of the tax should be devolved because we were about to lose Continental Airlines flights into Northern Ireland. That issue had immediate priority.

As the Executive have discussed again just this week, we believe that the problem is UK-wide. One of the reasons why this debate is important and why we did not frame it solely in terms of Northern Ireland is that we believe it is about a UK-wide issue. If there is to be change, it should be made here in Westminster rather than the full cost—anything up to £90 million—being borne solely by Northern Ireland. That would have a significant impact on the block grant.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I fully accept that, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Northern Ireland is special and different because there is a lot of sea between it and the rest of the UK? Those who cannot afford to fly have to take a long route. It might help if Ministers sometimes did not fly to Belfast, but took the route that many poorer people have to take because it is so much cheaper to go all the way up to Stranraer.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is exactly right. The road or road-and-rail journey is also long and expensive.

To sum up, I trust that during this debate we will hear from Members about the impact that they have seen the tax having on the parts of the economy that they represent across the United Kingdom. Since there is to be a review of green taxes, semi-green taxes, pale green taxes, taxes that used to be green but are no longer, or whatever, and given that this issue should be revenue-neutral yet fit in with the Government strategy of export-led growth, I trust that APD will be given serious consideration in the review of fiscal policy.

Age-related Tax Allowances

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gauke]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the measures in the 2012 Budget, he will see that the amount raised from the wealthiest, in increased stamp duty on the most valuable properties and the cap on reliefs used by the wealthiest to reduce their income tax bills, raised far more money than the cost of reducing the 50p rate of income tax—a rate that the evidence suggested was not raising anything like the sums for which the previous Government hoped. There is a good reason why the Government in which he served for many years had a top rate of income tax of less than 50p: a top rate of 50p is not a terribly effective way of raising revenue. We must place this in the context of all the other measures that the Government are taking for pensioners. The overall tax system remains favourable to them, and there are measures that protect pensioner benefits, not least the triple lock for the increases in the basic state pension.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I, too, apologise for not being here earlier, particularly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) in his moving of the motion.

Does the Minister not agree that so many pensioners feel aggrieved about the change because having worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement they now discover that they are getting absolutely no interest on their savings? Many of them have been living on their savings interest, and now they do not even have that—and will not for the next few years, it seems, if the Bank of England’s new independent director is right. Does the Minister not understand just how angry many pensioners are? They feel they have been let down.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the difficulties faced by many of those who rely on their savings to support themselves. It is in all our interests that we have a strong and growing economy, and in the current economic climate it is right that we have low interest rates. We acknowledge that that creates difficulties, but the alternative—higher interest rates—would have significantly damaged the economy over recent years. Importantly, we have been able to bring in the triple lock, which has enabled us to increase the state pension at a faster rate than before and has included the largest-ever cash increase. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting pensioners wherever we can.

It is also worth re-emphasising that as a result of the decision to remove age-related allowances no one will pay more tax than before. Other factors, such as wage inflation and increases to the basic state pension, may, of course, affect tax liabilities, but no one will pay more tax from one year to the next because of the policy change alone. In fact, people over the age of 65 who pay no income tax at all—about half of all pensioners—are completely unaffected by the reform.

It is also worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members that, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget two years ago, the Government remain committed to exempting pensioners from national insurance contributions. There is a strong, principled case for that, because people have contributed throughout their working lives on the basis of a return, and I distinguish that argument from the one about personal allowances. I have debated this matter on a number of occasions and have never heard a strong case for those under the age of 65 having a lower personal allowance than those over that age.