amendment of the law

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate.

We have heard much in contributions from both sides of the House about the level of the housing supply and the building that is going on. I am happy to report that in Milton Keynes we are getting on with it. We have 28,000 housing permissions in place and the Government have intervened to unlock some of the developments that have been gummed up in the system for too long, thanks in part to our friend the great crested newt—which, for an endangered species, seems to appear with remarkable frequency whenever there is a planning application. Those housing developments are not part of the hated regional spatial strategy, but are now part of a locally decided and locally managed strategy, which is just one component of our successful growth strategy—not the old, blunt housing targets, but economic growth alongside housing growth and infrastructure planning.

I warmly welcome the measures in the Budget and earlier announcements that will underpin and enhance Milton Keynes’s position as the part of the country that will lead in the rebuilding of our economy. All right hon. and hon. Members will want to claim that their home area is the best and is leading the country, but I can cite three recent independent surveys that confirm that Milton Keynes is leading the way. In November, the Experian company ranked Milton Keynes as No. 1 in a survey of towns that will lead growth in this country. In each of the next four years, annual employment will grow by 2% and output will grow by 3%, and this is sustainable and balanced growth, not just in the retail and service sectors but in manufacturing and high-tech industries as well.

More recently, March’s economic outlook report by PricewaterhouseCoopers put Milton Keynes’s growth ahead of the UK average. Mike Robinson, partner at PwC, said that

“businesses should be encouraged to capitalise on the expected upturn in consumer spending and opportunities created by local infrastructure investment.”

Finally, just the other week the business location index—part of the inward investment guide to England—ranked Milton Keynes as the best place in Britain to do business, based on its scoring highly on economic, human resources, environmental and infrastructure indicators.

Companies House records show that more than 2,000 new businesses started up in Milton Keynes in the last year, up 10% on the year before. Our inward investment is booming. Milton Keynes is already home to 700 international companies, and that is growing. We have a winning formula that is based on our local factors and the UK’s competitive tax strategy. Our strong position will be underpinned and enhanced by the policies announced in the Budget and other measures. The city deal and the Heseltine proposal for a single pot of money to decentralise decision making will help, boosting our infrastructure, particularly with the east-west rail project, which will link Milton Keynes to Oxford and, ultimately, Cambridge and is forecast to generate 12,000 jobs in the local region.

Our apprenticeship schemes are doing well. We have already doubled the number of apprenticeships locally to 2,000—that will increase further—and not just in traditional sectors, but in accountancy, law and manufacturing. That will develop our skills base for the future and make us even more attractive to inward investors. Finally, the policies to help people buy their first home and go further up the housing ladder will ensure that our housing strategy is linked to what we need locally. Of course there are many challenges ahead, but Milton Keynes is doing well. This Budget gives us the tools to get on with the job.

Let me finish by referring to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). He criticised the Government for talking about sowing seeds in frozen weather. A horticulturalist will tell us that it is not only possible to sow seeds on frozen ground, but often desirable, because that can lead to the healthiest growth.

Air Passenger Duty

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is part of the challenge of our wider aviation policy and strategy.

Already in this Parliament, the Government have rightly recognised a number of counter-productive and damaging taxes, and scrapped a number of them, including the cider tax, the jobs tax and the broadband phone tax, and the planned increase to the small profits rate was replaced with a cut. On that basis, I urge the Minister to consider the economic impact of APD.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way. APD will be considered by the Select Committee on Transport when we begin our aviation inquiry. APD has an economic impact, but it is critical to the debate on the UK’s aviation capacity. Perhaps she will refer to that later in her speech.

[Priti Patel]

The Davies commission has a role. When considering the future of APD, we must remember where we stand internationally in terms of competitiveness. Britain is in a global race, and competing in a global environment that is tougher and more competitive than ever before. Foreign businesses, which can bring much needed investment to our economy, can relocate to other countries. Our competitors in Europe and throughout the world are all too ready to recognise that. Prior to being elected to the House, I saw how our competitors were on standby to welcome new investment, particularly from emerging markets.

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to what I think has been a measured and constructive debate. I, too, welcome the Bill as a sensible complement to the gift aid scheme, which has operated successfully for many years.

Like most other Members, I find that one of the most pleasurable aspects of my constituency role is visiting local charities and observing the valuable work they do in the community, often supporting the most vulnerable members of society. Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), I think that we should take this opportunity to record our deep gratitude for all their work, and our gratitude to the thousands of volunteers who willingly give their time and money to make such a difference.

My constituency in Milton Keynes is blessed with a deeply philanthropic culture. We have nearly 400 registered charities, and more than 1,100 voluntary and community groups. Thousands of residents devote a huge amount of time and money to working directly on projects or supporting the various fundraising activities. I do not wish to detract from the work that large charities do, but small community organisations often have a disproportionate impact. They make a huge contribution locally, although they have very modest incomes: less than £10,000 in some instances, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson).

When I was preparing for the debate, I contacted Community Action Milton Keynes, a fine organisation that gives practical support to local charities and other groups by helping them to manage or develop their operations. I was told that 62% of its members had an annual turnover of less than £10,000. Such charities do not have the wherewithal to employ staff to help them to deal with the complexities of gift aid or other schemes; they rely entirely on people who give up their time to help them with their administration. I think that the Bill will benefit those groups in particular. As well as providing extra income—an organisation with a turnover of less than £10,000 could receive an extra 10% each year—it will reduce the amount of time that volunteers must devote to administration, so that they can spend more time doing the good work that charities are there to do.

Let me give two examples of the benefits that the Bill will provide, one from my local area and one relating to a family connection. A constituent of mine, Dave Hand, undertook a sponsored walk from his old Army base in Somerset to Milton Keynes to raise money for a wonderful charity called BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association. He raised about £2,000, the majority coming from donations made on the JustGiving website and similar online sources. However, he also raised a substantial sum at the pubs he visited en route—people would put cash in his bucket—and that cannot easily be traced back for the purposes of gift aid. The extra cash involved would not be a vast sum, but it would provide an extra bit of support to the charity, which could then use every single penny of the donations it receives. That example highlights one of the ways in which the Bill will be of real benefit.

The other example I want to raise is a family affair. About 25 years ago, my father set up a talking newspaper charity in his hometown of Hamilton. It was established to address a local need, by putting the contents of the local newspaper on to a cassette that could then be sent to local blind and visually impaired people. It is a very small organisation that relies entirely on volunteers. If it raises £1,000 a year, it is doing well, but it has very low operating costs. Those who donate to it are often the listeners. It is a free service, but they do so out of gratitude. They might send in £5 or £10 to help the organisation carry on. These are people with visual impairments and many of them are elderly, so they are not the kind of people who generally fill out gift aid forms. By addressing this point, the Bill’s provisions would add significantly to the income of such charities.

That example also serves to flag up a concern, however. I do not know whether the charity my father set up, Hamilton Sound, has ever claimed gift aid, but I suspect that it has not. Therefore, it would not be able to take advantage of the proposed scheme for three years. I ask the Minister to explore ways in which charities that are clearly bona fide—that might have been around for many years, but may not have technically qualified for gift aid payments—may take advantage of this scheme. We surely have the wherewithal to devise a scheme to address that. I completely accept the need to guard against fraud, but there is a balance to be struck here: we must not create a system that is so onerous and overly complex that the potential benefits cannot be realised.

I hope there will be an evolutionary process in respect of the Bill’s provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested they should be reviewed after a reasonable period, and I urge the Government to do that. It is a good Bill, however, and I am sure it will make a real difference.

There is support across the House for the principle of the Bill. I hope that our discussions in Committee will be as constructive as today’s debate, and that we will thereby address the details of the provisions so as to ensure they truly deliver for all charities, which we rely on so much in our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

In the light of the very substantial increase in the general personal allowance and of the concerns raised by the Office of Tax Simplification that the current structure does not have support, that is the right move. Pensioners are well protected by our policies and will continue to be so, but that move is one that results in a simpler and fairer tax system.

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

7. What progress the Government have made on the implementation of the national infrastructure plan.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

We published an update on the national infrastructure plan alongside the Budget, showing the progress that has been made on all the priority investments. As an example, the Budget was able to confirm that the pensions infrastructure platform that we have established to enable British pension funds to invest in infrastructure in this country will be able to make its first wave of £2 billion investment by early 2013.

[Iain Stewart]

I very much welcome the plan and congratulate the Government on prioritising rail investment, such as the east-west line through my constituency. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue that investment in the classic network, as well as finding the funds for High Speed 2?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The investment in High Speed 2 will not affect the amount of investment in the traditional rail network. It will allow us to go forward—for example, with the investment in the Oxford to Bedford rail line, which I know will affect his constituency, create 12,000 jobs and give a boost of £38 million to that area’s economy.

First-time Buyers

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate, and I am very happy to echo all the views that he has ably expressed this morning.

I will make a few comments in particular about the Government’s Firstbuy and NewBuy schemes, as they are of special importance to my Milton Keynes constituency and, indeed, to the whole of Milton Keynes. For Members who do not know, Milton Keynes is a new town that is still very much growing; we have not yet reached our desired size. Indeed, we may become a new city in the fullness of time. We are awaiting the announcement of the diamond jubilee city with bated breath.

As I say, Milton Keynes is continuing to grow rapidly. We have more than 20,000 housing permissions already in place, and that is before we look at potential additional expansion areas. Figures from the National House Building Council show that monthly new starts in Milton Keynes run at a rate that is three to four times the national average. Despite the fact that there is certainly a good supply of new housing stock in Milton Keynes, there are still difficulties for people who want to get on to the housing ladder. As well as growing in housing numbers, the town’s economy continues to grow, so there is substantial inward migration to Milton Keynes, which of course puts additional pressure on the housing stock. For example, the new Network Rail national centre will open in Milton Keynes later this year. That is generating 3,000 jobs, about 1,000 of which will be generated locally, but about 2,000 people will come in from elsewhere in the country. That pushes up the demand for housing.

Also, there are issues from a demographic perspective. The first main expansion of Milton Keynes took place in the 1970s and 1980s, when, by and large, young families came to settle in the town. Now the children of those families are at an age when they want to get on to the housing ladder. So these two measures—the Firstbuy scheme and the NewBuy scheme—will have particular resonance in Milton Keynes, as they will help people on to the first rung of the housing ladder.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester referred to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has published a statistic that is very relevant to this debate: 85% of people aspire to own their own home. It is engrained into our national psyche that owning a home is desirable and, indeed, the right thing to do. Owning a home gives us a sense of stability and community. So it is absolutely right that the Government are taking all these steps to make owning a home as easy as possible, without—as my hon. Friend said—getting into the dangerous territory of unaffordable mortgages, which helped us to get into the financial mess that we are in. As I say, I will not repeat the very sound points that he made; I will just echo them.

I will also make some additional points about how these policies tie in to our localism agenda and our wish to develop sustainable communities. There has been a trend whereby we have had new housing developments, particularly flats, and a large percentage of the new properties have been bought up by people making buy-to-let investments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that—it is a perfectly valid investment option—and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the private rented sector, which fulfils an invaluable role in the mix of housing stock that we have in our country. However, I have certainly noticed in Milton Keynes—it may be prevalent elsewhere, too—that so many of the properties, particularly the flats, in those new build estates are buy-to-let investments that there is a huge turnover of occupants. That makes it more difficult for a new community to build a sense of well-being and for the roots of community to be established. That is not impossible, but it is more difficult when there is a constant turnover of tenants. It is a question of balance.

I should like policies to assist a greater proportion of new estates, particularly new flats, to be owner-occupied, so that the bonds of community can more easily develop. That is a feature that characterised Milton Keynes when it first grew. It is often falsely characterised as a soulless place with identikit housing estates. The reality is different. There is a rich sense of community, generated by the people who came to the new areas of Milton Keynes at the outset and who wanted to build a new place together. Although the housing stock was new— 20 years before, the area was just open fields—a rich community quickly developed.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the bonds of community. Does he agree that encouraging first-time buyers with the policies that the Government are proposing will have huge and positive knock-on effects down the line? He has talked about bonds within the community, but the policies would also free up more private and social rented accommodation, and that would have a real impact on homelessness, which is rising in North Yorkshire at the moment. Such policies would feed down the line and have positive knock-on effects across the board.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I will be making a few additional points about how the policy will interact with the social housing sector. I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point.

On localism and building sustainable communities, we need to get away from simply building new flats as the primary housing stock, which was a feature of the old top-down system. Local authorities were given targets for new houses, and the easiest way to fulfil the target was to build blocks of flats. There is absolutely nothing wrong with flats; they have their place. I live in a flat in my constituency—there is nothing wrong with it—but the situation has got out of proportion.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when local authorities give planning permission for such developments, the future of a community that involves children should be considered? We need appropriately sized houses for families. First-time house buyers will presumably get married and start families. Once people start families, we get community cohesion with schools, pre-schools and play schools and so on. That really does create a family community on new housing estates.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The new neighbourhood plans in the Localism Act 2011 will help enormously. Having a proper mix of housing stock in an area will build up a sense of community.

My last point concerns how we can develop policies in future. I absolutely agree with the scope and direction of the two policies I have mentioned and the right to buy. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, there is a link with the social housing sector. Even with additional help, taking out a full mortgage will still be beyond the means of some people. My wish is to see a much more flexible transition from social housing to owner-occupancy. We have had the shared-ownership scheme for some time, which has been successful up to a point, but it is a little limited in its scope. As we move forward, I want a scheme—this is a long-term plan over 20 or 30 years—whereby it will be easier for people who cannot afford a full mortgage at a particular point in their life but might be able to afford, say, a quarter of the equity of the house to take that. I want a flexible scheme so that, as people’s circumstances change, they might be able to build up more and more of the equity to reach full owner-occupancy later on. There are many suggestions about how we get there. I just want to put that on the table for the Government to consider and to build on what has been an excellent set of policies to help young people on to the ladder.

I will conclude my remarks now; I know that others wish to contribute. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester on securing this excellent debate.

Business, Innovation and Skills

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record my concerns about how the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE for short—will, in 2012-13, allocate its funding to widen participation in higher education, and how that will impact on the Open university, which is in my constituency.

The Open university is a much-cherished institution, and it enjoys widespread support across the country, and in all parts of the House. It has a very impressive record on widening participation in higher education over the past 40-odd years. In the current year, 20% of its new students have come from the 25% most disadvantaged communities in the country. It has 13,500 students with a registered disability, and some 18,000 students working through its access and opening programmes, so it has a very impressive track record.

In the current year, HEFCE is providing some £368 million to higher education institutions across the country to support them in meeting the additional costs of attracting the students whom we are talking about. The Open university receives approximately 10% of that. I am aware of Treasury pressure on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to divert some of that funding to other areas of higher education. In this academic year, BIS included the following wording in its annual grant letter to HEFCE:

“for 2011-12 the top policy priorities for targeted funding should be supporting widening participation and fair access”.

I heartily agree with that.

My wish is that similar wording is included in the funding letter for 2012-13 which is due to be published in a few weeks. Without such wording, my fear and that of many at the Open university and in the wider higher education community is that there could be serious unintended consequences for the Government’s laudable goal of widening participation. I am not disputing that there is keen competition within higher education for a slice of the funding cake. There will be many equally worthwhile goals, but I fear that redirecting this money into other aspects of higher education would jeopardise the Government’s ambition to provide as wide a range of higher and further education options as possible. That is a role that the Open university currently performs exceptionally well.

I draw the attention of the House to the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report published in November, which stated:

“Widening participation in higher education has an important impact on future economic prosperity and therefore is worthy of public investment…We welcome any additional investment to remove barriers to participation in higher education.”

I endorse that entirely. Of course, all institutions in the country have to live within their means. I would like to place it on record that the Open university has played its part in this. When the previous Government withdrew funding for equivalent and lower qualifications, that resulted in a significant drop in income for the Open university. It consequently reduced its running costs by some £30 million. To help keep tuition fees low—the Open university has fees of around £5,000, compared with £8,000 or £9,000 elsewhere—it is further reducing its running costs by some £75 million by 2014-15 and some £30 million of that has already been realised, but if the Open university were to lose another £37 million as a result of the redirecting of funding, there would be devastating consequences for its programme of widening participation.

The Government have a good record in this field and have worthy ambitions. The current funding scheme works. I very much welcome the £150 million national scholarship programme and the higher education White Paper published in the summer has a strong ambition to widen participation. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give me or the Open university an early Christmas present by confirming that this money will stay, but may I urge him to speak to colleagues over the next few weeks so that that letter reflects current provision?

I have a few seconds left, Mr Deputy Speaker, so may I take this opportunity to wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? I look forward to being back in the new year.

Autumn Statement

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I very much want the second Mersey crossing to get the go-ahead, and the Government have committed the support, including financial support, to the specific plan. It has to be tolled to be paid for, however, as I am sure people understand, but I would draw a distinction with the Humber bridge: the debt on the Humber bridge was paid for many years ago and so the tolls were unreasonable. However, when providing new infrastructure, we have to find a way of funding it. It has to come either from general taxation—we are providing tax support—or out of the tolls. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the arrangements with Halton council, speak to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and get back to him.

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

Just three weeks ago, I set up an all-party group to campaign for the reopening of the east-west rail link. May I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to our requests, and will he confirm that the project has a benefit-cost ratio of more than 6:1 and is in line to generate up to 12,000 high-quality jobs along the route?

[Mr Osborne]

This is evidence of what a powerful campaigner my hon. Friend is on behalf of his constituents and Milton Keynes, and I am delighted that we can develop these plans, which have the potential to create many, many thousands of jobs. It would be good to reopen a railway line in Britain.

Scotland Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

I have been a long time speaking and others want to contribute. I commend our amendments to the House.

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

I shall speak first to my amendment 24 before making some broader comments about some of the other amendments and new clauses.

I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, as I felt there was still some ambiguity about one aspect of the definition of a Scottish taxpayer when it was considered in Committee. My point of concern is to define whether under clause 26 a taxpayer is resident in Scotland at the end of the day if that person is embarking on a cross-border overnight journey—one that departs Scotland before midnight and arrives in England after midnight. I think primarily of my old friend on the Caledonian sleeper, whom I cited in Committee. If the train leaves Glasgow and has crossed the border before midnight, is he deemed to be in Scotland or England at the end of the tax day? The point may seem trivial, but for someone who makes that journey regularly it could be material in defining whether they were a Scottish or an English taxpayer. Obviously, it would also apply to other modes of transport, such as private or heavy goods vehicles and overnight coaches.

It is a probing amendment and it may not offer the most specific or elegant definition, but I tabled it to find clarity. I shall be happy not to press it if alternative wording can be found, or the Minister can give clarity in case the definition is ever challenged in court. I shall return to that point briefly at the end of my comments.

I shall speak briefly to new clause 8 and the related amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others. I suspect that one of our show-stopping debates tonight may be on the Barnett formula and related matters. When I looked at the amendment paper, I thought I would be following the right hon. Gentleman and responding to his points, but I shall have to anticipate his arguments from the interventions and from the new clause itself.

They are a beguiling set of amendments. I agree that at some point we shall have to tackle the whole issue of the Barnett formula and the fiscal relationship between all parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) invites me to give a solution. If he bides his time—

[Mr MacNeil]

I said we have a solution.

[Iain Stewart]

I know, but I believe I have a better one and I shall turn to it in a moment.

The arguments are beguiling. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that she has correspondence from constituents asking why on the face of it Scottish residents have a much better deal from the UK public purse than people in England. I receive similar letters asking why prescriptions are free north of the border, but there is a charge in England. That issue has to be tackled.

[Mr MacNeil]

Among that raft of questions, has anyone ever asked the hon. Gentleman why the social security spend is higher per head in England than in Scotland?

[Iain Stewart]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s facts, because in preparing for the debate I read that often-thumbed document GERS—Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland—and the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis, which show, if my interpretation is correct, that social security payments are higher per head in Scotland than in England.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Gentleman rise to the challenge of explaining to his constituents why there may be different charges for services between one local authority area and another? If that can be explained, surely the choices made by the Scottish Parliament and Government can also be explained to his constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Indeed. If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument, I shall address those points. There is a lot of misinformation swilling around and we need to arrive at hard evidence-based data so that we can make objective decisions about the future fiscal relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom.

One of the misleading things is that we often talk about changing the Barnett formula as if that was the whole fiscal relationship between the different parts of the kingdom. In fact, it is a convergence formula; it was designed by Lord Barnett to diminish the difference between Scottish and English public spending over time. The reason why people complain about the formula is that so many elements of public spending are negotiated separately from the formula. Last week, there was an instructive debate about the formula in the other place and I remind Members of the comments of Lord Lang, a former Scotland Secretary. He said that between 2000 and 2002 the Barnett elements of the public expenditure rounds diminished the Scottish block by £17 million, but the total increased by £340 million because of separately negotiated arrangements.

[Mr MacNeil]

Was any mention made in that debate of the massive defence underspend in Scotland, which is a huge section of public spending where Scotland receives dramatically less than its per capita share compared with the rest of the UK? [Interruption.] I would say more if I was not being heckled by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson).

[Iain Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall come to what I believe is the solution.

I fear that new clause 8 and the related amendments are a little hasty in dealing with this matter.

[Mr Frank Field]

What about the Union?

[Iain Stewart]

The Barnett formula has not been in operation for the duration of the Union and only since 1978, so it is a comparatively new beast.

Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in the debate on the Pensions Bill where one of the arguments against the changes the Government are proposing is that the time scale to allow people to adjust their behaviour should not be less than 10 years. A similar approach should be taken to funding; there should be a process of evolution, not revolution. If we rush too hastily into the argument on the basis of misinformation, we risk splitting the Union asunder.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is right. If a change is made to the block grant, as it must be at some point soon, there will be a long transition period, which may be as long as 10 years, but that is no reason not to do a review, put the matter on a needs basis and start that 10-year period. A transition of 10 years is reasonable.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have a suggestion to make about how we can move forward. In this country we have never had a territorially based system of taxation or spending. From taxation receipts we do not know in detail which part of the United Kingdom contributes what in taxes. There are many estimates and forecasts, but there is little hard evidence.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Iain Stewart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. His party, in calculating Scotland’s share of the United Kingdom’s tax receipts, has used very different formulae and assumptions over the years. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but in the space of a few months it came up with a figure for Scotland’s surplus, if that is what it was, which varied by several billion pounds because it used different assumptions in calculating Scottish tax receipts. That is the problem that we have in calculating the true relationship.

[Mr MacNeil]

Over and above tax receipts, disaggregated spending might be a lot easier. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Departments such as the Ministry of Defence should provide full figures on how much they are spending in which parts of the United Kingdom? The Government have the power and authority to do that. We have many concerns about the shipyards in Glasgow and about defence spending. As a member of the governing party, does the hon. Gentleman feel that he should be encouraging his side to provide openness and clarity on these vital issues?

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to come to some agreement with the hon. Gentleman. My solution is to provide a detailed breakdown on a territorial basis of actual spending and receipts—what is spent and received by each part of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Davidson]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but with reference to the different parts of the United Kingdom, does he accept that there are enormous divergences among different parts of England, and that that is fuelling much of the sense of grievance felt by many of our English colleagues? Much of this is a within-England problem of unfair distribution, particularly to the north-east and the north-west of England, which ought to be addressed by his Government.

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point exactly. It is too crude to look at the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and in England we need to break that down further and look, as he says, at the different needs in the different parts of the kingdom. I will give a constituency example. My constituency, Milton Keynes South, is in the affluent south-east of England, yet I have very deprived wards in my constituency. Taking health spending as an example, what Milton Keynes is allocated as its formula share of health spending in England is capped because there is a transfer to other parts of England. I contend that that is not fair and it disregards some of the areas of need in my constituency, but it illustrates the problem that arises if the formula for analysing spending is too crude.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, spending per head in London is almost 50% higher than in the south-east region of England. No one disputes that there are parts of London where there is great need, but other parts which do not fall into that category still benefit from Government spending which is 40% higher than in his constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In calculating these figures, however, we should be careful about looking only at per capita spending. Again, I believe that is too crude. It is about the equality of service provision. In a rural area, the cost per head of providing a school place will inevitably be higher because the fixed costs of a building, for example, are divided by a comparatively smaller number of people.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that allocating funds simply on geography, particularly defence spending, is a misdirection? Defence spending must be based on the strategic needs of the armed forces, not on a geographic spread. Does he agree that that line of argument is completely false in the context of defence spending?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We also have to look at the equality of the benefits given by defence spending—the protection that accrues to the whole country. It does not matter so much where the defence equipment originates if we are looking at the overall protection that the armed forces provide.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) makes a valid point as regards defence. The attack on the Barnett formula is based on the fact that Scotland gets more per head, but if we take into account all spending, that is not necessarily the case because of the imbalance in the way that defence spending is allocated—so the figures are important. Where the assets are, for the purposes of this argument, may not be quite so important, but the amount of spending is very important. The economic impact of where the assets are is vital to many communities.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. May I infer that he is happy to retain the Trident base in Faslane, given the economic benefits that accrue to Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire?

[Mr Weir]

There is little or no economic benefit from the Trident base, and there is an extremely disproportionate —[Interruption.] The point is that bases such as the RAF bases in Morayshire are important not only from a defence point of view but economically, and bases such as the Condor base in my constituency are important economically and also from a defence point of view.

[Iain Stewart]

I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the lack, as he sees it, of economic benefits. I also contend that he is making a good case for Scotland's remaining part of the Union, so that the lion’s share of UK defence assets can be based north of the border.

[Mr MacNeil]

As part of the Union, Scotland currently has a manifest defence underspend. There is no defence advantage for Scotland of being in the Union at all; we are actually losing money by being part of the Union. Far more would be spent on defence in Scotland as an independent country than the Union is spending there, and the shipyards in Glasgow would be in a far better state with an independent Scotland than with a dependent Scotland represented by Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman in many matters, but this is not one of them. The argument that defence spending in Scotland would somehow be enhanced through independence is not one I agree with. I am not sure whether the Scottish National party’s policy is still to withdraw from NATO, but it used to be many years ago. I see Scottish defence assets only being decimated in the event of independence, so I agree to disagree with him on that point.

I will return to what I propose as a solution. Before we start recalibrating the Barnett formula or developing some other formula or mechanism, we need hard facts on the fiscal relationship between each part of the kingdom. Once we have that, we can move forward on a sensible basis towards having a stable and fair system in the UK. However, I will end on a note of caution. In a previous exercise I looked at other countries that operate some form of fiscal transfers between different parts of the country, such as Australia, Canada and Germany. There are different models in each country, but in all of them the spending relationship between the constituent parts is still a big political issue. I fear that we will never get to a point where everyone is completely happy with the relationship, but I believe that we can arrive at a stable solution.

[Mr Davidson]

It is important to put on the record that even under devolution Glasgow clearly gets far less than its fair share from a Scottish Government based in Edinburgh. I have just been to the Shetlands with the Scottish Affairs Committee, and people there feel that they are equally badly treated by Edinburgh. We also need a needs-based assessment within Scotland to stop money disappearing and being sucked down into the black hole that is Edinburgh.

[Iain Stewart]

Having been born and brought up in Hamilton, which is between Glasgow and Edinburgh, I am in something of a no man’s land on that point and wary of intruding on private grief. The hon. Gentleman’s point is an important one. The analysis should be not only among Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but among the regions and cities in each nation. I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister could suggest some alternative working or make some statement.

[Mr Russell Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

One very last time.

[Mr Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My intervening on him is causing disruption behind me. Will he look again at his amendment and explain exactly what it means? I am a little perturbed, and I know that he has mentioned sleeper trains and everything, but will he explain again exactly what it means?

[Iain Stewart]

My amendment is very simple and would remove any ambiguity. If a passenger were on a cross-border overnight journey, irrespective of when the border was crossed, they would be deemed to be in Scotland at the end of the day when that service departed. It may not be the most elegant or precise of solutions, but I felt that in the debate in Committee there was some ambiguity about the position, so the amendment is my attempt to clarify it.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Iain Stewart]

Forgive me, but I am going to finish now. Many other Members wish to speak, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Ann McKechin]

I welcome the very wise remarks of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). He always provides us with great expertise on Barnett formula issues, and on the point about having hard evidence, because one key component of our debate about the Bill has been the evidence for the various fiscal arguments that have been proffered over the past few months.

Borrowing powers were not in the original Calman recommendations, but we certainly welcome the inclusion of that tool for the Scottish Government. The Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee, in its report, and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs both recommended that the powers be brought forward from the proposed date of April 2013, and as the Minister will be aware, we have already called for their advancement to 2012. That proposal is in amendment 2.

The Government announced in last week’s written ministerial statement that they are to bring forward to 2011 pre-payments, in order to allow work on the Forth replacement crossing. That is not the same as bringing forward the capital borrowing powers in the Bill, and it would be helpful if the Minister in his winding-up speech were able to confirm that the full capital borrowing powers will be available from the next financial year, if the Bill is on the statute book by that point.

I also welcome the announcement in the statement that the Government are removing the requirement for Scottish Ministers to absorb the first £120 million of tax forecasting variation within their budget, giving them greater flexibility. A number of comments have been made about extending the borrowing limits, and that should be a matter of negotiation between the two Administrations. The Secretary of State says that he views the figure of £2.2 billion as a floor rather than as a maximum, and that is welcome.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I shall make a very brief contribution. I just want to congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill, as its provisions are a sensible evolution of the devolution settlement.

From an English perspective, I think the Bill will go some way towards allaying the concerns felt by many of my constituents about a perception of unfairness in the spending arrangements. I agree that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for raising a significant chunk of the revenue it wants to spend on services, and this presents a sensible way forward. It will not be the end of the matter, however. There will be further debates on the arrangements between Scotland, England and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am an unashamed Unionist. I believe that the strength of the United Kingdom is greater than that of the sum of its parts, and I want it to continue always. Others on both sides of the border disagree with that, but I make this plea: whatever further changes are suggested, let them be based on evidence, be sensible, be practical and not be part of some silly constitutional game-playing. The economy of Scotland, and indeed of the whole United Kingdom, is still fragile, and the last thing we need is years and years of constitutional uncertainty. As we send this Bill to the Lords for further consideration, I congratulate the Government again and make that plea for a sensible, evidence-based, common-sense solution.

Scotland Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I am just about to finish.

I commend the amendment to the House.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I shall address the Scottish National party Members’ amendments in a moment, but first let me make an observation about this part of the Bill, particularly clause 24. I strongly support the proposal to devolve substantial tax powers to the Scottish Parliament, making it responsible for raising approximately a third of its revenue. I shall not repeat the arguments I made on Second Reading, but the principle of the Scottish Parliament raising a good part of its revenue is vital. If that does not happen, the threat to the Union will be very real. To underline that point, let me quote from an e-mail that I received last night from a constituent, Mr Haig. It is worth repeating a couple of the points he expressed.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

He’s bored and is going to resign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Not that Mr Hague—this one is spelt Haig. I think the Foreign Secretary is rather preoccupied with matters elsewhere in the world.

My Mr Haig said, of the First Minister’s comments about free tertiary education in his interview on the Andrew Marr programme yesterday:

“What is it the Scots go without that we the English enjoy? More and more people I speak to are seething with this unfairness, especially in the current financial climate. How is it the Scots can afford this, and the English cannot? They even have an extra layer of government, and are able to afford that as well. Mr Stewart, English nationalism is going to rise slowly but surely over this. Your government cannot ignore this, otherwise you are going to create a fracture in the union, and the SNP’s most ardent supporters for independence are going to be the English.”

I agree. I am a Unionist and I want the Union to survive. The hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) might support our doing nothing to increase support for their ultimate aim, but I do not.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman responds to his constituent by making him fully aware of what the Scottish block grant is. If the Administration in Edinburgh decide to spend money in one fashion, there is no extra funding for it north of the border. In paying for one thing, we are sacrificing something else. Could that be a starting point for the hon. Gentleman?

[Iain Stewart]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the Scottish Parliament were responsible for raising more of its revenue, such arguments would diminish. I think it is right to give it the flexibility to raise additional revenue, if it so wishes, to fund extra programmes in Scotland from which my constituents south of the border may not benefit.

I agree with the incremental steps proposed in clause 24. We are for the first time starting to disaggregate the unitary tax system in the United Kingdom. That will have many consequences, some of which will be unforeseen, so we need to proceed with great care and attention to detail. I strongly welcome the proposal that we should not rush to set up a completely new system in one go. In particular, proposed new section 80B, which clause 24 introduces, contains a provision to allow the subsequent devolution of additional tax powers. That is the right way to go, rather than trying to devolve too much at this stage.

The hon. Member for Dundee East raised perfectly valid points about devolving other taxes, including air passenger duty, fuel duty and corporation tax, and we might well come around to doing that in the fullness of time. The Scottish Parliament’s response to the Bill noted that

“international experience does show some scope for differentiation of corporation tax,”

and we may get to that point. However, there are huge difficulties and intricacies that we must first consider about the operation of corporation tax. A later clause goes into some detail in defining a Scottish taxpayer for the purposes of the Bill and we would have to do something very similar for corporation tax. If a company were primarily located in Scotland but had its tax headquarters elsewhere, we would have to work out exactly which components of its income were liable for corporation tax.

[Stewart Hosie]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that argument before. He is being reasonable, and is making a reasoned case, but I disagree with him. However, does he accept the principle, in relation to the last point that he made, that tax liability would follow economic activity?

[Iain Stewart]

There will be huge consequences, some foreseen, but others unforeseen. We would need to undertake a huge amount of research to work out how to begin to disaggregate what has been a unitary UK tax system. I am not saying that it is impossible, or that it is something that we should not look at in future, but for the purposes of the Bill, I do not think that it is necessary, because clause 24 makes provision to look at devolving additional tax powers in future.

I am not going to say anything more at this point, because I want to deal in detail with other measures when we come on to the relevant clauses. Scottish National party Members have made a point about air passenger duty and landfill tax. I am perfectly content that measures are being negotiated at European level and elsewhere. Until they are resolved, it would be premature to include the devolution of those taxes in the Bill. I accept that the Calman view was that those matters should be devolved in the fullness of time, and I support that, but it is not necessary to include it at this point. I am therefore afraid that I cannot support the amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

What a difference a week makes, as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill after our sitting last Monday. On Thursday, we witnessed a plenary debate in the Chamber at Holyrood on the recommendations in the report on the legislative consent motion. At the conclusion of the debate, there was a vote, and we witnessed a remarkable about-turn, as the Scottish National party supported the motion recommended in the majority report. After two years of sniping on the sidelines, it has joined the three other major parties in Scotland to support the Bill, and I genuinely welcome that.

Who is surprised at the pattern that has emerged yet again? This is a party that did not join the constitutional convention, but supported the devolution referendum. It came into power four years ago, promising that its top aim above all others was a referendum on independence, which was then dropped. The interesting allegations in Wikipedia about the First Minister’s comments on the party’s real aims, rather than all-out independence, add to the mix the overwhelming conclusion that it can talk about independence as much as it wants, but the SNP has never been on the true side of the people of Scotland, which is why it constantly has to play catch-up.

We have had an interesting debate about fiscal decentralisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

The Holyrood Committee did not consider that in detail, and the Calman commission did not make any specific recommendations that would lead us to legislate tonight. We have to reach a compromise in respect of striking a balance between fairness to Scottish taxpayers and having a system that is as simple and easy to understand as possible, and that reduces the administration costs to the Scottish Government as far as possible.

On thresholds, given that the Welfare Reform Bill has just been introduced with proposals on universal credit at the same time as this Bill is passing through the House, I ask the Government to say what consideration has been given to the impact on welfare benefits. Those on low incomes often have the most complicated tax affairs. Most benefits are calculated on after-tax income. If the Scottish rate income tax is higher than the basic rate, Scottish taxpayers on benefits will be entitled to claim more benefit. Will the Government ensure that the extra benefit is paid automatically, or will they issue public information on how full entitlement can be claimed? How will the new proposals on universal credit be implemented in respect of these tax changes? The Government have stated that their general rule on the tax base is one of no detriment, but I ask the Minister to reflect and give any assurance he can about whether there might be a possible conflict.

Conversely, if the Scottish tax rate is lower than that of the rest of the UK, Scottish taxpayers on benefits will be entitled to fewer benefits in some cases. What mechanism will the Government put in place to ensure that adjustments are made to their payments? We would be concerned if those on the very lowest incomes were adversely affected in their entitlement to the welfare benefits system. That is largely based on the national insurance system of course, which is separate from the tax system, but, as the Minister will be aware, the interaction between benefits and taxes is complex, and I am sure none of us would want to do this in a way that adversely impacts on pensioners, people on lower incomes, single parents, the disabled and others who may already have many concerns about what is being proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill. I hope the Minister can reassure us that he will not be adding to that burden.

Are the costs of implementation still as estimated in the Command Paper? How do the Government intend to control those costs? There is a long period of implementation, and hon. Members may be concerned about that, as some implementation schemes have taken longer, and been much more expensive, than originally estimated. Will the Minister tonight undertake to produce an annual report to the House of Commons until the full-scale implementation of the scheme, so that we may better scrutinise it, and ensure that value for money to the taxpayer is maintained and that the burden—which, of course, is ultimately to be met by the Scottish Government—is kept to a minimum?

[Iain Stewart]

I support the clause, but I wish to raise a couple of specific examples just to test that the definition of a Scottish taxpayer as set out in the Bill is robust and covers all eventualities. I appreciate that the examples I am about to give are technical, and if the Minister is unable to give me a definitive response tonight, I hope he will be able to do so on Report.

My first example is based on the situation my father was in for a number of years. It relates to proposed new section 80E(3)(c) on the definition of Scottish residence, as opposed to residence of another part of the UK. My father’s home was, and is, in Hamilton, just outside Glasgow. By any reasonable test, that is his main residence: it has been the family home for generations; my mother lives there; and it is what my father would call home. However, for a number of years he worked for the Civil Aviation Authority and although he was mainly based at Prestwick, the nature of his job required him to spend a considerable amount of time at its headquarters in London. He rented a flat in central London, where he was registered on the electoral roll for council tax, for utility payments and for all the other aspects of living in a dwelling. For a number of tax years he spent a majority of nights in London, as opposed to spending them at the family home in Scotland. Therefore, if I have read proposed new section 80E(3)(c) correctly, he would not be deemed to be a Scottish taxpayer. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether that is the case. If so, is this not an anomalous situation and will the Government re-examine what the definition of “a Scottish taxpayer” should be?

Secondly, I wish to discuss the “Caledonian sleeper” question, which relates to proposed new section 80F(1)(a) and the number of days spent in Scotland

“at the end of the day.”

I do not have a detailed knowledge of the railway timetable, but let us suppose that the sleeper train left Glasgow at 10.30 pm or 10.45 pm and so was clearly in Scotland at the end of the day. If it traversed the border before midnight and so was actually in England on the stroke of midnight, would that day be counted as Scottish or English for the purposes of this calculation? I hope hon. Members will forgive me for raising this very detailed point, which will affect only a small number of people, as it is the job of this Committee to tease out these practical matters. I do not expect the Minister to give me a definitive reply right now, but I would be grateful if he undertakes to examine the matter and give an answer at a later stage in our proceedings.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is important that we move forward on these tax powers for the Scottish Parliament. The big difference between these proposals and the ones in the Scotland Act 1998 are that these apply to all the different rates of tax. The structure being used and the fact that there will be a corresponding reduction in the block grant will deliver to the Scottish Parliament a real ability to make decisions, be accountable and test how well these things work. We wanted that in Scotland and we need it, but that is not to say that the arrangements will not have any complications and that there is no need to be clear about the answers to some of these questions. Some could be covered by regulations that are to follow, but there is always an anxiety involved in depending too much on detailed regulations, as opposed to primary legislation.

I wish to discuss two particular areas, one of which is tax avoidance and the provisions that the Government suggest we put in place to deal with it. The last thing that we would want is for those who have the ability to arrange their tax affairs in different ways to be able to avoid paying this tax, as that would harm the Scottish economy and undermine the whole principle behind what we are trying to achieve. We need to know what provisions will be put in place to deal with tax avoidance in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) mentioned the self-employed, and they are also important. It is easier for them to arrange their tax affairs in a beneficial way, whereas those of us on PAYE may not be able to do that. It is important for self-employed people to know exactly how this system will work for them, particularly if they generate earnings in different parts of the United Kingdom, as it is quite possible for such people to generate.

I also have concerns about the future interrelationship between the benefits system and the tax system. This is important because the way in which benefits are calculated for some people depends on their income after tax, which means that a variation in tax will affect benefits. The Government may be clear that systems will be in place to deal with that very quickly, but the last thing that people on benefits need is any uncertainty about their income. They need to know how any increases in their income, and therefore in their tax liability, or any decreases in their income will affect them, because at that level of income people suffer particularly badly when changes are made. If the Welfare Reform Bill proceeds in full, we will be moving towards a new benefits system at just about the same time as some of these new powers come into force, so it is important to get this right. I urge the Government to provide answers to these questions, if not now, in time for Report, so that we can be clear about how this interrelationship will work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am always grateful for advice on Scottish vernacular, and to the right hon. Lady for her comments. If I may complete my explanation, I hope that things will prove to be reasonably clear.

If someone has two or more places of residence in the UK, the question of whether or not they have a close connection with Scotland will depend on whether their main place of residence is located in Scotland for at least as much time as they spend somewhere else in the UK, again provided that the place of residence is where they live. This will apply to those who split their time between a house in Scotland and a house somewhere else in the UK, both of which can be described as their main place of residence. It will also apply to those individuals who sell their homes sometime during the tax year and move from Scotland to somewhere else in the UK, or vice versa. Within that year, they will have more than one place of residence in the UK, and which of those will be their main place of residence will effectively depend on what stage in the year they move house. In the case of someone who starts the year with their home in Scotland but moves to England after eight months, their Scottish home will be their main place of residence for longer than their new home in England. Such individuals will therefore be a Scottish taxpayer for the full tax year.

Condition A has been designed to enable the vast majority of people to decide whether they are a Scottish taxpayer without the need to consider the other two conditions. After all, most people will have no difficulty deciding where their main place of residence is located.

[Iain Stewart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will, but with some trepidation.

[Iain Stewart]

I have been listening carefully to what the Minister is saying but am still a little puzzled. I understand the example of a sales rep who might use hotels or temporary accommodation, but if the other residence is another house or flat that the resident has registered for council tax or for the purpose of being on the electoral register, for example, does that come under that definition? My father, for example, could self-declare his home in Scotland as his principal residence, even though he might spend a minority of the time in a year there.

[Mr Gauke]

The ordinary meaning of the main place of residence is set out in case law. It is not necessarily determined by the number of days one spends at a location. To use the example of my hon. Friend’s father, if a commuter has his family home in Hamilton and stays there every weekend, although he might spend more time at work in London, Hamilton would be his main residence. HMRC guidance will provide a number of worked examples of that. I am reluctant to give too much information that could constitute specific advice, as I obviously cannot comment on individual cases, but I hope that that is helpful.

Coinage (Measurement) Bill

Iain Stewart Excerpts

Friday 4th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I would like to think that that would be the case. It is my understanding that the coins will be put up for sale—and sale only.

The Royal Mint wants to ensure that the two commemorative kilogram coins will crown the range of coins. Judging from the reception of similar coins around the world, and after consulting representatives of the coin trade and collectors, the Royal Mint is confident that the UK kilogram coins will be well received—but hopefully not by the IOC.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. Does he agree that the coins, as well as being of interest to collectors around the world, could usefully serve as prizes for different communities, which will try to emulate the Olympic games by hosting, for example, inter-village competitions? A kilogram coin would be a fitting award to the community that triumphed in those sporting contests.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Indeed, the coins will be for sale, and there is an opportunity for doing what he suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster]

Having seen the production line for myself, I am confident that they will indeed be 100% gold and 100% silver. I would hate to think that what my hon. Friend describes would happen again, and after my visit I am quite confident that that will not be the case.

It may interest hon. Members to hear that there is a common misconception about the meaning of legal tender. The face value of the coins will be very different from the cost of buying them. The parties involved in a transaction are free to agree the means of payment, whether bank notes, credit card or other payment arrangements. However, in the absence of any such agreement, the creditor is entitled to require payment in legal tender. Conversely, the debtor is entitled to use it. Bank of England bank notes are legal tender in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes are not legal tender anywhere in the United Kingdom. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) nodding. I am sure that he has suffered from this. Coin is also legal tender throughout the UK, although in most cases only up to certain specific limits.

The Olympic programme would generate royalties for London 2012 and the Exchequer, because the Royal Mint corporate entity is 100% owned by Her Majesty’s Treasury. Of course, the royalty payable would depend on sales and the final price of the coins, which will be determined by the price of gold, as I have said. However, as I mentioned, it is expected that demand will be similar to, if not greater than, that associated with previous Olympics. It is also important to note that the project is self-funding. The coins form just part of a wide range of products the Royal Mint is issuing to commemorate the 2012 Olympics. As Lord Coe, the London 2012 chairman, said in 2009:

“we’re thrilled to be working with the Royal Mint to commemorate three years to go. As the excitement builds over the next three years, it is fantastic to know that the Royal Mint will be alongside us, helping the whole country to join in with our celebrations.”

It is important to remember that the sporting, cultural and historical significance of London 2012 is not limited to the area within the M25 boundary. The athletes aspiring to compete under the Great Britain banner come from all over the United Kingdom. I would particularly like to recognise those from my own constituency and its environs: Greg Rutherford, Nathan Robertson, Bobby White, Joey Duck and Mervyn Luckwell are just a few of the Buckinghamshire athletes hoping to take part in the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2012. Furthermore, in recent weeks, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and I have been to a number of local events organised by Roger Fennemore and his wife, Sally, helping to raise funds for our local athletes and their training for the Olympic programme. I pay tribute to them. I am pleased that Milton Keynes has also been selected as the site of one of the 2012 Olympic training villages, owing to its strategic location and strong infrastructure, offering training for five Olympic and four Paralympic sports. Her Majesty the Queen planted the first tree on the Olympic park—next to the waterways, adjacent to the stadium—a mature willow tree grown in Milton Keynes, the first of more than 300 that will be planted on the stadium site.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the significance of the Olympic games to towns, villages and cities throughout the United Kingdom. As well as supporting the elite athletes who will be competing in the games, an important part of the Olympic legacy will be inspiring young people to take part in sport and to develop their talents. This Bill, in addition to the measures that he has mentioned, will be instrumental in inspiring that new generation.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole programme is excellent, particularly the 50p coins, of which I think there are 29 versions, celebrating each individual sport. One of those coins was designed by a “Blue Peter” viewer, so we have indeed managed to engage the whole country in the programme. That is important if we are to continue to inspire young people to take part in the Olympic programme.

Let us not forget the Paralympic mascot, Mandeville, named after the Buckinghamshire village where the precursor to the Paralympics was born. I would also like to mention Dr William Penny Brookes, the founder of the Wenlock Olympic games, which have been held almost every year since 1850 in the historic town of Much Wenlock, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). As the House knows, the Wenlock games were the inspiration—here, in England—of the modern Olympic games, which started in 1896 in Athens, after Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a Frenchmen, had witnessed them. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games has recognised Much Wenlock’s place in British Olympic history by naming the London 2012 mascot Wenlock. That is an excellent tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituency town.

The striking of kilogram coins will not be limited to commemorating the Olympics. Future events of cultural significance and historical anniversaries, as well as sporting occasions, could all be celebrated in that way. The Coinage (Measurement) Bill therefore presents an exciting opportunity, with far-reaching implications. I am looking forward to a lively debate, but would urge hon. Members to let the Bill pass unopposed to the Committee stage.