Finance Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady, perfectly understandably, is seeking more information at this point. I do not think I am being in any way unreasonable in saying that we will set out the details of this in the near future. We are working very closely with interested parties, whether the industry or consumer groups, to ensure that we get this right. We have set out the broad principles behind our guidance guarantee, and we believe that we can deliver something that provides the protection that all Members want.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I understand the need for a professional to offer guidance face to face and on a quality end-product. However, may I urge my hon. Friend to consider the use of the internet and technology to collect the basic information? It makes no sense for a qualified financial consultant to take one and a half to two hours to do a basic fact-find that is actually about data collection. It is much more efficient to do that on the internet and use the time spent face to face for guidance right at the end of the process.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. Without getting too much into the details of what we will announce in due course, it is important to point out that there are various means and methods of delivering guidance and that different people will want different things. We have made it clear that face-to-face guidance will be available for those who want it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Indeed, I have just signed off a parliamentary answer to one of his questions about this. If I recall correctly, I said that these regimes, in essence, work on an individual basis but matters can be kept under review. I will certainly take his comments as a representation for future reform in this area.

The clauses I have been talking about increase the amount that can be taken as a tax-free lump sum and as a drawdown pension from 27 March 2014. In addition, the Government’s new clauses and new schedule make changes to schedule 29. As I have explained before, on Budget day the Government published a tax information impact note entitled “Increasing pension flexibility”, which covered the impact of the changes set out in clauses 39 and 40. That impact note has been updated to reflect the changes made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5.

As I have previously said, the changes made by clauses 39 and 40 are likely to be of particular benefit to individuals with smaller pension wealth, including women. The same applies to the changes that would be made by new clause 13 and new schedule 5. That is set out in the tax information impact note that was published on 27 June.

I have already mentioned that the Government published a consultation, “Freedom and choice in pensions”, on the broader measures announced in the Budget. That document set out the rationale and the relevant analysis behind the Government’s proposals and invited comments on the expected impacts. The consultation will inform the final shape of the Government’s proposals, including the guidance guarantee. The Government will set out further details in their response to this consultation, which will be published shortly.

[James Duddridge]

I always find terms like “shortly” confusing. Is “shortly” in the next few weeks, in the next the few months or before the next general election? Perhaps, while not giving an exact date, my hon. Friend might hone it down a little finer than the very broad term “shortly.”

[Mr Gauke]

I used the word “shortly;” I could have said “in due course,” but I hope that my hon. Friend is more encouraged by “shortly.” He will just have to be a little more patient, but I can assure him that it will not be very long before he will be satisfied on those details.

Let me say a brief word about guidance, which I have touched on already. The Government believe that, as people have greater choice over retirement, they will need the right support and guidance to make the choice that is right for them, so we are working to ensure that everyone approaching retirement with a defined-contribution pension can receive impartial, face-to-face guidance on the choices available to them. However, the guidance guarantee is not a tax rule, so I hope that hon. Members will understand that although it is a very important part of the radical reforms that we are introducing from April 2015, it does not form part of the changes being discussed today.

The Government have already published information on the impact of clauses 39 and 40, as well as on new clause 13 and new schedule 5, and have consulted further on their broader proposals. New clause 9 is therefore unnecessary. Whether that is enough to persuade the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun not to press her case, I somewhat doubt, and no doubt she will put it very reasonably, but I hope that she considers my response reasonable as well. Whether she considers it reasonable or not, that is my response.

The overall purpose of the changes that the Government are making today is to enable people who had recently taken the tax-free lump sum from their defined-contribution pension savings to use the new flexibility, while remaining in broadly the same tax position. I therefore hope that new clause 13 and new schedule 5 will be added to the Bill, and I request that new clause 9 is not pressed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I find this issue rather exciting, although clearly the House does not, given how empty the Chamber is. The pension changes that the Government are bringing forward are absolutely essential and, I think, will transform the marketplace in the long term. However, I am concerned that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), having suffered the Finance Bill in Committee, seems to have spent the intervening time reading the Hansard reports of what we all said. Really, it is too much of a punishment to do that and then have to come back yesterday and today. Thankfully we will have Third Reading later this evening, if all goes well.

On new clause 13, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary talked entirely about defined contribution schemes. When he winds up, perhaps he will update the House on what is happening with defined benefit schemes, or perhaps there are no transitional issues for defined benefit schemes in the new clause. I think it is entirely right to give people plenty of time to look at these issues, because a number of people were not expecting these changes and would not have predicted them, so they will need longer to consider their personal positions. As time goes on, I think that there will be less need for guidance and advice, whether provided by the state or privately, because people now going into defined contribution schemes will know what the options are likely to be when they come out. Indeed, five years from now it will be slightly more predictable. People should look at that years, rather than just a few months, before they retire. Of course, that is not possible immediately, given that these changes have only just come in.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the other arm of the Government on this, the Pensions Minister, has developed a whole pensions policy based on the notion that inertia has to be harnessed for the public good, meaning that, as a rule, people are not aware of the complexities of pensions and there therefore needs to be a system in place so that those who do not exercise a choice still get a good outcome. Is the hon. Gentleman really that confident that we will very quickly reach a situation in which there will be informed consumers across the board who can make the kinds of investment decisions to which he is referring?

[James Duddridge]

I think that the default position will be that an annuity is purchased, rather than a lump sum being withdrawn. I think the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is the more cautious route, but I am concerned that it is not the right route for some people. Taking out a lump sum might make a lot more sense for them. However, it is an additional option. The guidance that the Government are offering is not perfect. In fact, perfect advice, if it is taken forward to a recommendation, is incredibly expensive.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful response. I am not sure that the default position will be that someone is defaulted into an annuity. We need clarity on that as we discuss these clauses. I think that a choice will have to be exercised one way or another, but I might be wrong. Perhaps the Minister will provide clarity on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

The Minister, as ever, will provide clarity, and I will ensure that he has plenty of time to do so.

We need to look at these changes in the round and consider other changes being made, particularly the individual savings account legislation that is going through. In the longer term, I think that ISAs and pensions will be linked and that we will move towards the individual retirement accounts we see in America, but working more from the base of an ISA up to a pension, rather than a merging of the two or a dumbing down of pensions.

An earlier intervention referred to spouse-to-spouse transfers on ISAs, which I think are particularly relevant in relation to new clause 13 and defined contribution pensions, because some people will be taking larger sums of money out and investing them directly into an ISA with little awareness that it cannot then be transferred to their spouse. The earlier the Government look at making spouse-to-spouse transfers exempt for inheritance tax, the better, particularly during this early transition period. The Sunday Times and a number of other financial services campaigners are urging the Government to look at the issue of spouse-to-spouse transfer, but I have not heard it mentioned with regard to the release of lump sums and defined contribution lump sums. Through new clause 13 the Government are recognising that there are transitional issues, but the additional transitional issue relating to ISAs has not necessarily been covered.

I welcome the reduction from £20,000 to £12,000, which entrusts individuals to make decisions. Changes to trivial contributions are also very welcome, particularly as people move from employer to employer, building up large numbers of very small pots. It may not make financial sense to merge them, so it may be better to take them out of a pension tax wrapper and independently move them to an ISA.

On the issue of guidance, we should be open and honest that the Government cannot afford to provide full-blown advice and recommendation. It is very good of the Government to allocate a significant sum of money to pointing people in the right direction. If the average pot is £30,000, as we have heard, the thousands of pounds that full-blown advice and recommendation may cost would be totally disproportionate to the potential benefit.

It is good to get guidance, but I would exercise caution about what is best: face-to-face guidance is not always the best option. If I wanted to transfer money or enact a financial transaction, I would not want to sit down face to face with my bank manager. I would much prefer the tried and tested method of interacting with and getting advice and guidance through the internet, at least at an early stage. I would not want the Government spending all the money on face-to-face guidance. Guidance on the internet may well be better for an increasing number of people, including a mini fact find into which they put their basic information.

The change may be from face-to-face to face-to-faces. Financial services presentations can work face to face, but they can also work over the internet. Once people have completed an initial fact find or an overview of their financial position—they may want to use their lump sum to repay debt, for instance—they could be diverted to an individual webcast with the relevant financial guidance.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking from his experience of the sector, for giving way again. Would he care to comment on why the existing annuities market was not working? My understanding of the analysis is that the default position of individuals was simply to accept what they were offered and not to get involved in the type of process to which he refers. If that means that the annuities market was a failure because people were not getting value for money as a result of not shopping around, what confidence does he have that there will be an overnight revolution in people’s engagement with the type of guidance he suggests?

[James Duddridge]

The annuities market was not working effectively in a number of ways, but, in relation to the lump sum, it did not work for a lot of our constituents if they rationally expected a very low life expectancy. If they had been diagnosed with a particular illness, the question of what would happen to their money would cause them great stress. It is important, therefore, to enable them to release some of that pension money and put it into another instrument so that their family can share it or, indeed, so that they can enjoy it themselves in their final years. I understand there is a risk of people under-predicting their longevity, but the large number of people with a diagnosed illness would like to access that pot. That is a slightly extreme position, but it is at the other end of the scale.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about encouraging people to shop around, but is he aware that many parts of these islands do not have very good internet access, so putting all the eggs in that basket will not help many people who want pensions advice?

[James Duddridge]

I agree that we should not put all the eggs in one basket, but we certainly should not put none in the internet basket. It is a very useful provision and, as public and domestic access to broadband improves throughout the islands, I think that use of the internet will speed things up.

I find it odd that so much of our discussion about this Finance Bill, which is a Treasury matter, has been about pensions Bills. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has prayed in aid the Pensions Minister’s submission to the Department for Work and Pensions. I wonder whether we conduct our debates on Finance Bills in the right way, structurally speaking, and whether other departmental Ministers should be involved, where relevant, alongside Treasury Ministers. Fundamentally, the report supported by Opposition Members almost amounts to a fundamental review of a number of issues in the pensions industry, which is clearly in the remit of the DWP, not the Treasury. I am not arguing that it is wrong or right; it is just that not all the key players are involved.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the fact that these pensions provisions are being handled by the Treasury. Does he agree that the two pensions Bills announced in the Queen’s speech appear to pull in different directions? One is about giving people more control over their money, while the other is about collective direct contribution schemes, which are the opposite of that. That could lead to a conflict, because two Departments are involved in developing the policy.

[James Duddridge]

I do not believe they are contradictory, because some people want to hand over that level of responsibility.

I know that other Members want to speak. I wanted to make a number of other points, but I will sit down and leave it at that in order to give the Minister a chance to respond.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me quickly try to address some of the points that have been raised, many of which related to guidance. As I said earlier, the issue features in Labour’s new clause 9, but it is not directly related to the Finance Bill. I will be as helpful as I can. On the question of whether guidance will only be face to face, the face-to-face offer will be available to those who need and want it. However, that is not to say that it will be the exclusive delivery channel. Not everyone will want face-to-face guidance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) has made clear. For many people, both now and in the future, other channels will better suit their needs. We are currently considering the appropriate range of options for delivery channels, to ensure that consumer needs are properly understood and met, building on the views and evidence received during the consultation. We have asked the Financial Conduct Authority, working closely with the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Advisory Service, the Money Advice Service and consumer groups, to co-ordinate a set of clear and robust standards that the guidance will have to meet.

The point was made about costs and, in particular, the £20 million funding. It is important to realise that that is a development fund for the purpose of getting the initiative up and running; it is not to pay for the ongoing costs of the scheme. We will talk more about that later.

Finance Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The shadow Chief Secretary says it is a tax cut for investment managers. They are different from hedge fund managers; however, as I have already explained at some length, the tax cut will benefit the investor, not the managers.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I sense from the mood of the House that the Opposition are thinking of opposing new clause 7. If they are, will my hon. Friend make it clear how many hard-working savers will be hit by not receiving this benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is investors in pension schemes who will bear the cost. The UK investment management industry, which exists up and down the country—we had a debate about the regional nature of that industry—will also be damaged. The cost makes it hard for UK-domiciled funds to compete. We want UK-domiciled funds to compete. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not Labour’s position, although I note that the shadow Chief Secretary seems to be accepting from a sedentary position that this is not a tax cut for hedge funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me begin where the Minister left off, on new clause 7. It is worth noting that section 74 of the Finance Act 2003 provides SDLT relief for lessees of flats who collectively acquire the freehold of their block under rights afforded by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The relief sets the rate of SDLT according to the consideration for the freehold divided by the number of flats, which brings the amount of SDLT paid by lessees more into line with what they might have paid had they been able to acquire the freehold of their flats separately. As the Minister said, such acquisitions are commonly undertaken by a company in which the lessees are shareholders. Under such circumstances, the 15%, higher rate SDLT charge in schedule 4A to the Finance Act 2003 will apply if the main consideration exceeds the higher rate threshold.

The Minister pointed out that clause 105 reduces the higher rate threshold from £2 million to £500,000 for transactions where the effective date is on or after 20 March 2014. However, clause 105 omitted to apply the reduction to the relief in schedule 74 to the Finance Act 2003, an omission that new clause 7 rectifies. It is welcome that the Minister has brought forward something to deal with that earlier omission and I will therefore not take issue with him on that at present.

Let me turn to amendment 67 and stamp duty reserve tax. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I confess to having a sense of déjà vu, because it is not the first time we have debated this issue. Not only did we debate it in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged; we also debated it in last year’s Finance Bill. In fact, it is almost a year ago to the day that my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was standing at this Dispatch Box trying, as I will be, to make the Government see sense and accept our call for a report to be published. [Interruption.] I think my hon. Friend is indicating that he failed on that occasion.

[James Duddridge]

You’re a better woman.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman says I am a better woman, but I have to confess that I was not able to persuade the Minister in Committee. However, as always, I am an optimist by nature, so I will venture forth today in the hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can be made to see the light and accept our call for a report to be published.

As I mentioned, it is almost a year ago to the day that my colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East was standing at this Dispatch Box. It would be remiss of me not to remark briefly that, some 15 years ago to the day, I was in the Scottish Parliament for the formal opening of that august institution. If anyone had suggested to me then that 15 years later I would be standing at this Dispatch Box discussing stamp duty reserve tax, I might have fled and looked for something else to do. Who knows? It certainly was not something that was on my agenda at that point.

However, to return to the amendment, for the benefit of anyone who may have forgotten, amidst all the excitement of the last year, exactly what we were speaking about on that occasion, I want briefly to recap some of the key points from the debate. It is worth noting what our amendment 67 proposes. For those who are following this debate with avid interest, it asks the Government to insert at the end of clause 107, page 90, line 33 a new section 5A, stating:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of changes made to Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 by this section.”

A new section 5B is then proposed:‘

“The report referred to in subsection (5A) must in particular consider…the impact on tax revenues;…the expected beneficiaries; and…a distributional analysis of the beneficiaries.”

I shall return to those issues in responding to the Minister’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately and I absolutely agree. Employee ownership is something we should be talking about and finding ways to support. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government wasted the opportunity to boost the cause of employee ownership and shareholding, and have undermined it by framing the argument so unfairly. It smacks of the Adrian Beecroft fire-at-will proposals and does not ring true for most businesses, which do not want to conduct their affairs in that way. They want an equal partnership with their employees to build the business together, knowing that in most circumstances their work force are their key asset. Undermining and cutting employment rights will potentially undermine the trust in a business between employers and employees. That is not the way to build a successful, strong business for the future.

The policy was the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s speech to the 2012 Conservative party conference. He suggested at the time that his grand idea would herald a new three-way deal between employer, employee and the Government, in which employees give up their employment rights, the company gives shares and the Government grant tax exemptions on those shares. In his words, it is swapping “old rights”—as if they are no longer required—

“with new rights of ownership.”

I want to be absolutely clear that we do not oppose the concept of employee ownership. We are aware of its benefits for both employees and employers alike, but we strongly object to its being linked to the removal of employment rights, which serves to undermine the whole concept. Ministers need to make it easier to hire people, not to fire them, but the Chancellor is kidding absolutely nobody by trying to claim that the scheme does anything other than encourage that.

The Chancellor talks about new types of ownership rights, but the Employee Owner Association, which describes itself as the voice of co-owned business, has pointed out that the scheme serves only to discredit and undermine genuine employee ownership schemes—schemes that we fully support. The chief executive of the Employee Ownership Association has said:

“There is absolutely no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost employee ownership.

Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of the workforce.”

We need only look at the comments of our colleagues in the other place, including a number of former Tory Cabinet Ministers, before they voted down these measures to see that that view is shared by pretty much everyone outside the Government. Lord O’Donnell said:

“If an employer is offering this, they are probably the kind of employer that you do not want to go near. If an employee accepts it, it is probably because they do not really understand what they are doing. On those grounds, it is bad.”

He went on to ask a question:

“we know that in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]

I could not discuss shares for rights without reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the view of the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He described the scheme as having

“all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]

Perhaps the Minister will respond to those comments today.

In new clause 11, the Opposition are trying to probe the Government on the take-up that the scheme has achieved so far. A cursory search for “shares for rights” on an internet search engine suggests that things have not been a roaring success. It turns up the following headlines. The FT.com website states, “Chancellor’s ‘shares for rights’ plan flops”. The Guardian says, “George Osborne’s shares-for-rights scheme doesn’t add up”. The Telegraph says, “No take-up on ‘rights for shares’”, as well as, “George Osborne’s flagship rights for shares scheme risks falling flat”. The specialist human resources website, XpertHR, sums it up well with, “Shares for rights: 1.7% of UK employers plan to use employee shareholder contracts, XpertHR research finds”. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed to the headlines, with FT.com reporting in January that “Nick Clegg urges end of ‘shares for rights’”.

I am quoting headlines from internet searches because it is incredibly difficult to get any information out of the Government on the take-up and impact of the policy. The purpose of the new clause is to get to the truth. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is frantically searching on his hand-held device. Perhaps he has found some alternative headlines that he would like to share with the House. Would he like to intervene?

[James Duddridge]

I assure the hon. Lady that I do not do anything frantically. I have been searching. I think that it was on Google, but I am not very good at using this little hand-held box. HR magazine says, “Osborne’s shares for rights scheme could help SMEs”. I do not know whether she needs to update her search engine or whether she is using an internal Labour party search engine that filters out good news stories.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be interested to hear more details of that story once the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the entry on his search engine. I am sure that it will help him to provide a robust response to my comments when he speaks in this debate. I look forward to hearing the positive story that he has to tell about the shares for rights scheme. I think that he might be a lone voice in this debate, but good luck to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the soothsayers and the sketch writers say again that Labour is anti-something or other, I want to make something quite clear. [Interruption.] The sketch writer is in the Gallery, although perhaps I am being a little arrogant to think that anyone would want to report on one of my speeches. Before the press releases go out from Tory central office saying that Labour is anti-share save schemes all of a sudden, I want to make it clear that this party has always been in favour of shares to reward people for the work they do.

The best and most successful companies offer shares to their most successful employees. Indeed, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to how successful a share save scheme can be by using the example—a Welsh example—of Admiral Insurance. In March 2013, it recorded a 15% increase in profits. In all, 6,500 members of staff at the Cardiff-based Admiral Group will get £3,000 in an employee share save scheme. Alastair Lyons, the chair, said at the time:

“I want to thank everyone who has helped us to create such a robust business”

in the past 20 years. People are more productive, happier and more contented when they are valued and, above all, when they feel valued. That is why the Admiral Group of companies are among the top 100 best places in the UK to work, which I am sure did not come about by trading in employee rights for shares.

Sometimes it seems that this Government are so intent on presenting some sort of radical, compassionate conservatism that they fumble around for an idea, before coming back to ideas that have failed time and again. Very often, it seems that this Government, like previous Tory-led Administrations, are fearful of employment rights, and I am not the only one saying that. According to even the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—if I may digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government are resisting requiring that very body to audit all parties’ manifestos at the next general election—the flagship shares for rights scheme has been rejected by businesses, opened up a tax loophole and will lead to £1 billion being lost by the Exchequer. In the face of such criticism, it seems eminently sensible to support our amendment for it would compel the Treasury to report on the take-up of shares for rights, collect data on the scheme and publish further reports on shares for rights every year.

[James Duddridge]

Is there not a contradiction between the argument that the scheme will lose billions and saying that it is being taken up by nobody?

[Chris Evans]

I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he should allow me to develop the argument a bit further. As he knows very well, this is a Finance Bill, and the Opposition cannot move any amendments that relate to spending. A report is the only thing we can propose, and it would be eminently sensible. If we had the data, we would know what the uptake was. I would argue that the Government have to abandon their ill thought out “shares for rights” policy, which even the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as having

“all the hallmarks of another avoidance opportunity”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) alluded to the Conservative employment Minister Lord Forsyth who described it as having

“the trappings of something that was thought up in the bath”—

by the Government on their own, I hope, although we don’t know with Tory sleaze! It is bad enough that this divisive policy undermines the concept of employee ownership and workers’ rights, but it could also cost the Exchequer up to £1 billion, a quarter of that arising from tax planning activity—the very tax planning activity that the Chancellor said he had clamped down on since he took office.

Fundamentally, the problem that employees have faced over the last 40 years with the end of heavy industry—it is a problem that comes with Governments of all stripes—is that most feel insecure in their jobs anyway. People do not have a job for life any more; they move around seven or eight types of jobs, but slashing employment rights at work is wrong in principle. It will not help create jobs and growth. It seems to me that this is a policy made up on the fly.

If anybody wants to know how ill-conceived this policy is, they need only look at some statistics. The scheme has not won the support of the business community. A 33-week consultation on the scheme—two thirds of the year, or nine months—had more than 200 responses. Of those, only five businesses said they would be interested in taking up the scheme.

I sometimes think I admire the Chancellor. He is an economist—of the highest rank, I have no doubt—but I wish he were here to explain how he came up with the line:

“Owners, workers and the taxman are all in it together”.

Where was the sense in that? It is just not fully worked out. Has he not asked the employer? If an employer has a bad employee, why would he want to give them shares and make them owners of the company? That does not make sense to me. The employee would then have voting rights over what the employer wanted to do. Why would an employee want shares in a company that had just dismissed him? It should be easier to hire than fire.

We need tax breaks for small businesses so that they can hire extra employees rather than throw away their employment rights. As a proud Labour and Co-op MP, I support employee ownership, but coupling it with slashing employment rights is contradictory and counter-productive. As the Employee Ownership Association has pointed out, boosting employee ownership

“does not require a dilution of rights”.

Even a city on the hill, the United States of America, where employee rights are certainly not in fashion, has criticised the scheme. The proposal reflects the “fire at will” recommendations of the controversial Beecroft report, authored by the Prime Minister’s employment tsar and Tory donor, Adrian Beecroft. Mr Beecroft admitted to MPs that his proposals were based not on any statistical or empirical evidence but on a “valid sample of people”. Who has he spoken to? No doubt the same Tories who have problems with the employment rights of anybody anywhere.

The scheme could also present considerable costs to business and create new administrative burdens. I believe that people are already being deterred from taking up the scheme. Alan Higham told The Guardian:

“I worry it would create suspicion among employees that I might sack them unfairly. Employees wouldn’t easily be able to see the value in the shares today…If I employ 10 staff and decided to give them £2,000 each of shares, then I would need to spend £10,000 in getting a professional valuation done. Under current tax rules I would also have paid them £2,000 each to change their contract, on which PAYE and national insurance would be charged. As this is a gift I would also have to pay tax on this. On this basis it could cost me £10,000 and a further £9,400 to give away £20,000 of shares. There will probably also be some sort of ongoing admin and HMRC compliance to do, which will also cost.”

Fundamental questions must be asked about this entire scheme. If the company goes bankrupt—if the employer is so bad that he runs his company into the ground—does the employee he has just sacked become responsible for any of the company’s losses? If the employee has shares in the company, of course he will.

Ministers are seeking to introduce this scheme without proper consultation and discussion. They have proceeded in a shambolic and chaotic way. That is reflected by the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill that became the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 took place before the consultation had closed.

Given that £10,600 of capital gains tax is already exempt, exemption from CGT in the scheme is only likely to benefit employee shareholders in a small minority of companies which achieve unusually high growth. There is also concern about the full cost of the scheme. Ministers originally claimed that it would be £100 in 2017-18, but according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s contribution to the Treasury’s policy costing document, which was released along with the 2012 autumn statement 2012,

“the cost is expected to rise towards £1 billion”,

and the OBR concluded that

“uncertainties are around assumptions on take up rates, the average value of shares that are entered into the scheme, the extent of tax planning and the timing of disposals.”

What really concerns me is that a person could throw away all his employment rights in return for shares that could already be tumbling. There is no win-win situation for such people.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, a quarter of that £1 billion additional cost—£250 million—is expected to arise from tax avoidance as a result of the scheme. A Government who have been obsessive about tax avoidance seem to be creating another vehicle for people to avoid taxation. Following the publication of the Government’s response to the consultation scheme, a Government source was quoted as saying:

“The proposals are on life support.”

However, Ministers went ahead with them. I wonder whether this Minister knows who that person was, and whether he can enlighten us.

It seems to me that the scheme is unworkable. When “shares for rights” were discussed during the Committee stage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), admitted that employees taking part in the scheme could be liable to pay income tax and national insurance on any shares received from employers over and above £2,000. That would impose a significant up-front cost on employees.

It is feared that there are other ways in which the scheme could have an adverse impact on employees. For example, will jobs be advertised as available only with employee shareholder status? In practice, will employers be able to impose the scheme on individual employees or groups of employees? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the scheme is voluntary for existing employees, as Ministers claim that it will be?

On behalf of the members of the Employee Ownership Association, chief executive lain Hasdell sent an open letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is responsible for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, expressing concern about recent developments in the Government’s approach to growing the number of employee owners in the economy. He said:

“'Our Members have three main concerns on this matter.

Firstly, proposed legislation has appeared in a Bill before the Government consultation on the possibility of deploying this model of employee ownership has finished. Indeed it has only just started.

Secondly, our Members are very aware that there is no need to reduce the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost the number of employee owners. Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of employee owners.”

In that context, I remind the House of what I said about Admiral Insurance in Cardiff at the beginning of my speech. Iain Hasdell continued:

“Thirdly, the appearance of this measure in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill appears to our Members to be completely disconnected to the recommendations in the Nuttall Review. That Review contained a series of recommendations on how to grow employee ownership and none of those recommendations suggested the dilution of worker rights.”

I am not the only person who is saying these things, and that is why I believe that we should have a report. The criticism of this measure has been immense, from the business community and employment organisations to trade unions—some Members on the Government Benches will probably think I have sworn there. The Employee Ownership Association says:

“whilst growing employee ownership should be part of the UK’s Industrial Policy, such growth does not require a dilution of the rights and working conditions of employees.”

Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, said:

“We deplore any attack on maternity provision or protection against unfair dismissal, but these complex proposals do not look as if they will have very much impact, as few small businesses will want to tie themselves up in the tangle of red tape necessary to trigger these exemptions.”

There, in a nutshell, is the problem: there is low take-up; it is very complicated; people are not interested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, we see maternity provision, a hard-fought right that many people argued and fought for and in some cases gave their lives for, being given up for the whim of a few shares in a company that could be either taken over or finished in a couple of years.

Mike Emmett, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, says:

“The UK has one of the least regulated labour markets in the world and there is little evidence to suggest that employment regulation is preventing small businesses from taking people on. In fact, according to the Government’s own research, unfair dismissal doesn’t even figure in the list of top ten regulations discouraging them from recruiting staff. Employees have little to gain by substituting their fundamental rights for uncertain financial gain and employers have little to gain by creating a two tier labour market.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The truth is that any tax gap, however big or small, is unacceptable to the public, and strong action should always be taken to tackle it. I was about to say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and that it was £32 billion. As I say, that is too high, and it has gone up to £35 billion under this Government. These large sums of money shake the public’s confidence when it comes to believing that the Government are doing everything they can to tackle tax avoidance.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will take further interventions later, but I want to make some progress.

What else has been happening on this Government’s watch? The Government have raised expectations in respect of some aspects of their tax avoidance policy, but they have not been met. In particular—we have put this point to the Minister on many occasions—the Swiss deal, which was supposed to bring in £3.12 billion, a sum that would have gone some way towards making a dent in the tax gap, has in fact brought in only £818 million. I know the Minister will say that the figures were okayed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility when the costings were put in the Red Book, but that does not mean that the Minister can simply get away with it. At the end of the day, there is an unexplained and substantial difference between what was meant to happen as a result of that deal and what did in fact happen, raising questions about the substance of the deal.

Another feature of public debate as the issue of tax avoidance has shot up the public agenda relates to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If we are to close the tax gap, we need HMRC to be as effective as possible. Last year’s Public Accounts Committee report “Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes” found that HMRC did not know how much it spent on its anti-avoidance work and had not evaluated the effectiveness of its efforts. It calls for HMRC to improve its recording and monitoring of the cost of its anti-avoidance work and to set out clearly how it will evaluate its anti-avoidance strategy. This is a substantial gap in knowledge; again, it has a direct impact on the Government’s ability to tackle tax avoidance effectively and thereby close the tax gap.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and then make progress.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

If we had followed the policies of the Labour party, we would not have created 1.3 million jobs and those people would have been on benefits.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have also created the right incentives so that work pays. Alongside supporting business—by the way, extraordinarily, the Labour party last night voted to increase taxes on business—we are creating an environment in which jobs are being created.

We are creating a fairer welfare state.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I will not break with tradition and agree with everything that thehon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has said, but I wish her well with getting the Siemens plant. I saw some Siemens wind farms onshore in Morocco in the western Sahara recently, and they are very effective.

Reflecting on the hon. Lady’s quip about our coalition partners, which was somewhat unfair but slightly amusing, I noticed that the Chancellor is announcing a competition to determine what will be on the tails side of the coin. Heads you win; tails you lose, and I hope that at the general election, the Opposition will lose. Perhaps it would be appropriate to commemorate a failed Labour politician on the coin.

The hon. Lady talked about unemployment. I have looked forward, particularly during the past year and a half, to receiving the excellent House of Commons Library brief on unemployment by constituency, which is rich in information on what is happening. Time and again over the past 12 months, the unemployment rate in my constituency has fallen significantly.

I was pleased to hear that the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs—had declined to its lowest level UK-wide since 2008. I appreciate, however, that there are unacceptable differences across the country and that some constituencies have yet to feel the benefit. I am sure we all hope that it will be felt in the near future. The extension of the apprenticeship grant for employers to 2015-16 will certainly help, not only in places such as Prospects college in my constituency but in other constituencies where the unemployment situation is even more acute.

The people of Rochford and Southend East will be delighted by this Budget. It will mean more money in the pockets of hard-working people, homeowners and motorists. As the Chancellor put it, it is a Budget for the makers, the doers and particularly the savers. I will focus on the savings element of the Budget later. From an Essex perspective, people in my constituency will be pleased to hear that fuel duty has been frozen once again, providing a saving of 20%, given the rise that would have taken place had it not been blocked. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on campaigning for that change, and I commend the Chancellor for implementing it.

There was also good news on bingo. We did not get the 15% tax cut that had been requested, but one of 10%. The good people at the Mecca bingo hall in the Victoria ward in Southend might now invite me back. They told me last time that I would not really be welcomed back—[Hon. Members: “Aah!] Yes, I was somewhat surprised, but they were kind to me and said that they had voted for me. However, they made the mistake of allowing me to be the bingo caller, and I got it all wrong. I did not know my fat ladies from my two little ducks, or whatever it is. They told me: “Stick to the day job. Stick to politics.” I will do that, but I might go back and play bingo with them to celebrate the tax cut.

Thanks to this Government and to the Chancellor’s resilience, we will be able to keep interest rates low. This is critical; not enough has been said about interest rates, but they form the backdrop to the economy. The income tax personal allowance is to be increased again, to £10,500. This will really help working families and, in particular, it will help women who have had children to get back into work, perhaps working part time. It is crucial that they should be able to do that relatively early, to maintain a good employment history.

As a cider drinker and a beer drinker—not at the same time—I very much appreciate the Chancellor’s 1p cut in duty. It is a small amount, but it is a nod in the right direction. Based on the average price of a pint in a pub or a club, it means that for every 200 pints hon. Members drink, they will effectively get one free. It is a step in the right direction, and I think a few people in the House and in our constituencies will have a drink to say thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight.

The export package is fantastic. It will help companies such as Ipeco, which makes the pilots’ seats for every single Boeing. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that it is based in my constituency. The package will also help KeyMed, a big medical supplier in Southend that employs more than 600 people.

Using the LIBOR fine for charities and good works is really nifty, in that it focuses on what we should be focusing on. Most people will not even know what LIBOR stands for—why should they?—but when excesses in the City are identified, they should be punished. It is great that the LIBOR fine will be paid to charities and to organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which operates on the foreshore in Southend as well as at the end of the longest pleasure pier in the world. The scouting movement will also receive some of that money, which is to be welcomed.

The companies around London Southend airport will welcome the Budget, and I look forward to reviewing it with them in the next few weeks when the Secretary of State for Transport comes to launch the new, improved terminal. The change to air passenger duty for flights to the Caribbean has long been called for and an inequity has now been resolved. Hats off to the Chancellor for finally sorting that one out.

The Chancellor talked of the city deal, from which Southend has benefited. On savers, it is wonderful that we are now able to trust people on annuities. The ISA merger is superb as it will allow people to save more and to move from equities to cash in later life, not just with new ISAs, but with the old ones. I noticed that on the Treasury website it is referred to as NISA rather than ISA. I hope we are not trying to rebrand for the sake of it, as natty as NISA sounds. The savings tax for people on low incomes, taking them out at £5,000 is excellent. Overall, there is something for everyone in this Budget and I am sure the good people of Rochford and Southend East will be very happy with it.

Autumn Statement

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The whole purpose of universal credit is to remove the disincentives to work that exist in our current welfare system, driven both by the complexity of all the different benefits and by the couple penalty for whose removal my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has campaigned for many years. He is removing it—or, at any rate, heading in the direction of removing it—through universal credit, but there may be more than we can do, and I shall be happy to look into that.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Sadly, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) could not be with us today to hear about economic growth, but he did leave us the gift that is the shadow Chancellor. Given that everyone is saying that the shadow Chancellor had a bit of a nightmare today, is this not an opportunity to give him a break and to leave him in place rather than his being sacked, so that he continues to serve as a reminder of the economic failure in which the last Labour Government landed us?

[Mr Osborne]

The shadow Chancellor is one of the many people whom I want to keep in his job.

Banking Reform

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We have addressed that point. Obviously, it is the behaviour of any particular bank that will cause problems, and the sanctions against such behaviour are clear. If a bank breaches the ring fence that has been established, it will be split up. That is as clear as day to the directors of every bank, who, by the way, will now have a personal responsibility to respect the ring fence.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

About 650 people work for Lloyds TSB in Southend, with a similar number working for RBS. In addition, there are about 20 branches, each employing 10 individuals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this banking reform is just as much about helping the banking industry in the whole of the United Kingdom as it is about the square mile of the City or Canary Wharf?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the real tragedies, and one of the things that makes me most angry about the declining reputation of banking in recent years, is that the reputations of many hundreds of thousands of people who work in banks up and down the country and who have chosen banking as a career because of its associations with probity and respect in the community have been besmirched by the actions of a very small number of people. Our purpose in restoring the reputation of financial services in this country is also to allow those people to go to the pub without being teased and ribbed because they work in a bank, which is something that should never have happened to them.

Public Service Pensions Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I will make some progress and give way to the hon. Lady later.

I return to Lord Hutton’s four key tests for the future design of public service pensions: affordability, fairness to public service workers, fairness to the taxpayer and transparency. Those objectives have prevailed throughout the process and remain the cornerstones of the Bill. First, on affordability, it is clear from Lord Hutton’s report that the new scheme should be affordable and sustainable. The Bill represents a significant proportion of the total of more than £430 billion of savings that our reforms of public service pensions are estimated to save over the next 50 years.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Those of us on the Government Benches are quite often accused of reminding those on the Opposition Benches that they left us with a massive deficit and unsustainable debt, but in fairness is it not true that these reforms would have had to happen even without the awful economic legacy we were left?

[Danny Alexander]

I agree with that, and I would add that, frankly, these reforms could have been made in the 1980s or 1990s, as well as the 2000s. In fact, we have to go back quite a few decades to find the root of the problems we are having to tackle in this Bill, which I think we are doing very effectively.

The remainder of the £430 billion of savings are generated by the Government’s decisions to change their policy on the indexation of pensions and payments from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, and, as has been mentioned, to increase the contributions that public servants pay towards their pensions, rebalancing the costs more fairly between them and other taxpayers. The combined effect of those changes will help to restore the health of the British economy, reduce the size of our deficit and correct the unsustainable 40% increase in costs there has been over the last 50 years.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Duddridge Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful to you for calling me to speak on this auspicious day, a Friday sitting, to discuss the Budget, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to follow the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (James Duddridge)]

It is only a matter of time.

[Gavin Shuker]

It is only a matter of time, as the Whip says, so there is a top tip.

The reason I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk is that he promised to talk about some of the long-term reforms required in the economy. If we are to talk about the Budget, we need to talk not only about the long term, but about the capacity in the economy right now, and that is where I will briefly focus my remarks.

Labour Members have examined the Budget in detail and we see a wasted opportunity. We required a Budget for jobs and for growth in the short term that would lead to our prosperity in the long term. Instead, we got a Budget that has fought over the spoils. Two years into this Tory-led Government, we can see the effect that the coalition Government are having on our economic policy. Various Ministers and, indeed, Back Benchers, are fighting over, and leaking in the press, the measures in the Budget. They are fighting not over the scale of the fiscal challenge we face, but over what measures could be assigned to each individual party. It is almost as though, having slashed and burned, they are fighting over who wants to win the spoils for having scorched the earth.

The OBR has said:

“We have made no…material adjustments to the economy forecast as a result Budget 2012 policy announcements.”

The independent OBR accepts that growth will not be changed by this Budget. We all remember last year’s so-called “Budget for growth”, but we have still yet to see a strategy for getting growth in the economy, as the numbers clearly show: over this coming period, borrowing is to be more than £150 billion more than the Government announced just a year ago; the deficit reduction plan has gone from four years to seven; and the Government are trying conveniently to lay by the wayside promises that unemployment numbers would decrease in each and every year of this Parliament. What about the lie that the private sector will pick up where the public sector is being slashed away? We are being given a full body of evidence to prove that that is untrue. It is clear that in both policy and ideology the Government are struggling to get growth going because they are ignoring the lessons of history, particularly the lesson that when the public sector is cut back too far and too fast, fiscal policy has a deflationary effect on the economy. There is a real problem, but unfortunately we have been trapped in a paradigm by this coalition Administration which they cannot get out of.

What are we seeing? A number of tiny interventions, programmes and schemes. Let me go through some of the most eye-catching ones. I was on the Public Bill Committee that considered the legislation introducing the national insurance holiday regime, but only 3.3% of the businesses that the Government said would be helped have been helped under that scheme, so it clearly is not working. We have a much better plan to recycle that money to make sure there is a proper cut in national insurance across the country. Credit easing has yet to help a single business. The business growth fund has six regional offices, with 50 jobs having been created, but there have been just six investments in businesses to get business moving. The export enterprise finance guarantee has helped just six exporters since it was introduced.

In the absence of a clear ideology to get growth growing in our economy what we see are hundreds of tiny measures, none of which is actually giving confidence to business to invest. Roosevelt talked about the alphabet laws when he came to power and about the scale of the challenge that he faced in the States in the 1930s. What we have from this Government is alphabet soup: a series of initiatives, all with long and good-sounding titles, but no actual significant movement in the economy to get growth going. What we are left with are just words, and now they take money out of the pockets of those who are most likely to spend and instead choose to put it in the pockets of millionaires and of people who are already very good at avoiding paying tax in the first place—people who are likely to save it, spend it abroad or spend it in areas that are not going to stimulate the economy. Even those people are calling for action in the economy to get growth growing and not necessarily to reward themselves when growth is not there currently.

Let us consider the situation in the US, where its leader has explicitly talked about the dangers of the austerity narrative and has specifically said that to cut too far, too fast would be detrimental to the US economy over time. And what do we see there? Unemployment falling month by month and significant growth in the economy, just as, funnily enough, there was in this country in this Government’s first few months because they inherited that from the previous Government. Most crucially, capacity in the US economy is being protected. Look at its auto business: many Republicans said it should be let go to the wall but the Democrats stepped up and said, “We will protect it.” Why? Because if capacity is protected in the economy, the ability to keep growth going is retained throughout. We have seen a big turnaround there.

When we go into periods of recession or depression, businesses try to hold on to their ability to manufacture or to keep going for as long as possible—perhaps for six, 12 or 18 months—without laying people off. After a while, however, when it is clear that no lifebelt is coming from the Government, businesses start to lay people off, so a 2,000-employee business becomes a 1,500-employee business. That means that when the growth comes back, it is much harder to manufacture to the previous level. That is the legacy that the Government will leave us to pick up the pieces of—an economy with much less capacity to manufacture and grow to meet the long-term challenges we face. For all the talk of clearing up or picking up the pieces from the global financial crisis and the reforms that are required, we must remember that if our economy does not survive this period, we will not have the foundations for growth in the future.

Women in the Church of England

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (James Duddridge)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. Sadly, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) cannot be here today, as she is on other important ministerial duties at the United Nations in New York, but she would have very much liked to reply in person. I hope that you will find me an agreeable alternative.

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for originally securing the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on taking up the baton, as has been pointed out. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has given a lot of clarity on the Church of England’s case. It has been enlightening to hear about the parliamentary process that we may see in the future.

The Church forms a vital part of our culture and heritage, and the fabric of our nation. Today’s debate is about women in the Church of England. Women already play a vital role at a number of levels, from the top to the bottom. Some of the best vicars in the UK are women. Taking a totally random example—from Southend—Louise Williams, the vicar of St Andrew’s church, does an excellent and inspirational job, not because she is a woman, but because she is good at her job. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) described himself as a reactionary, but went on to say that the issue is about getting the right person for the job. That does not sound reactionary to me. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury say that 50% of people in training now are women.

Moving from Southend, another, somewhat different, example is that of Her Majesty the Queen—a woman at the head of the Church of England. From top to bottom, there are already women operating successfully in the Church of England.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Just to give an anecdote, when the Lord Bishop of London took up his post in November 1995, he was presented to the head of the Church—the Queen—by the Secretary of State, who was also a woman. Of those three, the only one who was allowed to be a bishop in those days, if otherwise qualified, was Richard Chartres, because of his chromosomes. It seems absurd that he could be presented by one woman to another woman for a job that both women were disqualified from.

[James Duddridge]

We are in Lent, and my hon. Friend has his own self-imposed rule. I am rather glad he broke it again; that was a good intervention. He also talked about history. If we look back at the decision-making process, it will seem even more ridiculous than it does now.

I would like to pay tribute to all the men and women in the Church who have been involved in invaluable work. The Church of England and those who serve in it have a special place in this country and in this Parliament, particularly through the representation in Parliament of the 26 senior bishops and archbishops. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) worried me a bit by turning up with a book on the period 1295-1340. That is not something the Minister for Equalities had familiarised me with in my briefing. I will speak to her about that on her return from New York.

As a consequence of the special relationship between the Church and the state, all our citizens, whether members of the Church or not, have a legitimate interest in what the Church says and does. Therefore, it is very appropriate for us to debate such issues here in this Parliament. It is good that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has contributed to the debate, because that demonstrates the issue is not only about the Church of England and Christianity; it is about people of all faiths, and people of no faith or no defined faith.

One of the key issues surrounding the place of women in the Church today is the question of women bishops, which we have discussed significantly. Although I want to say something on that specific question, I would like to point out that just because we have a special place for the Church within the state, it does not mean that the state should on a daily basis be quick or eager to involve itself in every single internal debate of the Church—or, indeed, that it should comment on its doctrines and practices. That very much applies to the question of who should or should not be bishops, and the associated questions of pastoral care for those who take a contrary view to that the Synod appears to be taking.

As we have heard, the direction of travel seems to be one way. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that we will get there in the end. The debate is about the timing of that travel, not the direction. As we have heard, the Church of England is moving forward and away from a position whereby only men can be appointed bishops. I understand and appreciate that the Church wants to consider the feelings of those who disagree strongly with that move, including those who consider it is not possible as a matter of doctrine for a woman to be made a bishop.

That question—how best to provide the appropriate support and pastoral care for those in the Church who cannot accept or are having problems accepting this change—is vital. I recognise that dealing with it is a difficult and sensitive task, but it is not one on which it is beneficial for the Government to intervene. It is for the Church itself to decide whether it will appoint women bishops. We have been given examples by various hon. Members of women bishops elsewhere—Nova Scotia, Rhode Island and, indeed, Cuba. We need to consider what arrangements should be put in place to support those who cannot accept the change.

As has been explained, once the General Synod has finished its work, the matter will come before the Ecclesiastical Committee and then the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for explaining the conversations he has had with the Leader of the House about providing time when necessary on the Floor of the House to deal with the matter appropriately. I will do anything I can to facilitate that process, both from the Leader of the House’s perspective, the Whips’ perspective and the perspective of the Government Equalities Office. We will provide any assistance we can to ensure that things are not unnecessarily delayed.

[Tony Baldry]

It would be very helpful if, immediately after the business relating to the Measure, the Government could schedule a piece of Government business that necessitates a three-line Whip.

[James Duddridge]

I will pass that request to the Chief Whip, who I am sure will take full account of it.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Duddridge]

I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

She is not a gentleman.

[James Duddridge]

Apologies.

[Diana Johnson]

People keep calling me a gentleman. I assume that the Queen’s Speech will be in a few months’ time. Will the Measure be in the Queen’s Speech? Do the Government expect to announce it as part of their legislative programme for the year ahead?

[James Duddridge]

I do not think that it is a Government Bill in that sense, so I would not expect it to be mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. However, I am not privy to that speech.

I shall turn to the specific points that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made so ably in picking up this brief. She drew comparisons with the Labour electoral college. I genuinely hope that she is wrong in that comparison, given the problems that there have been.

[Chris Bryant]

Be nice.

[James Duddridge]

I am genuinely sympathetic and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always nice.

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, he used his own words to repeat the underlying point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made: if there is a scintilla of deviation from what originally went through the General Synod, it might be slightly more challenging to get things through Parliament. A number of people involved in the process—the Synod, the bishops and the laity—will listen very carefully to the words he has chosen today and the words the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North chose. They will reflect very carefully on that because it is my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who will take the Measure through. My hon. Friend has been in detailed discussions with everyone about the subject, whether they are a reactionary, as he mentioned, or they are on the other side of the argument. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that my hon. Friend will be held to account because parliamentary questions will be tabled to the Second Church Estates Commissioner. That is pretty much a polite parliamentary threat—his card is marked.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West failed to give up making interventions for Lent, although I am somewhat surprised he did it so early. I hope that he has more success later. He raised a number of very interesting points. He will have to invite me to his library because it must be incredibly extensive if he has such a detailed knowledge on the subject.

I will not predict when the first woman bishop of the Church of England will be appointed. However, I was interested to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was firm in his view that it could be as early as 2014. I, too, hope to attend such an event; it would be a great privilege.

The hon. Member for Rhondda was very entertaining in his speech. I think we would agree that my biblical knowledge is not as good as his. However, I think I can go out on a limb—although it does not say so in my briefing—and say that the King James Bible was not written by King James. We do have some commonality. His speeches are always amusing, but I was worried when he mentioned Cardinal Martini because I thought we might have a seedy “any place, any time, any where” joke. I am glad that he steered us clear of such things. I think my local priest who took me through Sunday school and the confirmation process would be somewhat shocked to know that I am responding on this matter for the Government. If I had known when I was 14 that I would be responding—

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman would have paid attention.

[James Duddridge]

As the hon. Lady said, I would have paid an awful lot more attention.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda for not probing me on a number of deeply theological questions because that may be a slight chink in my armour. Given I have a young family, on Sundays, I occasionally do things other than attend church. He gave us a very interesting tour de force on the apostles and, at times, I found that I was engaging in the debate and listening, which is always an unwise thing to do as a Minister and will no doubt worry the civil servants. He will have to explain to me at some point his rebellious streak. He is always very entertaining in the House of Commons, but not doing up one of his 28 buttons is not as rebellious as he has been on a number of other things.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman has been provoked. I apologise; it was probably unwise.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not an unknown fact that a lot of clergy in the Church of England do not subscribe to all the articles of religion that we are meant to sign up to when we are ordained. In fact, on the night before I was ordained, when I had to give my oath of allegiance, the bishop who ordained me said, “It’s all right; I crossed my fingers as well.”

[James Duddridge]

I note that with interest. It was fascinating to understand the issues surrounding training, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in some detail. I look forward to finding out more. In conclusion, I genuinely wish the General Synod and the Church every success in their endeavours to sort out this very sensitive issue. I will follow the progress of the matter very carefully.

Business without Debate

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the 10 o’clock motions and the business of the House motion in the name of the Prime Minister.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (James Duddridge)]

Not moved. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm itself. We will come to other matters in due course—any points of order and so on. The next motion is on Deferred Divisions, in the name of the Prime Minister.

[James Duddridge]

Not moved.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the business of the House motion in the name of the Leader of the House.

[James Duddridge]

Not moved.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government are clearly in a state of chaos when it comes to tuition fees. Yesterday, the Leader of the House tried to move a motion and it was objected to, much to the anger of the Chief Whip, as you know. Today, the Leader of the House tabled one motion in his own name and two motions in the name of the Prime Minister but, as we have just seen, did not have the courage to move the motion in his own name.

I am sure that you understand the deep sense of anger that there is in the House at the amount of time that the Government are proposing to give Members on Thursday to debate the biggest change in tuition fees and support for higher education that we have ever seen. Since the House is being treated with contempt by the Government, may we now have a statement from the Leader of the House to tell us what on earth is going on? Will he indicate how much time we will have on Thursday to debate the increase in tuition fees? [Interruption.]