Economic Growth
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The shadow Chancellor could not answer the simple question of how much the amendment he is asking us all to vote on this evening would cost. Surely he must reflect a little and realise that each year his appearance in these debates is a source of consolation and comfort to the Government. He must wonder why each year he makes the same arguments for borrowing but there is no improvement in Labour’s economic credibility. He does not seem to understand that the public think that Labour spent too much, wasted their hard-earned money and would do it all again. Does he not feel that he owes it to the British people to apologise for the mistakes he has made and the damage he has inflicted on their living standards? Should he not stand up and say, “I’m sorry, we got it wrong and we won’t do it again”?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Chancellor’s point, “You can’t borrow more to borrow less”, is a good soundbite, but he does himself a disservice, because some of the borrowing undertaken by this Government has been very effective in reducing the deficit. Only yesterday, we saw 850 new jobs in Allstate in Belfast as a result of investment in the broadband network—that is 850 new taxpayers. Does he not accept that we can borrow, and that by borrowing and putting the money into the right things we can bring the deficit down?
Mr Osborne
I am all for spending money on vital economic infrastructure, including broadband, and all for trying to switch the budget more from current spending to capital spending. That is precisely what we are engaged in as part of this spending round, but we have to take the hard decisions on where we are going to get our revenue from or take the hard decisions on what we will cut instead. We are making a sensible switch towards capital spending.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). The Democratic Unionist party endorses his views on the amendment, which we support. We believe it is important that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say about their relationship with Europe. Some of those who oppose the commitment to a referendum claim that it will somehow leave us with four years of uncertainty and that that will damage investment in the UK, but the genie is out of the bottle as far as renegotiation and a referendum are concerned. Any investor knows what will happen at some stage in the future, so there should be no difficulty in giving the people of the United Kingdom a say on this very important issue. I will concentrate on other issues that relate to economic growth, but I accept that our relationship with Europe impacts on economic growth in this country.
If we are to achieve the objectives in the Queen’s Speech of giving people job opportunities, rewarding hard work and reforming welfare, economic growth is important. If we are to create economic growth, we need proper stimulus. The Chancellor and the Government argue that we cannot borrow more in order to borrow less. That is not true. Good, solid investment in the economy would help us to grow and to pay our debts. That is not the view of those on the extreme left wing; it is the view of the IMF, which is hardly a left-wing organisation. In fact, many of its policies resonate with what is said by the Government. It is also the view of many industry organisations.
More importantly, the evidence of what has been happening in the economy bears out that view. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) talked about what is happening in his constituency. Nearly every example that he gave was the result of stimulus through Government borrowing and spending to create infrastructure and produce jobs. I could give stacks of examples from Northern Ireland. There has been investment in our tourism industry. Not so long ago, we got a Barnett consequential as a result of the Government deciding to spend more money on housing. We put it into co-ownership housing, which has brought money down from the banks and has led to almost half of the houses being built in the private sector. Just a small amount of money from the public sector has created construction jobs and allowed people to pay their taxes, which adds to Government revenue and helps to pay off the deficit.
There is a strong case, even from traditional supporters of the Government, for borrowing and spending more money to stimulate the economy. The Chancellor made a big point today about the money markets. Actually, the money markets are quite relaxed about this. They are lending money to the United Kingdom on negative interest rates. There is more demand for Government bonds than supply. If there are sensible investment policies, the money can be made available. The question is whether there is the will or whether the Government have some other motive.
I am disappointed that there is not much detail on what the Government intend to do about banking. According to the figures published by the British Bankers Association, lending by the banks in Northern Ireland has fallen substantially since 2010. We have not dealt with the banking crisis. There is not time in this debate to talk about the detail, but unless the Government grasp the nettle and decide what to do with failing banks that are undercapitalised and unable or unwilling to lend, we will not stimulate growth. I believe that there is great potential and that a Government stimulus could release the billions of pounds of cash assets that are sitting on company balance sheets, which would enable us to get growth and achieve the objectives of—
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
I am almost at a loss for words at the suggestion that anyone could imagine that the world will hold its breath waiting on a Liberal Democrat pamphlet! [Interruption.] I do not want to digress, Mr Hoyle, but that is a mind-boggling proposition.
The confusion in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was far from saying that new clause 5 does not make sense; rather, it confirmed why the new clause was necessary. There are so many flaws, omissions and potential avoidance mechanisms in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals—and we had all assumed that they were worked up to some extent when they went into this miserable Government—that it makes perfect sense for the Treasury to investigate them with all their flaws to determine whether they, or another version of them, are even workable. If the hon. Member for Nottingham East chooses to press new clause 5 to a vote, we will be happy to support it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
One of the common themes that has emerged on the Opposition Benches throughout the debates on the Budget is that the Government can and should do something to stimulate the economy by means of additional capital spending. One way of doing that—and one way of rapidly stimulating the construction industry—is to build houses; and, of course, many other social benefits arise from house building.
The Government have chosen a particular path towards the stimulation of house building, and I am not sure whether they have chosen it simply in order to avoid the registration of additional borrowing as part of Government debt. The means by which they have decided to stimulate the housing market—this is significant, because it is stated in the Red Book—will have no implications for central Government public sector net borrowing; it will have an impact only on the central Government net cash requirement. It seems that the Government may be engaging in the contortions described by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in order to avoid certain Treasury accounting arrangements, rather than considering what policy will prove effective.
That is the first thing that we should consider. The second was alluded to by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). If the sole intention is to stimulate the housing market and the construction industry and it does not really matter who buys the houses or benefits from the policies, the Government ought to make that clear. Such a move would have various side effects, perhaps benefiting people who, in the opinion of many Members, do not need help with housing. If the policy is to provide a general stimulus across the board which is not relevant to the size of people’s incomes, to whether they are first-time or second-time buyers or to whether they are buying to let or buying to live in their houses, that should be made clear to us.
I do not think that the Government should be afraid of new clause 1. One of its two policy schemes, the guarantee scheme, does not involve any expenditure, because it will come into operation only if a house has to be sold at less than the price that was paid for it. There is evidence that such schemes work. In the Irish Republic, the National Asset Management Agency introduced its 80-20 scheme in an attempt to stimulate demand for some of the properties that it had taken over, and I hope that it will introduce the scheme in Northern Ireland as well. It owns property there, and is currently putting it on the market. There is evidence that the guarantee enabled people to secure loans that would not normally have been available to them, because the lenders had been relieved of some of the risk.
The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) asked whether such schemes would apply throughout the United Kingdom and in all the devolved Administrations. He mentioned the potential for distortion in the housing market, suggesting that people might move from one country in the UK to another in order to take advantage of them. I understand that the guarantee scheme will apply throughout the United Kingdom.
The second scheme involves equity loans. I do not think that the Government should be worried about scrutiny of its likely effectiveness. For some time, Northern Ireland has operated a co-ownership scheme which enables people to rent half a property and buy the other half. We were able to negotiate that with the banks because all the risk was being taken by Co-ownership Housing and the public purse, which would be responsible for the first 50% of any loss. The banks have actually dropped the requirement for a 20% deposit. The good thing is that there has been no cost to the public purse; it has simply been borne by the banks not requiring the deposit, because the risk has been taken out of the house purchase.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman also see scope for more stimulation of co-operative housing schemes in the mix in the United Kingdom? In Germany and Canada, some 10% of housing is co-operative. In parts of Scandinavia, the figure is 18%. The figure is higher in those countries because their Governments act to promote the development of co-operative housing. In the United Kingdom, it accounts for just 0.6% of all housing. It offers a way for people to get their foot on the housing ladder, without the need for unaffordable deposits.
Sammy Wilson
It does indeed. Let me illustrate the success of co-ownership in Northern Ireland, which is similar to the co-operative housing that the hon. Gentleman describes. More than 50% of new houses in Northern Ireland are being sold through the co-ownership arrangement. Importantly, because it is targeted at first-time buyers, it has enabled them to get their foot on the housing market ladder, stimulated demand in the economy and created the jobs in the construction industry that are so sorely needed.
Be it the mortgage equity scheme or the mortgage loan scheme, the Government should have no fear of new clause 1. If they have confidence in the schemes they propose, they should not fear scrutiny of them. Indeed, all the evidence from the Northern Ireland market and the Irish Republic market shows that the schemes will work.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular need across the country for affordable housing to rent and to buy, and that, on striking the balance that he referred to earlier, there is a grave danger, as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said, of creating another housing bubble if the wrong level is set? Is that the point he is driving at?
Stewart Hosie
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, he is making a number of very serious points about the financial transaction part of housing support, but I hope he agrees that the one downside is that it does not allow that cash—such as it is—to be used for capital spending in any way apart from housing, and that it is being paid for by a real-terms cut in the Revenue departmental expenditure limit over the next two years.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end. I know he has a lot to say, but other Members want to contribute and I want to make sure that the Minister can reply.
Sammy Wilson
Thank you, Mr Hoyle; I will finish, then.
What, therefore, are the reservations about this scheme? The first concerns the way in which the spend will be dealt with. Of course, loans have to be repaid, and the scheme has been financed through a DEL cut across Departments of 1%. Secondly, it amounts to £4 billion over the next three years. The question is, could that money, if it is spent on housing, target the most needy, rather than being spent across the board with no restriction on income, meaning that people can buy second homes? Is there a better way of spending that £4 billion? Or, as the hon. Member for Dundee East suggested, if the approach were less prescriptive, are there other capital areas it could be spent on, leading to a far greater multiplier effect and impact on the infrastructure of the United Kingdom? Those are questions about the scheme that need to be asked.
My last point is that although the dynamics of the housing market would suggest that if someone moves from their home to a more expensive, bigger home—I am sure that the Minister will make this argument—it releases houses further down and starts the market moving. My main priority for constituents who come to see me is those who are not even in the housing market at all. Even though the dynamics of getting people to move up the housing chain are important, it seems to me that the priority ought to be those who cannot get social houses and who cannot afford privately rented housing as rents, certainly in Northern Ireland, are going up at a rate that prices many people out of the market. The opportunity should be provided for them to get in at the low end of the market through affordable housing. That is why we need a much more targeted scheme. One reason why I think it would be useful to examine the scheme within a short period of time is that it would show whether the real objectives and priorities in the housing market are being addressed by these schemes.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Hoyle, and I shall make my speech very short as I appreciate that two Opposition Members wish to speak. I will speak for about three minutes tops and will rattle off my points as fast as I can.
The first issue I want to raise on new clause 5 is the fact that it refers to property and does not distinguish between residential property and business property. That concerned me greatly when I first looked at the new clause, as it would create huge concerns in the business community. In my constituency of Stevenage, we have some large business interests. GlaxoSmithKline has a huge operation employing 4,000 scientists in Stevenage—[Interruption.] Although the new clause mentions the “mansion tax”, it just states that it would be on “property”.
How would that property be valued? There seem to be two values in property at the moment: the value one thinks one’s property is worth and the value at which someone would buy it. There is always a big disparity between those values. Such a change would lead to a large revaluation exercise across the UK and my concern is that once we have that revaluation exercise, council tax revaluation will be a real problem across the country. A huge number of people will be very concerned about council tax increases if all their properties have been revalued. Council tax more than doubled under the previous Government and I am pleased to say that under this Government it has been frozen for the past three years—[Interruption.] I see the annunciator has just changed to show my name, although I will sit down in about one minute.
My other point is that the new clause also refers to a tax cut for low-income and middle-income earners, and I am proud that this Government have introduced a tax cut that will be worth more than £700 next year for those low earners on up to £10,000. I am sure that the Opposition would agree with the Government that the best way to introduce a tax cut is to have a tax rate of zero rather than the 10p tax rate on which my colleague the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) had a very robust exchange with Opposition Members.
I shall now sit down as you are gesturing for me to do so, Mr Hoyle.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman has completely misconstrued my remarks.
We need to invest to grow jobs. We need to grow our economy, and as we do that, there will be more jobs. People want to work, but the evidence is that the jobs are not there. People are having to work part-time, even to have multiple part-time jobs, in order to keep body and soul together. We need an economy that is growing, and we are not getting that from this Government. We need Labour’s bank bonus to invest in jobs, to tackle unemployment across the country, and to help young people.
Sammy Wilson
Although we have not heard many speeches by Government Members, I am a bit surprised by the attitude they have adopted to this proposal in view of one of the Government’s declared objectives in the Budget book. Under the heading, “Fairness”, it states:
“The Government’s economic and fiscal strategy is underpinned by its commitment to fairness”.
I would have thought that anyone looking at the proposal would find it very difficult to say that it does not have a core of fairness within it. It is directed towards an industry, the banking industry, which was partly responsible for the economic crisis we face, the impetus for which was people in that industry being given incentives to behave in a reckless way that led to the kind of borrowing and lending that created our current difficulties. They were bailed out by the taxpayer, with bonuses then being paid out of that bail-out. I would have thought that on the grounds of fairness alone, Government Members would see at least some merit in the arguments for the proposal which have been advanced.
I have often heard it said, not only by Labour Members, but particularly by Government Members who are close to small businesses—perhaps many of their supporters are small business owners—that the banking industry has strangled those businesses in the middle of the recession, refusing to lend to them even when there are good, viable propositions and putting the squeeze on them when they most needed liquidity. I would have thought that Government Members would have some sympathy for a proposal that said to them, “We cannot reward people at the top of an industry who are destroying, squeezing and making it difficult for the businesses that many of you would regard as your supporters”, yet they seem to be opposed to it.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech. Has he had the same conversations as I have with lower-paid bank clerks and bank staff who are equally appalled by the excesses of their extremely well-remunerated paymasters right at the top of the organisation? They would look at this amendment and think that it is completely fair and should be delivered for them, as well as for us.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. Even some within the banking industry would say that there is no economic rationale for the obscene bonuses that are given at the top of the industry, and that there is no necessity for those bonuses to make it work efficiently. On a weekly basis, businesses and individuals come to me and say that if anything is strangling growth and the potential for it, in the economy today, it is the performance of the banking industry. When I hear about of some of these bonuses, I wonder what they are being paid for. They are certainly not being paid because the banking industry is performing well in helping to grow the economy and lift us out of recession.
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. However, that is exactly why some of us have spent the past nine months on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards examining the problems he is talking about. It is why the Government introduced the Financial Services Act 2012 in order to repair the regulatory environment and to establish the Financial Policy Committee to look at the instability in the system that can come about as a result of perverse incentives from bonuses. It is why the Government are currently taking the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill through Parliament. A huge amount is being done for exactly the reasons he mentions.
Sammy Wilson
Yet the situation continues. Despite all that, we do not see any change.
Some of the arguments advanced by Government Members, mainly through interventions, as to why the proposal is a bad idea, have become increasingly desperate as the debate has progressed. I believe that this should be done, first, on the basis of fairness, and secondly, because it has some potential for changing behaviour, and that ought to be given serious consideration.
The first argument was to say, “If we do this, we will be taking money out of the economy.” What do these people who get the bonuses do with them? Are they generating additional expenditure in the economy? If someone gets a bonus of £1 million, are they likely to spend it? We all know, and it is well evidenced in economic theory, that the more money we get, the higher the proportion of that additional income we tend to save—it does not contribute to the economy. During the Budget, the Chancellor said that the poor performance in the economy was because consumer spending had been suppressed and was not what had been anticipated. When I hear the argument that discouraging these bonuses, or taking them back in the form of tax, removes spending power from the economy, I find it rather bizarre.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing a point that I touched on earlier. In Plymouth, we are losing £16 million a year in benefits, and the people who usually get those benefits are poor and would spend the money in their local areas, not on foreign holidays or by putting it into bank accounts.
Sammy Wilson
Although saving is, of course, good in any economy, the important question at the moment is: how do we generate spending? The hon. Lady has reinforced the point that if money goes to unemployed people they are likely to spend 100% of that income, but someone who gets a £1 million bonus is likely to save 90% of it—perhaps more—so it will not be injected into the economy. I do not think that the argument that the amendment would remove money from the economy and, somehow or other, deflate it stands up to scrutiny.
The second argument, which was made by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—he tried to promote it in a couple of interventions on the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—is that all this levy would do is make finance either pricier or less available. As has been said, that implies that the only part of bank spending that is sacrosanct is the amount of money spent on bonuses. Making an activity more expensive tends to direct people away from it, and I cannot see how the banks would be any different. If we make it more expensive and more costly for them to give bonuses, they will be driven away from using those funds in that way and it would create a behavioural change. If that change did not happen, however, and bonuses continued to be paid and the tax on them recouped from customers, the alternative would be regulation. The customer should not have to pay for them—if banks do not change their behaviour, we should ensure that the taxes cannot be passed on to customers.
The third argument—I found this one bizarre, especially with regard to the bank levy—is that since we cannot be sure how much money will be raised, we should not pursue it. If that were true, we probably would not tax anything. How often do we hear the Government predict the amount that will be raised in tax revenue, only then to revise the figure within six months, either because behaviours have changed and the expected amount has not been raised, or because the economy performed in a different way than expected?
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) made that argument, but on that basis we would not have the bank levy, which was supposed to raise £2.5 billion this year, and raised only £1.1 billion. I do not know why that revenue was not raised—perhaps there was some change in the economy—but whatever the reason the bank levy did not raise the money intended. Moreover, the Government made spending plans on the assumption that that revenue would be available. I do not think that the amendment can be argued down on the basis that it may not raise the money and therefore no commitment should be made.
Mark Garnier
On that point, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read the amendment, the whole point of which is to raise money specifically to be invested in creating new jobs and tackling unemployment. If the Opposition want to invest a specific amount, they need to know how much money they will raise.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman has missed my point; perhaps I did not make it very well. When the Chancellor declares what taxes he intends to levy in the Budget, that announcement is accompanied by what he intends to spend that tax revenue on. Sometimes that revenue materialises and sometimes it does not.
The only requirement that I would make of an amendment of this nature is that it does not throw out a reckless figure and say, “We will make £x billion from this provision and spend it.” The Minister was right to ask on what basis the amendment’s calculation was made, but it cannot be argued that, because there is a degree of uncertainty, this is not a good proposition. I would have been very unhappy had the amendment said, “Let’s raise the money and then we’ll see what we will do with it.” It is much easier to make an argument on the grounds of fairness: “Let’s raise the money and this is what we will do with it.” Knowing where the money comes from, the purposes for which it was being used and the purposes for which it will be used once collected would enable us to judge whether the proposition is fair. It is not possible to divorce how the money is raised from what will be done with it.
Neil Carmichael
Does not this line of argument represent the thin end of the wedge with regard to hypothecation? Raising taxes is a general activity and the decision on how they should be allocated for expenditure purposes has to be made on other grounds. The obvious example is the health service.
Sammy Wilson
I agree that a general proposition that every specific tax raised should be hypothecated for a certain purpose would be very dangerous, but this is not a general proposition; it relates to one specific case and that case has to be made.
Geraint Davies
In following the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s eloquent argument, am I right in saying that he agrees that what banks should really be doing is supporting small businesses that have large order books and successful products and that want to upsize and build their business, but that do not have a lot of collateral and houses? That is what the banks should be focusing on in our local communities and economies, not on massive bets against share price changes and derivative bundles, which will develop multi-billion pound bonuses in an almost virtual world. What we want is a real economy supported by banks, not a bonus culture backed up by the state.
Sammy Wilson
That is one of the arguments for separating retail banking from the riskier banking activities described by the hon. Gentleman.
The fourth argument is totally different from the others, but I think that Government Members were getting increasingly desperate as they clawed for arguments against what is a reasonable proposition. One Member asked several times whether the amendment was designed to change behaviour, to act against perverse incentives or to raise revenue. All taxes tend to have behavioural consequences anyway; it is in their nature to change behaviour. Some are specifically designed to do so, while some are more genuinely revenue-raising because they do not affect behaviour as much. If the revenue from the tax goes down because fewer bonuses are paid, that does not necessarily mean that it is bad for the economy. For example, if banks decide not to pay bonuses and to keep the money as profits, corporation tax revenue will go up; or if they decide to put the money back into the bank and thereby increase liquidity, that will have a beneficial effect on the economy, because banks will be able to make more loans to businesses. Just because it may change behaviour does not necessarily make it a bad proposition. In fact, the proposition stands, as it could have other tax revenue-raising consequences or induce changes in bank behaviour that mean they have more money to do what the public expect them to do, rather than simply giving huge bonuses to their top-ranking employees.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is contributing to the anti-bank ranting that we have had for the past couple of hours. What about the second part of the amendment, which provides that the levy shall be used to create jobs and employment? As a former economics examiner, does he believe that it is the business of the Government to create jobs? If so, what sort of jobs—Government jobs or state aid that would fall foul of EU rules? What does he think of the Government’s performance on employment? Is he surprised that unemployment is not higher?
Sammy Wilson
I hope that my speech has not been interpreted as an anti-bank rant. Indeed, I made the point at the beginning that banks are essential to the working of the economy. They provide the oil for the economy, and we want to find ways to make them do the job they are meant to do. If a bank bonus tax is one of the ways in which we could get them back on track and away from providing perverse incentives for particular employees to behave in certain ways that have not been helpful to the economy, that would be beneficial.
A properly functioning banking system is important for the economy. Rather than this proposal being anti-bank—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, “Answer the question.” He asked me two questions and I am answering the first. Banks are an essential part of the economy and we want to ensure that our proposals address that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it is the role of the Government to create jobs. It is the role of the Government and the private sector to create an environment for jobs and in which economic growth can take place. In some cases, that will mean direct involvement by the Government in job creation. Even some of the most right-wing members of the hon. Gentleman’s party, who are adherents of supply-side economics, would accept that it is the role of Government, for example, to provide opportunities for people to train. That creates jobs. It increases the skills base of the economy, which makes it easier for the private sector to create jobs. It is a question of co-operation. It is not a case of either/or. It is a simplistic view of the economy to suggest that only the private sector creates jobs and the Government sit on their hands—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a timed debate that will end at 7.15 pm. I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting, but it would be good to hear what the Minister has to say.
Sammy Wilson
I will conclude on that basis. I hope that I have addressed some of the points made by coalition Members. The amendment should be supported on grounds of fairness, of improving the banking system and of ensuring that the money that the Government raise from this provision could be used to help to stimulate the economy.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to you, Ms Primarolo, for allowing me to get a word in edgeways in this debate. It has been a most illuminating debate. We have discovered that it is the policy of the Opposition to raise £2 billion from a bank bonus tax when the pool of bank bonuses this year is forecast to be £1.6 billion. The Opposition Front-Bench team was commended for proposing an imaginative measure. It certainly is imaginative. Indeed, it is the stuff of fantasy that more could be raised in revenue through a tax than is contained in the tax base to which it applies.
The Opposition have done this before, as I shall say later, and this is a familiar debate. We had this debate in 2011 and in 2012, and now the Opposition have tabled a more or less identical amendment on a policy that was introduced in the dying days of the last Labour Government for one year only—a payroll tax on banks. When the then Chancellor introduced it in December 2009, he insisted that it would be a one-off tax. Indeed, it was not even for a full year, but from December 2009 to April 2010. But in the Finance Bill Committee of the whole House almost exactly a year ago, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) revealed:
“If Labour had won the election, it may have changed its view and continued the bank bonus tax.”
On reflection, he said,
“I think a Labour Government would have continued it”.—[Official Report, 18 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 391.]
The annual reappearance of this temporary Labour tax should remind us all that whenever Labour proposes a temporary tax, it is best to assume that it is for life—
Financial Services
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The discount in fines given for co-operation is one reason for organisations to co-operate, but I will look at my hon. Friend’s point on individuals.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The report indicates that, so arrogant were some bank workers, they treated themselves as masters of the universe to whom normal rules of fair play did not apply, which has impacted on banks and their reputations. The banks rather than the taxpayers will pay the fines, as they are required to do, but how will the Minister ensure they do not simply pass on additional charges to customers to recoup the costs?
Greg Clark
It is essential that the banks do not do that. They need to be transparent as to the source of the payment to meet the fines—that is essential. Far from those people being masters of the universe, they are culpable of doing a great disservice in falling way short of the standards of behaviour by which most decent people up and down the country would expect to live their lives.
Autumn Statement
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth remembering that we put together these difficult autumn statements and the like in a coalition. We are able to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Britain has strong and decisive government. I am grateful to my Liberal Democrat colleagues who have helped me in this. I hope that Liberal Democrats and Conservatives can celebrate the increase in the personal allowance. There are many Conservatives who also wanted to achieve that, and it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto too. The fact that we are able to do that shows that we are helping working people even in these difficult times.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I acknowledge some of the positive impacts that this statement will have on Northern Ireland, including saving people from increases in their electricity bills as a result of the exemption from the carbon price floor, lifting 8,000 people out of tax, and an additional £135 million of capital spending. However, given the rocky road that the Chancellor has said lies ahead and given his credibility in the markets, could he not find his way to borrowing more money for infrastructure projects to create jobs, rather than paying to keep people on the dole?
Mr Osborne
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for some of the measures we have taken to help the Northern Irish economy, which I am well aware has particular problems in the banking system that require even more attention. I have always sought to respond to the Executive’s proposals where there is a specific case for Northern Ireland, as we did with transatlantic flights, for example. More generally, we are committing additional money to infrastructure, and I want some of that additional infrastructure to be in Northern Ireland. We are also guaranteeing infrastructure projects across the United Kingdom, and £10 billion of projects have pre-qualified for that under the legislation we took through Parliament this autumn. That scheme is available to people and companies in Northern Ireland, and if the Executive want to talk to the Treasury about what more we can do to encourage take-up in Northern Ireland, I would be happy for those conversations to take place.
Income Tax
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I approach the debate from a different angle from some Opposition Members. I am sympathetic to the view that we ought to aim for a low-tax economy, which offers benefits. Only this week in Northern Ireland, we announced tax cuts for small businesses. Measures that we announced six months ago have had an impact in creating jobs. Fifty-two new businesses have started, and over 100 jobs have been created in return for a modest reduction in tax revenue. We are also seeking the devolution of corporation tax, so that we can introduce a lower corporation tax rate.
As I have pointed out to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, all of that means that there are certain things that we cannot do. We have to find efficiencies in public spending, and there are things on which we cannot spend money. The logic of the measure is accepted by Sinn Fein, which supports it, although some of its members are probably to the left of Labour Members.
However, I oppose the measure that the Government introduced to reduce the top rate of income tax for the best paid. I do not believe that the cost will be as low as the Government said. The Minister said that it will cost £100 million, but that figure is surrounded with lots of conditions and caveats, such as notions about how tax changes are sensitive to how people behave. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed out, estimates of tax income elasticity vary from 0.35% to 0.48%, which is a difference of nearly 40%. Whatever the assumptions about behavioural consequences—whether people will move back to the United Kingdom or stop moving out; whether they will stop avoiding tax or keep using existing measures—given the cost of moving back or changing pension or retirement arrangements, it is unlikely that the impact will be as great as suggested.
Even if the measure were correct—the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that he was glad that the Government had divorced politics from economics in making that tax decision—we should not introduce it at a time when we are telling people across the United Kingdom that they have to tighten their belt, spend less and accept that they will have a lower income. We are saying that to pensioners, to lower-paid people and to people on middle incomes. We cannot send out a contradictory message that that is okay for people at the lower end of the income spectrum, but not for people at the higher end. If the Government really want to sell their message of austerity, that message must be clear so that people know that everyone will be equally affected. If a pensioner faces a £7 weekly decrease in their pension and a millionaire gains a £2,000 increase in their weekly income, people will not take the view that we are all in this together.
The politics of the measure is important. The Government might believe that low taxes can stimulate the economy because they will attract the rich to the UK, where they will create jobs, but it has been proven that other tax cuts costing an equal amount would provide a far greater stimulus to the economy. For the same price as reducing the top rate of income tax for the top 1%, we could reduce VAT on extensions on premises to provide jobs in small businesses in the building industry. There is much greater price elasticity in demand for that activity, as has been shown, so such a measure could provide a much greater stimulus.
The policy is wrong economically; it is wrong politically; and it is wrong on the basis on which the Government have tried to sell it. For that reason, I support the motion.
Multiannual Financial Framework
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a great joy to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). In this debate, I believe the people of Northern Ireland would expect me to lay down the marker that if we as citizens of the United Kingdom have to share in the necessary austerity measures required to get us out of our current financial problems, we should expect the same rigours to be placed on the European Union.
I have the honour of serving as Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. Over the last couple of years, I have had to defend and explain and implement a 40% cut in the capital budget of the Northern Ireland Executive. I have had to resist Ministers who stood out in the streets protesting against cuts to the education budget, the health budget and other budgets, and explain that we were at an end of making money available for all the things we had to do. I think the people would find it difficult if, when it came to the over-fed bureaucracy of Europe, we did not take the same stance. As for the arrogance of the bureaucrats in the European Union—sometimes described as the Bisto bureaucrats who think that the gravy train is still running—we need to put down a marker and say that the years of simply asking for money and getting it are at an end.
Many Members have said today that this is only a cynical exercise, that it will hurt the Prime Minister, that Labour Members are jumping on the bandwagon and that they are a bunch of hypocrites. I must say that I share some of the cynicism about what happened in the past, but this is not about what happened in the past; it is about what we are going to do now. I am sure that if the former leader of my party were here, he would tell the House that there is great joy in heaven over one sinner that cometh to repentance, and that there should be unbounded delight on the other side when a whole party-load of sinners may have come to repentance and renounced their fiscal sins of the past.
Regardless of the motives behind it, the amendment does not weaken but strengthens the Prime Minister’s position. It enables him to go to Europe and say, “The entire House of Commons supports my position, and I have to go back to the House and explain. Either you make changes in the budget, or I cannot carry it in the House of Commons, because I am facing united support for the stance I am taking.”
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making his case in typically passionate terms and I am reluctant to interrupt him, but, as a realist, is he aware that the 8% increase in the last multiannual budget was the smallest increase ever agreed in the EU? The chance that Brussels will now accept a real-terms freeze, let alone a cut, is virtually zero, and therefore we are almost inevitably heading for a veto. Is not the only real question whether the Leader of the Opposition joins the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in supporting that veto?
Sammy Wilson
I have no difficulty with the veto. I do not have to be ambivalent about the veto. Whatever is required in these vital negotiations—whatever leverage is required—must be used. The point I am making is that the best leverage that the Prime Minister can exert in the negotiations is his ability to say, “Regardless of their positions on the party-political spectrum in the House of Commons, all its Members support me in saying that we will not give an extra penny to the European Union, and, furthermore, we want to see a reduction in the amount of money that we give to the European Union.”
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I agree that we should constrain the amount of money we send to Europe, but in financial terms the difference between the amendment and the original motion could be less than £1 a year. Why divide the House when we all wish to constrain that amount?
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. As so much of our rebate is not covered in the new arrangements owing to increases for new member states, our contributions would go up by 5.3% over the seven years even if we opted for and secured a real-terms freeze in the budget. We are talking not about pennies, but about billions of pounds.
The bottom line that is suggested in the motion would actually prove very costly for the British taxpayer, which is why a motion proposing not a real-terms freeze but a real reduction in our contributions to the EU could, and in my view should, gain unanimous support in the House. That is the only way of ensuring that the austerity that people in the United Kingdom have had to experience is also experienced in the European Union. It is not that there are no ways in which money can be saved. For 17 years, the European Union’s accounts could not even be signed off because billions could not be accounted for. The amount of waste that takes place in the EU shows that it is not impossible to make reductions.
I do not know whether I shall be on the right or the wrong side of the vote tonight, in terms of who wins, but I do know that the Lobby that I go through will be the Lobby entered by Members who are standing up for people who have experienced austerity, and experienced it stoically because they believe that it is the right way to ensure the financial soundness of the United Kingdom. I will go through that Lobby because I am on the side of those who want to give the Prime Minister the best hand in the negotiations. I will go through that Lobby for the sake of the people who want to see an end to European and bureaucratic waste. For those reasons, I shall support the amendment.
Public Service Pensions Bill
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
No, there will not. Let me describe how this works. The negotiations that my ministerial colleagues and I conducted in UK Government Departments allow considerable flexibility within the parameters of the Bill—for example, the link between the state pension age and normal pension age, and the move away from final salary—and within the so-called cost envelope set up around the schemes. For example, the hon. Gentleman will note that the teachers pension scheme has agreed a different balance between accrual rates and revaluation factors for its new scheme from that for the health workers pension scheme. There is great flexibility in the provisions, provided things stay within the cost envelope. Under the Bill, the devolved Administrations are free to make more generous provision, as happened with the offer for prison officers. The Ministry of Justice agreed to fund an additional element of the proposed scheme to enable prison officers to have enhanced early retirement factors beyond those that were affordable within the cost envelope. The Ministry had offered to put additional resources on the table from its own departmental expenditure limits, and that was part of the offer that prison officers sadly rejected. Should the devolved Administrations wish to do something similar, they will be within their rights to do so, at their own expense.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
One of the options open to the devolved Administrations was for their pension schemes to be included in the Bill. In Northern Ireland, the Executive decided not to take that option, which could mean that, simply because of the timing of the legislation, the new scheme will be in place here, but not in Northern Ireland, even if Northern Ireland decides to follow suit. Will there be a penalty if there is a time gap between the implementation of the legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom and any delayed implementation in Northern Ireland?
Danny Alexander
I am not aware of any technical reason why a time gap should occur, but I know that officials in the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel discuss this regularly with my officials in the Treasury. If there is any evidence of such an occurrence, I will be happy to consider it in the normal way. There have been regular discussions on these matters, not least in our Finance Ministers quadrilateral. We will meet again in a couple of weeks in Edinburgh, when this subject will be on the agenda, so we can discuss it then.
Business and the Economy
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a great joy to take part in this debate.
Back home in Northern Ireland, there has been a lot of criticism of the fact that Northern Ireland was not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. Newspapers, commentators and politicians have suggested that that is a vast gap in the Queen’s Speech that needs to be filled. I do not share that view, for two reasons. First, I do not believe that more and more legislation piled on to an economy is necessarily a good thing. Secondly, many of the problems that we face in Northern Ireland are UK-wide problems that require UK-wide solutions, and therefore much of what the Queen’s Speech does in dealing with the economy of the UK as a whole should benefit Northern Ireland.
I was heartened when the very first words of the Queen’s Speech talked about “economic growth” and the need to “restore economic stability”. However, as many people have said during this debate and others, once we get down to the detail, the reality is that there is no clear path as to how these proposals will get us back to economic growth. Indeed, there are many diversions—a result, I suppose, of the faddishness that has been introduced into Government decisions by the Liberal Democrats. The proposals on House of Lords reform are equalled only by some of the other proposals that the public have already rejected. At a time when millions of families were most concerned about student fees, the Liberal Democrats thought that a referendum on the alternative vote method should be the Government’s priority. The Government have been led astray by those who say that they are driving the tractor to pull us out of the mire rather than driving the digger to dig us deeper into the mire, as appears to be the case.
I am concerned about three main issues. First, it will be interesting to see what proposals the Government bring forward on stability within the euro area. Much has been said here today about the need to stimulate the economy. We have heard many Government Members say that we cannot keep on borrowing and spending, yet there seems to be no lack of that when it comes to propping up a failed currency, for which the Government keep finding money. Within the past three weeks, another £10 billion went to the International Monetary Fund to help to prop up a currency that looks increasingly shaky. That is throwing good money after bad. That £10 billion could have had a much greater impact had it been spent on infrastructure development here in the United Kingdom to boost people’s confidence that the Government believe that we will have growth eventually and need the infrastructure to deliver it.
The second issue is bank reform. In Northern Ireland especially, businesses are held back by the lack of finance from a dysfunctional banking system. The banking system in England, Scotland and Wales may be dysfunctional, but in Northern Ireland most of the main banks are not operating and we are dependent on bankrupt banks from the Irish Republic, which account for nearly half the market, and Ulster bank, which is controlled by RBS. Bank lending is not happening for businesses. Although a very ambitious target, which many firms are trying to meet, of exporting to areas outside the euro area has been set, many firms are finding opportunities but cannot get the money to finance their organisations and provide them with working capital. I hope that when the bank reforms go through, there will be greater emphasis on what impact Government policy is having on places such as Northern Ireland, where we do not even get figures published for Project Merlin and do not know whether the policies are working through the banking system in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, there is the issue of energy prices. The Queen’s Speech says that the Government will deliver
“secure, clean and affordable electricity”.
That is a euphemism for expensive electricity. I think we all know that the pursuit of renewable electricity has added considerably to energy bills in the United Kingdom and put us at a competitive disadvantage. Whatever we call it, clean energy, green energy or wind power costs three and a half times more than coal or gas-fired power. If the Government are going to keep going down that route, they will suck growth back out of the economy in the pursuit of helping the renewables industry.
There are many areas where we need to get oxygen back into the system, including banking, cheap energy, finance and infrastructure development, and I trust that we will see that in future.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith
I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to carry on with my speech, then I will give way again. Perhaps by then the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will have warmed up and will be able to give us some evidence, instead of more rhetoric.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Much has been made of the effect of the top rate of tax on revenue and on competitiveness. Given that the Government have stated their intention to change the top rate of tax, is it not surprising that the Chancellor has said that he is going to initiate
“some real research into dynamic scoring, and what the broader economy effects are of changes to taxation”?
It seems that even the Government do not know the impact of the change in taxation.
Owen Smith
I knew it would be worth while giving way to the Treasury spokesman for the Democratic Unionist party. His intervention offers a contrast to some of the more pedantic contributions that we have heard from Conservative Members. He is right to say that it was far too early to make a decision, ostensibly based on evidence, just one year after the implementation of the new tax rate. That is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded, and it is what the Office for Budget Responsibility has effectively concluded in suggesting how uncertain the conclusions are. It is also, unfortunately, what the country is concluding.
Karl MᶜCartney
Not at this point.
It has been interesting—and would be again—to hear from the Chancellor or his Ministers what positive signs we have seen from businesses after he announced the change. Once again, why does the Labour party fly in the face of business leaders’ opinion? As I have said, the 50p tax rate raises only a fraction of what was intended and is bad economics. It is better to put the British economy first, ahead of cheap headlines, but then that was never the Labour way, was it? One would have thought by now that Labour might have learnt some economic lessons.
The cut in the 50p tax rate was never a priority of this Government. Raising the personal tax allowance and helping low and middle income earners has always been the No. 1 priority tax cut for the Government and that is what we have done. This is a Budget to be welcomed by all with far-reaching tax reform that Labour should be embarrassed it never even considered. It announces the largest ever increase in the personal tax allowance, which will benefit 24 million ordinary families up and down our country. Most basic rate taxpayers will gain at least £220 every year. In total, this Government will have taken 2 million low paid people out of tax altogether.
Labour spent much of the aftermath of the recent budget indulging in photo calls in unfamiliar territory for Labour Members—any pasty shop they could find. Even an unannounced visit to my own constituency of Lincoln by the photogenic brother of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), featured such a stunt. Among all this new-found fondness for pasties, but perhaps notably not for one bottle of a famous brown sauce, the Leader of the Opposition has strongly criticised the decision to cut the top rate from 50p.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made a laughable claim when he said:
“After today’s Budget, millions will be paying more while millionaires pay less.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 452, c. 809.]
He is the true heir to Blair, is he not? Soundbite, not substance—and not even basic mathematical understanding. After this Budget, not only will millions of people pay less tax, but many low earners will pay little or no income tax. If, as we know, the 50p top rate raised only a fraction of what was intended and in addition harmed our international competitiveness and, as other Budget changes have ensured that the direct cost of the reduction to a top rate of 45p has been mitigated many times over, that should surely be welcomed by Members on both sides of this House.
Sammy Wilson
Let me make it clear that my party is not a party of high taxation. We do not wish to see people squeezed until the pips squeak and we are not ideologically committed to high taxation.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am sure. The record is open to scrutiny. In local government in Northern Ireland, when the Democratic Unionist party is in control of any council its rates are the lowest. In the Northern Ireland Administration at Stormont, where again we have control of the finances, we have more generous tax allowances for manufacturing industry and we have held local taxation frozen at the same point for the past four years and for the next three years. The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether we are sure, but we stand on our record. When we have the ability to influence or the possibility of influencing taxation, we want to be a party of low taxation.
My comments in this debate are predicated on such policy and should be set against that background. I want to address the reduction in the top level of tax from 50% to 45%, which I believe is a huge political mistake for the Government. More importantly, I believe that it will impact on the ability to deliver sound fiscal policy and economic policy across the United Kingdom while getting people behind the measures that are required to get us out of our dire present situation.
The Government’s main argument has been that this is a good, sound economic policy and that it is necessary for a number of reasons. It is necessary, first, because the 50p rate of taxation has not worked: it has not raised the intended revenue. Indeed, the Prime Minister today claimed that it had not raised any revenue, but if he had read the documents that his own Chancellor endorsed he would have found that that is not true.
Richard Harrington
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and sorry for interrupting him mid-sentence, but in welcoming you, Mr Hood, to the Chair, I should like to ask him this question. Does he believe, as I do, that there are circumstances in which economic beliefs have to take precedence over political ones? Governments have to consider what they believe to be good in the long term for the country, for the economy and for growth, not just what might appear in newspaper headlines.
Sammy Wilson
I do agree, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard that the economic case—that we did not raise as much revenue as we should, that we will raise more revenue than we were doing and that we will improve the competitiveness of the UK economy through this new measure—has not been made. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but on the basis of the Government’s own publication, the economic case has not been made.
Richard Harrington
To be clear, that is not what I was asking. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the current economic policy is the right one, but does he accept my view that in many circumstances Governments have to consider what they believe to be the best economic case over and above the politics of the situation?
Sammy Wilson
That may well be the case. However, if a Government have to make that decision—and, yes, there are occasions when that has to be done— they must first convince people that the economic case is sound, and on the basis of the Government’s own published information, that is not so. Indeed, even the Prime Minister did not seem to know what his own Government’s information said when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions earlier. It cannot be argued that there are times when the economic case is more important than the politics and so the right decision has been made, because the Government have not made a sound economic case.
We have a political context in which the Government are saying to people: “Make sacrifices. If you’re working in the public services, take a pay freeze. If you’re a motorist, you’re going to have to pay more for your petrol. If you’re a pensioner, you must have your tax allowances frozen for some time so that allowances can catch up, with the result that you’re collectively going to lose £1 billion a year. You’re going to have to do this because we’ve got a deficit that we’ve got to address.” I could go through a whole lot of other measures. If people are going to be asked to follow a policy that is designed to reduce the deficit and to accept those impacts on their standard of living, they must understand that the weakest are not being selected for the heaviest burden. This decision is not only economically flawed but politically flawed because it will call into question the Government’s sincerity when they argue that we all have to make sacrifices together.
I have another role in Northern Ireland as Finance Minister. We have frozen wages. We have stopped all bonuses in the public sector where that has been possible and there are no contracts. We have said to people that there will be no recruitment or promotion within the public sector. We have said to people who work in the private sector, “You’re going to have it tougher because we’re going to be spending less on public sector contracts and so on, with the impact that that has on people’s jobs.” We have said about new house building and a whole range of other things, “This can’t be done.” We have said to voluntary groups and community groups, “You’re going to get cuts in your grants because we don’t have the money to do this.”
By and large, I have found that most people accept that when they see that it is evenly spread. People stop me in the street all the time and talk about the impact that it is having on their lives. They say, “We don’t like it, but if we have to put up with it because we know we can’t carry on spending money we don’t have, we’ll do it.” Nothing undermines the argument made by those of us who wish to be responsible about the budget deficit more than the news that the Government are saying to people, “Make sacrifices”, while those who are earning more than they need to live on will get a 20% or a 10% tax cut. That is why the politics of this is all wrong. The economics is not sound and the politics is not sound, and for that reason we will vote against it.
Alun Cairns
Thank you, Mr Hood, for calling me to contribute to this debate on amendment 1. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I accept some of his points about the importance of the economics, but I certainly do not agree with his conclusion. I will comment on the weakness of the argument presented by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) a little later.
Alun Cairns
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Once again, he makes a cutting point that exposes the weakness of the argument of the hon. Member for Pontypridd.
The politics of this measure is that it sends a message to international investors that Britain is once again open for business. The 50% rate needs to be added to the national insurance rate. People could well be paying a tax rate well in excess of 60%. For some individuals, it is as high as 68%. What sort of message does that send to international investors? The politics of this is extremely important in relation to how it is interpreted by the people we want to attract to this country, because they will bring their capital with them.
Sammy Wilson
I am not sure what Government Members are saying is causing the lack of investment. Is it the situation in the eurozone—I agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about that—or is it because of the high rate of taxation? The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) seems to agree with both propositions.
Alun Cairns
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that there is no silver bullet. I suggest that there is a range of issues. It is partly to do with the eurozone, partly to do with the debt that we inherited from the previous Government and partly to do with the global environment. Thanks to the Chancellor and the Treasury team, we are putting Britain on the road to the recovery. The reduction of the rate from 50% to 45% is central to that because of the message that it sends to every investor around the globe, as I have outlined.
We must recognise that we have had the highest tax rate in the G20. That has an effect when international companies consider where to invest. The G20 countries are in the top league of where international companies spend their money. Obviously, I want us to be seen as the most competitive nation in the league, not for us to be at the bottom of the league. That is the situation that we inherited.
The message of the Labour party consists of nothing more than envy. Labour fails to recognise that the top 1% of earners pay 30% of the income tax in this nation. The marginal rates are exceptionally important, as has been mentioned. We need to create an environment in which Britain is open for business and make it an attractive nation to investors from the UK and from elsewhere.
The argument presented by the hon. Member for Pontypridd is hollow. He misses a number of points. First, the 50% rate was intended to be a temporary rate in the first place. In response to interventions, he said that he did not think that the temporary rate should be adjusted just yet. How temporary is temporary? He gave the impression in his response that the rate should remain at 50% for the remainder of this Parliament. That would take us up to eight years of this temporary tax. He said in another response that he could not predict the Budgets that would happen after the next general election. There are three years remaining in this term. He cannot have it both ways. He says that the temporary tax should last for eight years, but that he cannot predict what will happen in three years’ time. The reality is that the Labour party is merely presenting the politics of envy. It wants to be the tax-and-spend party once again. It was the tax-and-spend party when it left office, and it has done little to move on from that position.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I rise to speak to amendment 8 in my name and those of my colleagues, and I should like to press amendment 61 to a Division.
I am short of time, so I shall keep interventions to a minimum. There has been co-operation among the parties to try to give hon. Members time to speak, and I shall try to keep my part of the bargain.
In fact, I have risen to speak in favour of a Government policy—a well-thought-out policy that would do wonders for the economy. I am speaking, of course, of the devolution of air passenger duty to Northern Ireland. I like that great idea so much that I should like APD devolved to Scotland as well. We want equality of treatment and opportunity for Scotland.
In reality, I and many in Scotland, and the aviation industry, feel that APD is unfair and that it places an undue burden on business and travellers at a time when the Government should be encouraging the movement of people and goods to spur economic growth. The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends therefore propose to halt the rise in APD and devolve the power to Scotland, which is a recommendation not only of the Scottish Government, but of the Calman commission.
The idea of the cut in APD is simple: the UK already has the highest APD in the world, which surely cannot boost economic growth. The industry has had its say. Derek Provan, managing director of Aberdeen airport has said:
“Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports issued a joint letter to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget calling on the UK Government to create a level playing field for the UK aviation industry, which is subject to the highest aviation taxes in the world…The leaders of BA, EasyJet, Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic also jointly warned that the double inflation increase would hit ‘millions of hard working families in the UK.’ They said a family of four flying economy class to Australia would pay £500 in APD, whereas in 2005, they would have paid just £80. BA also recently revealed that it had plans to halve the number of new recruits in 2012 as a result of APD.”
Jim O’Sullivan, managing director of Edinburgh Airport, has said:
“APD is already costing Scotland passengers and having an impact on tourism revenues. We know from discussions with our airline partners that it is a major factor in their decision to connect further routes to Scotland. We would urge the Westminster Government to see Scotland as it does Northern Ireland and understand the need to both reduce and devolve this unfair and damaging tax.”
Sammy Wilson
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the general level of APD, but does he not recognise that this measure is the result of the climate change legislation passed in a previous Parliament which his party supported? The chickens are coming home to roost, with extra green taxes being imposed on poor consumers across the United Kingdom.
Amendment of the Law
Sammy Wilson Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We all recognise that the Chancellor has been confronted with a difficult task in this Budget. He has had to walk a tightrope: if he goes too far one way, our financial credibility is immediately questioned so interest rates have to rise, yet if he goes too far in the other direction, we impair our ability to earn our way out of the recession.
My party does not have any political points to score against the Conservative party, as it is not represented in Northern Ireland, so we simply want the Chancellor and the Government to succeed. That is the basis on which I assess the Budget. Is this Budget likely to achieve the objectives we all want: restored growth and increasing employment?
Some of the Budget’s measures are very welcome. From a Northern Ireland perspective, we welcome the devolution of air passenger duty, which will be included in the Finance Bill. That will enable the Northern Ireland Executive to set its own rate for long-haul direct flights from Northern Ireland, which is essential to our investment strategy and to tourism. We also welcome the reduction in corporation tax as it brings our rate closer to the rate in the Irish Republic, which is our main competitor for foreign direct investment—although those rates are still far apart. We welcome, too, the film and high-end TV tax concessions. We have been seeking to promote that industry in Northern Ireland. The Executive have pushed for that. “Game of Thrones” is now filmed in Northern Ireland, and it has been a big revenue earner. We have also pushed for Belfast to be chosen as one of the broadband cities.
However, although there is clearly much to be welcomed, I am concerned about three aspects of the Budget. First, the Government could spend more money on infrastructure in the United Kingdom. That would enhance economic growth. Such pump-priming by the Government could enable us to draw upon some of the funds—£700 billion in cash—that private companies are currently hoarding.
After all, does the Chancellor believe his own rhetoric? He says that both the deficit and debt have fallen as a percentage of GDP, that the public sector net debt peak will not be as high as previously anticipated, and that we are on course for deficit reduction. He must therefore know that his credibility in the international money markets is sufficiently high for him to be able to invest in projects that offer a rate of return and that could help to promote economic growth, rather than merely pay unemployment benefits. Either he does not believe his own rhetoric, or else he is deliberately—perhaps for ideological reasons—holding back on what I believe could be an important means of investment.
Secondly, I am concerned about a choice that has been made. At a time when we are preaching austerity to people who are bleeding in that many of them cannot pay their heating bills or their rent or buy food, it is bizarre that the Government should choose to prioritise reducing the top rate of tax for the top 2% of earners in this country. That demonstrates a blatant disregard for the very difficult sacrifices that we are asking people to make.
Let us consider how the money could have been spent. There has been much argument today about whether or not the rich will pay more. The one thing we do know, however, is that it has been calculated that that reduction in the top rate of tax will immediately release £3,010 million to the top 2% of wage earners. The Government are relying on tax exiles flooding into the United Kingdom and beating on the door of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ask, “May I pay my tax in the United Kingdom now?” The Treasury hide behind the theory of “behavioural assumptions”, but we need only look at the literature to see that there are a lot of assumptions that may, or may not, be realised. The same situation applies for the money that could come from stamp duty and limits on the back claims.
The fact is that this money could have been used in a better way. For example, the Government could have used it to lower fuel duty, but despite the fact that fuel prices are going up, the Government are going to take £800 million more off motorists in the United Kingdom this year.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I am thoroughly enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech and would not wish to interrupt it for a second, but may I ask him what money he is referring to when he talks about a better way of spending that money? What we know from the Treasury is that our top rate raised very little incremental cash and that reducing it is likely to raise more money from the same people. So what money is he talking about?
Sammy Wilson
According to the Treasury, the direct impact—the direct static cost—is going to be £3,010 million. That is the figure that the Treasury has put out. Some of that money will be offset by behavioural change, but that is based on assumptions about tax income elasticity and what happens to income. So real money will go back to people who currently are top rate taxpayers. My argument is this: if the Government were going to release that kind of fund, would it not be far better to release it either to bring more low-income families out of tax or to release the hard-pressed motorist from the fuel duty that is going to be imposed on them?
Sammy Wilson
That is so, and I wish to discuss another measure in this Budget that will affect hundreds of thousands of people.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The people of Northern Ireland are grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland to move its economy forward. Does he agree that people up and down the country are terribly disappointed that the Budget contains no additional measures to reduce the amount of fuel duty and VAT on petrol and diesel, which, in Northern Ireland, is the highest in the entire European Union?
Sammy Wilson
The continuation of the measures that the Government have in the Budget already will take a further £800 million out of motorists’ pockets over the next year.
The final point I wish to discuss is regional pay. Some people may regard what I am about to say as special pleading for Northern Ireland, but may I remind hon. Members that this will have an impact on those who represent constituencies outside London and the south-east of England? This measure will have an impact on all the rest of the United Kingdom. Some have the idea that, because there is currently a difference between private sector and public sector wages—it is important to make the point that the difference is current—wages should be frozen for people in the public sector, so as to stimulate the private sector. I do not quite understand the economics behind that, because freezing wages in the public sector will have a deflationary impact, especially outside the south-east of England, given the prominence of the public sector not only in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere. The areas of the United Kingdom that are currently falling behind, even given the slow rate of economic growth for the country as a whole, will be the parts that will be most punished. This is one of the most divisive measures that I have ever heard about and it does not even address a problem, because there is no evidence for it. We have 3 million people unemployed and we are not recruiting in the public sector, so how on earth are higher wages in the public sector going to prevent private sector employers from being able to find workers? This argument does not work. The impact of the measure will be very detrimental. I hope that we will have an opportunity to re-examine that in much more detail in this House, because I believe it is one of the most pernicious measures floated in this Budget.
There are things that the Government could have done but have not done. There is an unfairness in this Budget; it is an unfairness in respect of not only different income groups, but different regions of the United Kingdom. I am a Unionist and I believe in the value of the Union. I believe that it is important that, as part of the Union, we bear the burden when there is a problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned, that is one of the reasons why, despite the unpopularity that this has probably led to in Northern Ireland, I have made the case that if there is an economic crisis facing the United Kingdom, we cannot ask to be exempt from the burden to be borne. However, it makes it far, far more difficult to say to public sector workers that their wages are going to be frozen, to say to the ordinary citizen that they should tighten their belt and to say to people who live in Northern Ireland that they have to go through these hard times when the Government are saying to those who can most afford it, “We are asking you to loosen your belts. We are going to fill your pockets.” That is exactly where the unfairness in this Budget lies.
For that reason, although I want the Government to succeed, I believe that they have not taken the opportunity to inject money into the economy. If they have credibility, they should use it in the financial markets and borrow to invest in infrastructure, rather than paying people to sit on the dole. If the Government want people to face up to the hard economic facts, they should do things fairly and not in a unjust and uneven way. If they want to be the Government for the United Kingdom, let us make sure that some parts of the United Kingdom do not have to bear a bigger burden than others.