Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

We have made it clear that we will have a fairer allocation from within using funding that is there at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman’s problem is that he cannot justify what the Government have done, and therefore applying more fairness so that everybody has to make a contribution is the right thing to do.

The National Audit Office and others have said there is not much evidence that the new homes bonus encourages house building that would not have taken place anyway. It is top-sliced from revenue support grant and tends in the main to be taken from the more deprived communities with the greatest needs and to go to communities that are less deprived with fewer needs. We will phase that out and redistribute the money back to local authorities on a fairer basis. Government is about making choices. We will devolve £30 billion of economic powers from existing money for county and city regions.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I have been very generous in giving way, but I am going to bring my remarks to a close.

We will devolve that money so that local authorities, coming together, have powers over skills, business and employment support, housing and bus regulation. We have talked about London today. If bus regulation, the ability to control routes and fares, is good enough for London—and it is—why is it not good enough for the whole of England? That is something we will do.

The truth is that the Secretary of State has devolved in one other respect: he has passed responsibility for taking difficult decisions down to the areas with the greatest needs. As we know, the 10 most deprived local authorities have seen their council spending reduced by 16 times more than the 10 least deprived. He has taken most from the communities that can least afford it.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this week about the real impact on social care for elderly people—I said I would come to this—of the decisions he has made, or, to be more precise, as a result of his failure to stand up for local government and social care. He tried to pretend that the fact that there are 220,000 fewer elderly people now getting a hot meal a day, which is what research demonstrates, had nothing to do with him. He even tried to blame the councils, but it is everything to do with the way he has unfairly applied the cuts to local government. If, as he claims, it has been fair to all, north and south, how can he explain cuts to social care being deepest in the councils he has hit the hardest as the result of the decisions he has made? That is what NAO analysis confirms. Everyone knows the answer to that question is that he has taken most from those who have least. Worse is to come. The Office for Budget Responsibility says we will see

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything over the past five years.”

Those cuts would be extreme and irresponsible, and have a big impact, including on social care. The Health Secretary takes all the stick for the problems in the NHS, but the Communities Secretary is fanning the flames.

We need a different approach. Local communities and local government are crying out for a different approach. Times are tough, but there is no justification for applying the cuts to local government in such a fundamentally unfair way. There is no justification for taking decisions that mean elderly people in one part of the country are less likely to get social care or a hot meal a day because they live in an authority that has been penalised by the right hon. Gentleman. There is no reason why local communities and the people they elect should not be given the powers and the tools to build homes for their children and their grandchildren. There is no reason at all why all the city and county regions of England—all of them—should not get the economic powers to help them to build their own strong local economies, invest in skills, build homes and create jobs for the future. All those things are possible, but it will take a change of Government to make them happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, alongside many right hon. and hon. Friends who sadly are stepping down at the general election. I shall be sad to see many of them retire, and I think the House will lose a great deal of wisdom and experience. Let me say for the record, however, that I do not intend this to be a valedictory speech! I hope the good electors of Milton Keynes South will return me in 47 days’ time.

I welcome the long-term nature of this Budget, and I believe the Chancellor is to be commended for not yielding to the temptation of using the better than expected fiscal position resulting from our strong economic performance as a windfall for short-term gains. Instead, he has stuck to his guns and sought to get the country back to living within its means.

It is easy to forget just how close to the brink this country was five years ago. We have heard from some speakers today a rather rose-tinted view of our position in 2010, but it is worth thinking about just how precarious our financial position was. It has been an incredibly difficult job in a very turbulent global economic situation to get this country back on track. Interruption.] I hear hon. Ladies opposite saying from a sedentary position that the problems were global. Yes, but in case they have forgotten, there has been a small problem in the eurozone, and this country started from a much weaker position because we ran up a structural deficit, which made the challenge even more difficult to deal with.

We must stay on course to eliminate our deficit and then start repaying our debt. That is not dry economic theory or dogma. An interesting table in the Red Book shows what the Government will spend in 2015-16. Next year, we will spend £35 billion on debt interest payments—not repaying the debt, just paying the interest to service it. That is more than we are spending on transport, on industry, agriculture and the environment and on public order. It is money that is not available for spending on defence or the NHS or infrastructure, and means passing on more bills for the next generation to take up. Addressing our debt addressed is also important for our national security. The money we borrow has to be lent by someone. The greater our debt, the more we have to borrow from other countries. The savings glut in many far eastern countries in recent years has meant that borrowing has been comparatively easy and cheap, but that might not always be available or desirable, so we are right to stick to our plans to look to the long term and pay our way as a country.

I warmly applaud the Budget measures on savings and pensions, and particularly the encouragement of personal savings that we have seen in this and previous Budgets. I do not want to encourage the stereotype of a Scotsman and his money, but I say that we need to save more as a country. That is right for the long term. Just as it is right to reduce the country’s debt, so it is right to reduce personal debt that is not secured against an asset. I warmly applaud the abolition of tax on savings for many people. Double taxation is wrong, and people were paying interest on their savings on money that they had invested after taxation. I welcome, too, the pensioner bonds that were introduced in previous Budgets as they give a higher rate of interest to pensioners, and I welcome the greater flexibility in ISAs. Encouraging saving is good for our economic security.

Let me raise one concern, however, about an otherwise excellent Budget. I refer to the restriction of the lifetime personal pension allowance. I completely understand that, as part of our objective of getting our books back in balance, we have to keep a close eye on every single item, and I accept that the cost of this allowance has gone up by £4 billion during this Parliament. It is completely understandable that we have to keep it controlled in the short term. I welcome the Chancellor’s rejection of restrictions on the annual allowance and the fact that the lifetime allowance will be indexed from 2018.

I do hope—let me make a plea perhaps not for the next Budget, but for several Budgets down the line—that as we get our finances back into the black, the lifetime allowance limits will be revisited. I say that not just because it is right to encourage the savings culture, but because it is sustainable in the long term in that the tax forgone on pension contributions is only deferred and not lost. When people draw down the income from their investments in the future, the Government will gain. It is important because pension funds will be increasingly significant for funding investments in our infrastructure.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) is no longer in his place, but both he and the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) alluded to the important pension reforms that this Government have made. The attack by the previous Government on one of the best pension funds we had, when they abolished dividend tax credits, caused huge problems for a situation that was previously well into the black. The reforms we have made have put us back on a sensible course.

I have one specific question for my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary. It was raised by my constituent Nicholas Clarke, who will be affected by the reduction in the lifetime limits on pensions. He has done the right thing by his family and saved into his pension fund, and he hopes not to be too far away from taking retirement. In the 2014 Finance Bill, an individual protection provision was introduced when the allowance limit was reduced previously. If the Minister does not have the information to hand, perhaps she will write to me about whether it is likely that a similar provision will be introduced to coincide with this reduction. This information would be most helpful to constituents such as Mr Clarke in planning for their retirement.

In the last few minutes, let me turn to a couple of themes relevant to the local government focus of today’s debate. On housing, I very much welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of the new Help to Buy ISA, which will be particularly useful in constituencies like mine. Our demographics show that the children of young families who moved to Milton Keynes in the 1980s, when there was a big expansion in growth, are now at an age when they want to buy their own homes. It is a perfectly natural and laudable aspiration. This new ISA, along with the stamp duty reform in the autumn statement, will help people to get their foot on the housing ladder.

Reference has been made to housing supply. In Milton Keynes, we are delivering. Our core strategy, agreed in 2013, provides for 28,000 homes over the next decade or so. The Government have helped to bring forward some of these developments—at Newton Leys in the western flank of my constituency, for example. I endorse the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who said that we need to do all we can to bring forward these developments.

I have some concerns. Some in Milton Keynes want to go outside this plan prematurely and look at other developments—at Salden Chase, for example. I think that is very short sighted. We should consider further expansion only when it is part of a broader and more strategic view that takes into account other developments such as the new garden cities at Bicester and other places nearby. If I am returned in a couple of months’ time, this is a civic discussion that I wish to lead.

Finally, and not unrelated, is the reform of business rates announced by the Government. I very much welcome it. Under the current system, Milton Keynes pays out far more than it receives, and I would like this review to look at that balance. I was very concerned by some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), particularly when he said that a Labour Government would look at rebalancing the distribution of support from central Government. I worry—Labour has not been open about this—that this will mean taking money from fast-growing areas such as Milton Keynes and redistributing it elsewhere.

I note with pleasure the Chancellor’s invitation for other areas to replicate what has been proposed for business rate retention in Manchester and in Cambridge. If re-elected, I shall encourage Milton Keynes council and the business community there to beat a path to his door to see whether we can arrange something similar. That will be important for funding the additional infrastructure we need if we are to continue to grow our housing.

I would also welcome the rebalancing of business rates between the large-scale businesses and the small high-street ones. I have both in my constituency: I have everything from the big John Lewis distribution centre right down to small and wonderful local shops.

This is a good Budget for the long-term success of Milton Keynes and the United Kingdom as a whole. I look forward to participating in our further growth in the next Parliament.

Equitable Life

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I will call the hon. Gentleman my honourable Friend because he has been stalwart in defending the rights of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered in this scheme.

The key point is that, according to the published figures, the Treasury had a surplus of £8.8 billion in January, which was remarkable given that we were expecting £6.5 billion. Some proportion of the additional £2 billion surplus could be put towards compensation for policyholders who have suffered.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend rightly mentions the surplus in January. We are coming to the end of the financial year, and many Departments may have an underspend in their allocated budgets. Would it not be a good idea to divert some of that underspend to the victims of Equitable Life?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The Chancellor will be listening to such rumours, and will no doubt want to hoover up that money to dispense for appropriate good causes, of which this is clearly one.

Barnett Formula

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I am grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the future of the Barnett formula in a little more depth than recent debates have allowed.

My reason for calling for the debate was neither to call for the abolition of Barnett, nor to say that it must stay unchanged for ever more. My motivation was born out of frustration at some of the ill-informed comments made about it. In advance of the draft legislation on further devolution to Scotland, which is due before Burns night next year, I want to put on the record an explanation of what the Barnett formula is and, perhaps more importantly, what it is not. I also put on the record that I absolutely support extra fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is good for the democratic accountability of Holyrood.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Barnett formula and, before he goes too far, I want to highlight its operation. About a fortnight ago, the Treasury gave out money because roads and health in England had a shout for that. Therefore, from that followed Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

However, I notice that, if there is a need in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for money for health or transport, the Treasury does not dip its hands in its pockets in the same way with Barnett consequentials running in the other direction. Barnett consequentials follow on from need in England. It is surely a governance problem when the Treasury responds only to health and transport needs in England and then we get consequentials. Should not the Treasury give money and have consequentials running in the other direction when need arises?

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Order. May I point out to Members that we have only a short time for the debate? If interventions are to be made, can they be questions to the speaker at that time rather than statements? Hopefully everyone will have an opportunity to speak.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. If he bides his time a little, he will see that I will touch on some of those issues later on in my speech.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that the majority of people in my constituency would think that the Barnett formula is unfair?

[Iain Stewart]

There certainly is that perception. Part of my motivation for securing the debate was to address such issues so that we can have a more informed debate on the fiscal relationship principally between Scotland and England. I am conscious that Members from Wales and Northern Ireland are in the Chamber as well. My comments will be principally about Scotland and England, but the arguments also apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said, there is much ill-informed comment and misunderstanding about what the Barnett formula is and does and that is why I wanted to have this debate.

As well as being misunderstood, the Barnett formula is much maligned. Contradictory simultaneous comments are made that it both penalises Scotland and is too generous to Scotland, but both of those cannot be right. I am reminded of a comment that Lord Foulkes made when he was a Scotland Office Minister about a decade ago:

“If the SNP think that Barnett is too mean and the English Tories think that it is too generous, most sensible people would think that it is just about right”.

For many years, reform of the Barnett formula has been parked in the “too difficult” box.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland’s case the Barnett formula is just right. It recognises the need to keep the balance of wealth, because in Northern Ireland our wages are lower and the products we buy in shops are more expensive. At the same time, if the current talks work out—I hope that they do—and corporation tax is devolved to Northern Ireland, that could be a poisoned chalice. However, Northern Ireland has already been able to set its air passenger duty for long-haul flights with the permission of the British Government.

[Iain Stewart]

As I said earlier, the purpose of the debate is not to say whether Barnett is right or wrong or whether it needs to be changed or not; it is just to help inform a more considered debate about the issues.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Certainly. I will complete my tour around the United Kingdom.

[Glyn Davies]

I feel that Wales should have a contribution to this international debate. My hon. Friend is addressing the issue of clarity. In Wales, the lack of clarity in the Barnett deficit is leading the Welsh Government to resist financial accountability. Does he agree that it is vital that we find out what the Barnett deficit is? A whole range of figures have been bandied about. Most of them are untrue, but they are being used to prevent the financial accountability in Wales that we all want to see.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is a lot of darkness and cloud about these matters, and if we are to have a sensible debate about the fiscal balance between the component parts of the UK, we need that greater clarity.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I think that Lancashire needs a say. In the debate that is coming on English votes and so on, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be honest with the English people? There is a cost to being the biggest part of the Union and there is a cost to the Union. Whether we agree about Barnett or not, England will have to pay more than the rest of the component parts of the United Kingdom.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend as ever makes a good point. At the conclusion of my speech I will say a little more on that.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Once more and then I must make some progress.

[Mr MacNeil]

While the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) may be correct that England pays more, it pays more only because it is larger; it does not pay more per capita. Unfortunately, that has been Scotland’s preserve: it has paid more tax per capita into the UK each and every year for the past 33 years.

[Iain Stewart]

Again, I shall address those very points in a few moments. I want to shed some light on the issue. Critics of Barnett usually start by quoting Treasury figures that say that public spending per capita in Scotland is £1,600 greater than in England as a consequence of the Barnett formula. For once I may be in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, because that is not correct. The Barnett formula is only one part of the complex fiscal relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

The Barnett formula applies only to certain parts of public spending. Currently, about 40% of public spending in Scotland is not covered by it because that spending is not determined by the Scottish Parliament. That proportion will reduce in time as further taxes are devolved, but that point is important. Nor does Barnett determine the size of the Scottish block grant as a whole. That has built up incrementally over the years and the Barnett formula determines only the annual changes.

In simple terms, Scotland gets a population share of a departmental budget change in England where the equivalent is determined by Holyrood. Each year, the changes for each spending programme are totalled up and an overall adjustment to the previous year’s block grant is made. It is then up to the Scottish Parliament to decide how it spends that grant; it is not hypothecated. If Scotland gets £100 million more for health services because of the change in England, it is not obliged to spend that on health. That partly explains why some public services and other matters in Scotland are different from south of the border.

It is important to note that when the formula was introduced in the late 1970s it was designed as a convergence formula to narrow public spending per capita between Scotland and England. In advance of the devolution legislation proposed by the Wilson and Callaghan Governments, the Treasury carried out a needs-based review to determine the extent to which public spending per capita in Scotland would need to be higher to provide a comparable level of public services to those in England. It was found that because of factors such as Scotland’s proportionally greater landmass, rural population, council housing stock and poor health indicators, spending needed to be 16% per capita higher than in England. It was actually 22% higher, so Barnett was introduced gradually to narrow the gap and avoid the annual round of what was described as table-thumping over agreements between the different spending Departments.

It would seem that convergence has not happened, and it is important to understand why. First, in the initial years of operation, the population share was never adjusted, and that was at a time when Scotland’s population relative to England was falling. For a decade or so, a bias was therefore built in to the formula in Scotland’s favour. In the 1990s, the population share was adjusted, but it helped to sustain the higher levels. Secondly, and more significantly, were the number of deals done outside the Barnett formula. Whatever calculation Barnett produced, there was always pressure, under Governments of all parties, for extra funding arrangements. In his autobiography, the noble Lord Lang notes that when he was Scottish Secretary, between 1990 and 1992, Barnett should have reduced the Scottish Office block grant by £17 million, but, as a result of separate deals agreed with the Treasury, it was increased by £340 million.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must make some progress.

The simple point is that if Barnett were to be ended tomorrow, the issue of comparative spending would not go away. There has not been a needs-based review since the 1970s, in which time many economic, social and demographic changes have taken place, so we do not actually know what the current position is. There are also difficulties in defining exactly what territorial spending is. One example is the building of High Speed 2, a project of which both phases will be entirely within England. One could therefore argue that spending on it should accrue only to England, but there is a benefit to Scotland and Wales—

[Mr MacNeil]

And France.

[Iain Stewart]

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s geography is correct. High Speed 2 will go from London to Birmingham and the north of England.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has conceded, as he is right to do, that High Speed 2 will be built in England, and says that it will also bring benefits to Scotland. If there are benefits to Scotland in the north, surely there will also be benefits at the other end, in the south—namely, to France. The benefits will be not only within but outwith the United Kingdom. High Speed 2 is not running in Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman argues that it will benefit Scotland; if it is going to benefit Scotland, it will benefit France in the same way.

[Iain Stewart]

Given the fact that there is currently no straight link between High Speed 2 and High Speed 1, that is a slightly tangential point. I have simply given High Speed 2 as an example of how difficult it is to assign exactly public spending on a territorial basis; I could cite many other examples.

It is worth while to look not only at public spending relationships between Scotland and England and Wales and England, but within each nation and the regions of each nation. There is currently a process of further devolution in England, which is producing more demands for tax and spending powers in the cities and regions. The north of England says quite regularly, “We’re being hard done to because of the Barnett formula.” London says that it pays far more than it receives in public spending—[Interruption.] I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, merely that such comments are made. I have funding issues in Milton Keynes in my constituency: with a rapidly growing population, sometimes the funding formulae do not keep up with the population need. There are also tensions between urban and rural spending—the issue is not only between the component countries of the United Kingdom.

We must start to open up a wider debate about the allocation of public spending right across the UK, bearing in mind the fact that we have a finite pot of money. We must also look at the tax receipts side of the ledger, which is also controversial. We have never definitively established the comparative amount of taxes raised north and south of the border, or, indeed, within England, because we have never had to assign taxes territorially. Many studies have been conducted, but they have been based on controversial assumptions.

It is difficult to assign tax revenues on a territorial basis because we have long had a unitary system. For example, my father was employed by the Civil Aviation Authority. He was based at Prestwick but spent one week in every two working at head office in London. He commuted between the two, so his time was spent equally between Scotland and England, and, to throw another spanner into the works, his tax office was in Cardiff. It would not be impossible to unpick all that, but it would be difficult, for corporation taxes as well as personal taxes. Nevertheless, it is something that we will have to do if more tax powers are devolved to Holyrood. We must also look at the disaggregation of national insurance and pension receipts and liabilities.

Simple calls for the retention or abolition of Barnett are very wide of the mark. If we are going to dismantle what has been a unitary fiscal system, there are many aspects to consider. Without updated figures on the current costs of providing public spending in each nation of the UK and within each region of each nation, we are working in the dark. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Treasury looks at providing those figures.

My final point echoes the excellent one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We must look at this matter in the context of the cohesion of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has left the Chamber, but his party, the SNP, lost the referendum. We must make the Union work better and we need a sense of fairness; as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) said, every part of the Union must be treated fairly.

A few years ago, I began to do research for a book, and I looked at what is done in places such as Canada, Germany, Spain and the United States with regard to different tax-raising and spending powers in the component parts. Whatever the system, everyone still argued about spending levels and transfers from more to less affluent areas. That will never end—it is part and parcel of political debate—but the important thing is that we have a sense of fairness. I hope that today’s debate has helped to shed some light on matters that are often simplified and on a debate that is often inflamed, and that I have made a useful contribution to a much longer debate that we must have about public spending in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Mr Stewart, would you like to add anything? We have a short period of time left.

[Iain Stewart]

I was not planning to, Sir Alan, but may I thank the Minister and other Members for their contributions? The debate has been helpful. I am particularly interested by the work of the Office for National Statistics on the development of sub-national accounts. I think that will help to inform the debate, but I am sure that this is not the last word on the subject.

Autumn Statement

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Because of the hard work of the police and the reform that has been undertaken, crime is down and there is more policing on the front line. That shows that savings can be made to the Home Office budget while achieving reform. The hon. Gentleman’s question again reveals the default position of the Labour party. The shadow Chancellor attempts to say that it has newly converted to fiscal discipline and that it would take the difficult decisions. Every single Labour MP then gets up and complains about future spending and welfare decisions. That just shows that they are totally unreformed and unreconstructed.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the additional help he has given to hospices. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff and volunteers at Willen hospice in Milton Keynes, which provides patients and their families from my constituency, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and indeed your constituency, Mr Speaker, with incredible support?

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

11. What estimate he has made of the number of new businesses set up in Milton Keynes in the last year.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The latest data indicate that 2,200 new businesses were set up in Milton Keynes in the year to July 2014.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that more new business start-ups are vital to secure our economic recovery? Is he aware that this Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and I are hosting a business start-up event to give budding entrepreneurs access to the support and advice they need to get their businesses going?

[Mr Gauke]

I entirely agree that business start-ups are very important. I certainly was aware of the event at the national rail centre in Milton Keynes between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock on Friday afternoon. I also note that unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency has gone down by 42% since the last election, which suggests that start-ups are thriving in Milton Keynes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T5. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the astonishing claim by the Scottish Government that they would default on their share of the UK’s debt if they did not achieve a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom if—heaven forbid—independence was to happen?

[Danny Alexander]

The Scottish Government’s plan to renege on Scotland’s share of the debt in the event of independence is simply not credible because of the catastrophic effect it would have on the people of Scotland. Mortgage rates would go up, credit cards and bills would go up, and the Scottish Government would have to resort to the bond market’s equivalent of Wonga to raise money to pay for public services in Scotland. To default on the debt would be to punish every Scot for Alex Salmond’s failure to think through his currency plan B properly.

VAT Relief (Talking Newspaper Associations)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of VAT relief for talking newspapers. For the convenience of Members who may not be familiar with the concept of a talking newspaper, let me begin by explaining what they are and the important service that they provide to people who are blind or partially sighted, or who have some other disability that makes reading a newspaper difficult. There are 500 talking newspapers in the UK and Isle of Man. By and large they are small charities where a group of volunteers will read the contents of a local newspaper on to a cassette, CD or digital recording device. Those are then posted to registered listeners who listen to the recording and return the cassette or CD to the talking newspaper association in time for it to prepare the next edition, usually on a weekly basis.

It is important to emphasise the small, local and charitable nature of these associations. On average, each talking newspaper has 130 listeners and 34 volunteers, and they should not be confused with larger, national organisations that provide an excellent service of national newspapers, magazines and books for people who are registered blind or partially sighted. Their services are provided free of charge and they rely on small-scale local fundraising and grants to provide an income to cover the recording and distribution equipment and running costs.

I should also declare a family interest in this subject. More than 30 years ago, my father—Jim Stewart—and a small group of helpers set up the Hamilton Sound talking newspaper in the town in Scotland in which I grew up. He is still chairman of that today, and more than three decades later over 1,000 editions of the talking newspaper have been produced. I know that its listeners—a couple of hundred or so on average—have greatly valued the service. While national news can easily be accessed by a number of means, it is not always easy for people who are blind or partially sighted to obtain the local news that a local newspaper can provide.

I salute the work that volunteers up and down the country do in their communities to help often vulnerable people keep in contact with the outside world, and in this debate I wish to seek clarification and an update of the VAT rules that affect talking newspapers. For some time, talking newspapers have rightly been able to benefit from some financial assistance in providing their service—for example, they do not have to pay postal charges for the issuing or return of their products. In the 1986 Budget the then Chancellor, Lord Lawson, announced a number of VAT reliefs for charities. That included relieving charities from VAT on

“all recording equipment for talking books and newspapers used by charities for the blind”—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 112, c. 178.]

After the 1992 Budget, the then Chancellor, Lord Lamont, extended the relief available to include

“repairs and maintenance of equipment used for talking books.”

The most recent guidance from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—notice 701/1 from May this year—states:

“Charities and voluntary bodies caring for the blind and the severely visually impaired can obtain zero-rating for purchases of sound recording and reproduction equipment (or parts and accessories for such equipment) that has been designed or specially adapted for recording or reproducing speech for the benefit of such persons. In the case of reproduction equipment, zero-rating will not apply where the equipment is available for use by anyone other than the blind or severely visually impaired. The zero-rating also covers radios and cassette recorders purchased by charities for free loan to the blind, and the repair or maintenance of any equipment mentioned in this paragraph.”

There is, however, considerable confusion in the talking newspaper community about what is and what is not eligible for VAT relief. Part of that stems from the fact that the technology used by talking newspapers has changed considerably since the original VAT exemption in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, an original tape recording of the edition was made and copied on to audio cassettes by a high-speed copier. Now, although a minority of talking newspapers still use that traditional method, approximately 80% produce digital recordings.

The confusion stems from the part of the guidance which states that

“zero-rating will not apply where the equipment is available for use by anyone other than the blind or severely visually impaired”.

The onus is on the manufacturer or supplier to come to an agreement with HMRC that the product is designed specifically for blind and partially sighted people. When purchasing sound equipment from a company, the talking newspaper must supply the company with a declaration for the benefit of Customs and Excise, stating that the equipment is exempt from VAT. The problem is that talking newspapers now use equipment such as computers, digital copiers, memory sticks and memory stick players that can be used by the general public and other businesses, and therefore attract VAT. Talking newspaper associations are finding that many companies are not willing to risk applying for a VAT exemption on those products. I received a number of comments from talking newspapers ahead of this debate, and a remark by Bob Finch of Colchester talking newspaper neatly summarises the point:

“Most suppliers just charge the VAT to cover their own backs. I am aware that Kings Audio and Laplock Technology are both selling their versions of memory stick players VAT free, having apparently convinced HMRC that these particular items are only ever going to be used by visually impaired people. I applaud them for doing that, but any other items they or other suppliers sell are charged because they could be used by non-disabled people.”

It is clear that many talking newspaper associations in the country are having to meet a VAT cost that they should not have to meet, given the spirit of the 1986 and 1992 measures, and it is a significant extra cost for what are often very small charities. Brian Sharp of the Forth Valley talking newspaper association told me:

“We have recently transferred all our listeners on to USB memory sticks from both cassette tapes and CDs. The total cost of the project was £11,542 which included £1,247 in VAT”.

Roughly £1,250 is small change for the Treasury but a hugely significant cost for the charity.

There is certainly an appetite in the talking newspaper community for a clarification of current VAT rules, and an updating of them to ensure that the spirit of the original provisions is reflected in new technology that talking newspapers increasingly use. I heard from Janelle Scotland, chair of the Association of Scottish Talking Newspapers, that advice on the matter from local HMRC offices around the country seems to vary, which adds to the confusion. Such a move would be supported by the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which stated:

“Advances in technology mean that most talking newspaper associations are no longer using the kinds of equipment that have historically been VAT exempt; the RNIB urges HM Treasury to extend VAT relief to cover the digital equipment now used to produce talking newspapers.”

I accept that there will always be a risk that VAT-free digital equipment could be misused, but we are talking about a comparatively small number of listeners in the country and a small number of associations. Would it not be acceptable for them to complete a VAT exemption per purchase of equipment outlining the proposed use? Under current postal arrangements the Royal Mail trusts talking newspaper associations to send mail free under the articles for the blind scheme only to blind or partially sighted people, but it reserves the right to carry out spot-checks to ensure that an association is adhering to the regulations. Could HMRC do something similar?

Another possible solution would be to allow talking newspapers to claim back VAT retrospectively. A potential problem is that many talking newspapers will not be VAT registered as their turnover falls way below the threshold, but surely some special arrangements could be made. Perhaps it could be done collectively through the national talking newspaper bodies in Scotland, England and other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than via each individual association.

At the very least, may I ask my hon. Friend to facilitate a meeting between herself, HMRC and representatives of talking newspapers associations to clarify both the current law and what items of equipment are and are not exempt? It is a muddle at the moment and most talking newspapers are small charities whose volunteers are not necessarily well-versed in the intricacies of fiscal policy. I received another good comment from Rob Pearman, from St Albans & District talking newspaper. He wrote:

“It is a problem when some of us are scared of HMRC and we do not actually feel secure on all aspects of the laws and regulations with which we have to struggle. As a child I went to a school where the school rules were headed ‘Ignorance of these rules shall not be taken as an excuse - it haunts me to this day!’”

If a change in the law is required to update the current regulations, I would like the Minister to take this as an early submission for the autumn statement and next year’s Budget. I very much doubt it would incur a significant cost to the Exchequer to bring the regulations up to speed in the original spirit. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to raise an issue that is of considerable concern to these wonderful charities that provide a valuable and much cherished service to some of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

1. What steps he has taken to promote national lottery funding to sport, heritage and arts groups in the past 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)]

Through the work of the national lottery promotions unit and individual national lottery distributors, we continue to raise awareness of funding for good causes. Demand for lottery funding continues to outstrip supply, with over £1.5 billion spent on national lottery projects in just the past 12 months.

[Iain Stewart]

The Heritage Lottery Fund recently made a large contribution to the new visitors centre at Bletchley Park in my constituency and also paid for the restoration of some of the old codebreaking huts. May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Bletchley Park to see for himself what a vital role the Heritage Lottery Fund plays in preserving the heritage of the country?

[Sajid Javid]

I have visited Bletchley Park a number of times, as I am sure all hon. Members have done, to look at its vivid story and see how that is brought to life. I would be more than happy to do so again. It is a fitting tribute to the remarkable men and women who worked there, including a wonderful woman in my own constituency, Betty Webb, who served there. I am delighted that Bletchley Park has received funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund for its restoration. My hon. Friend is right to give credit to John Major, as he has done in the past, for setting up the fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I am very happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums—it is a fantastic place that I have visited on at least one occasion. I am pleased that following the Arts Council settlement the balance between London and the regions has shifted in favour of the regions. As he knows, I believe that every arts organisation around the country is capable of raising private funding and should be doing so.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T5. I thank the Minister for the assistance that he and Ofcom have given the community radio station in my constituency, MKFM, in its bid for a permanent FM licence. Will he assure me that he will continue to do all he can to assist such community radio stations to expand the vital service they provide to local communities?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent case for MKFM—his excellent local community radio station. I am very pleased that the independent regulator, Ofcom, listened and included MKFM on its timetable for early consideration for an FM licence.

amendment of the law

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am very glad to contribute to the Budget debate and in particular to be following the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) because I want to pick up on a couple of the themes he introduced. Before I get on to that, however, I would just remind him that the Office for National Statistics revised downwards the depth of the recession that happened under the Government of which he was a member, which perhaps explains why it has taken us a little longer than we thought to get our economy back on track: the scale of the damage was that severe.

I want to start by welcoming a Budget measure that I hope will be applauded across the House: the Chancellor’s announcement to set up an Alan Turing institute. Thankfully, Alan Turing finally had his name cleared just before Christmas and justice was finally done. I am very proud that Bletchley Park, where he did much of his outstanding work, is in my constituency. Now that we have been able to draw a line under that injustice, it is absolutely right that we concentrate on celebrating his enormous achievements. The establishment of an institute that will further research into cyber-security, algorithms and a whole load of things I will not even pretend to begin to understand will be a wonderfully fitting tribute and legacy. If I may, I will make a gentle bid for Milton Keynes to be the host of that institute. I am sure there will be competition from Manchester, Cambridge and elsewhere, but we would make a very fitting home.

I also welcome the announcement of a new garden city at Ebbsfleet, and I invite the good people of Ebbsfleet and Kent to look at how we in Milton Keynes planned our city. I am sure they could draw many lessons from the design of Milton Keynes and the understanding that went into its creation, inspiring designs of new cities as far afield as China. We would be delighted to advise the good people of Kent.

I welcome the measure in the Budget to extend Help to Buy, a very welcome initiative that has helped many people in my constituency to get on to the housing ladder who would not otherwise have been able to do so. Reference has been made to the housing supply, and I can assure Members that in my constituency, it is growing. The number of letterboxes and doorsteps I have to campaign on is growing at a far faster rate than I am able to cope with. There has rightly been a long-established cross-party agreement in Milton Keynes that such expansion—20,000 new houses over the next couple of decades—should be balanced development consisting not just of owner-occupied houses but of affordable housing in all its forms: some council housing, some housing association properties, some shared ownership properties, some key worker housing.

However, it is not just the numbers and the tenure of housing that is important, but the type. Under previous housing targets, the only thing that was important was the number of houses or flats built, and too many of the wrong type were constructed. There was a glut of apartments, which are fine, but the balance was out of kilter; we did not build enough family-sized dwellings. I am delighted to see some of the planning reforms introduced by this Government, backed up by the neighbourhood planning process. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is in his place, has been to Milton Keynes a number of times to see the strength of the neighbourhood planning process locally. That will underpin a more balanced and sustainable approach to housing development.

Housing has to be underpinned by good infrastructure, and this Government’s investment in projects such as East West Rail will ensure that these new houses are. Most of all, housing expansion must have a solid business base. I am delighted to report that Milton Keynes is leading the country in its economic development. New business start-ups are up by 20% over the past few years. Survey after survey from independent bodies such as Experian, Centre for Cities and the Financial Times place us at or near the top of the national growth league.

Our economic growth is also balanced: it is not just in the service sector, but in high-tech research and development. Last week, I had the great privilege of visiting Red Bull Racing, the Formula 1 team, where the level of engineering research and development is enormous. Budget measures such as the investment allowance, R&D tax credits and the seed enterprise investment scheme all underpin that growth, as do the extra grants for apprenticeships. Without a strong skills base, the economic recovery will not be permanent.

The economic recovery must be soundly based, but so must our long-term financial future. That is why the measures in the Budget on savings and investment were, for me, the most welcome. For too long we have had a culture of instant gratification: if we want something, just borrow and get it. That is not sustainable, and encouraging savings and pensions will help us get back to a secure future in the long term.

National Infrastructure Plan

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of electrifying the south Wales valleys line. That is why the Government added it to the Network Rail plan; it was not there before. I will certainly look at the case for accelerating it, if possible. The structure of this country’s rail industry is such that Network Rail is given a regulatory set of obligations and has to work out for itself the most efficient way to deliver them, but I would be very happy to ask that question of Network Rail and to share any answers with the hon. Gentleman.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Contrary to the rather dreary words from the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), about the progress of infrastructure projects, is my right hon. Friend aware that very good progress is being made on reopening the east-west rail line through my constituency, with Network Rail engineers out doing the important surveying work ready to get the trains running again?

[Danny Alexander]

I think that “dreary” is rather a positive description of what the shadow Chief Secretary had to say, but I welcome the fact that he was given the opportunity to show from the Dispatch Box what a good plan the Government have, including the east-west line, and what a hopeless contribution the Opposition are making to this debate.

Mix 96 (Digital Radio Switchover)

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister should take on board the fact that, so far, DAB has not been designed with small stations and their communities in mind.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend can pick up MKFM in her part of Buckinghamshire. Despite its name, it broadcasts on DAB. It is an excellent local community station that aspires to broadcast on FM. I hope that the Minister is able to give some clarity on the timetable for digital switchover, so that stations such as MKFM can plan for the future with certainty.

[Mrs Gillan]

I was pleased that, early this year, the Minister provided certainty to some small stations by listing those that would be permitted to stay on FM. That removes any requirement for those stations to pay to broadcast on FM and DAB, but a cost-effective digital solution for small stations still needs to be identified. Otherwise, the stations hon. Members have mentioned could face extinction, because advertisers might, at some point, believe that it is not worth paying to reach those who continue to listen to FM stations.