Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow’s Budget, but he will recognise that in the emergency Budget last year we left beer duty frozen.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Chancellor knows that the long-term solution to the spikes in fuel prices is a stabiliser or a regulator, and hopefully we will hear about that tomorrow. However, is he aware that the price rises in fuel over the past four of five weeks equate to an additional £1,000 a year for running every truck in the country? Does he not agree that that is hugely inflationary and utterly unsustainable?

[Mr Osborne]

Of course, the very sharp rise in the world oil price has posed a challenge to lots of economies—all but the oil-exporting economies. That is one of the headwinds currently facing the global economy. Specifically on fuel duty and other issues, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget.

Scotland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 37, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

‘(f) Chapter 8 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a duty charged on fuel’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 58, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

‘(c) Chapter 5 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax charged on quarrying or mining,’.

Amendment 59, line 17, at end insert—

‘(d) Chapter 6 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax relating to air travel,’.

Amendment 60, line 17, at end insert—

‘(e) Chapter 7 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax charged on the profits of companies,’.

New clause 8—Duty on fuel

‘In Part 4A (as inserted by section 24), after Chapter 4 insert—

“Chapter 8

Duty on Fuel

80O Duty on fuel

The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the coming into force of section 80B of this Act, lay in accordance with Type A procedure as set out in Schedule 7 to this Act a draft Order in Council which specifies as an additional devolved tax a duty on fuel.”.’.

New clause 15—Scottish tax on quarrying or mining

‘In Part 4A of the 1998 Act (as inserted by section 24), after Chapter 4 (inserted by section 30) insert—

Chapter 5

Tax on quarrying or mining

80L Tax on quarrying or mining

The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the coming into force of section 80B of this Act, lay in accordance with Type A procedure as set out in Schedule 7 to this Act, a draft Order in Council which specifies as an additional devolved tax a tax charged on quarrying or mining.”.’.

New clause 16—Scottish tax on air travel

‘In Part 4A of the 1998 Act (as inserted by section 24), after Chapter 4 (inserted by section 30) insert—

Chapter 6

Tax on air travel

80M Tax on air travel

The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the coming into force of section 80B of this Act, lay in accordance with Type A procedure as set out in Schedule 7 to this Act, a draft Order in Council which specifies as an additional devolved tax a tax charged on air travel.”.’.

New clause 17—Scottish corporation tax

‘In Part 4A of the 1998 Act (as inserted by section 24), after Chapter 4 (inserted by section 30) insert—

Chapter 7

Tax on profits of companies

80N Tax on profits of companies

The Secretary of State shall, within one month of the coming into force of section 80B of this Act, lay in accordance with Type A procedure as set out in Schedule 7 to this Act, a draft Order in Council which specifies as an additional devolved tax a tax charged on the profits of companies.”.’.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this second Committee day, Mr Evans. I look forward to what I hope will be a detailed and constructive debate. Given that a Treasury Minister is present, we may receive some intelligent, enlightening and instructive answers from the Government. I am intrigued to see the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, along with the Secretary of State and a junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Obviously the Government decided to bring in the big guns to do the difficult stuff. I am sure that that will help over the next two days.

There are four taxes that we wish to be devolved: corporation tax, fuel duty, the aggregates levy and air passenger duty. I shall touch on the first two briefly, and say a little more about the aggregates levy and air passenger duty later.

The Bill has been considered by the Committee in the Scottish Parliament. As Ministers know, there was much agreement on many matters, but there was disagreement on a number of others, including corporation tax. I think it useful for this Committee to understand the minority view of the Scottish Committee, which said:

“A major failing of the Scotland Bill is that it does not devolve control over corporation tax, one of the most important economic levers available to a Government pursuing economic growth. In many countries corporation tax has been the key component of a strategy to increase competitiveness and improve growth. Without this power, however, Scotland is missing out on the opportunity to give itself a competitive edge… This situation could soon be worsened by the UK Treasury's consideration of devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland. The CBI Northern Ireland has stated that cutting corporation tax in Northern Ireland would have a ‘transformational’ impact on the Northern Irish economy—giving an immediate boost to the profits of businesses and generating 90,000 jobs. With control over corporation tax Scotland would be in a position”

to do much the same. The very fact that the United Kingdom Government were taking a similar approach to corporation tax would justify that position, the Committee said.

As Scottish and other Members will know, a significant body of business opinion backs the devolution of corporation tax—

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Name him.

[Stewart Hosie]

I did not want to take up too much time by listing all the business people in annexe A of the Committee’s minority report, but I shall be happy to do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

It is not simply the business community that has backed the devolution of corporation tax. A man who is hugely respected across the political divide in Scotland is Campbell Christie, the former leader of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. He has said:

“Higher growth will create jobs and generate more tax revenues to protect frontline public services, as well as repaying the high level of debt. To achieve this, Scotland's government need greater economic powers. But the Calman legislation does not meet this need.”

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with saying that the business community in Scotland supports the devolution of corporation tax. The Scottish Parliament Bill Committee report clearly states that there was not widespread support from that community.

[Stewart Hosie]

I did say that there was significant support in the business community, and I stand by that. The one thing I will not do in the next two days is engage in the politics of the Committee report. I want to consider its recommendations, and indeed identify proposals to which there was opposition. There is certainly significant business support for the devolution of corporation tax, which will enable the right decisions to be made to engender economic growth.

[Mr Donohoe]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment.

Campbell Christie also said:

“I firmly believe a Scottish government equipped to vary all taxes—including corporation tax… would be able to tackle the serious difficulties we face.

I do not want a tax regime to be imposed on Scotland that is utterly unfair and inadequate to meet the challenges we face. I hope Scotland’s politicians will join me in opposing these unfair proposals.”

I hope that Members throughout the House will note carefully what Campbell Christie said about the devolution of that tax.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says these proposals would be unfair, but one of the fairest things a Government can do when working with the business community is ensure that businesses have time to prepare for change. At present, when there is such a great priority on the economic strengthening of the nation, we need to work in a relationship of trust with the business community. Therefore, is it not unfair to suggest the introduction of this tax at this time?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, it is not, and if the hon. Lady looks at later amendments she will find that an entire series of them is related to the commencement powers, precisely to ensure that the right things are done at the right time, with the agreement of everybody involved. We will consider that, and I hope the hon. Lady is still present in the Chamber when we do so.

Two specific corporation tax issues relate directly to the Bill’s provisions. Existing provisions allow assigned revenue from a share of income tax—one large tax and a chunk from that, and lots of small measures. It would be much better if there was a balanced basket of taxes, so there was not an over-dependence on, and therefore a potential volatility from, having such a large amount of assigned revenue from a single tax. It would also be preferable if there was a personal tax and business taxes, so that they could be offset. It would also, of course, be preferable to remove the perverse disincentive under the Bill in respect of any future Scottish Government reducing income tax. Let us imagine that a Government decided that, for whatever reason, such a measure might be sensible to stimulate growth, but the Scottish Government took the hit in reduced revenue yield from income tax while the UK Government took the benefit of increased corporation tax. The effect of having only a large personal tax, and not a significant business tax, is that it unfairly and unnecessarily removes the number of economic or fiscal levers open to the Scottish Government. That is an important point.

[Mr Donohoe]

I had experience of the shipyards in the ’60s and ’70s, and we came upon something called transfer price fixing, whereby companies in Scotland—and elsewhere—would fiddle with the prices, such as those charged for gear boxes at Linwood. How would we overcome that in practice, because I can foresee exactly the same dangers arising under corporation tax?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point, which relates to what the Government say. They believe in tax competition, as do I, but we must avoid unnecessary tax or regulatory arbitrage not just within the UK but between the UK and other countries. There is a balance to be struck between proper tax competition, which is legitimate and fair and proper to stimulate growth, and unnecessary changes simply to get a quick short-term fix in terms of the arbitrage, which would be unhelpful. That highlights the analogy with price fixing that the hon. Gentleman drew, and he is right to be conscious of that.

We rehearsed the arguments about fuel duty at some length in our debate on the Supply day motion a few weeks ago, so I do not intend to go into that in considerable detail, but I will go into it in some detail.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is to be a photo call on fuel outside Westminster at 2.30 tomorrow afternoon involving the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor? Does that not remind my hon. Friend of a couple of sly foxes complaining there are no more chickens left in the coop?

[Stewart Hosie]

That is the sort of analogy a crofter from Barra would want to draw. When in opposition, the Liberal part of this Tory-led coalition promised a rural fuel derogation and the Conservative part promised a fuel duty regulator, and instead of being foxes round a chicken coop I would rather they both kept their promises and delivered on their pre-election commitments.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment, because I want to make a couple more points.

As we have said in previous debates, this issue is important because in Stornoway, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, fuel routinely costs £6.50 a gallon; in the Chief Secretary’s constituency diesel routinely costs £6.30 a gallon; in the major cities fuel costs more than £1.33 a litre—more than £6 a gallon; and I am told that Orkney recently had the £7 gallon. Hon. Members will know from the testimonials from the road haulage industry, the Freight Transport Association, FairFuelUK, taxi drivers, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others that businesses and communities are struggling with the inflationary effects of high fuel costs.

[Mr MacNeil]

Tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will complain about the price of fuel, but is not the point that for years and years as the price of fuel rose they said not a cheep? They were utterly blind to the troubles we had in the Western Isles when they were in government, but all of a sudden they want to say something .

[Stewart Hosie]

It was not that they were simply blind to it; members of the Labour party have said—I believe that their leader recently said this—that Labour found it difficult to implement a fuel duty regulator when they were in power. It was not so much that Labour found it difficult as it actively opposed every attempt to do it.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment.

Before I get too distracted, let me return to the Bill. The whole point about this amendment and our seeking the devolution of fuel duty powers is that we are not doing this for its own sake. Everyone understands the difficulty, as we have raised it many times, so this is about action. If the UK Government will not act, it is perfectly reasonable for the powers to be devolved so that a Scottish Government can act.

The two significant taxes dealt with in this first group are the aggregates levy and air passenger duty. In written evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, Professor Iain McLean said:

“I am not persuaded by the UK Government’s reasons for rejecting Calman’s other two tax devolution proposals, namely Aggregates Levy and Air Passenger Duty. As Scottish Ministers have correctly pointed out, the litigation which is given as a reason for rejecting the transfer of Aggregates Levy was already in progress when Calman reported. If Scotland is willing to take any revenue risk arising from that litigation, it should be allowed to.”

Likewise, the fact that the UK government intends to convert air passenger duty into a ‘per plane’ duty argues for, not against, devolving it. The principle of subsidiarity implies that the Scottish Government, not the UK Government, should decide how to tax flights originating at small Highland or island airports. Airports don’t move. They are a very suitable devolved tax base.”

On aggregates duty, Professor McLean said:

“The shape of landfill tax is obviously complementary to that of (any successor to) Aggregates Levy.”

Landfill tax is being devolved, so the approach being taken here is rather illogical. It is also a key recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee that aggregates tax is devolved. The final Calman commission report said:

“The Commission has recommended that a number of “green taxes” (Air Passenger Duty, Landfill Tax and the Aggregates Levy) be devolved. As well as helping to increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, control of these taxes will provide important policy levers in relation to environmental issues, allowing the Scottish Parliament and Government further options in determining policy.”

That makes perfect sense. Excluding two of the three taxes in that “green taxes” category not only makes a mockery of the Calman report, but, more importantly, decreases financial accountability and removes what Calman called “important policy levers”.

[Mr Donohoe]

I have campaigned on this issue for some time, as has the aviation group within the House. We have asked for this tax to be looked at because it is just ridiculous, given what is happening in Europe. If the tax were to have been devolved, the Government’s position was that it should be devolved, and there was to be a variant—one would presume that that is why the hon. Gentleman is asking for the tax—where would the money come from for any downward variation?

[Stewart Hosie]

I shall answer that when I come to air passenger duty, because it is a perfectly valid question. In general terms, if any Government chose to increase a tax they would see an increase in yield or behavioural change. Likewise, if they chose to decrease a tax they would either see a reduction in yield or behavioural change. In the case of corporation tax, all the evidence in country after country shows that when business taxes have come down, business tax yield has increased. Those judgments would need to be made depending on the tax, the decision and the part of the economic cycle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am just about to finish.

I commend the amendment to the House.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I shall address the Scottish National party Members’ amendments in a moment, but first let me make an observation about this part of the Bill, particularly clause 24. I strongly support the proposal to devolve substantial tax powers to the Scottish Parliament, making it responsible for raising approximately a third of its revenue. I shall not repeat the arguments I made on Second Reading, but the principle of the Scottish Parliament raising a good part of its revenue is vital. If that does not happen, the threat to the Union will be very real. To underline that point, let me quote from an e-mail that I received last night from a constituent, Mr Haig. It is worth repeating a couple of the points he expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the Scottish Parliament were responsible for raising more of its revenue, such arguments would diminish. I think it is right to give it the flexibility to raise additional revenue, if it so wishes, to fund extra programmes in Scotland from which my constituents south of the border may not benefit.

I agree with the incremental steps proposed in clause 24. We are for the first time starting to disaggregate the unitary tax system in the United Kingdom. That will have many consequences, some of which will be unforeseen, so we need to proceed with great care and attention to detail. I strongly welcome the proposal that we should not rush to set up a completely new system in one go. In particular, proposed new section 80B, which clause 24 introduces, contains a provision to allow the subsequent devolution of additional tax powers. That is the right way to go, rather than trying to devolve too much at this stage.

The hon. Member for Dundee East raised perfectly valid points about devolving other taxes, including air passenger duty, fuel duty and corporation tax, and we might well come around to doing that in the fullness of time. The Scottish Parliament’s response to the Bill noted that

“international experience does show some scope for differentiation of corporation tax,”

and we may get to that point. However, there are huge difficulties and intricacies that we must first consider about the operation of corporation tax. A later clause goes into some detail in defining a Scottish taxpayer for the purposes of the Bill and we would have to do something very similar for corporation tax. If a company were primarily located in Scotland but had its tax headquarters elsewhere, we would have to work out exactly which components of its income were liable for corporation tax.

[Stewart Hosie]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that argument before. He is being reasonable, and is making a reasoned case, but I disagree with him. However, does he accept the principle, in relation to the last point that he made, that tax liability would follow economic activity?

[Iain Stewart]

There will be huge consequences, some foreseen, but others unforeseen. We would need to undertake a huge amount of research to work out how to begin to disaggregate what has been a unitary UK tax system. I am not saying that it is impossible, or that it is something that we should not look at in future, but for the purposes of the Bill, I do not think that it is necessary, because clause 24 makes provision to look at devolving additional tax powers in future.

I am not going to say anything more at this point, because I want to deal in detail with other measures when we come on to the relevant clauses. Scottish National party Members have made a point about air passenger duty and landfill tax. I am perfectly content that measures are being negotiated at European level and elsewhere. Until they are resolved, it would be premature to include the devolution of those taxes in the Bill. I accept that the Calman view was that those matters should be devolved in the fullness of time, and I support that, but it is not necessary to include it at this point. I am therefore afraid that I cannot support the amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

What a difference a week makes, as we continue our scrutiny of the Bill after our sitting last Monday. On Thursday, we witnessed a plenary debate in the Chamber at Holyrood on the recommendations in the report on the legislative consent motion. At the conclusion of the debate, there was a vote, and we witnessed a remarkable about-turn, as the Scottish National party supported the motion recommended in the majority report. After two years of sniping on the sidelines, it has joined the three other major parties in Scotland to support the Bill, and I genuinely welcome that.

Who is surprised at the pattern that has emerged yet again? This is a party that did not join the constitutional convention, but supported the devolution referendum. It came into power four years ago, promising that its top aim above all others was a referendum on independence, which was then dropped. The interesting allegations in Wikipedia about the First Minister’s comments on the party’s real aims, rather than all-out independence, add to the mix the overwhelming conclusion that it can talk about independence as much as it wants, but the SNP has never been on the true side of the people of Scotland, which is why it constantly has to play catch-up.

We have had an interesting debate about fiscal decentralisation.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am intrigued by the hon. Lady’s introductory remarks. They bear no relation to the amendments, but that should not surprise us.

There is indeed a very serious matter at stake. We have tabled an amendment to devolve the aggregates levy, which is a recommendation by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and by Calman, and will make the Bill better. If we can divide the Committees, will Labour join us?

[Ann McKechin]

We certainly support the principle of devolving the aggregates levy, but I wish to make sure that when we scrutinise the Bill we do so in the interests of the people of Scotland. There is genuine concern about court proceedings—interestingly, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention the comments by the British Aggregates Association in the report on the legislative consent motion, which said that it was sure that it was going to win the court case. Well, we will just have to see when that case comes to court. However, I would not want a Scottish Administration to be responsible for the risks that may result from a loss in that case, because that would not be in the interests of the Scottish taxpayer.

The report by the Holyrood Committee offers an exceptional exposition of the contentious remarks made over a number of years by the Scottish Government about why fiscal decentralisation would be to the benefit of the Scottish economy. We support the measures in the Bill, because we believe that they will make the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament more accountable to the taxpayer. They already benefit from uniquely broad spending powers, and the Bill rightly makes that power more accountable to the electorate. However, as the Committee knows, the Scottish Government argued prior to the establishment of the Committee at Holyrood that full fiscal decentralisation would grow the Scottish economy by an extra 1% per year. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 37 of that report, which states that

“the First Minister’s claim—of an additional 1% growth per year—is an exaggerated version of what Professors Hughes Hallett and Scott have stated in their research.”

The Committee concluded that the evidential base for the statements made by Professors Hughes Hallett and Scott was, in its words, “remarkably weak” and that claims did not stand up to scrutiny. The Scottish Government did not provide any detail in the legislative consent motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point and one which even those who have argued for fiscal decentralisation admitted in Committee, including Ben Thomson from Reform Scotland, who had been a firm advocate of that policy. It was stated that all the evidence showed that it is the powers that are available and how they are used, and factors that are not purely fiscal, such as technological progress, investment in human capital and policies on education, that largely determine economic growth. Many of those powers are already with the Scottish Government.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady asserted that no information had been provided. The Scottish Government provided an extraordinary amount of information, much of it at the request of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and all of which, I understand, is in the annex to the full report that it published, so that assertion was wrong.

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman did not refer to any of that evidence in support of his amendments. He also did not refer—why would he; it would be too embarrassing—to the purpose of the national conversation, which the Scottish Government instructed, and the many position papers that civil servants were struggling to produce and make sense of, at considerable cost to the Scottish taxpayer at a time when the resources could have been much better used.

The hon. Gentleman provided us with no independent evidence or statistics showing how, if fuel duty is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it will result in a benefit to the taxpayer. The matter is urgent and we require immediate action. That is why we have called on the Chancellor to reverse the Tory-led Government’s VAT rise immediately and to suspend the fuel duty rise due in April. That would provide immediate relief to taxpayers and to drivers right across Scotland. That is the best way we can help people with motoring costs now.

The Calman commission recommended that the power on aggregates be devolved. We support that principle. The Government have indicated their intention to devolve it, presumably on the assumption that the court case will be decided in the Government’s favour. I would welcome the Minister’s comments when he replies, to confirm that that is still the Government’s intention.

It would be helpful to the Committee to understand what progress has been made on the Government’s review of air passenger duty, when they think that review will be complete, when they expect to be able to devolve the tax and whether they still wish to maintain the scheduled date of 2015.

New clause 17 relates to corporation tax, which the Scottish Government have been talking about for a considerable time. The pertinent questions that we all must consider carefully are what exactly does the SNP wish to do with the proposed power, where does it see the revenue gain coming from, and on what evidence is that based. Do we follow the Irish example of having a super-low rate, or do we follow the view of the SNP in Edinburgh and have retail business levy proposals, which were very badly thought out and arbitrarily proposed without consultation? Are we a high-tax or low-tax nation? Do we believe in high-quality, good value public services, or do we want to have a lower public expenditure base?

Some people believe that Ireland is an exact example for Scotland, but I argue that it certainly is not. Sadly, we no longer have the arc of prosperity argument from the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, it is important to note that when Ireland introduced its policy it was in a very weak economic position and the loss of revenue was relatively small, but that would not be the case for Scotland, which has a well-developed economy. If corporation tax is devolved, EU state rules require that the devolved Administration must not be protected from the revenue consequences of their decision.

It is clear that cutting corporation tax rates will cut revenue, at a minimum for some years, as suggested in the Exchequer evidence to the Holyrood Committee:

“A 10% cut in corporation tax in Scotland might cost about £600 million per year for an indeterminate period.”

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has not specified what figure his party proposes for corporation tax, what loss to the Exchequer will result and when his party believes it will recoup the loss. No one in Scotland will want us to vote on the issue until we have the pertinent answers.

The CBI and other business organisations have firmly stated that they are against differential rates within the UK. Many of the experts who gave evidence to the Committee in Holyrood noted that it would create economic distortions—the brass-plating of booking profits through Scotland by manipulating transfer pricing. I refer Members to paragraph 54 of the Holyrood Committee’s report, which states:

“The Committee does not believe that Scotland should seek to maximise its tax income by becoming a tax haven for companies operating elsewhere in the UK.”

I entirely agree with that approach.

Some evidence was given regarding the example of Switzerland, which has a highly federalised and separate tax system in its various cantons, but the Swiss example points out that that would tend to lead to lower public expenditure. Is this what the SNP proposes for Scotland? The people of Scotland need to know whether the answer is yes or no. Paragraph 494 of the Committee’s report states that Professor Anton Muscatelli noted that the Swiss example is one where there has been

“a shift from corporate taxation to personal income taxation.”

He also pointed out that that is a volatile tax.

Hon. Members will be aware of that volatility, which occurred after the 2007 fiscal crisis. The major payers of corporation tax in this country are our banks and financial institutions. They took a huge hit in 2007-08 and onwards. The cost for the Scottish public amounted to £10,000 for every man, women and child in Scotland. Where would those funds have come from if the Scottish Government had had to bear the entire cost? Is the SNP willing to allow Scottish public finances to take that level of risk? Is it saying that it wishes to see a cut in taxes on banks? Yes or no? We have had no answer to that either. Labour has argued that the banks are not paying an appropriate share towards deficit reduction in this country and has again called today for the bank levy to be increased in the Budget.

In paragraph 505 of the Holyrood report, Professor Iain McLean, whom the hon. Member for Dundee East quoted, points out that the Northern Ireland experience between 1920 and 1972, when corporation tax was devolved, was marked by widespread tax avoidance.

Many similar questions need to be asked, but at the end of the day the SNP has failed to say what it wants to do with the tax, what kind of tax regime it wants in Scotland and what it proposes in relation to bank taxes: is it for lower or higher taxes? Today, there has been the sound of deafening silence.

I have a number of questions to ask the Government about clause 24 itself. They have still to respond in detail to the Holyrood Committee’s report, and given the timing of next week’s Budget I am sure the Exchequer Secretary has many other things in his basket. Does he not agree that, given the considerable number of points that the report raises, we can anticipate at least some substantive amendments from the Government? If so, does he agree that, to ensure the maximum amount of democratic scrutiny, they should be tabled prior to Report, not simply left until the Bill arrives in the House of Lords?

Last week, the Government announced a consultation on the so-called Cadder clauses, which, as the Exchequer Secretary is aware, were not part of the original Calman commission. That consultation will continue until mid-May. Does he not agree again that it would be better to postpone Report until it is complete in order to allow us properly to scrutinise in the Commons this important legislative and constitutional reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

You may not have been present the last time I spoke on the Scotland Bill, Mr Walker, but it was my birthday. Every time I speak about the Scotland Bill, it feels like my birthday.

In contrast to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), the Bill offers real progress for Scotland and a recognition of all that has been achieved at Holyrood. At the same time, it offers the stability of remaining as part of the Union, which protects Scotland against some risks. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be disappointed by what he called the politics in the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee. Perhaps, however, we should look at the history of how we have come to this point.

We had the Scottish constitutional convention and the Calman commission, both of which the hon. Gentleman’s party declined to be part of. Those things stand in sharp contrast to the SNP’s own record, because the national conversation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) spoke about at some length, has delivered nothing for the people of Scotland or the Scottish Parliament. That contrasts with what is on offer before the Committee today. Of course there is detail in the Bill that we need the Government to iron out, but even the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament—I believe it is the first time that a Committee of that type has been established, to give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves and merits—has acknowledged that there is time to work on some of the details.

We could fair see how all puffed up with pride the hon. Gentleman was about all the amendments that he had brought before us, but I have to say that I found his arguments unconvincing. The SNP had all the time that Calman was discussing a way forward to come up with some detailed proposals, and it had some weeks of the Scotland Bill Committee’s work in Holyrood, yet what do we see? A single piece of paper containing its proposals for lasting change and progress in Scotland. I am afraid that is the sum total of its contribution.

[Stewart Hosie]

This is very confusing. I am not puffed up with pride; I am simply doing my job. We have tabled amendments on capital borrowing, revenue borrowing, corporation tax, fuel duty, air passenger duty, aggregates duty and previously on air weapons, road safety, the coastguard and other matters. I believe Labour’s substantive amendment would re-reserve some food labelling powers. That is not a hugely impressive record.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I will withdraw my remark, then, and acknowledge the humility that we have now heard from the hon. Gentleman. Up until 20 February, however, we had seen none of the details of the SNP proposals. I have sometimes accused Conservative Members of shotgun legislation, and I have to level that accusation against him as well.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I absolutely agree. The whole process has been about consultation, and at some point the SNP has to admit that perhaps the reason why it has been outside the process, and why it had to file a minority report, is that it is just plain wrong on this issue. I genuinely appeal to SNP Members to pause and consider whether Unionist parties would really advance legislation that would put Scotland and the Union at risk.

I am tempted to think that spring has come to the House, because what we have heard today is not the sound of chickens but the sound of constitutional cuckoos. That is what SNP Members are. They allow others to do the work and build the nest, then they come and try to throw our eggs out.

[Stewart Hosie]

We are hearing some interesting analogies. Far from throwing the eggs or the chicks out of the nest, we are bringing to the table today the aggregates levy amendment recommended by the Committee in the Scottish Parliament and by Calman. We hope to divide the Committee on it today. Will the hon. Lady join us in backing it?

[Fiona O'Donnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, or if he was not able to follow it, I am afraid I cannot take responsibility for that.

I will press on and talk about the SNP’s corporation tax proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has read the Command Paper, which was signed off by both the Secretary of State for Scotland and I. The debate relates to taxation, so it seems perfectly appropriate for a Treasury Minister to respond. Indeed, I warmly welcome the kind response I got from the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). It is very unusual for me to be described as a “big gun” but I am none the less grateful for those words. The Scotland Office and the Treasury have worked closely on the Bill, and in particular on the provisions that we are debating, and I am pleased to continue that co-ordination.

[Stewart Hosie]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I have never given way quite so often, but perhaps this is the way it works.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister suggests that he signed off the Command Paper with the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the names on it are those of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am sure the Minister’s name is in there somewhere, but it would be good if he could tell us where.

[Mr Gauke]

I only wish I could have signed it off—such is my enthusiasm for the Command Paper. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, however, and the point I made was that the Treasury signed off the Command Paper. We work happily as one Government, so I am pleased to be able to respond to the amendments—assuming I now have the chance to do so.

The Government’s proposals in the Bill facilitate the largest transfer of power from the United Kingdom to Scotland since the creation of the UK. By devolving stamp duty land tax and the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, the Scottish Parliament will be able to raise approximately one third of its own budget, thereby significantly improving its financial accountability. Only last Thursday, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Bill—121 in favour, three against and one abstention. To devolve additional taxes now, as the hon. Member for Dundee East argues, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be thoroughly inappropriate. There has been a long consultative process that both the UK Government and the Scottish Government and Parliament have been through, so to include the devolution of additional taxes now, on a whim, would not be the right course of action.

As well as those general points, there are some specific reasons why these taxes should not be devolved now in the Bill. I shall deal with those in a little detail. First, on amendment 37 and new clause 8, the Calman commission did not recommend that fuel duty be devolved. It concluded that different fuel duty rates would make artificial opportunities for cross-border shopping, creating economic distortions. More significantly, however, it highlighted the EU energy products directive that sets a principle of one rate of fuel duty per member state. Devolving fuel duty to the Scottish Parliament would require the EU to grant the UK a derogation from this directive, and the Calman commission acknowledged that it would be unlikely to be granted. A contrast can be drawn with the rural fuel discount derogation that the Government are pursuing.

Amendment 58 and new clause 15 relate to quarrying and mining. Although the Calman commission recommended devolving the aggregates levy, a tax on quarrying and mining is much wider and has not been endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. Even if the scope of the amendment was narrowed to devolve only aggregates extracted from the land, as Calman recommended, I would not accept it at this point. The aggregates levy is currently under legal challenge in the EU courts, and it would be reckless to devolve it while the challenge remains. I will not devolve a tax to the Scottish Parliament where there is any risk that it could subsequently be deemed to be illegal. That would be a substantial risk for the Scottish Parliament, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed many of those issues earlier, but let me make this point about the devolution of tax. It is important to have the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is why we are proceeding as we are, which is not the approach of the Scottish National party. Neither this Government nor, I believe, the vast majority of hon. Members would seriously consider making amendments that affected the powers of the Scottish Parliament without its consent. However, as has been said, devolution is a process, not an event. This is an enabling Bill. The Scottish Parliament can ask for additional tax powers over the course of time and have them duly considered. Clause 24 gives the power to add new devolved taxes. The Command Paper accompanying this Bill sets out the process for taking forward the devolution of the aggregates levy and air passenger duty, but any future devolution must happen with the wholehearted consent of the Scottish Parliament, not just following the proposals of a minority of Members of this House. Given that, I ask the hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw his amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

Let me respond briefly to some of the key points raised. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) talked about a fuel duty regulator, as he has done on a number of occasions. He knows very well the difficulties faced by hauliers and others in the south-west of Scotland. He asked whether I would give up on the proposal in this place if it were delivered in Scotland. I said in my speech that if the UK Government would not deliver it, the powers should be devolved, so that the Scottish Government could act. I simply want fair play on fuel. It is important that the power should be devolved, so that the Scottish Government can act if the UK Government will not.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) made an interesting speech, as she always does. She valiantly tried to defend the lack of Labour attempts to strengthen the Bill. She spoke in favour of Calman, but rejected one of the key Calman recommendations, which was the aggregates levy proposal. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) also made an interesting speech. She raised the notion of—I think—a £600 million loss every year if there was a 10p cut in corporation tax. No one has ever suggested an immediate 10p cut in corporation tax. That was a straw man, set up to be knocked down, and bears no relation to the policy of any party in this House.

[Ann McKechin]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify what rate of corporation tax he would propose if the power was devolved.

[Stewart Hosie]

I would like it cut over a number of years, taking the benefit of the announcement effect and taking advantage of the experience of other countries, where, with modest changes on a downward spiral in corporation tax, the business tax yield has increased. That is very sensible and is, I think, what the current Government have in mind.

Let me turn briefly to what the Minister said. He said that the proposal would provide around one third of Scotland’s budget. That is similar to the figure of 35% proposed by the Calman commission, but that included all the revenue proposed by Calman, much of which is not in the Scotland Bill. That figure was also calculated on a baseline that excluded capital expenditure from the Scottish budget. The Minister will find that the actual percentage share is considerably lower. He said that the Government would never seek to devolve taxes on a whim. Let me assure him that we would certainly not want to do that either. We would want to devolve taxes only to provide balance and a basket of taxes to mitigate any volatility, which may well arise when the bulk of our assigned revenue comes from a single, personal tax.

I am not convinced by many of the arguments I have heard. There is a very strong case indeed for trying to push forward with the Calman proposals, particularly on the aggregates levy, so I intend to divide the Committee on amendment 58, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 58, page 16, line 17, at end insert—

‘(c) Chapter 5 provides for an Order in Council to specify, as an additional devolved tax, a tax charged on quarrying or mining,’.—(Stewart Hosie.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to burden the taxpayer unnecessarily with additional questions and pieces of paper and that I think the residency basis is the simplest way to deal with this issue. The problem is that we have a floating definition of a UK resident taxpayer, and from that we are trying to define in very exact terms a Scottish resident taxpayer. That is the point at which there could be challenges, and sometimes mischief in that people might try to change their declaration of where they believe they are resident.

This situation is unlikely to arise for the vast majority of taxpayers in Scotland; most of them will be faced with a very simple exercise. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, in other jurisdictions with devolved income tax there are ways in which people have to declare where their residence is that we currently do not have in the UK. I want the Minister to say whether the Government are aware of any potential problems, and what measures they intend to put in place to avoid them, so that the maximum level of tax that is due is collected and returned to the Scottish Government, and so that administration is kept to a minimum. All hon. Members will be concerned about the cost to the Exchequer, and also about the costs to individual businesses. That is why I am asking these questions, but I agree that residency is the easiest way to define who should be liable to tax.

I also appreciate that a decision has been taken not to include interest on dividends and on savings. People will comment that that perhaps creates a degree of unfairness because some individuals get the majority of their income from those sources, but I acknowledge that there are complex and expensive practical difficulties in applying a residency test for those types of revenue, and that ultimately the benefit may not be great. We therefore understand why the Government have phrased the clauses in this way, but the devil is in the detail of defining exactly what they will mean in practice.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady will understand that there is a very close relationship, particularly at the lower levels of income, between dividends and savings income, income tax and, as importantly, income tax allowances and thresholds. We have not tabled amendments on this topic, and it is extremely complicated, but if it were proved that there is an inherent logic in bringing together income tax, the tax on savings and dividend income, and how that relates to thresholds, allowances and the Scottish rate, might the hon. Lady and her colleagues be prepared to listen to that argument in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

It is my contention that full financial responsibility would not benefit either Scotland or the UK more widely.

In conclusion, it has been made clear by the Scottish Parliament and acknowledged by the Calman commission report that reform of the devolution settlement in Scotland is essential. It is fair to assume that the Bill would exist regardless of which party was in government, and I hope it receives the support it deserves. Any futile disagreements with its premises discredit the fine work undertaken by the Calman commission and serve only to play partisan politics. It is difficult to argue against the income tax proposals laid out in the Bill as they further cement the coalition Government’s commitment to the localism agenda. That agenda is about devolving power to meet more local needs, but that does not mean that all powers can or should be devolved. Powers should be devolved to the most local level possible if feasible and responsible. I hope that if the Bill is successfully passed and implemented, Scotland will be able more effectively to deliver Scottish solutions for Scottish needs and the Scottish people. I support clause 26.

[Stewart Hosie]

I rise to support amendment 42, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and amendments 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50. All those amendments are concerned with the commencement only of a number of clauses. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who is not in her place, on her technical questions. I have a very similar list so I shall not reread the questions but I would like to reinforce two of the points that were made.

The first concerns Labour’s probing amendment 70, on retrospectivity in the tax code. I am seeking a guarantee, as far as the Minister can give one, that such use of any retrospective tax powers would only be in relation to stopping tax avoidance or tax evasion. That is extremely important. The second is about people on board ships and other installations. Is the Minister convinced that the description in new section 80E(4), introduced by clause 26, that a place

“includes a place on board a vessel or other means of transport”

is sufficient?

Before I address my amendments, let me make an observation about the lovely speech of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She spoke about accountability under the proposals and not wanting things to be fragmented. I wonder how having control of 50% of the base rate, a quarter of the 40% rate and only a fifth of the top rate, and having no control over allowances and thresholds, is unfragmented. I understand that she wants things to work, but I fear that she might not understand that that might be deflationary. She said that there would be a link between tax and spending, which there might well be, but the provisions in total will assign the Scottish Parliament control of only 15% or so of the tax raised in and on behalf of Scotland. She also said that the Bill was a fully worked out plan. It is so fully worked out that there are amendments that we do not yet have, which we will debate on Report, and I suspect that amendments will be tabled in the other place. Of course, the Bill is also likely to be subject to a second legislative consent memorandum after the Scottish election, so it is not quite the fully worked out plan that she described.

Today, however, I am more concerned about commencement and I am glad that all the commencement amendments are being debated in a single group. They relate to tax provisions on the Scottish rate of income tax, stamp duty land tax and landfill tax, which come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, those provisions will not have any practical effect at that point because the Bill includes an additional step requiring the Treasury to appoint a tax year as the first year in which the income tax provisions are to operate. For SDLT and landfill tax, the Treasury will appoint a specific start date, but the principle is the same. Until the Treasury does that, those tax provisions will sit on the statute book without changing the current arrangements whereby the UK Parliament controls all aspects of income tax, SDLT and landfill tax. Similarly, although the measures to repeal the current Scottish variable rate provisions will commence two months after Royal Assent, they will have no practical effect until the Treasury appoints a tax year as the last tax year in which SVR will operate.

This two-stage approach to commencement is highly unusual but not unique. The practical effect is that the tax proposals will operate only when the Treasury decides they should. The powers conferred on the Treasury to appoint start dates are not subject to any parliamentary procedure and will not even be publicised by means of statutory instrument. The processes for bringing the tax provisions into effect do not require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Ministers or even the Westminster Parliament. That would be a fundamental flaw in terms of scrutiny, particularly where the commencement of flawed provisions would result in something damaging the economy.

The SNP believes that there has to be a role for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government have outlined the serious gaps remaining in the proposals, not least the fact that crucial details remain unknown. It is essential that the Bill should include a specific mechanism giving the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to consider the proposals after Royal Assent but before they are brought into effect. Our amendments seek to change the commencement provisions to ensure that the tax provisions cannot be brought into effect without the specific consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As the Bill alters the devolution settlement, the Scottish Government do not consider it appropriate for the key provisions on taxation to be brought into effect by means of an administrative decision by the Treasury. There are plenty of precedents for Scottish consent to be required before UK legislation comes into force. Section 127(4) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 requires a joint order to be made by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers before certain measures can be brought into force. Section 148 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 contains a range of commencement procedures involving Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly. Certain provisions in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 relating to football banning orders require the consent of Scottish Ministers before being brought into force. Finally, the Public Bodies Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, includes a requirement to obtain the consent of Scottish Ministers before an order abolishing or reforming a public body is made where that order includes provisions on a devolved matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that that is entirely in order. I am sure the Chair would not want me to be diverted into that matter.

I assure hon. Members that the Treasury is not seeking a general power to impose retrospective legislation. I am not in a position to predict what consequential changes might be needed to other legislation because of future finance or other Acts in relation to the Scottish rate of income tax. The period of potential retrospection is rightly restricted to the start of the tax year in which the order is made, so that if we need to make a consequential change it can take effect at the same time as the provision to which it is consequential. To do otherwise would create complexities.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister will recall that on a small number of occasions an anti-avoidance measure went further back than the start of a financial year. In those circumstances, would he have to come back and seek a different power so that an avoidance measure in England went further back than the start of the financial year in Scotland? I would not like to see such an irregularity.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is right. There are circumstances in which anti-avoidance measures have been retrospective and go back further. As I say, the power would take us only to the beginning of the relevant tax year in which the order is made. Other sorts of anti-avoidance measure would not fall under this power because of the constraint within it. The Bill is not designed to meet that purpose. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with some clarity. I hope also that my comments on amendments 68 to 70 are helpful and that he now feels able to withdraw the amendments.

Amendments 42 to 44 and 47 to 50 seek to make the process by which the Treasury appoints tax years to bring into effect the provisions relating to the new Scottish rate of income tax and the effective date that UK stamp duty land tax and landfill tax are disapplied subject to the consent of the Scottish Parliament. This is to be indicated by way of resolution. I consider this to be unnecessary. We have stated our intention to commence the Scottish rate of income tax from April 2016, and to devolve the landfill tax and stamp duty land tax by April 2015.

The Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament welcomed these proposals, as it stated in its report. The Scottish Parliament has now given its approval to the measures included in the Bill through the legislative consent motion. The Bill provides for the new Scottish rate of income tax to be brought into effect in such tax year as is appointed by the Treasury as a precautionary measure. Appointed day orders will be issued in advance of disapplying the stamp duty land tax and landfill tax. We have also tabled Government amendments, which I will come to later, to ensure that this process is completed by order made by statutory instrument so that these are printed and published for transparency.

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to deal with the amendments first, as I stated in my opening remarks. I will then deal with some of the questions that have been raised as a consequence, and touch on some of the administrative consequences of the changes.

We made it clear in the Command Paper that accompanied the Bill that if the Scottish Parliament is not ready to introduce the smaller taxes in April 2015, we would consider delaying the switch-off of the UK-wide versions of the taxes in Scotland. That said, we must be clear that clauses 29 and 31 enable the disapplication of the existing tax in Scotland. Should the Scottish Government and Parliament decide that they do not wish to put in place a Scottish version to cover the existing tax base, we will not leave the current stamp duty land tax or landfill tax in place. It will be for the Scottish Government to decide what, if any, arrangements they wish to put in place in this area once it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is clear. The problem arises if the timing is wrong. Why would the Minister disapply the existing legislation and leave a gap for the Scottish Government to fill at some point in the future? Why should disapplication not happen until the Scottish Parliament gives its explicit consent? Making that happen properly would match the respect agenda and avoid any difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 30 provides for the devolved tax on the disposal of waste to landfill sites in Scotland. One Calman commission recommendation on tax was to devolve landfill tax, which was endorsed by the Scottish Parliament when it voted its consent on 10 March.

The tax will be a devolved tax for the purposes of part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998, which is introduced by clause 24. That means that the Scottish Government and Parliament will have complete control over the design and administration of the Scottish landfill tax, allowing them to complement their wider waste policies and to legislate to introduce a devolved tax to replace the existing UK landfill tax in Scotland. I hope that answers the main questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

The revenue raised by the tax will remain in Scotland for use by the Scottish Government. Clause 30 provides as blank a canvas as possible for the Scottish Government to design their tax by simply providing the power to introduce a tax on material disposed of as waste to landfill sites in Scotland. It will come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which will allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the devolved tax, and for the Scottish Government to make the necessary administrative arrangements. The clause, however, provides that the devolved tax cannot apply to disposals made before the date on which the existing UK landfill tax is disapplied in Scotland, as provided in clause 31.

To answer the question on landfill tax competition, the Government are fully devolving that matter. Those setting the structure and rates of landfill tax in Scotland will clearly want to take into account the factors that were raised, such is the nature of devolution in such areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Disapplication of UK landfill tax

Amendment made: 64, page 24, line 8, after ‘Treasury’, insert ‘by order’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 32

Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers

[Stewart Hosie]

I beg to move amendment 51, page 24, line 20, leave out from ‘which’ to end of line 22 and insert—

‘are required by them to meet current expenditure because of a shortfall in receipts from the Scottish rate of income tax or devolved taxes.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 52, page 24, line 22, at end insert—

‘(1ZA) In borrowing sums under subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must have regard to any code of practice agreed by them and the Treasury.

(1ZB) A code of practice agreed under subsection (1ZA) may include provision as to—

(a) how the Scottish Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow,

(b) the terms and conditions on which sums may be borrowed,

(c) limits on the aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed.’.

Amendment 54, page 24, line 23, leave out from ‘may’ to ‘any’ in line 24 and insert ‘borrow’.

Amendment 55, page 24, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1C) In borrowing any sums under subsection (1A), the Scottish Ministers must have regard to any code of practice agreed by them and the Treasury.

(1D) A code of practive agreed under subsection (1C) may include provision as to—

(a) how the Scottish Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow,

(b) the terms and conditions on which sums may be borrowed,

(c) limits on the aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed.’.

Amendment 53, page 24, line 31, leave out subsections (6) to (8) and insert—

‘(5A) Subsections (2) and (3) are omitted.’.

Amendment 56, page 24, leave out line 38 to line 5 on page 25.

Amendment 57, page 25, leave out subsection (10).

Clause 32 stand part.

[Stewart Hosie]

The borrowing powers in the Bill are at the heart of devolution. On Second Reading, a number of serious questions were raised on both revenue and capital borrowing powers. I shall come to the detailed issues in the main part of my comments, but, fundamentally, I am seeking to put in place a code of practice for the Treasury and the Scottish Government to address limits, restrictions, thresholds, maximum amounts and the nature of borrowing, be it through bonds or direct loans from the consolidated fund. That is a sensible way to amend the Bill. To make such provisions otherwise would require draft orders to be tabled, but amendments to Bills cannot be made with draft orders. Much of the narrative on this matter is in the Command Paper, but it is likewise impossible to amend by amending the Bill.

The amendments are pretty self-explanatory but I would like to detail the reasons for them. The revenue-borrowing powers are fundamentally linked to the wider taxation proposals in the Bill. Both the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government have previously made clear their concerns about the tax proposals. If a full range of fiscal policy levers were available to the Scottish Government, it would have to include a borrowing regime with sufficient flexibility to allow public spending profiles to be managed across entire economic cycles, not simply four-year forecast periods. The UK Government’s proposals, however, fall far short of that, yet by exposing the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to cyclical fluctuations in income tax they embed a high degree of volatility in Scotland’s public finances, which cannot be right when we are seeking to protect public services and find means to grow the economy.

The Bill proposes to allow for annual borrowing of up to £200 million in any one year, and for a maximum limit of £500 million to finance current expenditure where there are differences between forecasts and the outturns of Scottish tax revenue under the Bill’s income tax proposals. Loans must be made within four years of being taken out. I understand that these provisions are additional to the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows revenue borrowing for the purposes of providing cash balances and maintaining cash flow. The aggregate limit of the Act is also £500 million, so the additional purpose proposed in the Bill, plus the passage of the 13 years since the original limit was set, has apparently not been considered sufficient reason for lifting the limit. We do not believe that that is credible.

The Bill also lacks flexibility to deal not necessarily with forecast errors, but forecast falls identified in advance. I will return later to the reason that that is a problem. More crucially, the provisions in the Bill are insufficient to manage volatility in tax receipts that might reasonably be expected to occur. Importantly, over the past decade, UK Government income tax forecasts have, on average, been overly optimistic, and the annual cap of £200 million would have been insufficient to offset deviations in income tax receipts relative to forecasts in recent years.

[Jim McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman might have heard me earlier saying that these proceedings are televised. The general public would like to know what we are speaking about, so will he keep his remarks as understandable as possible?

[Stewart Hosie]

I thought that my remarks were always understandable. The problem is that we are dealing with the technical provisions—the fiscal and borrowing powers—of a Bill. It is necessarily technical. However, I shall try to summarise it in plain English, if possible, when I get towards the end of my remarks.

In 2010-11, the difference between the Treasury’s original forecast for UK income tax and the most recent estimate is about £35 billion. Under the Scotland Bill, an equivalent forecasting error would have reduced the Scottish Government’s budget by approximately £1 billion. The implication of that and the four-year payback period is that had the system been in place during the last spending review period, repayment of the loan would have had to be made within what are now pressurised budgets—a £1.3 billion cut to Scotland this year, and over £3 billion in the comprehensive spending review—between now and 2014.

In contrast, the UK Government can spread the repayment of cyclical borrowing over a significantly longer period to ensure that it does not adversely impact on the resources available for public services. That is important, because it is accepted in all parts of the House that in times of recession or downturn, tax revenue falls and borrowing goes up—that is an automatic stabiliser—but the same implicit provision has not been made in the Bill. That is a flaw that I know is now recognised by people in many parties.

The inadequacy of the borrowing powers for this purpose was highlighted in the written evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee from Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett and Professor Drew Scott. They said:

“Over the decade before the current recession, 1997-2007, the UK governments track record for income tax receipts is one of forecast errors that range between +7% to -4%, with an average of +1.1%”

a year. They continued:

“Since borrowing will follow from overestimates”—

the real amount will be less than the forecast—

“this means the Scottish Government will need to cut spending or borrow every year on average and should expect to exhaust its borrowing limit several times in a decade.”

To have such a flaw built into a Bill from the outset is profoundly unhelpful to the efforts of the Scottish Government to protect public services and grow the economy. The proposals also lack any ability to smooth the effects of cyclical downturns.

Unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government will have no opportunity to use borrowing to compensate for a forecast decline in income tax revenues in the event of, for example, an anticipated slowdown in the global economy. Scotland would have no option but to cut spending to match the reduction in revenue at precisely the time when we might want to invoke an economic stimulus—a policy of the previous Government that we supported. However, it would be impossible to do that, because cuts would be required to match a forecast fall in revenue.

The Bill misses the fundamental point about being able to respond effectively to the natural volatility of tax revenues in managing public expenditure. Paradoxically, the more accurate the Office for Budget Responsibility is at forecasting falls in future revenue, the greater the volatility in the budget, because borrowing is permitted not against a forecast fall but only against a discrepancy between the forecast and the actual level. That is a huge problem with the borrowing powers at the heart of the Bill. If the Exchequer Secretary or his Scotland Office colleague wants to indicate that they intend to table the necessary amendments on Report or later to rectify that, I would be happy for them to intervene at any point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McGovern]

Most hon. Members will know that the hon. Gentleman is my constituency neighbour. He mentioned “Strengthening Scotland’s Future”. Does he actually believe that separating Scotland from the UK would strengthen Scotland’s future?

[Stewart Hosie]

I certainly think that improving the provisions of the Bill that relate to capital borrowing would strengthen the Scottish Government’s ability to do the right thing, whoever was in power. If we want to have a debate about the relative merits of independence versus the Union, I am happy to do that—[Hon. Members: “When?”] Not today, because we are dealing with the Bill.

[Mr Frank Roy]

Does that mean that there will be a referendum in Scotland? Yes or no?

[Stewart Hosie]

I think it was Wendy Alexander who said, “Bring it on,” but Labour then ran away. Let us deal with the provisions of the Bill, because we need to get them right. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and respect, that we will have plenty of time in the next 52 days leading up to the Scottish elections to have this discussion, but we should not take up the Committee’s time tonight.

The Scottish Government, and the SNP here at Westminster, do not consider an arbitrary statutory limit on borrowing set by Westminster and lacking any objective justification to be an acceptable basis for an agreement between the Governments. In particular, an arbitrary limit this low will do little to promote long-term capital investment or responsible capital budgeting. A regime along the lines of the prudential borrowing regime that applies to local authorities, in which decisions are based on affordability, would be far more appropriate. Such an approach could be operated within the guidelines suggested in our amendment. Such guidelines would be agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments, including any terms, conditions and limits set out in the code in relation to capital borrowing between the Treasury and the Scottish Government.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I was present when Fiona Hyslop gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I am aware that the SNP’s position is to promote unlimited borrowing. Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that the UK Government do have some interest in this matter, given that any amount that a future Scottish Government might choose to borrow under his proposal would have an impact on the deficit here and on the country as a whole?

[Stewart Hosie]

I recognise that, which is why the proposal is about affordability, and why the code of practice would have to be based on established principles to promote long-term sustainability. Of course, within that, there understandably has to be a recognition of the debt and the deficit position. I was critical of the rise in the deficit, and in the debt, in Budgets from 2005 onwards, before the recession and before the banking crisis, so of course sustainability and affordability have to be considered within this proposal and dealt with in some detail.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

The hon. Gentleman is really confusing me. He seems to be trying to have his Dundee cake and eat it. He said that, in times of difficulty, the last thing we should do is cut expenditure. Is he saying that it was wrong of the previous Government to spend money bailing out the banks when we faced the crisis?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I said that I welcomed the fiscal stimulus to the economy. Many of the efforts on financial intervention were absolutely necessary, and I supported them. Of course that had to be done. My criticism was not that action was taken during difficult periods, but that we went into the recession and the downturn with half a trillion pounds of debt. I am digressing, however—

[Mr Davidson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am not giving way immediately, as I want to carry on developing my case on capital borrowing.

Any code has to take into consideration all the issues and be based on an established set of principles for long-term sustainability. That is incredibly important. The Bill, however, currently limits borrowing to loans, which prevents the use of bonds and other instruments. That is significantly more restrictive than the borrowing powers available to Scottish local authorities and to many Governments in other countries with comparable responsibility.

[Mr Davidson]

I want to clarify whether the hon. Gentleman has a specific figure in mind for borrowing. I understand his point about the criteria, but it would be immensely helpful if he gave us an indication, first, of the figure and, secondly, of whether the bonds and other means of borrowing money would be in addition to that amount or part of the total.

[Stewart Hosie]

I do not have a specific figure, and let me tell the hon. Gentleman why. If bonds are issued in such a way as to generate revenue, that revenue can be used in one sense to offset the level of the loans. That is why I am not being prescriptive about the amount. What I am saying is that the cumulative £2.2 billion is too low for the reasons that I have explained and that the code of practice would allow us to take into consideration all the sustainability and affordability issues and reach a figure that would be much more appropriate. I am not going to be prescriptive; it would be wrong for me to do that.

[Mr Davidson]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

I will give way one more time on this point.

[Mr Davidson]

If the hon. Gentleman cannot give a figure, how can he say that £2.2 billion is too small? How does he arrive at that judgment when he is unable to use the same reasoning to identify what the figure might be?

[Stewart Hosie]

There are annual amounts and cumulative amounts. The annual amount at 10% of the capital departmental expenditure limit is very modest and the cumulative amount is less than the amount spent on capital in recent years. That strikes me as inappropriate when we are seeking to stimulate the economy and do all the things that the hon. Gentleman and I both want to see happen. As we can have revenue streams coming in to offset some of this, I do not want to put a limit on it, but the code of practice would do that. [Interruption.] I am not going to be drawn on that. I have explained why and I want to move on to bonds, which is another important issue.

Professor Gerald Holtham said in his evidence to the Committee that there is no macro-economic rationale to prevent the Scottish Government from having bond-issuing powers. I raised that on Second Reading, when I said:

“The borrowing powers in the Bill will limit the Scottish Government to certain types of borrowing. They will be able to use loans, rather than bonds or other instruments that would provide greater flexibility. Transport for London, which is a local authority in respect of its borrowing powers, is currently issuing commercial paper worth £7 billion for Crossrail and other projects. Birmingham city council issued paper to the tune of £250 million in 2006”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 541.]

As I said at the time, it is strange that what should be a seriously enhanced power for the Scottish Parliament, as described in the Bill, does not even put it on a par with TfL or Birmingham city council in its ability to raise cash through commercial paper for important national infrastructure works.

Professor Iain McLean and others have noted that bond issues would have several benefits. First, they would provide the Scottish Government with greater flexibility in the financing of capital projects, and the ability to issue a range of instruments would allow projects to be financed by a mixed portfolio of borrowing both in terms of repayment periods and the interest and other terms of the borrowing instrument. Secondly, in certain circumstances, issuing instruments in the market may offer a better deal on rates and repayment terms than a loan from the Treasury or a commercial bank. Indeed, the Treasury recently announced in the spending review a 1% rise in the charge or cost on loans from the Public Works Loan Board, increasing the cost of local authority borrowing. Having an option to seek financing from the market would provide an alternative in the event of a punitive interest rate being imposed at some future point by the Treasury. Professor McLean said in his evidence that

“it should be for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers—not the UK Parliament or UK ministers—to decide on the soundness of the capital projects to which they commit themselves, and to deal with revenue fluctuations.”

That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). If we are serious about responsibility—I hope that we all are—the Scottish Government must be allowed to make the decisions. Those decisions should land squarely on the desks of Scottish Ministers, or those in whatever other body is responsible for raising capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

I welcome the clauses relating to borrowing powers. We agree that they make sense in terms of both short-term revenue and capital.

In paragraph 597 of its report, the Holyrood Committee accepted that

“Given its responsibility for macroeconomic management”,

the United Kingdom Government

“has a proper interest in the flow of borrowing”.

We agree with that. However, there is a worthwhile discussion in the report about evidence from the Government and other experts relating to the overall level of borrowing, both short-term and on the capital account, and we think that the Government should consider the Committee’s arguments. It did not identify an alternative figure, but made some suggestions that we think worthy of consideration. I ask the Government to confirm that they will examine the report in detail, and will take the earliest opportunity to present their assessment to the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I note that the Scottish Government will be able to borrow from commercial lenders as well as from the National Loans Fund, and I welcome that as well.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) should be careful. I assume that his are primarily probing amendments, and I think it right to test some of the issues discussed in the Holyrood Committee, but as well as looking for the benefits, he must accept the responsibilities of the Scottish Government for overall public sector borrowing limits. Although we may disagree with the Government on what those limits should be and on the scale of the deficit reduction, we accept that as an important criterion in the debate.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to be generous and accept that I made it clear on two occasions that affordability and sustainability must be taken into consideration. No one wants to do anything silly with the public finances.

[Ann McKechin]

That marks a first. I cannot recall the Scottish Government asking for less money. I seem to remember that when Labour was in government, they kept asking for more money and saying that they did not have enough.

The hon. Gentleman made a comment about the deficit. Before 2007 it was about 2%, which was perfectly manageable within the fiscal settlement. The increase in the deficit was primarily caused by the banking crisis, which was an international crisis as the hon. Gentleman accepts, and by the fact that we stimulated the economy, which he also accepts, although he said we should have stimulated it even more. He cannot have his Dundee cake and eat it, however. He either accepts one interpretation of what happened, or he accepts the interpretation of the coalition Government, which we believe to be false.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of queries about the Holyrood Committee recommendations, particularly in respect of the requirement that the first £120 million of any tax shortfall must be met by spending reductions in the year in question. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the rationale for imposing that. I think that measure is in the Command Paper—it is not in the Bill itself, of course. This issue is of particular concern in the light of the Government’s decision to abolish the end-of-year flexibility scheme at very short notice this year, which will cost the Scottish budget an estimated £23 million.

When the Minister gave evidence to the LCM Committee, he drew a distinction in respect of end-of-year finance arrangements, but at no point did he intimate that the Government or Chief Secretary to the Treasury had decided that they would be gobbling up the £23 million as part of the deficit reduction plan. That raises concerns about the nature of the relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in the so-called respect agenda. Will the Minister confirm at what point this issue was raised with the Joint Ministerial Committee and the Scottish Government? Why was no mention made of this when he and the Chief Secretary were giving evidence to the LCM Committee? Again, this is about trust and the maintaining of good governmental relationships. As I have mentioned before, it is key that that is maintained to the highest degree in these clauses.

There have been issues to do with the Government’s criterion of setting a limit of £2.2 billion for capital expenditure. There are some very good suggestions in the Committee’s report about increasing borrowing capacity, which we think are worthy of consideration.

Finally, as the Minister will be aware, my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have called for the borrowing powers to be brought forward from the proposed implementation date of April 2013 to April 2012. Given that we anticipate that this legislation will be on the statute book by the end of this year and before the next financial year, I can see no good reason why the power cannot be advanced to April 2012, which, as the Minister will be aware, is within the current comprehensive spending review period. That would assist the Scottish Government —of whatever political hue—in making appropriate planning decisions after the election. If the Minister could give an early indication that the Government are minded to bring forward the introduction of this power to 2012, that would be widely welcomed. I therefore hope he can give the Committee one positive piece of news tonight.

[Mr Gauke]

I propose to deal with amendments 51 to 57 first, and I recognise that, as has been said, they partly overlap with the report from the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out last week, the UK Government will consider the recommendations in the Committee’s report thoroughly, alongside an assessment of the impact on the UK fiscal position.

The purpose of amendment 51 is twofold. First, it would remove the requirement for Scottish Ministers to access revenue borrowing to meet current expenditure only in accordance with rules determined by the Treasury. Secondly, it would allow such borrowing to be accessed due to a shortfall in outturn receipts against forecast receipts from devolved taxes and the Scottish rate of income tax. I will deal with each of those in turn.

On the need for borrowing by Scottish Ministers to comply with rules determined by the Treasury, I note that the report from the Scotland Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament—where the Scottish Government voted with the motion—recognised the need for the UK Government to constrain the borrowing powers. I am delighted that there appears to be a consensus in the Committee that nobody wants to do anything silly with the public finances, as one could have been forgiven for thinking that that has not been the case over recent years.

There are important reasons for Scottish Ministers to comply with Treasury rules on borrowing. The Bill’s new borrowing powers will sit within the UK fiscal framework as a whole; interest on Scottish borrowing will be included in the total UK public sector borrowing aggregates. As overall macro-economic policy will continue to be a reserved matter, it is necessary for the UK Government to set controls and limits on the borrowing powers in order to retain overall control of UK borrowing, protect overall economic stability and minimise fiscal risks to the UK Exchequer. This Government believe that the specific terms and conditions set out in the Bill and the Command Paper strike the right balance between protecting overall levels of UK debt and increasing the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

On the second point, I wish to thank hon. Members for bringing an important discrepancy to the attention of the Committee. Although the Command Paper was clear that revenue borrowing would be used to meet current expenditure because of a shortfall in receipts compared with forecast in devolved taxes and the Scottish rate of income tax, the Bill was not so clear. The Government will therefore introduce their own minor and technical amendment on Report to include the Scottish rate of income tax alongside devolved taxes. In conclusion, given the continued control by the Government over the UK fiscal mandate and the fact the Government will be introducing their own amendment in respect of the second issue, I ask the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) to withdraw the amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Exchequer Secretary has said that the Government will be bringing the Scottish rate of income tax into the consideration, and I presume that that is still to allow borrowing when the actual figure there is less than the forecast. But that does not address the fundamental issue that if there is a forecast fall, the Scottish Parliament will take the entire hit, because there is still no cyclical borrowing—borrowing where a forecast fall actually happens.

[Mr Gauke]

The point of the amendments that will be introduced on Report is to do exactly as I have described. May I make a point about the cyclical impact and the adequacy of current borrowing? In the past downturn, income tax receipts fell by about 6% or 7%, so we are looking at a variation of 6% or 7% of the £4.5 billion estimated Scottish income tax receipts. That is about 1% of the Scottish budget, because it needs to be seen against the continuing bedrock of stability afforded by the block grant. I make that point so that we can place this issue in context.

Amendments 53 and 66 would have the effect of removing the borrowing limits. They do not replace the limit with an alternative figure, as has been made clear following a number of interventions from hon. Members, so I have assumed that the intention is for these limits to be determined by a new “code of practice”, as set out by the hon. Member for Dundee East and put forward in amendments 52 and 55. There are important reasons why the Bill contains limits, which I have already set out and which include the fact that Scottish borrowing would have an impact on the UK borrowing figures. It is surely right that the limit should be determined by the House, first through its consideration of the Bill and subsequently through approval of any order altering the limit. UK Government analysis continues to suggest that the limits in the Bill for revenue borrowing, together with the Scottish budget absorbing the first 0.5% of the deviation between forecast and outturn receipts, are sufficient in normal conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I note the hon. Lady’s comments. We are looking carefully at the recommendations by the Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We note her representations, and we will respond in due course. I wish to underline the fact that it is of absolute importance that we manage to maintain credibility, which is perhaps why there is less flexibility now than there may be in future. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested that there might be greater flexibility in future, but we would need to assess that nearer the time. However, I note the hon. Lady’s remarks on the transitional period for borrowing.

Amendment 57 is consequential on amendment 56. As hon. Members wish to remove the borrowing limits from the Bill and the ability to revise those limits with the approval of the House, clause 32 (10) would no longer by necessary as there would be no such secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) raised the issue of end-of-year funds across all the devolved Administrations and Departments amounting to some £20 billion. Such large sums of accrued EYF present a fiscal risk to the UK Government, which is why new arrangements will be detailed in the forthcoming Budget. I hope that that clarification is helpful.

I thank the hon. Members for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the important borrowing powers provided by the Bill. This has been a helpful and perhaps probing debate—we shall see. However, we do not accept any of the amendments, so I invite the hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw amendment 51. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that hon. Members agree that that clause 32 should stand part of the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister has said a great deal, and it was very instructive indeed. The Scottish Government will still be required to absorb the 0.5% cut in the budget before revenue borrowing can take place. On current forecasts, there would perhaps be £127 million in extra cuts even before we could borrow. There has been no confirmation that cyclical borrowing is permitted—it will still only be against changes to the forecast, which means that if there is a forecast fall we take the full hit. That cannot be right if the Office for Budget Responsibility is accurate and there is increased volatility in the Scottish budget. Repayments on the revenue will still be made over four years, which might well mean that if we borrowed at the height of the recession we would now be paying back, because it is such a short-term repayment schedule, even though there is already additional pressure on the Scottish budget.

The Minister said that capital borrowing of £2.2 billion on a 10% annual CDEL was exceptional, but the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Committee did not think so. He is flatly ignoring the recommendations that have been made. He was anxious that the requirement for the Treasury to approve borrowing should be removed. I ask, what price the respect agenda? Incredibly, he offered no support for bonds, even though it was an explicit Committee recommendation that the

“Scottish Parliament should have the power to borrow directly from the markets by issuing bonds.”

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) sensibly asked what the Tory members of the Scottish Parliament Committee would make of that. One might ask what the Liberal members of the Scottish Parliament Committee make of that. I might ask what all the Unionist members of that Committee would make of that, given that they thought they had a deal and that the recommendations would see the light of day in one form or another in amendments in Committee, on Report or in another place. We will be watching extremely carefully to see whether the Government backtrack now on what appeared to be promises, abandoning all the recommendations of the Scottish Committee, which would be a shameful thing to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but given how little comfort we have had, I intend to divide the Committee on amendment 52.

Amendment 51, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 52, page 24, line 22, at end insert—

‘(1ZA) In borrowing sums under subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must have regard to any code of practice agreed by them and the Treasury.

(1ZB) A code of practice agreed under subsection (1ZA) may include provision as to—

(a) how the Scottish Ministers are to determine and keep under review how much they can afford to borrow,

(b) the terms and conditions on which sums may be borrowed,

(c) limits on the aggregate at any time outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed.’.—(Stewart Hosie.)

Question put, That the amendment be made:

Fuel Costs

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The following is the response given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) relating to a question from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during the debate on Fuel Costs on 7 February 2011.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady has been very generous indeed. She asks us to welcome the actions that the Government have taken in terms of a deficit consolidation plan. I like and respect her, but I will never welcome a £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish budget this year and a £3.2 billion cut to the Scottish block over the next four years. That is the wrong thing to do in terms of stimulating economic growth and growing our way out of the recession. If we could focus on the fuel duty, that would be particularly helpful, unless of course she wants to devolve the duty to Scotland, in which case I would be absolutely delighted as we could take all the right decisions.

Banking

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes the very good point that we need to see more support for small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies and in our economy. The regional business fund that I talked about, to which the banks have today made a commitment of an additional £1 billion, is very important because it addresses one of the weaknesses in the British economy—the absence of support, particularly equity support, for small, expanding businesses. I think that this will make a significant contribution to that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Chancellor for his statement and for the early advance sight of it. I agree with what he said about the public’s response to the high levels of pay, which are not fair and reasonable and are not seen to be so. I welcome the very low cash bonuses for RBS and Lloyds staff and the decision for executive bonuses to be paid in shares only. May I suggest that that should rolled out to every bank every year as a matter of course? On the new bank lending, will he confirm that it will really be new, that it will go to the businesses that need it most, and that we will not be locked into excessive fees and charges?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is understood that the new Prudential Regulation Authority intends to do less than the Financial Services Authority did to reduce the probability of bank failure. Given that the failure of any bank, even with a proper resolution regime, could contribute to a systemic crisis in confidence, can I have the Chancellor’s assurance that he will put all the pressure he can on the PRA to ensure that it continues with active supervision to minimise the probability of bank failure at any level?

[Mr Osborne]

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I will certainly do that. I do not think that he has given a fair representation of the role that we expect the prudential regulator to fulfil. What I will say about the prudential regulator and the fact that it will come under the aegis of the Bank of England is this: I hope that it will exercise discretion and judgment as well as simply making sure that boxes are ticked. The decision to allow Royal Bank of Scotland to buy ABN AMRO in 2007 might have ticked the various boxes in the regulations at the time, but it was clearly the wrong judgment. I expect and hope that in future our new regulator would be able to step in at that point.

Fuel Costs

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the oil price has reached $100 a barrel, and that diesel in the UK is the most expensive in Europe; further notes that the combination of the 1 January 2011 duty rise and the increase in value added tax is estimated to have added 3.5 pence to the cost of a litre of fuel; acknowledges the sharp rises in fuel prices over the past year and the resulting impact on headline inflation figures; recognises the financial pressure this places on hard-pressed families and businesses already struggling with high inflation and the impact of the recent rise in value added tax; condemns the Government’s continued dithering over the implementation of a fuel duty regulator (or stabiliser) as neither a sustainable or stable way to make tax policy; further recognises the specific additional fuel costs for those living in remote and rural parts of the UK; is concerned that diesel in such places is approaching £7 per gallon; condemns the Government for its failure to prioritise the implementation of a fuel duty derogation; and calls for the introduction of a fuel duty derogation to the most remote areas at the earliest opportunity.

The issue of high and spiking fuel prices is one of major concern around the country, as we can witness from the campaigns run by national and local newspapers and by campaign groups local and national the length and breadth of the country. Those campaigns—my favourite is the “fight for fairer fuel” run by The Courier—are not driving public opinion but reflecting it.

I was taken by the front page of the newspaper a week or so ago, which stated, “Osborne ‘may override 1p fuel duty increase’”. The Chancellor had clearly been listening to some of the concerns that had been expressed. The newspaper went on to report that when he was asked on a local radio station if he could do anything about fuel duty, he said:

“We can over-ride it, we are looking at that.”

He also seemed to confirm that Ministers were looking into a fuel duty stabiliser so that, as he said,

“the Government steps in to try to protect people from the effects”

of volatility at the pumps.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is not just the Dundee Courier; the Stornoway Gazette is admirably drawing attention to rural fuel derogations in some areas of Europe, particularly Mediterranean islands that do not have the same fuel demands as the north of Scotland. The question has been raised why the matter is taking so long, why it is stalling in the European Commission and why the UK Government are not moving as efficiently and effectively as some European Governments in respect of their citizens’ needs.

[Stewart Hosie]

I will come to the rural fuel derogation in the second part of my comments, but in relation to the Stornoway Gazette, I am sure that there are many other such campaigns. My hon. Friend’s point reflects what I have just said—this is an issue of extreme concern in many parts of the country.

I was explaining that The Courier reported that the Chancellor had suggested that the Government were looking into a fuel duty stabiliser. I was about to say “so far, so good”, but unfortunately the next paragraph of the newspaper’s front page read:

“The Treasury later played down any suggestion that the Chancellor was announcing any intention to scrap the rise”.

The Government’s position is clear as mud.

Although the scrapping of a single rise would be extremely welcome, it is not what is fundamentally needed. We need a permanent fuel duty regulator and a stabiliser mechanism that is always in place to smooth out spikes when prices rise at the pump. It is not that the Government do not know that that is needed, because in the very same article, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is quoted as saying, I believe at a Press Gallery lunch:

“It is quite likely that we are going to get a nasty period of high fuel prices.”

I say to him that we are not going to get that; we already have a nasty period of very high fuel prices.

In January, diesel in Stornoway was £1.42 a litre—that is almost £6.50 a gallon. In Aviemore, in the Chief Secretary’s constituency, the price was £1.38 a litre, which is nearly £6.30 a gallon.

[Mr MacNeil]

Those prices almost seem cheap now. They have gone up to £1.45 and £1.46 a litre. At Benbecula airport today, I spoke to Rhoda Macauley, who lives in Daliburgh and has a 50 mile round trip to work at the check-in, and is seriously considering whether working is worth her while, such is the price of fuel.

[Stewart Hosie]

That does not surprise me. In previous debates, after we have experienced high spikes, several Members in the House and elsewhere have reflected their constituents’ views that they had almost reached the point when it was not worth going to work, particularly in rural areas with long distances to travel—I will deal with that later—because of the price of fuel. However, that applies not just in Stornoway, Aviemore or my hon. Friend’s constituency. In Dundee last week, I paid more than £1.33 a litre—more than £6 a gallon in the city. That is now not uncommon, and it is unsustainable. It is inflationary, decimates family budgets and puts untold pressure on many businesses and business sectors. It is having a catastrophic effect in remote and rural areas. That is why we call on the Tory part of the Government to keep its promise to consult on and deliver quickly a fuel duty stabiliser, and on the Liberal part of the Tory-led Government to keep its promise to deliver a fuel duty derogation for remote and rural areas.

I have said that the high fuel prices are bad for business. The Federation of Small Businesses has told me just how bad. According to its January poll of members, should fuel prices continue to rise, 62% of those polled said that they would be forced to increase their prices; one in 10 suggested that they may lay off staff; more than a quarter said that they could be forced to freeze wages; more than a third said that they would have to reduce investment; and 78% said that rises would put overall business profitability in jeopardy. When we are trying to grow our way out of recession and into sustainable recovery, that is the wrong thing to do.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. However, is not the position even worse, given that people in many rural areas and constituencies such as mine have no alternative but to move goods by road? There is simply no other way of getting goods to our towns, which are not served, apart from the coast, by the railway line.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In many parts of his constituency, goods must be moved by road. The days of rail terminals in Brechin or Forfar that would take freight are sadly long gone.

[Mr Weir]

I also point out that the idea that the goods can be moved by rail is flawed in any event because although, as my hon. Friend knows, a rail line goes through the coastal part of my constituency, there is no longer a goods terminal in Arbroath or Montrose, the two stations there. There is no alternative to road transport.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that hon. Members throughout the House will have examples of infrastructure that used to exist, but is no longer there, with the result that 100% dependence on roads is now the case.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the high prices also affect rural businesses, where petrol, diesel and other goods, such as groceries, are sold? Those businesses are hit by not only the price rise in fuel, but the cost of carrying goods to their shops. That is a dreadful burden for businesses in rural communities.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is absolutely right. The price is hugely inflationary in rural areas. It is also a problem in some of the poorer parts of our cities, where car ownership is remarkably low. It means that some people with modest means do not even have the ability to travel to a supermarket, where there may be discounted goods. Instead, they are forced to pay higher prices in certain urban centres. That should not happen.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue and to talk about the impact of high fuel prices on hard-pressed families, but he will know that fuel duty raises about £30 billion for the Exchequer, and that a 1p increase in duty raises about £500 million. His case would be far more powerful if he could outline the public spending he wants to cut so that fuel duty can be cut, because that money must be made up somehow.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman makes the same point that the Labour party used to make—something must be cut to fund the Scottish National party proposal. However, the SNP argues that when the price at the pump increases, there is a VAT windfall. In any circumstances, we know that there is likely to be a windfall in excess of £1 billion from the North sea. We believe that that should be used to temper duty increases and to lower the duty level, so that the yield anticipated by the Government does not decrease, and to smooth the effects of the spiking at the pumps.

[Sajid Javid]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I shall move on a little. I have been generous, and I will give way again in a little while.

I was talking about the impact on business and the information provided by the FSB. As I said, 78% of its members who were surveyed in January said that the increase in duty would have an impact on them and put business profitability in jeopardy, which is the wrong thing to do when we are trying to grow our way out of recession. I would have thought that this Government would want to listen to the views of the FSB, not least because small businesses in the UK provide 90% of all our enterprises, and in Scotland they provide 50% of all jobs. They will be engines of recovery in this country.

John Walker, the UK chairman of the FSB, and Andy Willox, the FSB’s Scottish policy convenor, said:

“Scottish small businesses want to grow, innovate and create employment but the cost of fuel puts the brakes on their ability to drive the recovery…Every extra penny spent at the pumps is a penny not being spent elsewhere in the economy and our members are finding it hard to plan for the future, as well as survive the present, due to the spiralling cost of fuel.”

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interject a little on the question of small and medium-sized business. I agree with his thrust that they are vital and that they will provide the jobs growth that the growth agenda requires. However, will he join me in expressing concern that the four increases in fuel duty are not as necessary as we were told they were by the then Government? Does he agree with that?

[Stewart Hosie]

I believe that the SNP opposed a number of the fuel duty increases. The hon. Gentleman may have been an honourable exception—I hope he was—but my memory tells me that Tory FrontBenchers abstained on some of those increases over the past few years when they were in opposition. He is generally right, but as I said, the debate is not about the cancellation or postponement of a single increase, however welcome that is, but about the implementation of a permanent stabilisation mechanism. Mr Willox said of that debate that:

“The FSB is right behind all moves to introduce a fuel duty stabiliser.”

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this very important subject. The Government pay around £7,000 per head per taxpayer in England, and yet they pay £8,500 for every Scottish taxpayer. Does he agree that if that subsidy were reduced, we would have more money across the country to cut fuel duty?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am always surprised when otherwise articulate, able and intelligent Members do not see the whole picture. When one looks at total tax and total income, rather than the mere, modest fragment of net identifiable expenditure, one sees a rather different story. Prior to the recession—independent figures stand this up—Scotland was about £50 billion in, £50 billion out. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the UK ran a £0.5 trillion debt before the recession, so his argument is not particularly helpful, and nor does it really pertain to today’s motion.

Of course, some business sectors are hit rather harder than others. Some businesses have a little leeway in their pricing policy, but some have none. I was struck by the comments of Bill McIntosh, the general secretary of the Scottish Taxi Federation, who said:

“Taxi drivers”—

it is an important trade—

“are affected more than most by increases in fuel. Unlike other transport operators, taxi drivers can’t just raise their prices as fares are set by local authorities…The Scottish Taxi Federation welcomes and supports the proposal for a fuel stabiliser.”

That is important. The sector has a fixed pricing structure that it cannot adjust and rising input costs.

Many haulage firms—this is an extreme example—have already agreed long-term future contracts with a fixed price. There might be some variation, depending on the uplift in fuel, but it is unlikely, under the contractual arrangements, that they could be compensated for the very quickly and steeply rising input prices. In my view, the haulage sector suffers the largest single impact. According to the Road Haulage Association, operating costs have risen by 3.3% since last October. It tells me that fuel accounts for more than a third of the sector’s business costs, and that, in cash terms, an average rise is expected this year of £4,206 on the basis of increases over the past three months alone. That is quite extraordinary—an increase of £4,206 in the running costs per truck.

I suspect that that is why Phil Flanders, the Scottish and Northern Ireland director of the RHA, has said:

“The RHA…supports the SNP/Plaid Cymru motion to urge the Government to take immediate action to resolve the increasingly difficult situation that hauliers—and motorists—find themselves in due to the cost of fuel.”

He went on to say that it has always supported these

“proposals for a fuel duty regulator in order to bring stability to the costs of a haulage business where fuel”

in some places

“can account for around 40% of running costs…Whatever it is called—a stabiliser or a regulator”—

or a modulator—

“help is urgently needed for all hauliers and particularly those further from their market such as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Remote rural communities also deserve special help given the exorbitant price they have to pay.”

I will say more about that later. He continued:

“It cannot be stressed strongly enough that in the past year fuel prices have gone up by at least 14% and in the last 28 months there have been 8 fuel duty hikes amounting to a 25% increase. This is just simply unacceptable for the economy.”

I share that view entirely.

The Freight Transport Association has followed up that support and welcomes the effort

“to develop the fuel duty debate further. Lives and livelihoods up and down the country are suffering in the face of unsustainable and crippling fuel costs. For businesses still in the grip of tough trading conditions these costs severely restrict cash flow and a company’s ability to do business; sadly this can translate to job losses and the difference between solvency and insolvency.”

It says that when the price of fuel

“rises steeply it has an immediate impact on a company’s cash flow.”

Given how the banks are behaving, with credit tight and squeezed, cash flow is vital.

The FTA also says:

“As part of the Fair Fuel UK Campaign, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, along with backing from the RAC, are asking government principally to scrap the fuel duty rise planned in April and introduce a methodology for stabilising fuel prices.”

Indeed, Fair Fuel UK, which is supported by 20,000 road freight companies, the Royal Automobile Club, dozens of trade associations, other groups and tens of thousands of individual motorists, has said that it supports today’s attempt to raise this issue and its impact on the economy on the Floor of the House. It said that this

motion and debate will…add pressure to the Government to act”,

and act quickly, on what it calls a “fuel crisis”. There is no doubt that this is a crisis. It is also clear that there is not only an assessment of a real, immediate and serious problem, but a clear coalescing of those at the front line about the introduction of a stabiliser as the primary solution.

This is about not simply a fuel duty regulator or stabiliser, however, but the specific problems in remote areas.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the problem, but he has not given the solution. He has spoken for 18 minutes, but has not told us how a stabiliser would work. I would like to hear how it would work, so will he please explain it to us?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that this is an Opposition day motion. If he waits until the Finance Bill, I am sure that both I and his hon. Friends will be happy to put forward detailed proposals and provisions, as we have all done on a number of previous occasions. Had he been listening to my response to an earlier intervention, when I explained how the proposal was due to work, he would know that we suggested it in 2005. We presented an amendment in 2008, and the then Conservative Opposition proposed something similar in July 2008. If he holds his horses, I suspect that we will have the detailed provisions for such a mechanism soon enough.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am going to make some ground.

This motion is not simply about the fuel duty regulator; it is about the problems in remote areas, where there is no choice but to drive. In a debate on introducing a rural fuel derogation in 2006, the argument was put as follows. The purpose of the proposal—on that occasion contained in a new clause—was to

“enable the Treasury to specify lower rates of duty on fuel to apply in remote rural areas. Hon. Members will know that article 19 of the European Union’s energy products directive allows member states to apply for a derogation to allow lower duty rates in specified areas. In October 2004, the French Government, with the support of UK Ministers and Ministers of other member states…did just that, following the example set by the Portuguese and the Greek Governments in previous years.”

The argument for applying such a measure in the United Kingdom rested on

“the very serious economic impact that higher fuel prices in rural areas have on areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland. The truth is that people…in remote areas such as the highlands and islands are victims of a triple whammy. They pay higher fuel prices and have much longer distances to travel, with few or no alternatives to making those journeys by car. Unavoidably, they spend more on transport than others and therefore also contribute more to the Treasury. Motoring costs represent some 18 per cent. of total household expenditure in rural Scotland compared with 13 per cent. across the rest of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 738-39.]

Those were not my words; they were the words of the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am disappointed that he is not here to stand by his words and make a commitment to drive forward a rural fuel derogation at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, let me remind him that when the Liberal party last proposed a rural fuel derogation, we backed it. I suspect that some of his colleagues were less forthcoming in backing proposals that we had made, although there were some honourable exceptions who wanted to.

[Mr Reid]

Now that the Liberal Democrats are part of the Government, the hon. Gentleman should be pleased that the rural fuel derogation is going to happen. We tried for years and the Labour party knocked us back, but now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the rural fuel derogation for the islands is going to happen.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am delighted to hear that the rural fuel derogation is going to happen. I cannot wait to hear that from a Minister, because the reports that I read earlier tended to indicate a little confusion in the Government’s ranks. I hope that that happens soon, for the following reasons.

In the final bit that I want to quote from the Chief Secretary’s speech in 2006, he said:

“Median earnings in the highlands and islands are some 85 per cent. of the UK figure, so the inequitable situation”

that he had described

“hits an already poorer region very hard.”

He said that, before coming to the Chamber, he had conducted

“a random survey of pump prices for a litre of unleaded petrol. In Aviemore in my constituency…the…price is 99.9p per litre. In Dalwhinnie, a little further south, it is 102p per litre. In Thurso, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), it is 102p per litre. In Lerwick, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), it is 106.9p per litre. By comparison, at Asda in Leeds the price is 92.9p, while in Morrison’s in Camden in north London, it is 90.9p.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 739.]

In preparation for today, we were told by the AA that petrol cost £1.34 a litre in Portree and £1.42 a litre in Stornoway. With prices now more than 30p a litre more than four years ago, that means an increase of more than £1.30 a gallon—many hon. Members will remember when that was what a gallon of petrol itself cost. If the argument was correct then, when the price was between 90p and £1 a litre, it is even stronger today, when the price is £1.30 a gallon more.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend remember just how full the Chamber used to be of Liberal Democrat Members when the prices were 30p a litre cheaper? Now, following the massive increase in prices and the real rural pain being felt as a result, where are they? I see two Liberal Democrats here today. Any more? Please stick your hands up! No, just two Liberal Democrats. Shocking!

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way. I have to say that I cannot remember a time when the House was ever full of Liberal Democrats, but I think I know what he means.

I want to raise three specific issues in relation to the vital importance of the rural fuel derogation. In urban, built-up areas, 95% of people live within 13 minutes of a bus stop with a service more than once an hour. That compares with less than half of residents in villages and hamlets. Before any Member gets up to make a point about that, let me say that I know that there are parts of every constituency in which there are no bus stops, no bus services and no choice but to use a car.

[Mr Weir]

I am following with interest what my hon. Friend is saying. Did he read the report in The Guardian this morning which suggested that many English local authorities were slashing their subsidies on bus routes, which will lead to the closure of those routes in many rural areas? Does he agree that that would make the situation very much worse in rural areas of England as well?

[Stewart Hosie]

I have not seen that report, but those developments will clearly make things difficult in areas that depend on those subsidies. I hope, in the light of the price of fuel, that local authorities and the Government will try to ensure that as many bus services as possible, particularly lifeline services, are maintained. The key point about living in remote and rural areas is that there are fewer alternatives available, and in some cases, no alternatives at all. The use of a car in those areas is vital.

[Hywel Williams]

The lowest wages in Wales are in Powys, in the middle of Wales. Powys also has the highest incidence of car ownership, with many families having to run two cars because of the lack of public transport.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. It has been mentioned already that car ownership is normally a sign of wealth and affluence, but in remote, rural and sparsely populated areas, people on almost every level of income, including those on low and modest wages, require a car. That results in their spending a disproportionate amount of their net disposable income on fuel.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

A further point that the hon. Gentleman will recall from the many debates that we have had on this subject is that people in my constituency and elsewhere who earn below the average wage often cannot afford to buy good, modern cars. Their cars are therefore much more costly to run. That is part of the triple whammy that I remember talking about six or seven years ago.

[Stewart Hosie]

There are whammies after whammies, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of a car can be a necessity, and that people have to buy whatever they can afford. Also, if the roads are not quite as good as they ought to be in remote and rural areas, that can pose its own problems, especially in winter.

There are three key issues in this debate. The first is the lack of choice, which is very important. The second, which I hope urban Members will recognise, is the fact that the average mileage per year travelled simply to access essential services in rural areas is 8,794 miles. The comparator in urban areas is 5,200 miles. So the people in rural areas have no choice, and the distances that they have to travel are far greater. On top of that, the third factor is the price of fuel.

I am grateful to the BBC, which reported on 22 January that the RAC Foundation had found that some filling stations in Orkney were charging £1.50 a litre, which is £6.82 a gallon. An increase of only 4p or 5p per litre would result in the £7 gallon, which, because people have no choice, they would have to pay in order to travel the greater distances necessary in rural areas to access the services that most of us take for granted.

The time for talk and promises on fuel is over. There is now an absolute necessity for the Government—both bits of them—to deliver on their promises. We need to put the stabilisers on rocketing fuel prices now, before the brakes are slammed down on any chance of economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

In that case, I can tell the hon. Gentleman how he can help. It would be helpful if his party wholeheartedly supported the Government’s proposal to the European Union and the European Commission as we go through the process of securing the derogation. I assure him that we will be more powerful if we adopt a cross-Government, cross-devolved-Administration approach.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister is asking the Scottish National party and our friends to support the Government’s efforts in Europe. Will she please tell us whether the Chief Secretary has finally managed to write to the European Commission asking for the derogation?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the derogation will come about as the outcome of a process. He seems to be asking me whether we are getting on with that process, and how much progress we have made. I trust that if I explain what the process is, what we have done so far and what will happen next, he will have been given so much information that he will find it necessary to take a more considered approach.

Let me explain the timing involved in the process leading to European Union and Commission clearance. We must begin by undertaking informal talks with the Commission abut the implementation of the scheme. That will give us a better chance of presenting a proposal that it will agree is, as it were, right first time. As Members have pointed out, similar schemes exist in other countries. It is sensible for the Government to engage in a process that includes talking informally to the European Commission about those schemes, and about the ways in which our scheme may resemble or differ from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I think the hon. Gentleman is taking the debate slightly wider than the wording in the motion. However, I will say to him that the measures we are taking are designed to get our economies in his part of the United Kingdom and the rest of it back on their feet. I hope that he welcomes the tax reductions we are bringing forward.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will give way one last time, and then I shall make a little progress. I have been generous in taking interventions.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady has been very generous indeed. She asks us to welcome the actions that the Government have taken in terms of a deficit consolidation plan. I like and respect her, but I will never welcome a £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish budget this year and a £3.2 billion cut to the Scottish block over the next four years. That is the wrong thing to do in terms of stimulating economic growth and growing our way out of the recession. If we could focus on the fuel duty, that would be particularly helpful, unless of course she wants to devolve the duty to Scotland, in which case I would be absolutely delighted as we could take all the right decisions.

[Justine Greening]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Goodison review and that the Scotland Bill is passing through Parliament right now. We are making some changes on tax, and I think he will welcome those measures to strengthen the devolution settlement.[Official Report, 15 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 3MC.]

I shall now, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like me to, address my comments to the measures we have been talking about and what we are considering. Only this Government have been looking at how best to help drivers, including those in Scotland and Wales. We have demonstrated our concerns about these issues both before and since coming into government. Indeed, one of the first things that the coalition Government did was to get the Office for Budget Responsibility to look at how oil prices affect the economy and feed into public finance.

This is a complex issue, and we have to make sure that whatever we do is not only fair but affordable. It would not be right of me to pre-empt the Chancellor or the Budget, but, as we promised in the June Budget, we are considering a range of options. We have already discussed the rural fuel duty rebate. The Government understand the challenges faced by people in rural areas in relation to fuel costs, which those of us in city and urban areas perhaps do not face. I know that those people cannot easily shop around nearby petrol stations to get the best deal in the way that other people can. I understand the arguments about the lack of public transport as an alternative and that the car is often the most realistic mode of transport. That is precisely way we are working towards getting a derogation so that we can get on with putting in place pilots to look at how a rural fuel rebate would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) on making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents—along with the interventions from his colleagues—about the impact that people living in remote rural areas can feel as fuel prices go up. He did make a very powerful case on behalf of his constituents, and Labour Members do understand the impact that motorists are feeling as fuel prices go up. I might represent an urban seat, but as a Member of Parliament in the south-west I am very much aware of the issues that are faced.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the hon. Lady for saying that I made a powerful case, but Dundee East is very much an urban seat. It has a rural hinterland of course, but my constituency is half the city. I know where Bristol is; a wee bit of geography would be great.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He was speaking on behalf of his colleagues in the more remote parts of Scotland, obviously, rather than on behalf of his own constituents. I thought that perhaps his constituency stretched a little further than the city boundaries.

For Governments, when considering fuel duties there is always a difficult balance to be struck among the needs to raise revenue and balance the public finances; to address environmental concerns about increasing road traffic and emissions, to which there has not been much reference in this debate; and to ensure that the motorist and especially people who have to rely on their cars—people who do not have a choice because of where they live and the environment in which they live—are not disproportionately penalised. The previous Labour Government endeavoured to strike that balance, despite the points that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made. That was why, for example, in years when fuel prices rose, Labour chose to put the fuel duty escalator on hold—to help motorists meet those rising costs. It is a tricky balance to strike, however, as today’s debate demonstrates, and there are no easy answers.

[Kerry McCarthy]

If I can adopt the mantra that the hon. Member for Dundee East first used and the Minister then picked up on, I should say that that is a matter for us to discuss when we get round to the Budget negotiations. Today, we are here to discuss the two main proposals to ameliorate the impact of rising fuel prices, particularly on rural areas. We are talking about rural areas, rather than about fuel duty prices across the board.

The dog that has not barked during this debate—the thing that was most noticeably missing from the Minister’s speech—is the fact that motorists are being hit hard by the increase in VAT to 20%, which has helped push petrol prices up to their current record levels.

[Stewart Hosie]

It suddenly strikes me that, when the Labour Government had their fiscal stimulus policy, they cut VAT by 2.5 percentage points and increased fuel duty by 2.5 percentage points to compensate, but that, when VAT went back to 17.5%, the fuel duty rise was maintained. Does Labour now regret not reducing fuel duty in line with the increase in VAT?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Those matters were also affected by fuel prices at the time, but it is not my position to apologise for, or to express an opinion on, what my predecessors did.

The VAT rise now is the important thing. VAT went up at the beginning of the year from 17.5% to 20%. According to the Library, the VAT rise increases the cost of a litre of petrol by about 2.6p, assuming that it is passed on in full. That compares with the fuel duty increase in January of 0.76p per litre, so the VAT rise to 20% is hitting the motorist harder and people in rural areas, who rely on their cars most and have to travel longer distances, particularly hard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said, I am coming on to the derogation, but it is not my place to express such opinions.

In principle, on paper, the fuel duty stabiliser sounds like a fairly simple, reasonable proposition—as oil prices go up, fuel duty goes down, and as oil prices drop, fuel duty goes up, so the motorist pays more or less the same for fuel and the Exchequer gets more or less the same in revenue. However, economics are not that simple.

The idea of the regulator has been floated for some time. During the debate on the 2008 Finance Bill, the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Dundee East, suggested that a statutory instrument should implement an automatic mechanism so that as additional income from VAT receipts came in, it could be used to offset fuel duty in direct proportion. However, the regulator was based on rises in oil prices, not on rises in VAT receipts. It was assumed that one would flow from other—the hon. Gentleman reiterated that assumption today—but that is not necessarily the case, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would like to make some progress.

There are other concerns about the stabiliser. The then Liberal Democrat spokesman, who is now Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said at the time of the 2008 Finance Bill debates that the idea of a fuel duty regulator was “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”. He said that the Exchequer would have to predict the net windfall, and then:

“May I suggest that there might not be any net windfall at all?”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 339.]

The OBR has now confirmed that.

Labour’s then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:

“In the face of a world slowdown, to take any one tax in isolation and claim that there is a windfall available to spend is economically illiterate, irresponsible or just disingenuous.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 331.]

She was basically saying—this was echoed by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was the junior Liberal Democrat spokesman at the time—that we cannot consider these revenues in a silo. Yes, oil revenues might go up, which might provide a boost to the nation’s finances—although I stress the word “might”, because it does not necessarily follow that increased revenues come from increased oil prices—but other things might happen that affect revenue flows, and it is irresponsible not to look at everything in the round. Hypothecation can box us into a corner and hamper our choices, and that is a real problem in the case of the stabiliser.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am talking about the fuel duty stabiliser. I appreciate his confusion, because that has not been discussed much in this debate. The rural derogation is a separate issue. I am talking about how a stabiliser would be enforced.

Despite the concerns about a fuel duty stabiliser that were raised during the 2008 Finance Bill debates and afterwards, and the obvious difficulties in implementing one, the Conservatives could not resist dangling the prospect of reduced petrol prices before motorists’ eyes. They published a consultation document in July 2008, which proposed the stabiliser:

“when fuel prices go up, fuel duty would fall. And when fuel prices go down, fuel duty would rise”.

That continued to be Conservative party policy until polling day. A week before polling day, the Prime Minister told voters on a visit to a Coca-Cola plant that

“we’d be helping with the cost of living by trying to give you a flatter and more constant rate for filling up your car”.

It was suggested by Conservative politicians in the media that it would be included in the new Government’s first Budget.

Before the election, this Government made all the right noises about tackling high petrol prices. They led the public to believe that they would take action to slash fuel duty and bring down the price of petrol at the pumps. Since then, they have done nothing. Actually, that is not quite true. They have done nothing to implement the fuel duty stabiliser, which they made such a song and dance about before the election, but they have hit the motorist by whacking up VAT to 20%. They have increased petrol prices, not cut them.

Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, set up by this Government to give independent, impartial advice, has said that the fuel duty stabiliser would not work. The underlying economics of the stabiliser contain a simple, basic assumption that when oil prices rise, the Government receive an unexpected windfall from taxes on North sea oil production. The OBR said that that is not the case, at least not in the long term. In “Assessment of the Effect of Oil Price Fluctuations on the Public Finances”, which was published on 14 September last year, the OBR reported that a temporary rise in the oil price would have a negligible effect on the UK public finances, and that a permanent rise would create a loss. The OBR said that it would be difficult for the Government to introduce a fair fuel stabiliser without a significant cost to the Exchequer:

“There is no improvement in the public finances to be used for stabilising the pump price in the case of a permanent shock.”

In fact, a permanent increase in fuel prices would have a negative impact on the public finances after a year, given the effects on demand, inflationary pressures, household income and consumer spending.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Lady seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. The fuel duty regulator would temper spikes. If there is a structural change in the oil price, the baseline figure against which a trigger is measured has to be reset. We have all seen the OBR figures, but the OBR does not say that we should not have a short-term stabiliser to stop spikes; it says that there is no benefit in the long run, as she said. The regulator is designed to smooth out short-term spikes, not to stop structural changes in the oil price.

[Kerry McCarthy]

What I am saying is that a correlation between oil price movements and revenue has not been established by the OBR. In fact, it has said that that is not the case and that in the short term a temporary rise in the oil price would have a negligible impact on revenue. Therefore, the question is what money would be used to offset the stabiliser or regulatory mechanism that the hon. Gentleman’s party wants. If it does not come from the revenue, where does it come from?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I remind the hon. Lady that the OBR’s press notice was clear that the temporary £10 rise would deliver an overall effect in year 1 of £100 million. That is not insignificant.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The new head of the OBR, Robert Chote, said in an interview about a week ago that its analysis

“suggested that a fair fuel stabiliser would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable”.

If a £10 increase in oil prices was passed through, the assumption is that it would add 7.4p per litre at the pump. To offset that would cost £3.7 billion, which is £1.3 billion more than the consequential rise in oil and gas revenues. It might have been a good idea for the Conservative party to carry out that sort of analysis before making promises that it could not keep. All the Economic Secretary has to say today is that the Government will consider the OBR’s report.

I also ask the Economic Secretary what conversations she has had with people in the industry about the impact of fuel prices. I have been contacted by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, which tells me that it has written to the Chancellor and Prime Minister four times about the matter recently, with no response at all. It has stated that the Government have

“made no attempt to engage with industry”

and that it wants the policy of a stabiliser to be dropped, because it would be

“costly and a huge administrative burden”.—[Interruption.]

Sorry, is the Economic Secretary saying that the RMI has not written to the Chancellor or the Prime Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I shall try to be brief to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) to get in.

Simply put, fuel in my constituency costs a ridiculous amount, at £1.45 a litre. What we want, in essence, is to pay the same tax as elsewhere. We are only looking for fairness. A rural fuel derogation would not achieve fairness, but it would take us to the foothills of fairness and would be a big step in the right direction, reducing the price from £1.45 a litre to £1.40. I have sympathy with those in South Derbyshire; I only wish I was enjoying the prices that they are currently burdened with. We have to remember that, at the back of this debate, we want to look at fuel distribution throughout the country, which is often a difficulty to do with refineries—part of the excuse that some of the companies use as well.

Remoteness is often blamed, but I discovered recently that while we pay £1.44 a litre, those in the Faroe islands pay 94p a litre for diesel and £1.10 for petrol. For those who do not know, the Faroe islands are halfway between the Hebrides and Iceland, where petrol and diesel are £1.10 a litre. We do not need to go too far back to remember the difficult economic situation that Iceland faced. It has a big debt, although its deficit is not in the same situation as the UK’s, but it clearly understands that high fuel costs choke recovery. Iceland is not making that mistake; indeed, in the last quarter, Icelandic GDP grew far more than the UK’s. The Government here can talk of the deficit, but if they carry on like this, they will choke the recovery and will not see revenues flowing into their coffers, as they should and would like to.

The price is painful for us. As I left Benbecula this morning, the fuel concerns of Mr Alec MacIntosh, who works at Benbecula airport, were ringing in my ear, and small wonder, as he had just bought some fuel at £1.46 a litre. I think that his week’s wages had just about gone in filling up his vehicle. Those at Stornoway airport attacked my other eardrum on the issue. There is scarcely a place I can go without people seeing me as a telegraph to relay to the Treasury the pain that people are feeling. That pain is real, and I hope that that is taken on board. Indeed, it is not just pain; it is anger, because people know that more tax is flooding from my constituency to London than from just about any other constituency. We have the highest fuel poverty in the UK, and small wonder. The islands really need a rural fuel derogation, and they need it quickly. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) spoke earlier, and I have sympathy with those on Arran, too. Indeed, I saw the MSP for Arran, Kenny Gibson, on the television vociferously calling for a rural fuel derogation.

The high cost has an impact on a whole raft of other budgets. Local councils are haemorrhaging cash because they can run their vehicles only by paying higher fuel costs—again, the money goes directly to the Treasury—as are our health boards, and our police, fire, coastguard and ambulance services. They are all having to deal with budgetary cuts every time they fill up their vehicles, because of the cost of fuel. Businesses are losing too, and less money is circulating locally. Indeed, so vexed was one constituent of mine—Erica MacDonald—that she started a petition a few months ago and came to the Treasury. She is now wondering whether the EU’s rural development policy—€96 billion over a number of years—can be used. I do not think that it can, but such is the level of research being done by individual voters in rural and island Scotland, who are looking for solutions and hoping that the Treasury will listen to some of them.

Talking of solutions, we certainly listened to the Labour party earlier. We heard a repetition of what I would call the Pontius Pilate approach. The Labour party seemingly has no view on a rural fuel derogation or a fuel duty stabiliser, and no other plans or suggestions. Indeed, if those on the Labour Front Bench have a concrete plan or suggestion, I would ask them to tell us what it is. We definitely heard no apology for the years we spent in this place listening to the previous Government’s excuses for doing absolutely nothing, leaving places such as the Outer Hebrides with shockingly high fuel costs.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend talks about the dearth of opinion on the Labour Front Bench. Might that be a consequence of the Labour leader saying recently that Labour found it difficult to implement a fuel duty regulator when in power, when in fact Labour voted against every single attempt to introduce one?

[Mr MacNeil]

Absolutely. Labour was against a fuel duty regulator, a rural fuel derogation and anything else that would have helped people in the Hebrides.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and his colleagues on raising this matter. I, for one, could listen to their wonderful brogue all afternoon.

[Stewart Hosie]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not have a brogue or an accent? It is he who has the accent.

[George Freeman]

We can debate that another day.

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues spoke eloquently about the needs of the rural economy, and I know that he will want to send his best wishes to one of the most exciting businesses in Norfolk, the English Whisky Co., which is doing great trade. As in so many debates, most of the suggestions that he and his colleagues made would lead to an increase in expenditure by the Exchequer, and, representing an English constituency, I find myself thinking, “English tax for Scottish voters.” His points on the rural economy were good ones, however, and I want to touch on the impact of fuel prices on that economy and offer some thoughts on how the Government might like to tackle the issue.

Fuel costs hit rural areas particularly hard, not only in Scotland but in England and Wales. In my constituency, where I am lucky enough to have four towns, 110 villages and a 130 mile boundary, the rurality is extreme. Fuel currently costs 130p a litre, which means that the average family are paying £70-odd to fill up their car. That is not a matter to be taken lightly. Families are hit particularly hard, especially those on low incomes who, it has been pointed out, tend to drive older, less efficient cars. Another group that is hit hard by high fuel costs is one by which the coalition has set so much store—namely, the people who are working hard to get out of welfare and into work. Small businesses are also affected, especially those in remote rural areas. They are crucial to the revitalisation of the rural economy.

The public sector is also affected by fuel costs. Many rural councils are hit very hard by their dependence on fuel, and this is another area in which rural councils in England have received particularly unfair treatment. Farmers are also hard hit, especially those growing commodity crops such as sugar beet and potatoes that require long-distance haulage. Hauliers are affected too, especially smaller, self-employed hauliers, who tell me that they are hit by the unfairness of the lack of a level playing field on which to compete with their European competitors.

Bank Bonuses

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In the real world, jobs are being lost, wages squeezed, and taxes are rising, while businesses cannot get the credit they need and home buyers cannot get the mortgages they want. Does the Chancellor not recognise that that austere backdrop makes the very idea of a £7 billion bonus-pot toxic in the real world? Does he not regret washing his hands of this last night, and, effectively, giving the green light to a return to the bad old days of big bonuses?

[Mr Osborne]

It is precisely the real-world situation—where businesses need more lending, communities need support and we need more investment in our regional economies—that I am seeking to address. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, as a Member from Scotland, we need a successful, properly regulated financial services sector that employs tens of thousands of people in Scotland and, indeed, hundreds of thousands of people across the United Kingdom. That is what we are seeking to agree with the banking system. The fantasy world is the one that the Labour party occupies, where it bears no responsibility for the mess in which it has left this country.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I confirm what the Chancellor has just said? The UK contribution to the entire package will be about 5% of the non-Irish contribution—about £3.5 billion—and that stands in comparison with some £12 billion of exports to Ireland, and, as he said, the Irish banks holding some quarter of the deposits in Northern Ireland. Is that the broad summary of where we are?

[Mr Osborne]

It is a reasonable summary. Of course we stand behind the International Monetary Fund as a shareholder of it, as are most countries in the world. I shall come on to the European financial stability mechanism, which I have already talked to the House about on a number of occasions. Like other contributors to the EU budget, we stand behind it. In a sense, the loan that we are proposing today is the direct British taxpayer contribution—or rather, the money that is borrowed on behalf of the British taxpayer. I shall come to the terms of the loan, but of course we expect to be repaid, and repaid with interest. We are doing this because we think it is absolutely in our national interest, for some of the reasons that have been set out.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

There are therefore two interacting, constantly interlocking arrangements, and I am left with the very deep worry that, in the absence of the clear wording that I have provided in my amendment, our so-called bilateral loan would effectively be part and parcel of the European jurisdiction. That is why I tabled the amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

Could it not simply be the case that the UK is providing a loan to Ireland in a time of need—a country that takes 7% of our exports and whose banks provide a quarter of the banking facilities in Northern Ireland? While all this is academic and interesting for those who are interested in it, could it not simply be the case that we are providing a loan to a friend in need at an important time?

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but the fact is that we have limited resources and have inherited a legacy in which the private sector is relatively strong in some areas, such as his constituency and mine, but much weaker in others. At a time when we cannot rely on massive public spending, and when the public sector will have to find economies, it is perfectly reasonable that we have adopted the approach of focusing on areas where there is high dependence on the public sector.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am very supportive of the proposal in general terms, but when the Government came to their decision on it, did they consider extending it to existing businesses with very small work forces of one or two people as opposed to simply new starts, and did they consider what the cost of that might have been?

[Mr Gauke]

The focus of the policy has always been on start-up businesses. It is an attempt to encourage new businesses to be set up, given where we are in the economic cycle and the need to encourage private sector growth. That is why the Conservative party’s policy before the general election was focused on start-ups. After the election we considered how best to introduce the policy, and came to the view that we should include the regions where the private sector was at its weakest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I was about to suggest that the measure might well be extended. It is true that job creation comes from existing small businesses, although it also comes from new ones. I think that we can find some common ground in that regard.

I have three main reasons for supporting the Bill. First, I believe that it is the right way to help small businesses. It is not the only way, but I do not think that the other ways that have been tried in the past—grants, loans, business link services, and a great deal of bureaucracy—are nearly as effective as allowing small businesses to keep more of their own money, and to employ more people more cheaply. Given that a Government cannot create jobs, this is the easiest, simplest and most effective way of encouraging businesses to take on more people.

My second reason for supporting the Bill, which is directly relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), is that it is clearly future-proof. I note that the Opposition do not oppose it, either in principle or in detail; indeed, they want to extend its provisions throughout the country. If it turned out to be spectacularly successful—and none of us in the House knows yet whether it will—its provisions could be extended. At present, the scheme applies only for the first year of a new business, it is open for only three years, it applies only to the first 10 employees, and it applies only to the regions that we have been discussing.

If we discovered that the Bill really did encourage the creation of more jobs and did not divert employment from existing businesses, it would be perfectly possible—once the economy had recovered, we had closed off the deficit that we inherited, and more money was available—to extend the scheme in different ways. It would be possible, for example, to apply it to the first two years of a business. It can take longer than a year for a very small business to establish itself. It would be possible to keep the scheme open for the whole of the current Parliament, matching the reductions that are sadly necessary in public sector employment to encourage private sector employment alongside it. It would also be possible to apply it not simply to the first 10 employees but to, say, the first 20 or 30. I see nothing particularly magical about the step change involved in employing that 11th person. And yes, if the scheme really was working, it might well prove desirable and cost-effective to start extending it to some of the other regions. I note that the three excluded regions contain the south-east—my own region—East Anglia and London, which currently contain half the number of all our small businesses. If small businesses had already been successful in those regions, perhaps, if costs allowed, it might be possible to extend the scheme in four or five years’ time if it worked particularly well.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman said that there was no step change between the 10th and 11th employees, and he was right. However, there is a huge step change for a sole trader taking on his or her first employee. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, if the scheme were rolled out in the way that he suggests, it should be rolled out to existing sole traders taking on their first employee, which involves a huge commitment?

[Michael Fallon]

I am not sure whether someone would remain a sole trader in those circumstances, but it is true that becoming responsible for someone else’s payroll is often the most difficult step for those who are self-employed or trading on their own account. I certainly think that we should explore that possibility further.

The third, and final, reason why I support the Bill is an entirely different one. The Bill is quite rare in that it recognises the rights of non-workers. I have never forgotten an encounter I had when I was representing a north-east constituency. It occurred at the height of the engineering recession of the early 1980s, when the jobcentre manager in Darlington said to me, “There’s plenty of work about, Mr Fallon, but very few jobs.” What he meant by that was, of course, that the labour market had fossilised. So many restrictions and costs were involved in hiring extra labour that it was too expensive and too risky for firms to take on more staff. Of course, the previous Conservative Government addressed that through a range of liberalisations that tackled areas such as employee rights, access to tribunals and restrictive practices, and I think that a Government need to do that every few years. They need to look again at the balance between those who are fortunate enough to be in the labour market and enjoying the various job protections that this House has given them successively over the years and those who are excluded from the labour market, because those who are excluded have rights too. If we make it increasingly difficult for companies to fire people, then we inevitably make it increasingly difficult for companies to hire people. If we build in unlimited awards for various types of discrimination—sexual discrimination, for example—we discourage firms from employing more women. There is a balance to be struck therefore, and I think that needs to be reassessed every few years.

Small businesses in my constituency tell me that at present they will do almost anything they can to avoid taking on new people, partly because of the difficulty of getting rid of them if they turn out to be unsuitable or unreliable or if they are not prepared to work hard enough, and partly because of the administrative costs piled on them by the last Labour Government through, for instance, needing to check student loan repayments, child care reliefs and immigration status. When we consider measures such as those in this Bill, we need to be thinking all the time about how we can make it easier for businesses to employ people.

This is a short Bill, and it would be wrong to overstate its effects. It must be considered in the context of the other measures to help small businesses, such as the reduction in their corporation tax rate, which I welcome, and the extension of the guarantee scheme. I suspect that the Bill will prove to be successful however, and, if so, I hope that it will be the start of a much wider and deeper process of removing the barriers to growth, such as the thicket of regulation our small businesses have to struggle through and the heavy burden of taxation that still inhibits too many of them. I welcome the Bill.