Tourism Industry and VAT

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

No time limit has been allocated to speeches in this debate. I have seven Members down to speak, but there are a lot more than that in the Chamber, so if you wish to speak, you will have to catch my eye. With interventions considered, if Mr Williams takes only 10 minutes to introduce the debate, Members will have 10 minutes each, but there may be less time than that, so some brevity would be appreciated.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. In the midst of Wales tourism week and on the eve of the Budget, I would like to make the case for a reduction in the VAT rate for the tourism industry from 20% to 5% specifically, and importantly, for visitor attractions and accommodation, to bring our country into line with competitor destinations in the European Union.

The Minister has been well lobbied on this issue and perhaps he gets tired of hearing the arguments that some of us advance for that cause, but I would like to draw his attention to research published recently on behalf of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign. I am aware that the campaign recently met Treasury officials. The research further strengthens the case for making a change in our VAT regime. That case is borne out by the number of Members here for the debate representing constituencies across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

Before the break, I indicated that the campaign had been brilliantly led by the industry, but that we needed to focus on people and get the message across to the great British public. Cheaper and more fairly priced holidays for consumers in the UK would help those with low earnings considerably, because VAT disproportionately affects such people. I believe that VAT at 20% is simply too high. When a working-class family of four go out for a meal, they share a fifth of their bill with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a sense, everybody who goes out for a meal takes the Chancellor with them, because they have to pay 20% of the total to the Treasury. That is too much for many families, and it has reduced many people’s spending power.

A cut in the VAT rate would also have a positive impact on jobs. As has been indicated, most of the jobs that have been created in tourism are low skilled and for young people. I welcome any reduction in youth unemployment, which has been stubbornly high. Those who work in the industry have indicated that one of the first things that they would do if VAT were cut is employ more people, to provide a stimulus to their businesses and to the sector. In my constituency, an estimated 120 jobs would be created, which would boost the local economy by some £3.8 million. The measure could bring huge sums of money into local economies and the UK Treasury in the long term. I understand that it will be difficult to convince the Treasury when there would be, in the first instance, a hit on moneys that are coming into the Treasury—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Owen, you have had almost eight minutes, and I will have to restrict other speeches to six minutes. If you could draw your remarks to a close soon, that would be good.

[Albert Owen]

I misunderstood you, Ms Dorries. I thought that there was no time limit.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

There is now.

[Albert Owen]

There is now, and I will abide by it. As someone who has consistently opposed increases in VAT, I believe that a reduction would help local economies, the tourism sector and the low paid in our society. It would be good for the country and good for jobs. I hope that the Treasury, on the eve of the Budget, will reconsider. If we are going to have a give-away Budget tomorrow, let the Chancellor give way on that important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly take the hon. Lady’s comments on board. It is our intention to deal with tax credit applications as swiftly as possible. We will look at individual cases, so if she wants to contact me or the permanent secretary at HMRC, either of us would be happy to take the case up.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Government are to invest £17 billion in phase 1 of HS2, which will transport someone from London to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker, yet there are students in my constituency today who cannot accept their place in Bedford college because of the lack of a local transport network, and constituents who cannot accept offers of work because they cannot get to the train stations via a bus network. Would it not be a better use of that investment to put it into regional transport networks so that people can get to work and to college?

[Mr George Osborne]

I think we can do both; we can invest in local and regional transport networks. If my hon. Friend has specific schemes in Bedfordshire that she wants to bring to my attention or that of the Department for Transport, we will look at them very carefully, but that does not preclude us as country from taking the big infrastructure decisions—as we did with the M25 and as our predecessors did with the railways centuries ago—to invest in a railway system for the future. High-speed rail will connect the north to the south of England.

HMP Wellingborough

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Wright]

In my understanding, it is true that almost half the current prisoner accommodation was built in the last 12 years, but sadly, that accounts for less than 25% of the prison’s overall infrastructure. It is not simply the accommodation that needs bringing up to standard; many other improvements are required and I shall come back to those, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of £50 million, which is the amount required in a major refurbishment programme. He is right that there is no such thing as an accurate, round number in these matters—if he wants the accurate figure, however, I understand that it is £49.7 million, and I hope he will forgive that being rounded up a little. The prison is increasingly unsafe, with poor services and infrastructure.

The proximity and size of the financial liability has presented prison management with a decision. We could either proceed with the outstanding and necessary refurbishments, which, as I have said, are estimated to cost up to £50 million. That would improve the wings that were not built in the past 12 years—wings A to E—and includes the services infrastructure. That would happen at a time when there is sufficient prisoner accommodation in the rest of the prison estate and many other pressures, as my hon. Friend knows, on the Department’s budget. Alternatively, we could close the prison and use the capital to better effect elsewhere.

Prison closures are only part of the Department’s wider strategy, and we will discuss them at length on another occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept—if not today, at subsequent meetings—that we have looked at this very carefully. I am sorry that I cannot offer him better news this afternoon. I can assure him, however, from what I have been able to determine, that careful consideration has been given to the matter.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. We move on to the next debate.

Finance Bill

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I must confess that I support the principle behind the clause but share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) about its practicality. However, I accept that there is an overriding need to reduce the vast fiscal deficit, and all of us who feel that way must look at the provisions, whether in the Budget or elsewhere, and support what is being done to try to get the deficit down. Apart from everything else, it is a moral case: we cannot pass these huge debts on to the next generation. Even now, in an era that the Opposition have identified as one of austerity and savage cuts, the Government are borrowing £1 in every £5 they spend.

There is an absolute crisis in the welfare state and we must wean ourselves off this huge amount of public expenditure at the earliest opportunity. One of the most important areas to look at is that of universal benefits, particularly universal middle-class benefits, which must be up for consideration. Housing benefit, which has been discussed, and child benefit are certainly important. I believe that wealthy pensioners should not get free TV licences, bus passes or winter fuel allowances, although I accept the political difficulty of that, given the promises made just before the general election.

The Minister is an intelligent man and must realise that the practicalities of the system will make it an absolute nightmare. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has made quite clear how she feels about it, but let us for once in politics be wise before the event, rather than after it.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the practicalities of the system, but is he aware that there is no practical mechanism by which wealthy parents can opt out of the system if they do not want to claim child benefit?

[Mark Field]

There will be by next January, because they will not qualify for it.

The broader issue is that there is a risk that the proposal is potentially a penalty on aspiration for those who earn roughly between £50,000 and £60,000 a year. It is a disincentive for families with one parent who stays at home to look after children. What of the broader tax incentives? One of the reasons I am so keen on reducing the higher rate of tax to 45% is that I think there is a mass incentive in having lower rates of tax, yet the concern for those earning between £50,000 and £60,000 who have three children is that they will be paying a marginal rate, often of over 60%, which does not seem to be a sensible way forward. Those are the theoretical issues.

There are a number of major practical issues that the Minister will have to look at. This system will be incredibly difficult to implement. The reality is that many people now earn consulting income and do not know nine months into a year, let alone at the beginning, whether they will earn between £50,000 and £60,000. We will see some strange disincentives that will encourage people to arrange for invoices to go out just after the financial year, so that one year they earn £49,000 and the next they earn £80,000 or £90,000. It strikes me that much of this will rely on IT systems, which have been a reputational nightmare for both HMRC and the Treasury. I think that this system will be very tough to administer. As has been mentioned, the implementation will be in January, rather than, as normal, at the beginning of the tax year, which will make for additional difficulty.

I want this to work. I think that all of us who want to see the deficit reduced want to see Budget measures working well for the Treasury and HMRC. My biggest concern is that we will end up returning to the House, perhaps in January or slightly later next year, at the beginning of the next tax year, recognising a system that is going to be discredited, not least because huge amounts of money will be uncollected and, if the schemes goes ahead, because large amounts will have to be repaid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Normally, one begins a speech by saying what a pleasure it is to speak, but it is not a pleasure to speak in this debate; it is a great disappointment. This is the third time that I have spoken about the problem with the child benefit proposals in the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced.

The first time I spoke I thought that there were four arguments against the Government’s proposals; I now discover that there are 14. First, there is the impact on distribution and horizontal equity, the point well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ independent analysis of the impact of changes made by the Budget looked at households with and without children, and households with children are losing most. From all the changes in the current year, households with children will lose 1.3% of their annual net income compared with 0.5% for those without children.

On the changes implemented so far, the loss is 3.5% for households with children and 2.1% only for working-age households without children. By 2014 there will still be inequity between households with children and households without. By then, even assuming that universal credit is as good as the Government say it will be, which I doubt, households with children will have lost 3.7% of their income—£1,411 on average—whereas those without children will have lost 2%, or £646 a year. How it can be fair to take more money from families with children than from those without, I do not know.

There is clearly also unfairness among those people who are just above and just below the thresholds, and among families in which one person earns £50,000 and those in which two people earn £40,000. We have discussed all that before.

New problems have emerged since we debated the issue. There is the possibility of people planning their tax to avoid the charge; administrative problems have been referred to; and we have repeatedly asked the Minister how he will preserve independent taxation, given the implications for it. That point has been raised to a significant extent by the professions; the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Office of Tax Simplification are very concerned about the issue.

One thing that is not at all clear is how Ministers intend to implement the measure, given that, as far as I can see—the Minister can correct me if he wants—in schedule 1 there is no obligation on people to share information about their incomes, so it will be extremely difficult for people to know what is going on. The Minister is calm about that, but given that families’ incomes and circumstances change over time, the measure is highly likely to lead to a large number of practical difficulties.

Another thing that is odd from a Government who claim to be in favour of the family is that they are introducing a charge that is, in effect, a couple penalty. At one stroke of a pen, they have achieved both a penalty for couples and the destruction of the independent taxation of women. It is a masterstroke of its kind.

[Nadine Dorries]

Does the hon. Lady agree that many couples with no children object hugely to their taxation going towards families who decide to have large numbers of children? The proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)—that the cap should be at two or three children—strikes a fair and moral balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries]

To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), there are more financially astute means of dealing with child poverty and with large numbers of children than a universal benefit in the form of child benefit.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and astute point, which is that the Rolls-Royce minds at the Treasury, of whom the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was one, can surely find alternative methods to collect income. We know that the deficit is a problem that the Government have to grapple with, mainly because of the splurge of public expenditure under the last Government and the debt millstone that they left. We must look at all the alternatives, including putting a cap on the number of children, such as two or three. Incidentally, that policy is hugely popular with the public, according to polls taken in the past few weeks.

The higher income child benefit charge fails on at least two bases. First, it is transparently unfair, because it treats families on lower incomes more harshly than those on higher incomes, merely because of the way in which the incomes come to them. Secondly, in the distinctions that it makes, it discriminates between different types of families in a way that is profoundly unenlightened and completely unacceptable. I urge Treasury Ministers to think carefully about the alternatives. This is a potential disaster in the making. It is unfair. I ask them to think again.

Petrol and Diesel

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

It is unusual to have this many Members present for a 30-minute debate. If everyone wants to make an intervention, Mr Halfon will not be able to speak. The Economic Secretary will have 10 minutes to wind up, and I ask Members to keep interventions to a minimum because Mr Halfon probably has a 20-minute speech.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate what you have said. I have cut my speech down to allow for more interventions. The number of people here shows just how important the issue is, and I thank Members from both sides of the House for coming along.

I want to start by knocking something on the head. I welcome, as I am sure everyone here does, the fact that in the past few weeks petrol prices have come down a few pence, but families in my constituency still spend more on petrol than on food. The price of petrol is at an historic, all-time high. In Harlow, it costs more than 140p a litre, and that hits the poor twice as hard as the rich. People say that the price has come down, but it is a bit like a burglar taking £100 out of your pocket and giving you £5 back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I think the figure that the hon. Gentleman cites, across the whole UK—I shall come back to him with the specific figures for Northern Ireland—has been roughly the same for many years. Many bankruptcies are ultimately caused by the taxpayer because the tax bills are the last thing that a company cannot pay, and that has been true in good times and bad. We have continued with the time to pay scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government during the recession, and we are making every effort to help viable businesses with their cash flow and to help them pay their taxes, which benefits everyone, in a way that keeps them afloat.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am sure the Chancellor is aware that it is not just Nissan that we have heard good news about. Last week, Center Parcs announced that it had been able to secure £250 million-worth of investment to build a new Center Parcs in my constituency, creating 1,700 ongoing jobs and 1,500 jobs in construction. Does the Chancellor agree that tourism is an ideal way to attract inward investment into the UK and that it is an area we should be looking at to create jobs in the private sector?

[Mr Osborne]

The announcement was very welcome. I commend my hon. Friend for taking an enlightened attitude to development in her constituency, which is not always the case. When it comes to tourism, we have authorised a big increase in the advertising campaign that is currently going around the world to sell the UK in this very special year when we have the Olympics and the jubilee. We want a permanent increase in tourism as a result of those events.

Fuel Prices

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. I hope that I shall have time to mention that at the end of my speech.

This is not just of concern to middle-income families who may be running two cars; it is a huge cost for low-income families who spend proportionally more of their incomes on fuel.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that some of those low-income families are trying to establish their own businesses, or are already running small businesses such as, in my constituency, landscape gardening businesses. Winter is coming, and those people will now have to deal with the increase in fuel prices as well.

[Caroline Nokes]

That is indeed of real concern.

It is little wonder that so many of our constituents signed the e-petition—more than 110,000 members of the public called for the debate—and little wonder that the focus has been on the proportion of taxation in the current average price of £1.34 a litre.