Home Office: ODA-funded Support

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will place a cap on the amount of ODA-funded support provided by the Home Office for refugees who have reached the United Kingdom.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

ODA-eligible costs of supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK have increased significantly, including to reflect support offered to Ukrainian and Afghan citizens. The Government have provided £2.5 billion of additional ODA to mitigate impacts on wider aid budgets and will continue to strike an appropriate balance between fiscal responsibility and our development objectives.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, had the Government not broken the pledge to deliver 0.7%, the overseas aid budget would now be £17.5 billion, which is £4.75 billion more than is currently proposed. Worse, domestic support for refugees going on hotels, barges and Rwanda is taken from that reduced ODA budget. Will the Minister acknowledge that giving the Home Office a blank cheque to raid the aid budget gives no incentive for restraint, value for money or processing the backlog of asylum claims and allows it to waste even more money on unsuitable accommodation? Can the Minister be proud of that? Should what is left of the budget not be protected instead of being used to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I do not accept the points that the noble Lord has made. It is right that we provided the responses that we did to crises such as that in Ukraine but it is also important that we deliver value for money in our spending in this area. We continue to look to drive down the costs of asylum accommodation in particular. The Home Office has doubled the number of caseworkers in the last two years and continues to recruit more. It is streamlining and modernising its end-to-end process, with improved guidance and use of digital technology. We are also looking very carefully at where we accommodate people and how we can drive better value for money there too.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

First, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on her speech and on her passionate espousal of her own area of the north-east of England. Of course, in Scotland the north-east is the area around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, but both areas are equally feisty and equally beautiful, and we all enjoyed her speech very much.

I would have spoken in the debate on Monday, had I been here, because of my interest in international development and foreign affairs, but I was taking part in the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul. I came back just this morning, so if I fall asleep in the middle of my speech, noble Lords will know why. I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register. The summit highlighted a perceived shortfall of $15 billion in the funds needed to deal with the crises that are anticipated in the coming year. Clearly, we have to find not just more money but better ways of spending it, and there has to be more co-operation. That kind of co-operation and innovation was highlighted at the summit. I think that the role of the insurance industry in helping to fund humanitarian aid can be developed significantly, releasing a great deal more funding. There is also room for greater participation by the private sector.

Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to address specifically the North Sea oil and gas industry, and I hope to look for slightly more optimism than he did. This is my area and it is very close to my heart. I have had a close engagement with the sector since 1971. I have seen several cycles of boom and bust but it is fair to say that the present downturn is the most acute. However, I remember the pain of 1987, when people went into banks and building societies and threw the keys over the counter because they could not keep up the payments on their mortgages. Real pain is being experienced.

Although the price of Brent crude has crept up to just under $50 a barrel, it is a long way short of the $100-plus average of the last few years. The market is volatile and there is very little confidence. Thousands of people have been made redundant and the job market in Aberdeen is very difficult, with scores of people chasing every vacancy.

The industry is going to have to rethink its engagement in the UK continental shelf. This is a mature province where costs are high and the challenges severe. The industry has to deal with water depth, the weather, currency, engineering challenges, tax changes and all kinds of uncertainties. There are still substantial reserves under our waters but the question is: can we get the costs and the regime into a position where the reserves can be released? I suggest that, as long as we need fossil fuels, it is much better that we use UK fossil fuels than increase our dependency on imports.

Costs are being cut dramatically. We also have to remember that the North Sea has accounted for something like 20% of all fixed industrial development every year for the last 40 years. In the year before the downturn, there were £10 billion-worth of high technology exports worldwide from our expertise, especially in sub-sea technology. This is not something that we should just throw away; we should invest in it. What will the Government do to address the recovery?

I commend my colleague the former Energy Secretary Ed Davey for his initiative in commissioning the Wood review, which identified some of the challenges. It proposed not only the tax changes to reverse the disaster of the 2016 Budget but the setting up of the Oil and Gas Authority. That authority is up and running but we need to see it taking action. What is needed now is co-operation among those in the sector to invest in new infrastructure and to use existing infrastructure much more cost-effectively as one of the best ways to get costs down and make the industry competitive again.

The other thing that I would like to say to the Government is that exploration has come to a virtual standstill. There is very little appraisal and absolutely no exploration. If we do not identify the reserves in the North Sea, which we know to exist, there will be no future because there will be nothing to produce. Are the Government prepared to work with the industry to see what can be done to stimulate exploration and appraisal to bring the industry back to at least being a major component of the British economy? Indeed, the downturn in the oil industry contributed to the beginning of the recession in the UK. That is how important it is to the overall UK economy. Indeed, it is probably our biggest and most dynamic industrial sector.

Having spoken about oil and gas, I will make it clear that I fully support our ambition for a zero-carbon economy and low-carbon transition. I think we all recognise that while we get there we need to use fossil fuels efficiently. I should like to see carbon capture and storage, and, if we are not prepared to invest in it, I hope that other nations will give us the technology that we can use. Of course, fossil fuels will still be required as a feedstock, even when they stop being actual fuels.

I think that the Government and the industry are working together better, but more needs to be done to ensure that, as oil prices recover, as the industry gets its costs down and as the tax regime becomes more favourable, we get back on track and make sure that we maximise the potential for the industry in terms of our own fuel resources and our high-tech industry, which depends on having an active home market.

I will make a final comment on the referendum from a Scottish perspective. It is being stated that if Britain were to vote for Brexit, which I hope it does not, this would trigger the case for another referendum on Scottish independence. I suggest to the House that, on reflection, the assertion is preposterous. In reality, to my mind it is not credible that the other 27 members of the EU would be the slightest bit interested in discussing Scotland’s future relationship with the Union before they had resolved Britain’s exit. The terms of that exit would be absolutely crucial to Scotland’s future. I find it very bizarre that the SNP is so enthusiastic about membership of the EU but regards membership of the UK as the biggest obstacle to Scotland’s progress to success. It is an absurd proposition. The reality is that we would be faced with probably three different currencies running together to enable Scotland to opt out of its biggest single market—the UK—in order to try to be competitive in the remaining single market that it sought to join. I do not think that any sensible Scot would vote for another independence referendum in that context.

The Economy

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for initiating this debate. I also join the Minister in his tribute to Lord Peston. Anybody who, like me, has sat through many economic debates in your Lordships’ House will miss the energy and wit that he brought to every contribution he made. On a personal level, I will miss the friendship of someone who slightly took me under his wing when I was a new Member to your Lordships’ House. With him, I was a founder member of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, of which he was such a distinguished chairman.

The biggest foreseeable risk to the prosperity of the UK lies in the outcome of the EU referendum. Therefore, I intend to devote my remarks entirely to that today. In doing so, I regret the complete absence from the speakers list of the sages of the Government Privy Council Bench and, indeed, the UKIP Members of your Lordships’ House.

The heart of the economic argument about EU membership or not lies in our long-term trading prospects. The trading picture of the UK has changed significantly since we joined the EU in 1975. Then, trading was largely in goods; now, we are the leading services exporter as a proportion of output in the G7 and some 40% of our exports globally and to the EU are in services. The EU is now by far our biggest export destination as a whole, as the Minister said, with some 44% of British exports going to Europe. It is acknowledged that the increase we have seen with trade in the EU is directly linked to our membership of it. The Centre for European Reform says that it has raised trade by 55%, while the Government argue that it has done so by between 68% and 85%. Whatever the exact figure, it is hard to deny that it is a substantial amount.

What are the opportunities and threats to our trade from staying in or coming out? If we stay in, we know that the completion of the single market in services, which is moving forward with greater energy, will significantly benefit the UK simply because we are the leading provider of services. This is an area where there is the greatest potential for growth worldwide and an area where the UK is in a very strong position to benefit. We also know that the EU is well down the track of negotiating—and completing negotiation on—trade deals with some of the largest economies in the world, including the US, Japan and India. When those trade deals are completed, as they will be, we will get benefits from them by virtue of our membership of the EU.

We can see very tangibly what some of the benefits will be in terms of trade if we stay in. If we come out, however, we do not even know what the preferred trading relationship of those who advocate coming out is. Nigel Farage suggested yesterday that he preferred a relationship that was, as he put it, like that of either Switzerland or Norway. There is quite a big difference between Switzerland and Norway; it would be useful if he could narrow that down a bit. Boris Johnson said that we should have a deal like Canada’s and then, under criticism, said that we should have a deal like the WTO’s. Michael Gove surprised everybody by saying that we should have a deal that mirrored that of Iceland or Albania. I strongly recommend that noble Lords who have not done so read the article in the Times of 25 April by the Albanian Prime Minister. After describing Michael Gove’s suggestion as “weird”, he eloquently explained why seeking membership of the EU is in Albania’s interests and why, even before being a member, Albania’s aspirations to join the EU have “made the impossible possible”. Mr Gove threatens to turn that aspiration on its head for the UK and make what is possible for the UK in the EU impossible outside it.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

Does my noble friend not also think that Michael Gove let the cat out of the bag when he said that what he really hoped was that once Britain left the EU, the EU would disintegrate, and that is really his objective?

[Lord Newby]

I think it may be his objective and I find it the most irresponsible statement I have ever heard, given the history of Europe through which we have lived and which we know from the history books.

Whatever the relationship with the EU is likely to be, it will not be on the same terms as now. Even in the closest feasible relationship, such as that with Norway, we will have to accept the rules and costs of membership with no say over them. This will have a negative effect on trade, particularly in services. In financial services, failure to retain the right of companies to passport their services from the UK to the rest of the EU, if we form an agreement on those lines, would undoubtedly lead to significant job losses in the City— some estimate as many as 100,000—to the benefit of Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin, which certainly have the capacity to pick up the baton. If we were unable to keep the passporting rights, rules set by the EU would undoubtedly over time, as sure as night follows day, disadvantage the City. So, whatever the post-Brexit relationship, our position re trade with the EU will be less favourable than it is now.

What do the Brexiters say? They say we do not need to worry about trade with the EU because outside the EU our trade with the rest of the world would blossom, particularly with the fastest growing countries in Asia and Latin America. This argument has been used in recent days by as wide a group as not only Michael Gove but the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Sir Ian Botham. However, for this to be true it would have to be the case that UK companies are currently hobbled from exporting outside the EU, that we would be able to get better trade deals by negotiating on our own and that there is a reserve army of UK companies waiting in the wings ready to take up those new opportunities.

All these assertions are false. Are British companies currently constrained from exporting outside the EU because of EU rules? There is no evidence for this. True, we export less than Germany by a factor of over two to China, India, the US and Brazil. However, the fact that Germany exports so much shows that EU membership in itself is not a barrier to successfully exporting globally. Indeed, over the past decade, our exports to some of these countries has greatly increased—to China by over 70% and India by almost 30%. The reason for our relatively poor historic performance and relatively strong recent performance has had nothing to do with the EU—it is because there has been a concerted push by British exporters, backed by the Government, to increase exports to those countries which was largely lacking before. It is worth emphasising that our exports to the BRIC countries, even if you include South Africa in that definition, is well under 10% of the total, compared to 17% to the US, let alone the 44% to the EU.

The second myth is that we would get better trade deals on our own if we were not held back by the EU. This myth has been romantically advanced by Ian Botham in respect of the English-speaking, cricket-playing members of the Commonwealth.

Fiscal Responsibility and Fairness

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Given that the hon. Gentleman speaks on behalf of a party that wants to break up and bankrupt the United Kingdom and that has set out plans to have the national debt higher at the end of the next Parliament than at the beginning, he has a cheek. The Scottish National party’s plans would do nothing to sort out this country’s economy. They would damage the recovery and cause jobs to be lost in Scotland. I think that the people of Scotland can make up their own minds about that.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to ensure that the wealthiest pay a much higher contribution in taxes than they did under the last Government, who created more loopholes for the rich to avoid taxes than there are holes in a sieve. Surely it is perfectly legitimate for a coalition that has secured recovery and growth for five years to set out how that can be taken forward in the next five years. May I suggest that if coalitions are to become the norm, we need to find better ways of handling them, so that the two coalition parties can present their cases to the House? This statement is a perfectly reasonable way of doing that.

[Danny Alexander]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I thank him for his support on the measures to support tax avoidance and evasion and on the package of measures that we announced yesterday to support the oil and gas industry, which has been widely welcomed in his constituency and elsewhere. He is absolutely right that although the Labour party might not like the fact that we have a coalition Government, it needs to get used to the idea that that may well be the norm for many years to come. Innovation will be needed in parliamentary procedures and other things to accommodate that.

Income Tax

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman has done more for the very wealthy earning over £150,000. At this time of pressure on our public spending and on his constituents and mine, what did he decide to do? A typical millionaire, he gave away a benefit worth £100,000. He voted for that cut in the 50p rate of tax, which the vast majority of people feel is an obscene example of the unfairness of this Government. It is particularly a stain on the reputation of the Conservatives, but I want to hear how the Liberal Democrats justify their votes for the cut in that 50p rate.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Apart from the fact that the top rate of tax was 40% for all but 39 days of the Labour Government’s time in office, will the hon. Gentleman tell us which Chancellor of the Exchequer cut capital gains tax to 18%, which this Government have now increased to 28%, and which Government capped the amount of tax relief for high earners on pensions? It was not his Government, but the present Government.

[Chris Leslie]

It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman is trying to wriggle out of voting for that cut in the 50p rate. He tries to change the subject—“Look over here, we’ve done this” or “We’ve done that,” but he voted for a cut in the 50p rate for the very wealthiest in society. He asks—I am sure we will hear this from the Minister as well—why we did not do that for 13 years. We had a global financial crisis that hit tax receipts significantly, and in 2009, looking at the state of the public finances, we felt that the fairest thing to do was to raise the rate to 50p, which is obviously shocking to Government Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

That brings me to my second point, which is about how this growth, and jobs growth, is affecting—allegedly benefiting—my constituents.

Ministers are very fond of asserting that work is the best route out of poverty and that the increase in jobs is therefore of benefit to working families. Of course, work ought to be the best route out of poverty, but the wage squeeze that we have seen in recent years means that that is simply not proving to be the case. When two thirds of children in poverty are living in households where someone is in paid employment, Ministers cannot be satisfied with a growth strategy that so misses the point in terms of rewarding those who aim to work and do the right thing. One of the reasons why those families are not benefiting from this jobs growth, apart from wage restraint, is that many of the in-work financial support measures that we put in place to support low wages—as indeed did earlier Conservative Governments, through family credit—have been eroded, frozen or cut under this Government. My second request to the Minister is for a more comprehensive answer than the one he gave a few moments ago to my question about what exactly is Ministers’ strategy for addressing in-work poverty, which is felt very acutely by many families in my constituency.

My third question for the Minister is one that I asked of Ministers at Treasury questions yesterday about the gender impact of a cut in the top rate of tax. As we know, men are disproportionately likely to benefit from cuts to income tax, particularly cuts to higher-rate taxes, and women are disproportionately affected by rises in consumption taxes because of their responsibility for managing the household budget. This has a direct feed-through to levels of child poverty. If women—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) has clearly not looked at the many decades of social policy analysis in relation to this. If he has time later, I will take him through it. There is plenty of evidence that poor children have poor mothers. [Interruption.] If he thinks that this is sex discrimination, I am afraid that his analysis of the gender dimension of fiscal policy is even slighter than I understood it to be.

Yesterday I asked Ministers whether they could explain the gender analysis of their fiscal policy, which is exacerbated by things like their marriage tax breaks, the vast majority of which will benefit men, putting money in wallets, not purses. That will mean, again, that children lose out and child poverty is impacted.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

What about child care, free school meals and the pupil premium?

[Kate Green]

Free school meals have yet to be delivered, I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman. We see from this Government very generous promises, totally unfunded.

My final question for the Minister relates to inequality. Ministers are very fond of telling us that inequality is reducing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The motion seems to me a distraction for a party that has no credible economic policy and wants to draw attention away from that fact. We, as Liberal Democrats, voted for the reduction from 50p to 45p, but on the conditions which we negotiated within the Government, that rich people would pay substantially more in taxes as a direct result. That is precisely what has happened. It ill behoves the Labour party to latch on to a headline figure when its analysis does not stand up. There has been talk about the low wage, low tax economy, but I happen to remember the first two years of the Blair Government, when sticking to Conservative party spending plans meant tens of thousands of experienced doctors, teachers, nurses and public sector workers were thrown out of work by the Labour Government and then had to be re-employed subsequently at much higher cost.

[Frank Dobson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

No, I will not at this time, and I want to let other hon. Members in. That is what happened and I had the debate then.

The point I want to make is that the Labour party has never yet had the will to say sorry to the British people for what it bequeathed to us. The fact is that the economy collapsed by 7% in a single year. It has been a huge heavy lifting task for this Government to rebuild the economy to the point where we now have a strong and balanced recovery. My party’s objective is precisely to have a stronger economy and a fairer society. We believe we have made a very significant contribution to achieving that. In particular, I am slightly surprised at the disdainful way Labour Members treat the raising of the tax threshold, which has been hugely beneficial to many people on low earnings by taking them out of tax.

I have to say that I am astonished that the motion refers to the 10p tax, which has been nothing but a source of political embarrassment and division for the Labour party ever since it was thought up, invented and abolished by the Labour party. It is not clear to me whether Labour Members want to replace the 0p rate by a 10p rate, which of course means that what we are talking about is a tax increase, or whether they will follow the advice of the IFS, which says that raising the tax threshold is a much more efficient way of delivering benefits to poor people than a 10p rate. That is why we have supported raising the threshold and delivered it.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

My right hon. Friend’s memory has momentarily failed him. The previous Labour Government did not abolish the 10p rate; they doubled the 10p rate. Everybody who was paying a marginal rate of tax at 10p started paying 20p. Some of the poorest people in my constituency and his were clobbered with a doubling of their tax rate under the previous Labour leader.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am grateful for that. My hon. Friend is right. This is the point: to hear the pious tone of debate from a party whose incompetence in government and inconsistency was astronomical frankly takes my breath away. We have had to struggle to get the economy to where it is now, taking really difficult decisions for which we have certainly taken a political hit. I am not ashamed of the fact that we were prepared to do that to get a result that puts us in a better place than any other developed country in the current economic situation. I should also repeat the point that Labour cut capital gains tax to 18%. We have managed to raise it back to 28%.

The truth is that what we are seeing here is the end of new Labour and the re-emergence of old Labour. New Labour knew these policies would not work and would not make it electable. Old Labour has decided to try the old failed policies again. I suspect it will get the old failed result, which is that we do not need them. It is not the answer to the country’s problems.

The fact is that the highest earners are now paying more as a percentage of the total tax bill than they were. The figure increased from 22.7% of the total take to 24.2% between 2011 and 2013. We have not only introduced measures to increase the taxes on higher earners, but we have, for example, restricted their tax relief on pensions. Under the previous Government it was £250,000; it is now £40,000. In reality, a millionaire will pay £381,000 more tax on their income under this Government than they did under the Labour Government, so we are in fact building a fairer, more balanced tax system, best fitted to our needs.

I completely accept that we have not got the recovery to the place where we want it to be. Earnings are not growing as we would like them to, and it is absolutely true—I am not going to deny it—that many working poor people are still not getting the full benefits of economic recovery. However, they would be far worse off if we had not raised the tax threshold. As we move through the recovery, I hope we will start to get the productivity improvements that will ensure that real wages start to increase, and then those people will get even more benefit from the raised tax threshold than they do currently.

We have laid the foundations for what can become a sustained, fair and balanced recovery. The motion that Labour wants us to vote for today would take us backwards, not forwards. It would take us in a direction that historically has not worked and that would not work in the future. It is worth remembering that when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) introduced the 50p rate, he was quite clear that it was a temporary measure. I appreciate that people have said that he has qualified what he meant by that—although he is not here today, I notice—but in the circumstances it is worth pointing out that he said:

“I want to say a word about the 50p rate of tax, since I introduced it. At the time, I said it was a temporary measure. I did not particularly want to introduce it”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1199.]

It was only introduced on the day that that Parliament was dissolved.

The history of the Labour party was one of giving huge tax concessions to the wealthy, whereas this Government, surprisingly enough, have reduced the 50p rate to 45p—which is still 5p higher than it ever was under most of the Labour Government—as well as imposing other tax restrictions and closing tax loopholes, many of which were opened by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have also been much more rigorous in pursuing unpaid tax, with the Treasury estimating that £100 billion of unpaid tax will be recovered over the course of this Parliament as a result of measures taken by the present Government.

Labour Members should go back to their constituencies and prepare to explain why they got us into this mess and when they will find an economic policy that will legitimately get us out in a fair and balanced way, because that is what the Liberal Democrats have been doing. We get nothing but criticism from Labour, but absolutely no policies.

Finance Bill

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for introducing the 60 or so proposals that the Government have tabled for consideration at the end of proceedings on the Finance Bill. [Interruption.] I hear some tutting behind me. The House will be relieved to hear that although I have a number of questions they relate mainly to new clauses 1, 5 and 6, new schedule 4 and amendment 2.

I will start with new clause 1. It is important to take the opportunity to scrutinise what are fairly significant changes. They have been introduced by the Government at a fairly late stage in the Bill’s progress. Will the Minister comment on why that is the case? The measures were first announced in the autumn statement but the Government were still consulting on them some five months later while we were scrutinising the Bill clause by clause in Committee.

Perhaps the most controversial of the Government’s announcements on North sea oil and gas over the past year is contained in new clause 1 and new schedule 1, which make changes to the UK continental shelf oil and gas fiscal regime. As the Minister set out, they relate specifically to leasing arrangements between oil and gas contractors and oil and gas licence holders on the UK continental shelf—arrangements that are commonly known as bareboat chartering. Oil and gas service companies often lease drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment from overseas related parties on a bareboat basis—that is, without operating personnel—and the associated rental costs are claimed as a deduction against the UK profits of the service company when it uses the equipment to provide services to oil and gas licence holders on the UK continental shelf.

As the Red Book sets out,

“the government is concerned about the use of”

such leasing arrangements

“to move significant taxable profit outside the UK tax net”.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister what estimate his Department has made of the total taxable profit that has been moved outside the UK tax net as a result of these leasing arrangements. More importantly, what evidence does HMRC have that such profit shifting or transfer pricing is avoidance activity, as the Government seem to suggest?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

When the Minister is answering those questions, I wonder whether he will also say what impact the measures will have on drilling activity in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Business rates rocketed under the last Government. First, we have taken about 400,000 of the smallest businesses out of business rates altogether, a scheme that the Labour Government wanted to bring to an end. Secondly, we have capped the increase at 2%, so we have protected businesses from inflation. Thirdly, we have chosen to provide particular support to our high street stores, and I am very disappointed that the hon. Lady does not support that. It is interesting that another of the Labour spokespeople has got to their feet, but not one of them has yet—20 minutes into Treasury questions—welcomed the good economic news today.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of changes in the VAT export rules that are causing concern among auctioneers, damaging EU trade and putting them at a competitive disadvantage? Will he look into this, and try to ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs makes the system manageable?

[Mr Osborne]

I will make sure that the specific issue is looked at and that the right hon. Gentleman can meet my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who handles such tax and VAT issues.

Scotch Whisky Excise Duty

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Donohoe]

That is a very important point. If we go to the European Commission and argue with it, there is that divide between the north and south of Europe; until a few years ago, the Commissioner was very pro-wine and anti-spirits. It is an indicator of the seriousness of the situation that we are discriminated against—the Commission throws at us the level of taxation in our own country. That is an element that must be addressed by the Chancellor at the Budget.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The Government are arguing that the duty on whisky has gone up by 37% compared with a rise of 42% on beer. The trouble with that argument, of course, is that, because the Government have eliminated the beer escalator, that division will be eliminated very quickly. The point that we have to maintain in export terms is that this is a home-based industry. If something is good enough for beer, it is good enough for whisky; the escalator should go and we should ensure that our most successful industry is supported competitively at home and abroad.

[Mr Donohoe]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman.

I have taken all the interventions that I will take. I will finish by putting four questions to the Minister. First, can the Treasury explain why it was that, when it stopped the escalator on beer last year to save struggling pubs, it failed to look at the situation as far as spirits and wines were concerned? As I said, they account for some 40% of the sales in those very pubs and the rest of the hospitality sector. Given that the Chancellor wanted to help that sector, it seems strange that the rise in duty on whisky was set against that.

Secondly, what assessment—if any—has the Treasury made of the impact on pubs of last year’s announcement on beer? I hope I can get a response to that question. Thirdly, can the Treasury provide reassurances to the Scotch whisky industry that the annual attack on Scotch whisky will come to an end in the Budget in 2014? Finally, does the Treasury acknowledge that the home market for Scotch whisky, which remains the industry’s third largest market, is diminishing due to excessive tax rises each year?

Sales of Scotch whisky in the UK have dropped by 12% since the duty escalator came into being. Is it possible to hear today what is likely to be in the mind of the Chancellor? I am sure that the Minister is aware that we, as an all-party group, have made a representation to him for a meeting. I hope that what she says today will include an agreement to that meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Last, but never forgotten, I call Sir Malcolm Bruce.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

If Scotland chooses to vote for independence next September, how will handing over control of the Scottish economy to a foreign bank, namely the Bank of England, benefit Scotland’s economy?

[Danny Alexander]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be very foolish indeed for anyone to vote for independence on the basis that Scotland will keep the pound. It is highly unlikely that a currency union would be workable, and therefore highly unlikely that any euro-style arrangement for the UK would be in the best interests of either Scotland or the rest of the UK. The only way to be sure of keeping the pound is to keep the UK together.

Public Sector Debt

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all property and other chattels that have been bequeathed to the nation over the last decade for the purpose of reducing the national debt where the sale has been overseen by the Treasury Solicitor and from which the proceeds have been handed over to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and if, for each item bequeathed, he will give (a) a description and (b) how much was raised and handed over.

[Official Report, 11 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 384W.]

Letter of correction from Sajid Javid:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on 11 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Sajid Javid]

A search of the Department's records has disclosed one case in which the Treasury Solicitor oversaw the realisation of property, with proceeds handed over to the Commissioners. That was a bequest which was realised in 2011 with the sale of property in Cambridgeshire. £45,900 was realised from the sale of the property.

The Treasury Solicitor will generally only become involved in bequests where it is executor. Generally, in cases where a bequest is made for the reduction of the national debt, HM Treasury will ask the executors of the will to realise the property themselves before transferring funds to the Commissioners. Over the last decade, sales of those properties have included property in Leicester (sold for £452,000), Leeds (£275,000), East Sussex (£240,000) and Merseyside (£143,000). Those bequests also included some chattels with a total value of £11,995, but further information on chattels would require a detailed search of paper files, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The correct answer should have been: