Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Hosie(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said in his opening remarks that the Government wanted the UK to be seen to be open for business. That is a very good objective, but the problem is that an 81% marginal rate of tax on anything, and the instability caused by a shock 60% increase, puts at risk their stated aim of promoting the UK in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point about investment, and investment levels are unchanged generally, but there is now less focus on frontier developments than on investment in the mature North sea, and that is a huge concern. The 60% rise in the supplementary charge that was created, it is told, by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—whom I see leaving the Chamber barely at the start of the debate—was the most damaging thing that the Government did in the Budget.
The Government will take £2 billion a year extra in tax from the sector, on top of the £4 billion windfall that they got last year, to which the right hon. Member for Gordon referred, and on top of the windfall that they will get this year—2011-12—over the 2010 forecast. All that runs counter to the Chancellor’s stated objectives of tax stability, delivering a growth agenda and production here in lieu of imports.
Let us remember that when that bombshell was announced, leading industry members reportedly met in a state of disbelief about the Government’s plans. There were immediate reports about the threat to some 40,000 jobs. Statoil immediately announced the suspension of the Mariner and, possibly, Bressay investments, and it was argued that a slowdown in North sea activity would increase the UK’s reliance on imported oil and gas, with the consequence of an even higher balance of payments deficit and the corresponding impact of a suppression of GDP growth.
On tax receipts, Alan Booth, the chief executive of EnCore Oil, rightly said:
“Undeveloped and undiscovered oil and gas pays no taxes,”
and it got worse, of course, because Valiant immediately announced that it was not going to invest in its £100 million project, saying that it was
“no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move.”
Chevron warned that there would be “unintended consequences”, and let us remember that Oil & Gas UK was very clear when it said that the measure had
“shaken investor confidence to the core.”
The right hon. Member for Gordon said at one stage that Ministers had robustly defended their position. I do not believe that they have. When these fears and concerns were put to the Chancellor, a Treasury spokeswoman said:
“Mr Osborne did not expect investment to be damaged.”
That is not a robust defence of a position; it is intransigence and a failure to understand the consequences of the actions that the Government had undertaken.
There are other consequences. Jim Hannon from Hannon Westwood, the drilling analysts, said that 30,000 people could lose their jobs if exploration activity dropped by merely 15%. The detailed work by Professor Alex Kemp—I will not go through it in detail but it is well worth everybody in the House reading it—has warned that up to 2 billion barrels of oil and the equivalent amount of gas could be left in the North sea, untaxed and unused. Derek Leith from Ernst and Young has warned of projects being delayed and cancelled, saying that the Statoil decision was
“only the tip of the iceberg…There are a lot of companies that will not pursue projects but will not go public about it.”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) about the national security implications of this? At a time when other mature oilfields around the world have investment going in to extract the last bits of oil, leaving large reserves of untapped oil in mature fields is not only financially incompetent but dangerous in terms of national security.
Stewart Hosie
In terms of energy security it is very foolish indeed.
This is about not only the increase in the supplementary charge but restricting access to decommissioning tax relief, and that could accelerate the decommissioning of essential infrastructure. Had these ludicrous plans been in place in the past, the Forties field might not have been passed on to provide a decade or more of additional oil. Had the infrastructure which will now be decommissioned more quickly been decommissioned at that speed in the past, the new entrants, the new technology, the sideways drilling and the ability not to take 30%, 40% or 50% of a well would not exist. Once the wells are capped and the infrastructure is gone, it is gone for good.
As well as energy security, there is the question of the future of carbon capture and storage. The last Government failed to make a decision quickly enough on the Peterhead CCS scheme, which was going to use the decommissioned Miller plumbing to pump the carbon dioxide into holes in the ground. If we restrict access to decommissioning relief, we risk being unable to use that plumbing and infrastructure not only for oil extraction but for other purposes.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to investments in the UK continental shelf falling by 24% overnight at the time of the decision. The scale of the impact was also explained in the recent research by Professor Alex Kemp in which he revealed that the tax increase could reduce UK oil and gas investment by up to £30 billion and production by up to a quarter over the next three decades. For last week’s Second Reading debate, we had additional information from Centrica that provided a detailed assessment of the problem in relation to gas. It said that the annual cost to the UK economy could be up to £8 billion per annum by 2013, that the decision could influence investor sentiment in other sectors, and that up to £100 billion of energy investments and associated jobs could be put at risk. That would be catastrophic if even a fraction of it came true. The UK needs sustained and sustainable above-trend growth, and we will not get it if we undermine the main investing industry in the UK. That would be incredibly stupid.
As I said on Second Reading, we should listen to Oil & Gas UK, Statoil, Valiant, EnCore, Chevron, Hannon Westwood, Professor Kemp, Ernst and Young, and Centrica. Those warnings did not start the day after the Budget and then stop; they kept on coming. It is inconceivable that all those major players and analysts in the sector are wrong, and that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, uniquely, are right. That is almost impossible to believe. Of course the warnings have not stopped.
Amendment of the Law
Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Hosie(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I would love to say that it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), but instead I will restrict myself to saying that I agree with him entirely that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a very good maiden speech indeed. It is certainly a pleasure to follow him, if not the hon. Member for Southend West. [Interruption.] The Economic Secretary to the Treasury says from a sedentary position that that is harsh. It is only a little harsh.
The Budget was billed as a Budget for growth, and by goodness, we need it, so let us test that. In his statement and in the Red Book the Chancellor gave us a great deal of information. Our national debt for 2010-11 was expected last year to be £932 billion. It is now forecast to be £909 billion for that year. It was expected to be £1.6 trillion next year, but it is coming in at £1.46 trillion. The deficit was expected to be £149 billion for last year. That seems to be coming in at £146 billion. But the figure for 2011-12 was forecast to be £116 billion and that is now up to £122 billion, if the numbers are to be believed. That tells us that the Chancellor may have had a little room for manoeuvre, but growth is essential if the figures are to remain on target and if we are to have any chance at all of protecting jobs and services.
I welcome the direction of travel on corporation tax but, because the Budget was so thin and fiscally neutral—the entire Budget barely shifted £10 million in total—it effectively confirms that the cuts, which were forecast last year at £99 billion and revised down to £81 billion in the comprehensive spending review, are still there. It confirms that £29 billion of tax rises announced last year are effectively still there. It confirms the swingeing benefit cuts of £11 billion announced last year and confirmed in the CSR. It also confirms the changes in some of the pension component, particularly the RPI-CPI switch, which will yield the Exchequer £1.2 billion this year, rising to nearly £6 billion in 2014-15.
On pensions, the Chancellor spoke about a single-tier pension. That is similar to the citizens pension concept that many of us support, but to deliver that with savings predicated on changing not just the state pension, but all public sector pensions, which are contracted and paid into, in some cases, for many, many years, cannot be right. He also said in relation to pensions that he would accept all the Hutton recommendations. It may well be that all of us have to save a little more a little longer for the pension that we expect at the end, but let the Government be in no doubt that a 3% hike in pension contributions now will put some of our constituents—indeed, many of our constituents—in serious financial difficulties in the short term. I hope that the implementation of that is carefully considered.
On PFI—the Labour party’s worst legacy—the figures are truly frightening. The value of the capital projects is some £56 billion. The cost of the outstanding repayment liability is £214 billion. The average repayment each year until 2047-48 will be £6 billion, and that will peak at more than £9 billion in 2017-18. The Chancellor said nothing about that, or about how we would replace the PFI system. Throughout his speech he spoke of encouraging private investment, and some of that is to be welcomed, but he said nothing about how we would replace PFI by means of public capital investment. We know how vital that is, given that the economic impact multiplier for capital expenditure is 1:1. It is the most significant thing we can invest in and, more dangerously, the worse possible thing we can cut.
The Chancellor had a great deal to say about oil, which is not surprising given that the forecast for 2011-12 shows that the North sea will generate an additional £4 billion. He is right to take immediate action because households and businesses are struggling. The price of a gallon of petrol in rural Scotland is routinely £6.50, and we know that in the past four or five weeks the price increase in diesel has added £1,000 to the annual cost of running a truck. That is unsustainable and inflationary. I welcome the 1p cut and the fact that the proposed increase has been stopped, but the Government said that they had introduced a stabiliser, and I have re-read his speech any number of times. The stabiliser seems to me to suggest that when the barrel price increases it is merely the escalator that is cancelled, leaving the indexed rise in place. I always understood that the stabiliser would reduce the duty level when the price rose so that we could temper out some of spikes in rising prices. By only including the escalator, we do not have a stabiliser at all and will still see many of the spikes that we have been trying to smooth out to bring some stability back into the economy, particularly in the haulage sector.
The Chancellor said surprisingly little about the banks, so I will go back to what he said in February. He announced that the banks would lend more, especially to small businesses, pay more taxes, bring responsibility and restraint to the sector, pay less in bonuses, be more transparent and make a greater contribution to the regional economy. That is all fine, but in order to thrive and grow companies need access to affordable and flexible funding, and they need it now. That remains a huge hurdle for many of our businesses.
The lack of new lending in particular is continuing to have an adverse impact on individual companies as well as on the economy as a whole. Business investment, as the Minister knows, will remain some 20% below pre-recession levels. Indeed, there was a 0.5% fall in gross fixed capital formation in the last quarter of 2010, which is extremely worrying, given that this is supposed to be a business growth and export-driven recovery.
All the evidence I have seen highlights the importance of expanding sustainable lending. Although we welcome the lending commitments agreed between the Government and the banks, it is important to ensure that they move quickly on the issue. I would have thought that the Chancellor had much more to say today about how the banking community would increase even gross lending to businesses across the country. Instead, although he did increase enterprise investment scheme limits to encourage private investment, which I welcome, he said nothing about bank lending. It is the retail banks on the high street that most of our small businesses depend upon for both capital and cash flow.
The two key issues of oil and access to finance are not just about economic recovery, but about fairness, as is alcohol duty, and there were a few changes on that today. However, the Government brought forward no measure whatsoever to tax alcoholic drinks by alcohol content. Whisky is still penalised and we still have the ludicrous situation where 4% beer is taxed more heavily than 7.5% cider, which does nothing to promote public health or address the wider social and economic consequences of excessive drinking. Picking up the tab for those costs is estimated to equate to a tax of some £3.5 billion in Scotland alone. I am surprised that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to take measures to deal with that problem.
There are also huge dangers in the Budget, as it confirms the cut to the Scottish budget and threatens recovery there. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recent reduction in unemployment. The figures for March show that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 16,000 and employment has risen by 8,000, the eighth consecutive reported rise in employment. That is all good news, and we have to drive it forward, but cutting the Scottish budget, particularly £800 million from the capital budget, will have a huge impact on the Scottish Parliament’s ability to drive forward many of the initiatives that were making a difference as we came out of the recession.
Given the economic backdrop, particularly the fourth quarter figures for the whole UK and the need to continue to support growth, the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government need a Budget that supports clear, targeted resources. Given also that the Chancellor had some flexibility, I am surprised that he did not offer up a targeted measure to increase capital expenditure, because it has the most significant impact of any public spending.
What the Chancellor did talk about was enterprise zones, of course, and we certainly welcome those as a concept. They could be used in Moray, for example, given the closure of RAF Kinloss, but the Budget offered little detail beyond suggesting some business rate reductions and streamlined planning measures, both of which the Chancellor rightly said are devolved. For enterprise zones to work properly, they should revert to the old form, which included the significant use of capital resources, but, given that there is only £80 million in four years’ time, or £4 million per site, much of which I suspect will be used to offset business rates for local authorities, it strikes me as inconceivable that the Government have planned and prepared for the significant use of capital allowances to deliver their potential.
Mr Kevan Jones
The amount is actually less than that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because, although page 42 of the Red Book cites £80 million in year four, over the period, if we spread the amount across the 21 proposed enterprise zones, we find that it works out at less than £1 million per zone.
Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and Stewart Hosie(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
Indeed. It is worth making the point, though, that on paper there is a rigidity about this. I remain concerned that if growth forecasts, downrated sensibly, are not met, there will have to be these necessary adjustments.
I welcome the phased reduction in corporation tax, but question whether it makes sense to pay for it through changes to capital and other investment allowances. The Road Haulage Association has said:
“We are concerned about the reduction of the investment allowance for small firms to £25,000 from £50,000 which will have a detrimental impact on small haulage companies.”
That trade body probably speaks for many in its approach to the change to the annual investment allowance.
I am pleased by the way in which the Government have handled the capital gains tax changes, keeping the rate unchanged for basic rate payers to encourage and allow modest investment but increasing the rate for higher taxpayers. Closing the gap removes a perverse incentive to take income that could be taxed as capital rather than through income tax, but keeps a sufficient distance between the rates of income tax and capital gains tax to encourage real investment. That was handled quite well.
I have a question, though, about the rationale for the increase in insurance premium tax. I heard the explanation that it has previously mirrored the VAT rate, but there is no reason why that should still be the case. It will bring in some £2 billion in additional tax over the next five years, and I can only hope that that decision does not come back to haunt this Government in the way that the abolition of advanced corporation tax on pensions came back to haunt the Labour Government. The Conservative party in particular has made a great many criticisms about how that pension change was made and the impact that it had. Indeed, it was a smash-and-grab raid that the Chancellor described as “disastrous” in Accountancy Age last year. I hope that the insurance premium tax increase will not be described in that way in future.
Incidentally, in the same interview, on 6 October, the Chancellor also stated his aim to get the country saving again, which makes it even more difficult to explain the coalition Government’s intention to scrap the child trust funds. We have spoken about savings and savings ratios in the past, and the Red Book forecasts future ratios of just over 5%. However, that is about half the savings ratio that the Labour Government inherited and about the average through the whole of 2004 and 2005. It is not particularly ambitious, if the Government’s intention was to get the country saving again.
However, the real damage in this Finance Bill, as many Members have mentioned, is the determination to put up VAT. That directly contradicts the stated intention of both coalition parties to create a fairer society. Although it may well be the case that in cash terms the wealthiest will pay more VAT, it is clear that the poorest 10% will pay nearly three times higher a percentage of their disposable income than the richest 10%. That is all because of the wrong-headed view, to some extent shared by Labour, that deficit consolidation must be achieved quickly. That is based, I believe, on a flawed assessment of the Canadian model, rather than a credible one perhaps based on the New Zealand model, which certainly worked. The consequence of the VAT changes, at least according to Save the Children, is that the VAT bill for the poorest could rise to more than £31 a week.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Canadian model, but does he agree that what we are seeing today is very similar to the Canadian model in that it was not necessarily just about deficit reduction, but was ideologically driven to reduce the size of the state in Canada?
Stewart Hosie
I think that was certainly a consequence of the actions that were taken, but the reason I say that the assessment was flawed is that Canada sat on the northern border of a booming American economy, and its recovery was export-driven. That was a sensible approach to take. I would love our economy to be export-driven as well, but given that the European Union is our biggest trading partner with more than 60% of our goods by volume going there, I cannot see how an export-driven recovery can be achieved to the extent that is hoped for. I would love it to be, but from looking at the numbers, I cannot see how it will happen.
Stewart Hosie
That is absolutely correct. It is a pity that there is merely one Liberal left in his place to hear that argument. My hon. Friend makes a very good point that the deficit forecast now is less than that forecast in the Budget and the pre-Budget report. That certainly confirms the case that we made for a fiscal stimulus. Another criticism that comes from his intervention is not simply that Liberals do not understand the numbers but that the Labour Government left the UK as one of only two countries in the G20 without a fiscal stimulus, fully withdrawing it in 2010 before recovery was secure.
To wind gently back to VAT, I said that the increase would perhaps be socially unforgivable. It also makes little sense in economic terms. The British Retail Consortium has described it as “disappointing”, which was something of an underestimate given that it went on to state, bluntly:
“We didn’t want a VAT increase. It’ll hit jobs.”
Simon Newark of UHY Hacker Young warned that the rise could push up prices on the high street by about 2%, which could have a significant impact on inflation. He went on to warn:
“Higher inflation could trigger interest rises, risking the spectre of the double dip recession.”
Still others are warning that the rise will exacerbate cash flow problems.
Mr Kevan Jones
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read The Herald of Scotland this morning. He knows that I read the newspapers carefully. It states that because of the VAT increase, the Commonwealth games in 2014 will cost an additional £20 million?
Stewart Hosie
That is absolutely right, and VAT will not just hit building and the purchasing of supplies for the Commonwealth games or the Olympics, and it will not just hit the private sector and families. It will hit the public sector, which buys VAT-rated supplies and goods of all sorts. It will effectively mean spending power going out of the economy and straight to the Treasury.
Stewart Hosie
I suffer from the advantage of tabling many new clauses and new schedules to the Fiscal Responsibility Bill to establish a medium-term fiscal consolidation precisely to avoid the slash-and-burn approach of a massive hike in the most regressive form of tax. Instead of the VAT increase, I would not tackle the deficit and debt over a fixed term—certainly not a short fixed term such as the Government propose—but do it in the medium term, not least to benefit from the £50 billion of medium-term savings from cancelling and not replacing Trident. The Liberals appeared to be in favour of that midway through the election campaign, but were not towards the end, when it looked as if their leader would be in a position of some influence and power. I will stop there because the Liberals have had a hard enough time, but I will return to the subject shortly.
It is not simply what is in the Bill that causes problems, but what is not in it, and the missed opportunities that that represents. The reasoned amendment outlines those. For example, the Bill could have taken its lead from the second and final report of the Holtham commission—the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales—which repeated its call for an immediate “Barnett floor” on departmental expenditure limit payments to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned that earlier. That came a year after the commission’s first report recommended that such a floor, which would prevent further convergence between Wales and the England average, should be a multiple of 114% spending in Wales for every 100% in England. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru were delighted that the Chief Secretary confirmed earlier that there would be no further convergence in funding for Wales in the next few years at least. I am sure that my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru will hold the Government to that.
The Bill also missed an opportunity to deliver real progress on intergovernmental relations with Scotland. The Government could have ensured the release of the fossil fuel levy—nearly £200 million sitting in a bank account—without a corresponding cut to the Scottish block. Such a move would have been welcomed, and have provided a much-needed boost to the Scottish Government’s attempts to secure economic recovery and kick-start jobs in the green economy. Better still, the Government could have moved to a position of full fiscal responsibility for Scotland, so that Scotland would make all its tax-and-spend decisions and find its own solutions to ensure that we did not enter another recession.
There was also an opportunity to deliver a fuel duty regulator—a fuel duty stabiliser—and fair play on fuel, not least for the haulage sector. Instead, the Chancellor plans to go ahead with Labour’s inflationary package of three fuel duty increases in the next year. The Road Haulage Association’s chief executive said that that
“will simply further widen the gap between UK diesel duty and that of our EU competitors.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said several times, the Government have missed an opportunity for a fuel duty derogation now for remote and rural areas. I hope that that idea has not been kicked into the long grass, never to be seen again, and that the Liberals in the Government might find a little steel before they are ground down completely, and deliver something beneficial to remote and rural areas throughout the UK.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals in the Bill for insurance premium tax will affect many of my rural constituents, who rely on cars as their sole form of transport? Youngsters will be particularly hard hit because they pay a larger percentage through high premiums than other drivers. Cars are not a luxury in rural communities; they are essential items.
Stewart Hosie
They are absolutely not a luxury. Insurance not only on cars but on homes and foreign travel, particularly for those who are slightly frail, is a vital matter. Taking £2 billion out of that sector is damaging enough, but if it is a disincentive, which stops people taking out the appropriate insurance, we could experience all sorts of difficulties in future.
Let me revert to the fuel duty derogation, and read out a quote:
“The case for a fair fuel deal for remote and rural communities is absolutely clear. People face longer journeys, much higher pump prices and few if any public transport alternatives. A lower rate of fuel duty is already available for remote and island areas in many other European countries.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury less than three months ago on 12 April. I hope that he reads today’s Hansard, remembers those words and begins to deliver.
There was an opportunity, had the Government chosen to take it, to stick to their own recently published stricture in the Spending Review Framework,
“to protect, as a far as possible, the spending that generates high economic returns”.
They could have done that by keeping tax relief for the video games industry, protecting more than 2,000 jobs and creating 1,400 new ones; saving £300 million in investment and encouraging £146 million more; protecting £282 million in revenue yield and increasing that by £133 million. However, they did not, and that is hugely disappointing for that sector and for growth in a modern industry in this country.