Queen’s Speech
Lord Stunell Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to contribute to my first Queen’s Speech debate. I start by saying how much I appreciated and was content with the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle in her maiden speech. I know just how difficult I found my speech to make back in January. Her speech was outstanding and shows what a contribution she will be able to make to the House in future on behalf of both the Church and her diocese, for which she spoke so eloquently.
I start by making what has become almost the statutory declaration on where I stand on the EU referendum. I definitely want to remain. As someone who spent 20 years working in the construction industry, which will be an essential component of delivering most of the things that we are discussing in today’s debate, I am pleased to report to your Lordships that a poll of construction industry professionals published last week shows that 63% of them share that view, with 21% saying that they would wish to leave. It is interesting to see what their principal concerns were, should the UK leave the European Union. Labour shortages in the industry were a concern for 55%, the higher cost of materials were a concern for 53%, and less foreign direct investment in the construction industry in the UK was a concern for 60%. Those are points that I hope very much the House takes into account as we approach 23 June.
I want to use the balance of my time on one of the given topics for today, the environment, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friends Lady Featherstone and Lady Parminter, have spoken. They noted that the word “environment” does not appear in the gracious Speech at all. I am not sure that they have drawn the appropriate conclusions from that, because the Queen’s Speech has a wonderful quote:
“My Government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using their global presence to tackle climate change”.
I wholeheartedly commend and endorse that commitment, and the House will understand that I turned to the briefing pack provided by Her Majesty’s Government to follow up and see exactly what that would consist of. It took me a while, but eventually I reached page 80, where the briefing pack says:
“Following the Paris climate agreement we are committed, both at home and overseas, to reducing emissions and increasing investment in clean energy technologies”.
That sounds very positive and encouraging, especially to those of us who have the view that climate change is in reality the greatest challenge facing humankind. The Government will have every assistance from these Benches to deliver on that very bold aspiration.
Unfortunately, there is no hint in the gracious Speech about how that is going to be achieved. As my noble friend Lady Parminter pointed out, there are no Bills, there is no policy announcement or time scale, and there are no stepping stones. The 85-page brief is full of information on everything else but remains silent on how the Government intend to use the second year of their five years in office to begin the process of meeting the new commitments that they entered into in Paris, let alone their existing statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act. The sum total that they come up with are the two lines that I have already quoted.
So is that it? Is there to be no forward movement at all in policy and delivery? Is there simply a reliance on steady-as-she-goes, with existing measures? I very much hope that that is not the case. Since May last year, those existing measures have been deliberately and systematically toned down, delayed, cancelled and abandoned. The gracious Speech sets out a bold aspiration, but in real life the policy direction since last May has been backwards. For example—and this is close to my own heart—the back-tracking on zero-carbon homes is a substantial blow to meeting the Paris targets. So, too, is the dismantling of any effective retrofit programme of energy saving in homes, and the drastic cuts to the feed-in tariff.
As all the pre-existing coalition programmes set up by Liberal Democrats and Conservative Ministers in the previous Parliament are being undone, and at the same time tough new targets and commitments are being adopted via the Paris agreement while boastful claims of world leadership are being made in the Queen’s Speech, why is the gracious Speech completely silent on what is going to be done instead to fill the gap? If the Minister does not know or cannot say now what the answer is, can he at least tell us when he will tell us? When will your Lordships be permitted to know how the Government intend to make a reality of those bold words in the Queen’s Speech, when Her Majesty said:
“My Government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using their global presence to tackle climate change”?
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Lord Stunell Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pickles
I do not really understand why that was. Labour’s solution to this brings to mind their solution of garden cities. They promised five but could not deliver five, so they promised 10 and never delivered 10. The London Land Commission is indeed a good thing.
The resale of shared ownership properties will be streamlined, and will make it easier for tenants in the private rented sector to sublet or share space. We will also extend our support for home ownership, which has already helped more than 200,000 households to buy or reserve a home. Buying our first home appeals to the very British sense of aspiration and self-reliance. It is a reward for hard work and an investment in the future—a place to settle down and to raise a family. A new Help to Buy ISA will give a much needed boost to people saving to get on the housing ladder. The Government will contribute an additional 25% of their savings up to a total of £3,000. In other words, if someone saves £12,000, the Government will give them an extra £3,000, making £15,000 in total.
We will also help those who want to rent an affordable home. By 2010, the net loss of affordable rented housing under Labour had reached the astonishing figure of 420,000 homes. By contrast, this Government will be the first since the 1980s—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to this, because it is important. This Government will be the first since the 1980s to end their term with a larger stock of affordable housing, and I think that is a remarkable achievement. Our affordable housing programme will achieve the fastest rate of affordable house building for 20 years and will deliver more than 500,000 new affordable homes by 2020.
Mr Pickles
I just want to finish a couple of points, but then I will gladly give way to my old friend.
During the last five years, councils have built more homes than in the previous 13. Council house building is now at a 23-year high. We shall now start working with Keith House, Natalie Elphicke and the Local Government Association to implement the new housing finance institute, which will help build even more.
Sir Andrew Stunell
The Secretary of State and I are not always exactly on the same page, but we absolutely are on this. May I draw to his and the House’s attention the fact that we have indeed increased the number of social and affordable homes in this Parliament and that the 4 millionth was opened in my constituency just 18 months ago?
Mr Pickles
I am always happier when I am on the same page as my right hon. Friend, who was an immensely distinguished Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. He should take considerable credit for keeping us focused on affordable houses, and he should share in the triumph.
We are considering ways to deliver private rented accommodation for homeless families, so that councils can help those who are in most need, while reducing the reliance on expensive temporary and bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
This Government have put councils and communities back in charge of housing and planning. We have adopted the same approach to boosting economic growth. Local areas now have the breathing space and support they need to find their own economic solutions. We have ended the failed attempt by Labour to run the economy through regional quangos and have devolved powers and funding to enterprise zones and local enterprise partnerships. We have trusted local people, and they are now delivering jobs and growth in their communities.
Twenty-four enterprise zones across England have created a whopping 15,500 jobs, attracted more than 430 businesses, secured more than £2 billion of private sector investment and built world-class business facilities and transport links. These enterprise zones are gaining momentum as local centres of excellence—whether with biotechnology in Nottingham, advanced engineering in Lancashire, creative industries in Bristol or aerospace in Torquay.
We will now create two new enterprise zones at Plymouth and Blackpool, subject, of course, to business cases, and extend up to eight existing zones, so that more communities can benefit from these local engines for growth. We will also support the creation of a Croydon growth zone to create 4,000 homes and 10,000 jobs.
The message is clear: where cities grow their economies through local initiatives, we will support and reward them. Starting next month local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Greater Manchester will be able to retain 100% of any growth in business rates, so that they can support businesses and reap the benefits. Unlike what the Labour party is proposing, we are not raiding the budgets of local authorities to pay for this.
Hilary Benn
It is very simple: the Minister and I have a different view. I think every local authority should have a local plan. To be perfectly honest, I cannot understand why a local authority would not want a local plan, given the structure of the national planning policy framework. I think that is an obligation. The Minister and I disagree. He is entitled to his view and I am entitled to mine.
Sir Andrew Stunell
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that when the NPPF was introduced, it was discovered that only about a quarter of local authorities actually had a statutory plan, despite the requirement to have one? What did the Labour Government do in 13 years to ensure that local authorities complied with what he now asserts to be vital and necessary?
Hilary Benn
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the coalition cannot have it both ways. The Minister says we took a top-down approach and told people what to do, but the right hon. Gentleman says the very opposite. The fact is—
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman should bear with me. The NPPF has changed things. I support its basic structure, but the changes I would make would be, first, to ensure that local authorities calculate their housing need on a similar basis and, secondly, to strengthen the brownfield policy, which, whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to argue about it or not, was weakened in the final version of the NPPF. That is the difference. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman again, but why does he think that any local authority should not have a local plan? Does he agree with what I am arguing?
Sir Andrew Stunell
I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the criticism he is levelling at the coalition Government for failing to achieve what he sets out also applies to him and his Government, who failed to achieve it in 13 years. This Government believed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I certainly did—that it was right for local authorities to proceed at their own pace. We provided a carrot, not a stick.
Hilary Benn
No one is arguing about the pace, because the time it will take local authorities to come up with a local plan will differ. I think most of us agree—although clearly not everyone does—that every local authority ought to have a plan. If they do not, are they taking responsibility for their local community? On that, we have a different view.
We will give new powers to local authorities to create housing growth areas and new homes corporations, so that they can assemble land and work with builders—small and large—construction firms and self-builders to get more homes built.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On Wednesday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget for a country on the rise: cutting income tax, helping savers, starting to reduce our debt and investing across the UK to secure a better future for all our constituents. Despite the Opposition being as much in denial about the growth now surging through our country as they were about the chaos and damage they wreaked in the economy while they were in government, Wednesday’s Budget shows that the Conservatives’ long-term economic plan is working. With the deficit down, growth up, jobs up, living standards rising at last and debt starting to fall as a share of the economy, we are seeing the success that people have worked very hard for in the past five years. Against the odds and the Opposition, Britain is walking tall again, meaning more financial security and peace of mind for our families. In less than 50 days, we face a choice between sticking to the economic plan that is delivering for Britain or returning to the chaos of the past. With this Budget, I am certain that, when it comes to it, Britain will choose the future, not the past.
It is particularly extraordinary that despite the difficult decisions the Government have had to take on spending over the past four years and the cuts we have had to make to fix Labour’s deficit, there has been genuine investment in infrastructure up and down the country, including in my constituency. Ironically, there was a pledge for investment in transport infrastructure for 13 years under Labour, but we did not see a penny of it. Having made that promise during the 2001 election campaign, immediately the election was over it scrapped the Hastings bypass and then spent 10 years failing to come up with any workable alternative, but now, in a matter of months, the Hastings and Bexhill link road will open in my constituency, thanks entirely to investment in our local economy under this coalition Government that will create jobs, relieve traffic congestion and create the 21st-century infrastructure that an area such as east Sussex needs. This is just a small example of how the Government are investing for the future while making the tough financial choices to get us back on the path to recovery.
The Bexhill link road is not the only example. The A21 to the north of my constituency is one of the worst roads in Britain, with very little dual carriageway, despite being the main link from Hastings—one of the most deprived towns on the south coast—up to the M25. Now we are seeing a long-term plan for road improvements, and we can already see the dualling taking place at Tonbridge and Pembury. Furthermore, it is not just the roads being improved; we now have the very real prospect of Bexhill gaining high-speed rail, potentially delivering a service to St Pancras in 78 minutes, allowing us to take advantage of High Speed 1 to Ashford. This is extraordinary.
It is a tribute to the Government that theirs has not been a knee-jerk reaction to the shameless funnelling of funding and investment to just one part of the country that we saw for 13 years under Labour. We are actually seeing a balanced recovery. We have seen genuine equity and fairness in the allocation of national resources to where they are needed, where there is genuine demand and where they can be best put to use. We are seeing a truly national investment plan, as part of the long-term economic plan, and a truly national recovery.
One of the things I am proudest of the Government for is the long-overdue vision for a northern powerhouse. For that, we have to pay tribute to the Chancellor, because he owns it more than anyone else and has done more than anyone to articulate it and make it a reality. Before being elected in Sussex, I fought a seat in Greater Manchester, in Eccles, Salford. I am a southerner and I do not claim to know the north well, but it gave me a glimpse, back in 1997, of just how far the north was lagging behind the rest of the country and of the urgent need not just for new infrastructure but for a new vision. It is ironic that it had to wait for a new Conservative Government, after 13 years of Labour, to come up with a compelling vision for the 21st century, to create not another pool of subsidy—not unsustainable subsidy-fuelled growth—but a vision for a new global powerhouse and city in the north, with equal weight to London. That is the other encouraging thing about the overall economic picture emerging from the rubble of Labour’s great recession. We are seeing a more balanced Britain and a more balanced economy, and one with increased confidence, not just in London.
Sir Andrew Stunell
Given that my right hon. Friend has mentioned the word “balance”, I thought I would point out that it was not an exclusively Conservative move to ensure that the north of England received the priority it needed.
Gregory Barker
I readily accept that and should have mentioned it; I think it is a success of this Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition. When the history of the coalition and this Parliament is written, it will acknowledge that two parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—with slightly different outlooks and with a different set of policies—came together in the national interest to fix the disaster they inherited from the Labour party. For all the squabbles we occasionally read about in the press, which are blown out of all proportion, history will judge this to have been a period of extremely stable, successful, grown-up government between two parties that have made a real success of coalition. That is to the credit of everyone who has served in and supported this Government.
Another statistic that came out of the Budget is equally remarkable. On Treasury forecasts, we now expect the UK to emerge as the largest economy in Europe and to overtake the manufacturing powerhouse of Germany within 15 years. It is extraordinary that we not only have that ambition, but are on a trajectory to achieve it if we stick with our long-term economic plan. What underpins this is not any single item of fiscal policy, but the overall package that is helping to unlock, encourage and drive forward our single greatest asset—the new and emerging sense of aspiration, enterprise and creativity, a sense of can-do and ambition.
In businesses up and down the country, I have seen many young people prepared to take a risk and try something new, and people being prepared to start their own business. That is why, having come through this difficult economic period, we are seeing record numbers of business start-ups. It is this spirit of enterprise that will drive us forward in the 21st century—not some old-style, return-to-the-70s economic centralisation that is the “back to the future” dogma of the most left-wing Opposition we have seen for 30 years.
It is no surprise that the expert taken from the City by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to help with rescuing the banks, who was hailed as being a sign of how in-touch Labour was with the markets and was seen as the architect of the banks’ rescue has actually resigned the Labour Whip. Lord Myners no longer sits on the Labour Benches in the House of Lords; he moved to the Cross Benches because of the left-wing surge on the Labour Front Bench. It would be a travesty and a danger if Labour were to be put back in control of the nation’s finances and our future. We need to stick to our long-term economic plan.
Another example of us investing for the future while taking difficult decisions on spending is that of science. Despite the cuts made, the Government have been able to ring-fence and support science because they recognise it as a core driver of economic growth. That is an indication of our confidence about Britain’s future in the world and a recognition of the UK’s ability to transform its leading science base into new products, services and markets. There is a genuine case for public sector and private sector collaboration there as in so many other sectors.
This plan is not ideological; it is pragmatic and based on the economic realities of the 21st century. I saw that in the energy sector and the creation of the world’s first green investment bank. I saw it give rise to a surge in investment in the world’s largest offshore wind programme. Across the board, we are seeing unprecedented investment in new sectors, new enterprise and new businesses. It leaves me thinking that although I am not standing for Parliament at the next election, if we can re-elect a Conservative Government, this country will indeed have a bright and prosperous future ahead of it.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a privilege and a pleasure to take part in this debate. May I also say that it is a pleasure to follow the preceding speaker? The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has a renowned and loud voice, and sticks up not only for his constituents but for the rights and privileges of workers in the tax collection industry.
I am speaking in this Budget debate because I believe that the United Kingdom has made encouraging progress in recovering from the decade of boom and bust that preceded May 2010. It has often been painful, but we have made many of the necessary repairs to our economy. We should reflect that back in May 2010 the country was borrowing £428 million every day of the year just to plug the gap between the income to and the expenditure from the public accounts. Five years on, we have a record number of people in employment—in skilled employment, as we were reminded yesterday. Jobs growth has been highest in the north-west, and I am happy to report that unemployment in my constituency is lower than it has been for many a long year.
We have recruited a record number of apprentices. It is worth reflecting on some of the dire predictions made at the time of the Chancellor’s first Budget about the rise in unemployment that we could expect and the damage that would be done to young people and their prospects by the coalition Government’s policies—in fact, we have a record number of apprentices. I am proud of my constituency’s record in recruiting apprentices and reducing unemployment for young people. I should add that a record number of young people—including young people from deprived backgrounds—are now going to higher education.
We have raised the state pension and put in place the triple lock to protect it for the future, and we have provided the pupil premium. I was looking back at my maiden speech, having it in mind that this might well be my final speech, and noticed that I commented then on the need to get more funding for schools in Stockport. Now, with the pupil premium, we do see that help for those pupils who need it most in the Stockport school system.
We have raised the tax threshold and taken many low-paid people, particularly part-time women employees, out of the tax system altogether. The standard rate tax threshold is now at a level that not just reaches the Liberal Democrat manifesto promise of the last election but exceeds it. I remind the House that, in the run-up to that election, the Prime Minister said that, although it was a nice idea, it was quite unrealistic, so I am extremely proud and pleased to see that measure in place and the Chancellor taking it a little bit further in his announcement the day before yesterday. I am slightly less pleased to see the Chancellor and the Prime Minister campaigning around the country on the grounds that it was a Conservative policy in the first place, which it most emphatically was not.
I am pleased to see the rise in the minimum wage, which is to take effect in the autumn of this year. I am also pleased that, over the period of this Parliament, we have seen the wealthy pay more tax. Another step towards that is the reduction in the pension pot limit, which was announced this week. We see the wealthiest in society paying the most, which of course should be the case, but, more to the point, they are paying a bigger share than they were in 2010. We are also seeing the equality gap closing to the benefit of those who are least well off in society.
Let me comment briefly on one or two Budget announcements tucked away at the back of the Red Book on page 100. I am particularly pleased to see money being put into tackling the abuse of nuisance calls. As an active member of the all-party group on nuisance calls, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), I was delighted to see such a measure, and I know that that will be the case for many of my constituents too.
I wish to comment on the expansion of the church roof repair fund. When the fund was initially announced, I wrote to churches and church organisations in my constituency, more in hope than expectation, and was delighted to get the response I did from them. I know that it was oversubscribed even in my own constituency, so to see that being taken further is very welcome news.
Let me focus a little on infrastructure spending, particularly housing. I wish to agree with the many speakers who have said that the volume of house building is important. I have already noted the fact that we have restored and increased the number of social and affordable homes for people, with the 4 millionth such home being opened in my constituency some 12 months ago. It is a question not just of volume but of quality. I was pleased to have been the Minister who signed off a 25% increase in energy performance standards required of new homes. I commend my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for going a step further this year and for pushing forward towards zero-carbon homes, but there is still more to do.
I am pleased with the steps that are being taken on transport. The northern transport strategy and the proposals related to that are certainly very good news. The money being invested in the northern hub and, even more importantly, in the abolition of the dire Pacer trains is thoroughly welcome as well. We are looking forward to the outcome of the rail franchising, which is currently going on, to see further advances and improvements in rail travel in my Hazel Grove constituency.
I want to draw attention to two events that have taken place this month, which show powerfully how the coalition is delivering on its infrastructure promises. The first of those is the ceremony I attended for the turf cutting of the first phase of the A555 Hazel Grove bypass. That project was shown as a dotted line on A to Zs published in the 1960s. It is something else about which I spoke in my maiden speech and so it is a great pleasure to tell the House that we have now cut the ground, that the diggers are starting and that the road is coming.
I am also very pleased by a second event. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that a grant of £350,000 has been made available for the feasibility study for the next phase of the same road. I very much hope that that will be the first step towards relieving significant pollution, congestion and health damage to my constituents.
In his Budget statement, the Chancellor described the restoration of the UK’s finances as an unfinished task. I strongly agree with that judgment and with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who told the House yesterday that the task of repair will be completed in 2018 and that we must then use the growth in our economy to support vital public services such as the NHS and the police. I also support what the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said yesterday about the importance of promoting growth in key sectors of our economy and I give credit to him for the work he has done in ensuring that those key sectors received strong coalition support as well as on promoting exports and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises.
That brings me briefly to the banking system. I am concerned that we have not yet dealt with the problem of access to finance for small businesses and I regard that as unfinished business for the future.
I guess that every Member of Parliament chalks up not just successes but one or two regrets. I shall keep most of those to myself, but I want to mention one that will, I hope, reach the ears of the House authorities, and that is the utter failure of this place to provide effective hearing loops for those of us with hearing aids. This is a long-running battle of mine and I am in contention with the Administration Committee. I have spoken to all sorts of people within the House and it seems to be beyond the wit of technology or ingenuity to find a system that is effective for those of us with a hearing disability. In particular, I want to mention that that affects my constituents when they come here. My constituency is some 180 miles away and people come perhaps once in a lifetime to a meeting in this place and for them to be stuck at the back of the room where they cannot hear a word is discourteous to them and entirely improper for this House.
Nobody can do this job without help and support from elsewhere. I have done this job with enthusiasm and energy for 18 years only because I have had the active support of my wife Gillian.
Financial Conduct Authority Redress Scheme
Lord Stunell Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who also attended Aberystwyth university. Like him, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for securing this debate and campaigning on this matter. I think that everyone in the House is grateful to him for his efforts.
Many small businesses have suffered as a result of bank mismanagement, and I wish to highlight just one of them. A constituent of mine, Mr Dean D’Eye, became a customer of the Romford lending division of NatWest—part of RBS, of course—14 years ago. He had investment and property development businesses, and his main contact point with NatWest was a man called Ray Pask. Until 2008, Dean D’Eye carried out many transactions via NatWest. His total lending across various companies totalled about £11 million, with a debt of about £5.8 million. All interest payments on his debts were paid on time, and his business had a very satisfactory gearing of less than 60%.
After the Lehman bank collapse in September 2008, however, Dean D’Eye was inundated with additional requests for information, which took up a great deal of time—time off the crucial task of doing business. Then in December 2008, without warning, NatWest retained the £139,000 profit from a property sale, despite having sent letters confirming it could be used to aid the group’s cash flow. Thereafter, NatWest mis-sold the swap products associated with Dean D’Eye’s business.
In early 2009, while the demands for even more information continued, Dean D’Eye’s group was placed under watch by the global restructuring group. Then in April 2009, the bank sent in administrators from a company called MCR to report on his business. In Dean D’Eye’s view, its subsequent report was engineered to cause maximum damage, to justify putting his business into administration.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I do not know the details of my hon. Friend’s case, but I could almost recite them, given the grave similarities to cases that have arisen in my constituency. There seems to be a pattern, particularly with RBS, of following a track designed to produce a certain outcome, regardless of the strength of the business. Does he agree that the FCA should take that into account when looking at the independent assessments?
Bob Stewart
The point of our producing case studies is to prove that they are all along the same, incorrect path.
On 28 May 2009, NatWest formally cancelled Dean D’Eye’s overdraft, which, considering the size of the business, was small—about £40,000. Within a week, on 1 June, all his loans were called in, so that by 10.17 am on 5 June, administrators had full control of the business, which they started running from his office. This decision meant the group lost its cash flow, which in turn created a default with Dunbar bank, owned by Zurich Insurance Group. Dunbar bank has a reputation for being even more ruthless with its customers than NatWest.
As was broadcast on a recent BBC “Panorama” programme, Lawrence Tomlinson, the Government’s entrepreneur in residence, has exposed the dubious activities of NatWest’s GRG department—on that matter, retribution was taken against him as well. The NatWest GRG’s senior managers have at the very least given some obscure answers to the Treasury Committee. I understand that, since then, some of them have resigned and that the GRG has been disbanded. I gather that only 6% of the business adopted by the GRG ever re-emerged. That is hardly a success. My constituent, Dean D’Eye, now hopes to get litigation funding, so that he can take NatWest to court for the way in which it ruined his business. I cannot say that I blame him for doing so.
Finance Bill
Lord Stunell Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I agree that it is important: the narrative that Labour taxes the rich until the pips squeak and that we do not does not stand up to examination.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
May I add some grist to my hon. Friend’s mill by asking whether he agrees that it is astonishing that during 13 years in government the Labour party never found the time to impose VAT on the purchase of private jets? The coalition Government have introduced that.
Ian Swales
My right hon. Friend’s remarks stand on the record. Perhaps what he has said can tell us something about the travel movements of a previous Business Secretary, whom I will come back to in a moment.
The new clause also refers to levels of bank bonuses. As I understand it, the Opposition want in future to tax bank bonuses at 100%, with 50% on the individual and 50% through the bank. What assessment have they done of what that policy will do to the level of bank bonuses? It seems like another example in which the headline comes first and the policy follows behind.
The Opposition had 13 years to deliver their vision for the country. If we look at all the various levels of tax that they presided over, they carried out the wish of the former Secretary of State for Business to whom I have just referred, the former right hon. Member for Hartlepool, who said that he was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
Pub Companies
Lord Stunell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland
As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, many right hon. and hon. Members know, there has been an extraordinary campaign of misinformation on behalf of the big pub companies by their lobbyists the British Beer and Pub Association. I am sorry to say that it includes false statements that have been given even to the Select Committee: false statements about the reality of pub closure figures, and lots of unsubstantiated nonsense about how giving the right to a fair rent—that is all we are talking about; the right to choose whether to have a rent-only agreement—will somehow close breweries, create all sorts of disasters and close pubs. That must be stamped on. I urge all Members to read “Setting the Record Straight” by the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign, which puts those myths to bed.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I give my hon. Friend every encouragement to carry on the excellent work he has been doing over the years in Parliament. Does he agree that Punch Taverns, in particular, has very pernicious business practices? Just this weekend, I met the tenant of the Bulls Head in High Lane, who is a victim of its partner franchise tenancy. He has been driven out of business in less than nine months and tells me that he is one of three tenants of Punch Tavern inns who have been driven out of business in the past nine months through this pernicious sucking of capital and revenue out of the business.
Greg Mulholland
There are many, many examples from around the country that show just that. I have a word of caution for Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers, as it appears that some companies are using franchising to seek to circumvent the code, and that must be dealt with.
We have witnessed an extraordinary campaign of misinformation, but the report from the all-party save the pub group, to which the Secretary of State referred, showed the reality of pub closures. The CGA Strategy figures, often misquoted and misused in a disgraceful way, show clearly that between December 2004 and March 2013 the number of non-managed pubs—that is, tenanted and leased and mostly tied pubs—fell by 5,117, compared with a fall of only 2,131 free trade pubs in the same period. It is extraordinary for the BBPA to have gone around peddling the myth to the Select Committee—it fell for it previously, but it now realises that it was duped—when its own figures over 10 years showed that the number of non-managed, leased and tenanted pubs decreased by more than 8,000, while the free trade sector expanded by 1,600. No wonder it was keeping those figures rather quiet and relying on a distortion of others.
On pub disposals, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, the two largest pub companies, disposed of more than 5,000 pubs—a third of their pubs—in just four years, between 2008 and 2012. I say to the Secretary of State that pub closures, both temporary and permanent, are being caused in huge number because of the inequity of the lease-tied pubco model. The argument, based on flawed conclusions, that some reports and analysts make is that there is no competition issue or consumer detriment. How can it be argued that there is no consumer detriment when in many cases consumers are having their pubs unnecessarily closed because of the abuse of the tie and the reckless mismanagement by such companies?
The solution is clear and it is backed by the Select Committee, the Fair Deal For Your Local campaign and 206 MPs. I say to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that it is a simple market-based solution that would bring back not just fairness but competition into what has become an unequal and uncompetitive relationship. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the former community pubs Minister, the first appointed by the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said:
“A market rent only option offers the only mechanism that can transform the fortunes of thousands of landlords across the country. It is a common sense market-based solution.”
The Prime Minister himself knows these problems all too well through the experience of The Chequers Inn in Witney, where the Enterprise Inns lessee had to move after a long dispute and lack of support. One of the most extraordinary things in that dispute was not the overcharging, which is endemic in the Enterprise Inns business model, or that at the same time as pubs were shutting, the boss Ted Tuppen and the new boss Simon Townsend paid themselves vast salaries and hundreds and thousands of pounds in bonuses, but that The Chequers Inn licensee, Simon Moore, could not deal directly with the brewery whose yard was at the back of his pub. I cannot believe that Conservatives can stand that business arrangement any more than the Liberal Democrats or Labour Members, and I welcome the support of so many MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and the chair of the all-party save the pub group, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has campaigned long and hard on this issue.
Let us look at the research and the reality, not the nonsense being peddled. The extraordinary piece of work by London Economics is frankly so flawed that it is a disgrace it was ever commissioned. I have put in a freedom of information request to find out the truth. That research concluded that if we stopped the large pub companies taking too much from pub profits, they would, according to the pub companies, be less viable. It concluded that that would lead to pub closures, when clearly the opposite is the case. At the end of the research we see the worrying phrase:
“London Economics would like to thank the pub companies who supplied us with confidential data”—
more behind-closed-doors thinking. We want to see those data and the brief given to it, because its conclusions are utterly absurd.
In reality, as seen in research by the Federation of Small Businesses, if we had a market rent only option, not only would 79% of lessees take it, but people would take on more staff and invest in their pubs, and confidence would increase—98% of tenants said they would have more confidence in the future of their business. Moreover, the projections show that nearly £80 billion would be pumped into the UK economy, rather than go abroad to pay off foreign creditors, the people currently—
Banking
Lord Stunell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
I am glad that my hon. Friend has referred to that. It was the right thing to do, and it demonstrates that we can take some of the money that is coming from the banking sector and use it for good causes.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentioned the shadow Chancellor’s failure to tackle the abuses that were taking place in the banking system. Will he confirm that the shadow Chancellor encouraged the development of a less regulated environment, and that that contributed to the problems that we now face?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend has made an important point. I have already quoted what the shadow Chancellor said in 2006, when he was the City Minister, but those were not just his views; they were also the views of his boss, the then Prime Minister, the man who did more damage to our financial sector than any other. This is what the last Labour Prime Minister said in his 2007 Mansion House speech:
“I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.”
Shortly afterwards, he carried out the world’s largest banking bail-out.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Stunell Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan
That was a rather churlish response, given that this Government ended the beer duty escalator and cut 1p per pint earlier this year. As I have said, there have been an awful lot of responses to the consultation, and it will take time to work through them, but interestingly the figures show that slightly more free-of-tie pubs are closing than tied pubs—about 4.5% compared with 4.3%—so I suggest the hon. Gentleman waits for the Department’s response.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
9. What fiscal steps the Government are taking to encourage the building of social housing.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his contribution on the housing issue while a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, particularly on helping to ensure that the £4.5 billion affordable homes programme is on track to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes by March 2015—100,000 are completed so far—and to fund an extra 165,000 houses over three years from 2015.
Sir Andrew Stunell
That is a remarkable contrast with Labour’s disgraceful approach, which got rid of those houses. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that highly successful arm’s length management organisations, such as Stockport Homes, which just opened the 4 millionth social home in the housing stock, will have an opportunity, under the Chancellor’s proposals, to build more social housing to meet the urgent need of my constituents?
Danny Alexander
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate Stockport Homes on its success—I think it was recently voted one of the best landlords in the country. The 4 millionth social home was part of the Government’s commitment to reverse the trend under Labour, where the social housing stock in this country fell by 421,000. Over the term of our housing plan, we will build at least 315,000 new social homes, and he will also have noted that in the autumn statement we announced an increase of £300 million in headroom under the housing revenue account precisely to allow local authorities to build more social homes in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Stunell Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid
The numbers I tend to look at are those provided by the Office for National Statistics. Those numbers show not that 1.25 million jobs were created in the private sector since the end of the first quarter of 2010, but that 1.31 million jobs were created. If we allowed for transfers from the further education sector, which we do not, the figure would be 1.5 million jobs.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Q9. What plans the Government have to use the UK’s presidency of the G8 to tackle corporate tax evasion.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Q10. What plans the Government have to use the UK’s presidency of the G8 to tackle corporate tax evasion.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Tax evasion and tax avoidance undermine public revenues and the public’s confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of our tax system. The UK is pursuing action on both fronts through the presidency of the G8. We are promoting the development of new global standards on automatic information exchange and increased transparency of company ownership in order to better tackle tax evasion. We are seeking strong endorsement through the G8 of the importance of the work of the G20 and the OECD on tackling avoidance by multinationals.
Andrew Stunell
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he think that it is now time to take a second look at the USA’s experience and its Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act to tackle the question of international tax avoidance?
Mr Gauke
My right hon. Friend makes an important point; indeed, we are doing that. We have signed an agreement with the US to implement FATCA as the new standard in tax transparency, and we are promoting that type of information around the world. We have reached agreements with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, while France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK have all agreed to exchange information based on the FATCA standard. That is very much the approach that we are taking in the G7, G8 and G20, and we have made remarkable progress so far.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Lord Stunell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I am very shocked to hear of those comments. I missed them at the time. If the Minister wants to explain her position or the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench position on these amendments, I will be glad to hear it.
Catherine McKinnell
Does the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) wish to intervene?
Andrew Stunell
With the permission of the Chair, in a minute or two I hope to be able to tell the Committee fully.
Catherine McKinnell
Excellent. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. We look forward to clarification of the Liberal Democrats’ position on the issue, and we hope it does not go the same way as their mansion tax vote went earlier, when they voted against their own policy for the second time.
I call on all right hon. and hon. Members to support our amendment 8, which would monitor the impact of the GAAR and ensure that the Government take genuine action towards securing the tax transparency and fairness that the world needs in this 21st century. We also seek to test the will of the House by pressing our amendment 6 to a vote, to determine whether the House will commit to ensuring that we do all we can in our power to tackle tax avoidance that is damaging not just to the UK, but to developing countries.
I finish by reiterating briefly concerns that I have expressed on several occasions in the Chamber and elsewhere about the huge number of challenges facing HMRC, highlighted recently by yet another scathing report from the Public Accounts Committee. The very body on which the Government rely to tackle tax avoidance is being seriously undermined by devastating budget cuts of £2 billion over this Parliament and the loss of 10,000 staff. These cuts will be a false economy if they hamper HMRC’s ability to collect the billions of pounds in avoided tax, and all the tough talk, strategies and moral indignation in the world will not deal with the problem of tax avoidance if HMRC simply does not have the capacity and resources it requires to do the job.
Andrew Stunell
I strongly support the general anti-avoidance rule and its introduction. Some would say that it is long overdue. Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has just said, how important and urgent it is and how long-standing the problem has been, one has to say that it was overdue in 2010, so it is good that it is in place now. I commend Ministers on the Front Bench for including it in the proposals coming to the Committee now.
I shall spend a minute or two commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said in his speech a little while ago, making it clear that there are some risks and some dangers, particularly of retrospection. The Minister will know that we have been in correspondence about one particular series of events which has left constituents of mine at a severe disadvantage, as they see it, because of the retrospective application of an HMRC ruling to them.
What I want to say to my hon. Friend is that one thing that the general anti-avoidance rule will do is put everybody in this country on notice about their tax affairs so that they cannot be caught by surprise, or perhaps even subterfuge or a recycling of policy, in the way that my constituents have been. I will continue to write to the Minister about the case facing my constituents, but a general anti-avoidance rule puts everybody on notice and makes any possibility of an excuse disappear. We should welcome that.
Nigel Mills
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is preferable that only people who engage in aggressive tax abuse should be put on notice, and that people innocently going about trying to structure their affairs normally within the law should not be scared of the provision at all?
Andrew Stunell
I was very attracted to one point that my hon. Friend made in his speech, which was that he thought there was a tendency not to go for the biggest fish with the sharpest teeth and the most expensive lawyers, but to go for the little people or at least the middle-sized people. That is a powerful point and I hope those on the Front Bench are listening carefully. A general anti-avoidance rule needs to be general—that is to say, applicable to even the biggest fish with the sharpest teeth and the most expensive lawyers.
In amendment 6 and several others, some of which were debated earlier today and some more of which will be debated tomorrow, the Labour Front-Bench team has given us a very pretty set of trinkets. They all start with the phraseology
“The Chancellor shall review the possibility of”
doing this, that and the other. They have all obviously been produced by Labour’s amnesia factory, which has forgotten entirely that, on general election day in 2010, the country, the public purse, borrowed £428 million. The day before it borrowed £428 million, and the day after it borrowed £428 million. I commend Government Front Benchers again for reducing that figure by a quarter—a substantial amount. It is surprising that the range of amendments and the speeches made by Labour Members in the Budget debate, including today, have all said that the right solution to the problem is to borrow more. That is not the right solution, and, as I say, the amnesia factory is churning them out.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
For the sake of accuracy, would the right hon. Gentleman care to mention one single Labour Member who has advocated borrowing in the course of their speech?
Andrew Stunell
I heard the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply to the Budget debate, make exactly that point.
I want to ask not just about the result of this Chancellor’s potential review of the possibility of doing various things, but the result of the previous Chancellor’s review of all these attractive propositions. None of the things in these propositions is novel. The mansion tax in particular was not even invented by the Opposition. Yet it would seem that the right course of action now is to “review the possibility of”. What was the result of the last Chancellor’s review of the possibility of increasing tax transparency internationally? What action did he take? What report did he leave in the pigeonhole for the incoming Chancellor? I suppose that Opposition Front Benchers’ proper line of defence is to say that they cannot recall.
Whatever the parentage of amendment 6, I want to spend a few moments talking about it. I just say in passing that, whatever else it does, it certainly does not do what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North claimed, which is to take a grasp of this key issue. It says that it wants a review of the possibility of. That is not taking a grasp of anything.
I am proud that in the Budget the Chancellor confirmed the UK Government’s promise to meet the 0.7% GNI target for overseas aid. These are not easy times, and as my constituency mailbag shows, it is not a universally popular decision. But it is the right decision, and it is one that I am proud to see the Government have been ready to take. It channels vital resources from the richest nations, of which we are definitely still one, to those that need it most. But it is also the case that those countries need not only our aid, but the tax revenue to support public services in their countries on their own, so that health there, education there, water supply there—all the aspects of development—can be paid for out of the tax that they should be receiving, supported of course by our continuing aid programme.
The Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign—I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber who is wearing the lapel badge, which is also available in other colours—is an important initiative, which I hope will be powerful and effective, as the Drop the Debt and the Jubilee Debt campaigns were, in convincing politicians of all political stripes that further action on this is needed urgently. The UN, the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank, not to mention our own International Development Committee, have all strongly made the point that when we plan our tax affairs we should be aware of the impact that can have, and should have, on improving the tax income of developing nations.
Fiona O'Donnell
On that point, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to address amendment 7, which expresses the view of not only Opposition Front Benchers, but the International Development Committee, which recommended an impact assessment of the controlled foreign company rules, and that Committee is chaired by a member of his own party?
Andrew Stunell
Indeed, it is. There are many propositions made here that are highly desirable, and I would not be at all disappointed if the Front-Bench team agreed to accept amendment 7 and a number of others. The point I am making is that what we need across all political parties in the House, and beyond, is strong consensus in favour of not only continuing our achievement of the aid target, but ensuring that we assist developing nations by getting our tax affairs straight and helping them to do likewise.
Sheila Gilmore
The right hon. Gentleman correctly says that we need to keep up our efforts on aid, but if the controlled foreign company rules have potentially lost £1 billion to developing countries, as Government Front Benchers appear to accept, that affects our ability to give aid. Would it not make sense to review whether that is correct, because it might ever be more?
Andrew Stunell
Indeed, and I will move on to that shortly. Based on all that has gone before, I think that the Minister will say that the Government have every intention of ensuring that those things happen and that the work being promoted by the IF campaign becomes mainstream in this House and the outcome we all wish to see. I support that campaign and its objectives and am keen for the Government to adopt them and be supportive as well. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is sitting just in front of me on the Front Bench, and I know that she works very hard on those matters as well.
I do not think that the trinket presented to us in amendment 6 is the core of what we need. I challenge the Government to give an undertaking that the proposals in the Finance Bill will be moved on so that multinationals are required to reveal the tax avoidance schemes they are using in the developing world and developing countries are helped to collect more of the tax they are owed. I pay tribute to the work, which I think was initially promoted by the International Development Committee in the previous Parliament, and which I know this Government have taken up with some enthusiasm, of supporting developing countries to create effective tax systems of their own. I know that the work that has been done in Zambia is seen as a template for other countries around the world. I encourage the Government to move forward in that direction.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is bringing to the Committee’s attention the issue of large multinational companies avoiding tax in other countries around the world. Does he agree that it is an issue not only for this House, but for other investment countries, such as the United States, and that together we can address the problem of big companies trying to avoid tax in third-world countries?
Andrew Stunell
Yes, I very much agree. Indeed, I have heard Ministers say that they agree. It is why it is important to work through the G8, the OECD and even the UN to get some level of international engagement on that. As is so often the case, those necessary and important international outcomes cannot be achieved by one country taking an initiative on its own. That does not deter me from arguing that the United Kingdom should be giving the necessary leadership, but I think that we have to be realistic about how we can achieve those outcomes.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman made a significant point about the importance of supporting developing countries in developing their tax systems and revenue collection capacity. Was he not surprised, as I was, to see the 8% underspend in the Department for International Development budget this year, given that the Department has given significant support to such projects in the past? Perhaps less support will be going to such activity in future because of that underspend.
Andrew Stunell
In all honesty, I was not surprised because that rule has always been in place. I do not have to hand figures on any similar underspend before 2010, but if I did I am absolutely certain that the Chancellor of the time would have repossessed it. That is part of the system of central Government control of our expenditure. I can understand that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not in favour of strict control of public expenditure, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the overall objectives.
I shall conclude. I very much support the Government’s direction of travel on the issue. I am delighted that the general anti-avoidance rule is coming into place. The Government will know that I support the IF campaign and therefore I do not think they have gone far enough or yet fast enough. I look forward to the Minister’s giving me some words of comfort when he replies.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is abhorrent that large companies up and down the country should be avoiding paying their taxes while our constituents are squeezed by the Government at every opportunity. We call on the Government to take vigorous action on tax avoidance. To date, however, despite the Government’s rhetoric, they have consistently failed to deliver.
Quite simply, the cuts to HMRC go too far. With more than 10,000 additional job losses, they will prove to have been a false economy if the Government hamper HMRC’s ability to collect billions of pounds in avoided tax. It is not right and cannot be fair that, while families and small businesses are paying their fair share and feeling the squeeze, large enterprises are allowed to practise “if we can afford it, we can avoid it” tactics.
We believe that the best means of tackling tax avoidance is through not only principle but proper targeted measures and greater capacity in HMRC. If the Government are relying only on the general anti-avoidance rule to do the job, we fear it will not be sufficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has said, we are willing to support the Government’s introduction of GAAR, but we remain unconvinced that the current version is up to the job.
Let me give but one example of how my constituents are feeling the axe while big companies avoid the tax. A group of women attended my surgery last Friday asking, “Why have we been hit while some big businesses seem to escape?” My constituent Mrs Christine Houston of Port Glasgow was made redundant as demand fell and her company experienced economic hardship. She managed to find a part-time job but she works unsociable hours. Her benefits, which acted as a safety net to allow her to live, have now also been cut. Now she has been unfairly affected by the Government’s pension reforms; she was born in October ’53, so she will receive less pension than her two best friends, who were born in March that year. Despite having started work when she was 16 and having paid her share of taxes ever since, she cannot plan for her future as a direct result of the Government’s actions. “Why,” she and her friends ask, “are multinationals plying their trade in this country and getting off lightly on tax while we are being hit hard? Where is the fairness in that?”
HMRC’s most recent estimate, for the period 2010-11, of tax difference—that is, between the tax actually collected and what would have been collected if everybody had complied with the letter and spirit of the law—stands at a staggering £32 billion-plus, and some regard that estimate as low. Serious concerns exist that the Government’s proposed GAAR is too narrow and that they have failed to clarify that it will not cover most of the tax-avoidance activity undertaken by multinational corporations about which the general public are so concerned. HMRC must have the capacity and resources it requires to tackle tax avoidance properly. The Government are undermining its ability to do so with the budget cuts of over £2 billion in this Parliament, leading to 10,000 job losses. While we all agree that making genuine efficiencies is important, there has to be a limit to its capacity to do more with less. The current scale of cuts risks being a false economy if the Government reduce HMRC’s tax yield.
In these tough times, when the Government are cutting spending and raising taxes, it is even more important that everyone plays their part and pays their fair share of tax. Good British firms and millions of families are paying their fair share, but it is not right that some firms do not, and I think we all agree that that needs to change. We must put an end to the era of tax secrecy, because the reason some companies behave like this is that they believe there is little chance of their being found out. We need to reform the rules that allow companies that make profits in Britain but avoid paying tax in Britain to ensure that they do pay their tax.
Recent cases of companies that have manipulated the tax rules to reduce the tax they pay in the UK to virtually nothing have rightly outraged all those people and businesses who do pay their fair share of tax. My constituents in Inverclyde, and hard-working families and businesses, rightly ask why some seem to think that the rules do not apply to them. It is clearly unfair and further undermines companies that do pay their tax, expecting a level playing field. Over the Easter recess, I visited many small and medium-sized companies, and time and again they talked about no growth in the economy, low demand, and larger businesses avoiding paying their taxes while they were expected to pay theirs, and on time. Sometimes, yes, there will be good reasons why companies pay little tax. Some companies invest large sums in research and development, assets and infrastructure, and we should, and do, celebrate and welcome that. However, we also need to know when companies are stripping their profits out of the UK through artificial schemes.
The Government are undermining HMRC’s ability to administer and collect tax by cutting resources too far and too fast—a familiar, failing theme of this Government. HMRC now has more staff working on administering the Government’s child benefit cut than it employs, combined, to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. The people of this country are demanding reform of the current rules that allow companies to make profits in Britain but pay no tax. That also requires reform of our corporation tax system. In the 21st century, value is now often in brands and intellectual property, customer loyalty and ideas that can be traded globally between different parts of the company group. The rules need to be clearer, tighter and properly enforced.
The Government are failing to show the leadership we need to tackle tax avoidance, yet are vigorously pursuing others to help to fill the Treasury’s coffers. The Conservatives and their coalition partners are failing to convince constituents such as Mrs Houston of Port Glasgow that we are all in it together, or that, with their many references to fairness in both their manifestos, they are living up to that fairness. I ask the Minister to explain to Mrs Houston why the Government seem reluctant to tackle tax avoidance and to give her back her pension.
Fiona O'Donnell
I found the right hon. Gentleman’s reticence in that regard particularly difficult, but I hope he will now redeem himself.
Andrew Stunell
I am happy to agree with the hon. Lady: it is true that the previous Government took the issue seriously and I was happy to serve on the International Development Committee during that time. I say to her, however, that we have taken the issue further.
Fiona O'Donnell
Exactly. We have passed on the torch of 0.7% and I pay credit to the Government. It must be a lot harder for them to take that direction of travel than it was for us, because our Back Benchers were supportive of it. It is not enough, however, for Lib Dems to be warmly supportive of the Government and hope that they will not be disappointed. They have to start voting for what they believe in, what they put in their manifesto and what their conference told them it wants them to do. That is why I intervened earlier on the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the CFC and its effect. I hope that the Minister will say that he is listening not only to the Opposition but to the Select Committee and its report. The Committee has asked for an impact assessment, and we need to be clear about that. Much as I often disagree with coalition Members, I cannot believe that they intended the CFC to have that effect. An impact assessment would show whether it will damage developing countries.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the IF campaign. It is clear that an essential part of tackling poverty and hunger is having a fair and transparent tax system. It is not surprising that people in this democracy should be outraged by large corporations not paying their fair dues, but we sometimes seem to think that it is all right for developing countries. Do they have to expect their natural resources to be plundered?
amendment of the law
Lord Stunell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right on the first point, although I am not entirely sure that the occupants are claiming housing benefit. We wait to be informed.
People with disabilities will be forced to move and the new home will have to be adapted all over again. Divorced dads who are trying to keep in contact with their children will be told that they have to pay the bedroom tax on the spare bedroom where they stay at the weekend, but as we know, some people will have no choice but to move. The final absurdity—the Chief Secretary should be interested in this—is that if people do move to the right sized property in the private rented sector, because of higher rents the housing benefit bill is likely to be bigger than that paid on the social home from which the family was forced out.
Hilary Benn
I will conclude now, because many other Members want to speak. I have been generous in giving way but I want to finish on this point.
Last Friday a constituent came to see me in my surgery. He is a man in his late 50s who has worked for the past 42 years, until last December when he became unwell. He currently has to live on £71 a week and has just received a council tax bill for £108.25. He is not sure how he is going to pay it and he asked me—it is quite something when someone says this to a Member of Parliament, because we had not met before—“Can I tell you that I can no longer keep the heating on in my flat because it costs me £25 a week and I do not have the money to pay it?”
The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and other Ministers are fond of telling us that we have to make really tough decisions, but I wonder how difficult it was to decide to give those on highest incomes a tax reduction at the beginning of next month, while imposing a reduction in council tax benefit and the bedroom tax on people. They are taking money from those who are poor—that is what we are talking about—and giving it to those who are rich. That is why they should scrap the cut to council tax benefit and get rid of the bedroom tax.
The Secretary of State was full of his usual bravado and occasional bluster in what he had to say, but the cold hard reality of the collision of his policies with people’s lives shows that those policies are not well thought out and are incapable of being delivered. Because of that record, we have a promise of growth that has not materialised, a promise of localism that is not what it seems, and a promise of homes that have not been built. This Chancellor, this Secretary of State, and this Budget have nothing to offer the people of Britain.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am delighted to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). Some of his remarks would have had more bite if he had not left us borrowing £428 million every day of 2010. It is a credit to this coalition Government that that figure has been substantially reduced.
As the first Liberal Democrat speaking in this debate, I would not be doing my duty if I did not praise the Chancellor for the decision to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. This is a long sought-after victory, which I very much welcome, which will see 2.5 million taxpayers—many of them low-paid women—taken out of tax and 20 million taxpayers getting a £700 smaller tax bill than they did under Labour.
I want to use my time primarily to talk about two measures that appear on page 40 of the Red Book. The first is the major step forward announced on zero-carbon homes and the achievement of the target in 2016, which appears in paragraph 1.109. I am delighted to see that. I am delighted, too, to see that the intention is now to increase the standard of energy efficiency of new buildings from October this year. I very much look forward to the announcement by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is prefigured in the Red Book. I also very much welcome the statement that a decision on allowable solutions will be taken by the summer; the construction industry is certainly ready for this measure. The Zero Carbon Hub has done the preparatory work and the Green Building Council has been pressing for it. I would like to think that the decision reported in the Red Book is at least in part a response to what they have said and to early-day motion 1004, which covers the same ground.
I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time last November whether the Government still intended to be the greenest Government ever. I was pleased that he replied emphatically, “Yes”. I was even more pleased when, in a speech to the Royal Society on 4 February, he reiterated the Government’s commitment. I want to say to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that, given the Prime Minister’s support, there can be no excuse for delay. We need an urgent decision on the carbon price for offsite generation for zero-carbon homes. The Red Book says that the decision will be taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am sure that the DCLG and Her Majesty’s Treasury can sort out their respective responsibilities, but can we ensure that there is no delay in taking that decision?
The second point I want to bring to the House’s attention is the excellent news of more investment in homes for rent, with £225 million and 15,000 starts planned before 2015. That comes on top of 170,000 new homes planned for rent and 150,000 decent homes brought up to standard. There are many positive features to our housing programme. Like everybody else in the Chamber, I wish it was going further and faster, but I do not believe we should listen for a moment to the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and his complaints, when his Administration reduced the stock of affordable homes by 420,000 and sold so many homes without having a replacement policy—a policy that Labour itself now admits was a failure. I welcome these housing measures in the Budget, but there is still much more to do to improve the quality of our 20 million existing homes and to build the many more we need to the highest environmental standards. I look forward to the coalition making yet more progress in the remaining two and a half years before the general election.