Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I very much recognise the risks associated with no deal. That is why the Government are very clear, as the Prime Minister will set out shortly, about the imperative for the House to come behind the deal and vote for it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

13. If he will take steps to prevent the 2019 loan charge from being applied retrospectively.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

The loan charge is not retrospective. The schemes that were entered into and to which the loan charge relates have always been defective—they never worked, including at the time when they were entered into. That has been evidenced by a number of court cases, including one put before the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

[Mr Carmichael]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is allowed to go back to 1999 to look at tax records. Records that it can look at include those in otherwise closed years. If that is not retrospective, I do not know what it is. What word would the Minister use to describe the loan charge to my constituent, who tells me that he started a business working in the oil and gas industry, living in Orkney but working across the globe, doing everything the Government would want him do? How does he now find himself facing bankruptcy, before his 29th birthday?

[Mel Stride]

An important principle lies at the heart of the whole debate around the loan charge, which is that individuals should pay the tax that is due. If they enter into arrangements that basically mean they disguise income as a loan that they have no intention of ultimately repaying—money that is, more often than not, routed via low or no-tax jurisdictions overseas, via a trust, then brought back into the United Kingdom by way of payment—the Government believe that that is wrong, and the tax should be paid.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

What a pity, Mr Speaker. I enjoy interventions, as you well know.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has misquoted me from somewhere. It was I who negotiated the implementation period element, precisely because it is not without hiccups. It is not without issues. There will be practical issues in the first year of a WTO outcome, but that does not overwhelm the big advantages—the massive advantages—of having the freedom to negotiate our trade deals in the future.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

I am afraid not, on this occasion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have just almost been given instructions.

Let me now say a little about delays at Calais. The first thing to say is that the French do not intend them to happen. I know that, in our chauvinist way, we expect the French to misbehave, but that is not their intention. The prefect of the Calais region, the representative of Calais and the head of French customs have all said in terms that they will do everything in their power—through lower inspection rates, light-touch phytosanitary inspections and the rest—to ensure that the trade between Calais and Dover will work. If there is a hiccup—we have had them before, with driver strikes and so on—we shall be able to divert 20% to 40% of the trade to other ports. That is a good example of the wild assertions that are simply not right.

I am very sorry that the Chancellor is not here, because I wanted him to hear what I had to say about the projections to which the hon. Member for Dundee East referred and on which I think he relied rather too much. It was not “The Rees-Mogg Times”, or some other organisation on one side of the debate, that criticised the Bank of England. It was a Nobel prizewinner, Paul Krugman—hardly a Brexiteer—who castigated the Bank, as did Andrew Sentance, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee, who, again, is not a Brexiteer. Those were simply disgraceful polemical projections. They were not forecasts in any way, and I think that the Bank will come to regret them, if it has not done so already. So that is the practical element.

There is another issue to bear in mind. The WTO option is a walk-away; that is the problem—it is a walk-away. It is an outcome that we do not want, but we need it to have a proper negotiation; that is a hard fact that we have to face. We all think that we will suffer most from a WTO outcome, but that is simply not the case. There is an asymmetric arrangement here. We have a floating pound, to cite the German chief economist of Deutsche Bank, and the movement of the pound is what has protected us so far in the past two years, and it will protect us again. We have unilateral capability that nobody else in Europe will have: the ability to change our taxes and regulations to make sure we get the FDI—foreign direct investment—that the hon. Member for Dundee East talked about.

Finally, of course, we have the upside of the other free trade agreements, and that is another reason why I am sorry that the Chancellor is not present, because one of the big differences between him and me is that he does not believe free trade agreements deliver a large economic bang for their buck. The past 30 years of world history, however, show that there are billions of people in the world who might just take a different view on that.

The second option I want to talk to briefly is the Norway option. I looked at that option very carefully; indeed, I got castigated from my own side for paying it too much attention, but I thought that it was very important to ensure every single possible option was explored well, and I was approached by, and talked at great length to, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).

Norway plus appears to its protagonists to have three virtues. First, they say that it is the easiest option to negotiate; it involves the smallest movement and therefore is the simplest negotiation. Secondly, they say it meets the conditions of the referendum. Thirdly, they say it is the softest of soft Brexits. All those are possibly good arguments, except that they are not true. The negotiation would not be simple; we cannot simply stay in the EEA, as that does not work. Jean-Claude Piris, ex-head of the EU legal service, said in terms that we will have to renegotiate every single clause of the EEA arrangement. It will require unanimity from 30 different members, and they will exact a price. One of the advantages of Norway, we would think, is that we could control our own fisheries policy, but would we get that with a vote from Denmark, from France and from Spain? No, we would not. That is one of the problems: the negotiation hurdles are very big. It is reported that Michel Barnier said this was a possible outcome, but only in conjunction with customs union membership. With the two together, we are locked in; we are basically in a worse position than the Government’s proposal. We are basically locked into the single market—no say and no control, but in every other respect, including the free movement of people and paying money, we will be locked in. Norway does not find it satisfactory politically, and, frankly, a country like ours certainly should not. So that does not work. Finally, it is said that this option delivers on the result of the referendum. No, it does not. Free movement, money, independent trade policy, jurisdiction of the supranational courts, rule taker—on all those criteria, we fail under Norway.

So what is left? The last option is the free trade agreement. I have long thought this was the best option. This is the one that has been called Canada plus, plus, plus and super-Canada and a variety of other names, and somewhere buried in the middle of my old Department of DExEU there is a pile of papers laying out how this can be done in detail, including some legal text. The concept is simple, and that is important in this context, because we will have very limited time in the last few months to negotiate this. I made the point a couple of years ago when making this argument that these are the three months that matter: the EU always takes the negotiation down to the wire—to the last day, the last hour, the last minute, the last second, and sometimes it stops the clock to allow the negotiations to conclude. And that is what is going to happen here; I suspect we are going to go deep into time on this.

Why was this option attractive? It was attractive because we could build it from precedents. Canada is an EU-negotiated precedent, and we could add to it—this is the plus, plus, plus bit—all the bits that are not good about the Canada option. There is no decent mutual recognition agreement; we can lift that out of South Korea or the Australian deal. There are no decent phytosanitary arrangements; we can lift that out of New Zealand. So we can go back to the EU and say, “Here we have a proposal constructed entirely of your own precedents. It can’t undermine the single market, because you negotiated it. It can’t undermine the four principles, because you negotiated it.” That is the attraction of the Canada plus, plus, plus option—it is based on that template. It is all based on precedents previously negotiated by the Commission. So it is perfectly possible for us to create a draft legal text on the basis of where we are now and put that back to the EU and say, “The £39 billion rides on this. You have to agree the substantive elements before we sign off and then you have to agree the detailed elements by the end of 2019.” There is plenty of time to do that on the basis of existing boilerplate text. That is what we should be doing. We should stop grovelling to Europe and start grasping our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate, which, as others have already observed, is likely to be one of the most important—or the most important—that we will ever know in our parliamentary lives.

In Orkney and Shetland, we voted to remain in the European Union in June 2016. In Orkney, the vote to remain was 63.2% and in Shetland it was 56.5%. I reflect, however, that it has not always been thus. In 1976, when very nearly the entire country voted to enter the European Economic Community as it then was, only Shetland and the Western Isles voted not to. In Shetland, the vote then was in the region of 56.3%. It is worth reflecting on what has happened in the succeeding 40-odd years that has brought about this change.

For communities such as ours, there have been some significant downsides to EU membership. The operation of the common fisheries policy has been one of the most obvious—I will touch on that later on—but there have been other aspects. The operation of state aid rules has often left me perplexed and baffled, but for communities such as ours—communities with small populations far from the centres of power and the larger centres of population—membership of the European Union has been a positive. It has given us opportunities to grow and to keep up in circumstances where we might otherwise have expected to fall behind. Opportunities have been given to us through the availability of structural funds, the guaranteed money that could come to communities such as ours to be invested in our roads, our piers and our airports. I suspect that if we were waiting for the Treasury, or even for Edinburgh, to fund those projects, we would still be waiting today. The existence of a guaranteed system of agricultural support payments has allowed our farmers and crofters to continue to farm the land and to keep the land in the way that we know and value. It worries me that beyond the guarantee of those farm payments up to 2022, there is still no clear indication of how this will work in the future.

Access to the single market has been good for us; it has allowed us to grow new industries in the past 40 years. Forty years ago, there simply was not the aquaculture industry of farmed salmon and mussels that we now know. That market was not available in the real-time basis on which my constituents can now sell into it. Our tourism has blossomed and grown in these years, and in more recent years that has seen a bigger reliance on the workforce coming from other parts of the European Union. An awful lot has changed in the world since 1976.

I was struck by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is here as the grandson of a Prime Minister and the great-grandson of a Member of Parliament. No one in my family has ever served in this House before; we have all been hill farmers and crofters. I am here because I am part of a generation that had opportunities that were not given to my parents, just as my parents had opportunities that their parents had not been given. It grieves me beyond measure that I now risk handing on to my children a country and a world in which they will not have the opportunities that we have had.

Yes, we know about the slow and reluctant pace of reform, the bureaucracy and the over-centralisation. But although I often criticise the CFP, I would not have believed it possible that we would find a worse system than we will have when we leave the European Union in March next year, when we will leave our fishermen and our fishing fleet bound by its rules without having any say in how they are made. That surely has to be the worst of all possible worlds, and it is a bitter regret to me that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) would not take my intervention, because he owes my fishermen an explanation why he thought that was a necessary step to take.

We are a divided country; that is beyond measure. Those who resist the idea of putting this deal to a vote of the people seem to think that somehow we are not. The only possible way that we can hope to heal these divisions is by putting this matter to a vote of the people.

Tourism Industry: VAT Reduction

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to have obtained this Adjournment debate, albeit slightly postponed. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have remained in their place this evening to take part and to demonstrate that the question of a reduced rate of value added tax for the tourism sector is one that commands cross-party interest and support.

Tourism is the fourth largest sector of the UK economy today and, unlike most sectors, it has a reach across our economy and geography that is hard to equal. Certainly, it is a massively important, and increasingly important, industry in my constituency in the northern isles.

We have previously heard talk of voodoo economics, and tourism is a sector that allows us to apply a little judo economics—that is to say we can use the force of those things that would normally work against us to our favour. In Orkney and Shetland, we have a number of disadvantages due to our geography and the size and sparsity of our population, which are all things that, when it comes to tourism, make us an attractive destination. They are the things that make people want to come to see us in the northern isles. For us, tourism is an enormously important industry, and it is one that has grown massively in recent years.

Tourism also complements many indigenous traditional local industries. For years we have told our fishermen, our farmers and our crofters that they have to diversify or die, and they have taken that message to heart. This does not quite come within what I have to declare as an interest, but my parents’ family farm on Islay, off the west coast, is now in the region of 800 or 900 acres, and it not only supports cattle and sheep, as it has always done. Now, between my sister and my parents, the farm supports four individual self-catering units, which is a good example of how a traditional farming unit has been diversified to take significant income from tourism.

Obviously, tourism fits well with the profile of many communities such as ours, because it allows seasonal and part-time employment, which are both important in communities where people perhaps do not have just one job working 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. People are looking for a range of different income sources—as evidenced by the recent growth in the number of people working as tour guides in both Orkney and Shetland—and such employment offers that sort of opportunity.

In establishing the importance of tourism as an industry, in communities like mine right the way through to where I stand in one of the best-known tourism destinations in the country, the question arises of how we can best seek to allow the industry to grow itself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. He has mentioned the attractiveness of his constituency to tourists. A VAT reduction would definitely benefit tourism in Northern Ireland. In 2017, some 2.6 million out-of-state visitors and more than 2 million Northern Ireland residents took an overnight trip in Northern Ireland, and during 2017 visitors from all markets combined to spend £926 million in Northern Ireland, up £76 million on the previous year. Does he agree that lowering VAT can only encourage more people to make the trip to Northern Ireland or to his constituency, luring people away from the Republic of Ireland by providing unrivalled beauty and attractions with unrivalled pricing? Indeed, the same could be said of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point well. I am aware that Northern Ireland has a particular issue as it shares a land border, a fact that is fairly well discussed at the moment, with the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is one of those countries that in 2011—I will doubtless be corrected if I am wrong—cut their rate of VAT on tourism services to 9%. There is a particular sensitivity about the cross-border issues there, which may assist the hon. Gentleman in making the case, because there is a good working example on his own doorstop of the opportunities that are presented.

I know it is counter-intuitive in the Treasury to suggest that cutting taxes will bring an increased return in revenue, but there is good objective evidence to support that very proposition. I was a member of the Cabinet in 2015 when the Budget cut the rate of spirits duty by 2%. We did that expecting it would result in a reduced return of about £600 million, but we felt it was an important thing to do. In fact, the revenue return as a whole was significantly increased. So having taken the expected hit, we got a better return at the end of the day. This is the same thinking that underpins the Government’s reductions in corporation tax in recent years.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The Somerset Tourism Association and Visit Somerset have made representations to me on this matter and they very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a reduction in VAT on overnight accommodation and visitor attractions leaves more money in the pockets of visitors to spend on other things during their stay. So the money is not lost to the system; it grows the visitor economy even further.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman leads me on nicely to my next point. I was going to try to explain the way in which this reduced level of VAT feeds into other parts of the economy and the effects it can have. It is argued, with some force, that the reduction in VAT can lead to higher employment levels and better wages, which in turn leads to increased income tax receipts. The increased profitability of businesses, some of which are currently marginal and probably not even paying much tax at all, provides the opportunity for greater returns in corporation tax. Eventually, this feeds through to higher expenditure in other sectors—this is the so-called “tourism multiplier”, which goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is estimated that for an additional £1 spent in tourism we will see another 70p generated in spend in other sectors.

The European Union VAT laws currently require a broad uniformity of VAT and sales taxes across the whole EU, but there is a specific derogation for certain supplies. The list of these derogations is set out in annex III to the principal VAT directive 2006/112/EC. The three items of particular relevance to the tourism sector are items (7), (12) and (12a). For the benefit of the House, let me read those into the record. Item (7) specifies:

“admission to shows, theatres, circuses, fairs, amusement parks, concerts, museums, zoos, cinemas, exhibitions and similar cultural events and facilities”.

Item (12) specifies:

“accommodation provided in hotels and similar establishments, including the provision of holiday accommodation and the letting of places on camping or caravan sites”.

Item (12a) relates to

“restaurant and catering services, it being possible to exclude the supply of (alcoholic and/or non-alcoholic) beverages”.

It is important that the House understands that we make this case within a fairly clearly defined area, because the question of what constitutes tourism services, and other such issues, is already fairly well established in European law.

The principle of uniformity, subject to these derogations, is now stretched to breaking point. In Europe, only three countries—the United Kingdom, Denmark and Slovakia —continue to charge the full 20% rate of value-added or sales tax. Every other country charges a reduced rate. Some charge as low as the 5% minimum floor set by EU law, and they range right the way through to 15%. The rate in the Republic of Ireland has now been set at 9%, which has been of concern to operators in Northern Ireland and will doubtless affect the considerations of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who are sitting behind me.

I know how the Treasury likes to do these things— I have seen it for myself many times over the years—but I would like to hear from the Minister that there is a willingness in the Treasury to engage with a wider range of people and a wider range of stakeholders. The Cut Tourism VAT campaign commissioned Nevin Associates to produce analysis. Its modelling showed that a cut to 5%—the minimum allowed—could generate £5.3 billion in gains to the Treasury over 10 years.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument and I hope that the Treasury will listen sympathetically. He is right that reducing VAT on tourism would boost the economy, and it would also be a boost to gateways to the UK such as Gatwick airport in my constituency, where many tourists arrive from abroad and benefit the local community. It would certainly help to boost the economy further.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is a good point. In fact, as the representative of a slightly smaller gateway—a significant number of people come in through Kirkwall and Lerwick, especially on cruise ships in the summer months—I can see the opportunities to be had.

As I was saying, the Cut Tourism VAT campaign analysis found that there would be gains of £5.3 billion over 10 years. I hope that that would be subject to pretty robust scrutiny by the Treasury, but it should be taken not as the subject of argument or debate but as the starting point for a discussion between the Treasury and the sector. It seems to me that a significant body of both academic and sectoral opinion says that it would offer opportunities for our businesses to grow and for the Treasury to get more money as a consequence. I do not expect the Minister to stand up and say, “All right, on you go”—I suspect that that moment, were it ever to come, passed with the Budget—but there is still a wide range of opinion on this issue in the House and there is a wide range of support for it throughout the country. It would assist us all, Treasury included, if the Minister was prepared to open the lines of communication and engage with those of us who are making the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of VAT specifically in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, we undertook a call for evidence, which we announced at the Budget before last. We have now reported on that and will continue to look at the issue of VAT, although we are currently constrained by virtue of our membership of the European Union, as I will argue later. Northern Ireland actually has some advantages over the Republic of Ireland when it comes to VAT. For example, we have the highest VAT threshold for businesses that have to charge VAT in the European Union and the OECD, including the Irish Republic.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the specific support we provide for tourism. We provide some £60 million per year for our GREAT Britain campaign, £20 million per year of which goes to VisitBritain. Our tourism action plan looks at regulation, transport, skills and all the other things that underpin tourist activity as well as money and taxation. Some £40 million goes to the Discover England fund for promoting tourism outside London.

At the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s ask is clearly a reduction in VAT, particularly with regard to food and beverages, attractions and accommodation— the areas that he cited when he mentioned the VAT directive and the derogations in items (7), (12) and (12a). The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. We have met campaigners over many years, and I have engaged extensively with Members right across the House. We will keep VAT and VAT on tourism under review, but unfortunately there are some issues from which we cannot hide away. One of those issues is the fact that, if we are to make a change, under the current arrangements with the European Union that change would have to be UK-wide. It would therefore come with quite a hefty price tag.

The Treasury estimates that, in the first year at least—although one recognises there are dynamic effects of reducing taxes, increasing activity and therefore perhaps getting more tax revenue further down the line—we would be looking at a cost of about £10 billion for reducing VAT from 20% down to 5% in the categories that I mentioned. That would be about £7 billion on food and beverages, £2 billion on accommodation and £1 billion on attractions. Some of that loss, or some of the relief that we would be providing, would be dead weight in the sense that it would not necessarily solely apply to supporting tourism.

[Mr Carmichael]

There is one important factor of which we should not lose sight, which is that our tourism sector is enormously competitive. Therefore, there would be every incentive for the operators in the industry to pass on the money that would be available to them by having a reduced rate of VAT. As a consequence, we would see that recycling effect accelerated in a way that we probably would not see in any other industry.

[Mel Stride]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As somebody who philosophically believes in lower taxes, I think that is a very strong argument. However, unfortunately there is the cost argument. To use the same kind of principles to the right hon. Gentleman’s argument on recycling, clearly if we were bringing in less by way of taxation as a consequence of the reduction, there would be less to spend on other things that arguably might help tourism, including improved infrastructure and maybe even tax reliefs in other areas, such as the progress that we have made in reducing small retailers’ business rates.

We have one of the highest VAT thresholds of any country in both the European Union and the OECD, which is an advantage to us and our tourist sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

What I can do is assure my right hon. Friend that we look actively at all taxes at every fiscal event. He will know that stamp duty land tax has been a subject of some interest and, indeed, controversy. We do look very carefully at the receipts data, but we also have to look at the distributional impact of different taxes. As my right hon. Friend will understand, doing anything about high rates of stamp duty land tax would have a very uneven distributional impact.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T9. Renewable energy developers working on wave and tidal power have presented a proposal for what they call innovation power purchase agreements, a mechanism whereby they might finally get their devices over the line into commercial deployment. Will the Chancellor, or perhaps the Chief Secretary, work with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a proposal that could allow them and the developers to see the fruition of what could be a very important part of the Government’s industrial strategy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As part of the spending review, we will look at the most efficient way in which we can meet our carbon targets. I am working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in that regard.

Food Labelling and Allergy-Related Deaths

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to look at all means possible to provide the information. It is pivotal that we respond to the needs particularly of 16 to 24-year-olds, who are beginning to make independent choices about their food. Let us find ways of making that information available. Technology will be important, especially for that generation.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Most of those who suffer from food allergies rely on medicines to manage their reactions, but the data sheets for the medicines themselves are often incomplete. A constituent explained to me last week that medicines for handling anaphylactic reactions can often include lactose and soya without having that on the data sheet. So as well as looking to his own departmental responsibilities, will he speak to his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that when people rely on medicines, they know that they can use them safely?

Economies of the UK Islands

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing the debate. It is a rare and welcome opportunity to discuss island issues. The hon. Gentleman said that we are all islanders. I am doubly blessed in that regard, because I am an islander by birth—I was born and brought up on Islay, off the west coast—and I am an islander by choice, having raised my family with my wife in Orkney. I have represented Orkney and Shetland here since 2001.

It is worth reflecting on what it means to be an islander and to live in an island community. Island communities are special places. Being an islander changes the way people see the world. One of my great bugbears is hearing people talk about insularity, meaning that islanders are somehow inward-looking. In fact, islanders are much more outward-looking, because they are dependent on their links with the rest of the world in a way that people in the larger conurbations on the mainland take for granted. To be an islander is not to be insular, however much that might offend the classicists, but to lead a different sort of life in a modern and connected world.

We are often excluded. Hon. Members have heard me speak before on the subject of all too often being excluded from or charged extra for deliveries that people in towns and cities take for granted. However, I do not want this speech to be a constant litany of the problems that island communities face. If nothing else, I hope the Minister takes away from the debate an understanding that our island communities have challenges, as every community in the country does, but we offer opportunities for the Government as well. Island communities can contribute in a whole range of ways to the work of Government, be it in Westminster, Holyrood or wherever else.

Many of the issues that we face as island communities are shared in common with communities across the whole country. Brexit is probably the dominant issue that I hear about when I speak to businesses in my communities. Orkney is a predominantly agricultural community and Shetland is a predominantly fishing-based community, where fishing still makes up about one third of the local economy. The shape of our future relationship with Europe—particularly in relation to the fishing industry and whether we will continue to have a relationship with Brussels and a common policy on fisheries, and the shape of future agricultural support, which is guaranteed only to 2022—is a big issue for our economy.

That highlights one of the biggest problems. As can be seen from the number of hon. Members present, there are not that many island communities in this country and we do not have that high a level of population, so we often fall off the end of the table because we need a slightly different provision and our island needs are not always understood. We are the most vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences.

Post-Brexit, as we move to reformed agricultural and fisheries policies, there are real opportunities to design them in a way that will work for farmers and fisherman across the whole country, and to build into them the flexibility that we have been denied over the years, which has been enormously detrimental to our fleet and the fishing industry.

The economic profile of most island communities is not dissimilar from that of Orkney and Shetland. We have an economy of predominantly locally grown small and medium-sized enterprises. For islands, as for all small communities, that is a good thing with real opportunities. It allows us to keep a lot of the money that we raise and spend within the island community.

The modern economy in our island communities, however, is a lot more than the farmers and fishermen that hon. Members might instinctively think of. In my constituency, I have several growing and successful software engineering companies. They offer well-paid and attractive employment opportunities to younger people who may have been away for higher education and want to return.

There is a role for Government, not just in terms of the economic development and growth of those companies, but in terms of the provision of infrastructure. One of the main hindrances to the economy in my constituency is the continuing poor level of broadband and mobile phone connectivity. The latter is slowly improving, but as the rest of the country looks towards 5G, most of my constituents can still only dream of 3G or 4G.

A different approach from the Government to rolling out that sort of infrastructure could be transformative for us. If we said to the big corporates such as BT, “Of course you can get a licence to roll out the next generation in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, London, Birmingham or wherever else, but you have to start at the periphery and work your way in,” that would mean that, instead of constantly playing catch-up and always following on, as a community with the opportunity to benefit most from that sort of innovation, we could be at the cutting edge.

In recent years, one of the most important parts of our local economy, on both Orkney and Shetland, has been the growth of tourism. We have gone from the days when bed and breakfast was provided by a few farmers’ wives to supplement their farming income to a position now where tourism is a significant part of our local economy. Obviously, it is part of an economy that is enormously vulnerable to outside influences, for example currency fluctuations. Also, terrorism and the attractiveness of our country as a whole will have a very long tail by the time that they reach Orkney and Shetland.

Tourism is also an industry that has big seasonal variations. People work long hours during the summer months but will perhaps just keep their businesses ticking over in the winter. Now, if somebody is in receipt of tax credits, for example, such big fluctuations of income throughout the financial year can be occasionally enormously problematic. Again, that is another example of the way in which the decisions made at the centre, which might work very well for 95% of people, can cause real difficulties in the way that they affect the remainder. When we hear about something benefiting the 95%, those of us who are islanders know that we will inevitably be largely among the remaining 5%.

The biggest opportunity for islands to contribute to our future wealth and prosperity in this country comes from the development of renewable energy. The first generation of wind turbines was tested in a prototype on Burgar Hill in Evie, in Orkney. Ever since then, those of us within the isles have been enthusiastic in our promotion of the next generation of electricity and energy development.

The development of wave and tidal power brings another opportunity. It is still very much in its infancy, but again it would require just a little bit of tweaking to make the regulation and the development funding work. Development money for wave and tidal power sits in a pot for developing technologies, alongside offshore wind. It is pretty well accepted that offshore wind is no longer a developing technology but is now a fairly mature technology. However, as a consequence of that development and the way in which the price of offshore wind has fallen, the full funding for developing technologies is then scooped up by offshore wind and the money that should be there to help wave and tidal power to develop is simply taken by offshore wind.

I do not begrudge offshore wind a penny of that money, but some dedicated pot of development funding for wave and tidal power would be of transformative benefit to the industry, and it would certainly be of enormous economic benefit to the island communities that I represent. Predominantly, though, it would allow us to contribute to the rest of the country.

We are not looking for any special favours or special treatment. We are not even looking for extra money from the coastal communities fund, although people should remember that that money came from the Crown Estate’s marine estate, and so we have contributed plenty to that fund over the years, through our fish farms, marinas and piers. We just want the opportunity to be allowed to contribute to the rest of the country to the fullest extent that we possibly can, and in that way we can all understand that through good times and bad we will share the risks and the opportunities.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Rosindell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for securing this debate and for being part of the all-party parliamentary group for UK islands. His presence here is very welcome and he spoke very eloquently about the needs of Hayling Island; once upon a time, when I was very young, I visited it and I remember how lovely it was. I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his contribution: it is always good to hear of the experiences of other islands.

As we know, this is not a debate about places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are Crown dependencies. This debate is about islands that are fully within the governance of the United Kingdom, but clearly they have physical characteristics that make them islands and give them distinct traits. Indeed, our islands are unique and special places, and to represent my island is a passion and a privilege, which I am incredibly grateful for. I love being here, but I would not want to represent anywhere other than the Isle of Wight.

Islands are, by definition, at the fringes of our nation, but they also help to define us, and they have a special place in our geography and culture. However, my argument to the Minister who is here today—I am very grateful for his presence—is that islands do not always get their fair share, because they are overlooked. In the case of my island and my constituency—the Isle of Wight—that is especially true.

By way of example, the Scottish islands get the Scottish islands needs allowance, or SINA, which comes from the Scottish Government. So they get the Barnett formula money, which is generous, and on top of that they get the SINA. If I remember correctly and have my facts right—I am sure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will correct me if I am wrong—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland get an extra £6 million a year through SINA, in acknowledgment of the fact that supplying Government services on islands tends to cost more than it does on the mainland. The Isle of Wight gets none of that money, despite the fact that we have a population four times bigger than that of the Western Isles, for example, and two, three or four times bigger than that of Orkney, Shetland and other islands.

So we do not get our fair share, and when it comes to “fair” funding we are unfairly funded. The central reason for that is simple: it is the Solent. Government funding systems are not designed to deal with isolation by water. The rural isolation grant and the rural farming grants are all predicated on a sense of isolation, but isolation on land and not isolation by water. One of the arguments that I am trying to make, and I have already made it to the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments, is that a fair funding formula needs to take into account isolation by water.

I have gone straight into the meat of my speech; I will now go backwards a little bit. We are very much open for business on the Isle of Wight; we are trying to attract new businesses to the island; and our regeneration team and our council have a very ambitious programme, which I absolutely support, and I will work hand in glove with them.

In fact, we have a unique scientific heritage. Marconi set up the first experimental wireless station off the south coast of the island, on St Catherine’s Down, which, by the way, is one of the sunniest places in Britain; seaplanes were built by Saunders-Roe in East Cowes; and we have major employers and a cluster of defence, composite and high-tech industries, including companies such as Gurit, BAE Systems, GKN, which is now part of Melrose, and Vestas. Indeed, a high percentage of the world’s large offshore turbine blades are made on the Isle of Wight at the Vestas factory. Vestas is doing great work on the island, and I thank it, as I do all employers, for its presence. So we are very much home to high-tech businesses that are at the cutting edge of their industries.

As I have said, however, there is a problem with providing Government services on the island. A University of Portsmouth 2015 study said that the extra costs of providing Government services on the Isle of Wight were £6.4 million a year, because of the costs of being an island. The university broke that figure down into three: first, the cost of self-sufficiency, because of the lack of spill-over of public goods provision; second, what it called an “island premium”, which is the additional cost of conducting business on and with islands, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know about; and thirdly, the sense of dislocation, which is the physical and perceived separation from the mainland and which could come from providing services to a smaller population and a smaller market.

I will give an example. At care homes, there was a clear mistake that we are rectifying. Elderly folks were put into care homes earlier than on the mainland, yet our care homes were costing more than the mainland because of the lack of competition between them. To some extent, another issue was their high quality. The cost was pushing additional burden on to our adult social care costs, which skewed our funding so that we could not spend the money on infrastructure to provide jobs and on a jobs agenda. That is absolutely vital in keeping our youngsters on the Island, which helps make us the vibrant and successful community that we are, and which we are building on as well.

In those three different ways—full self-sufficiency, the island premium and dislocation—there is an extra cost for Government services on the Isle of Wight. That has been estimated, in an academically rigid, peer-reviewed article, to be £6.4 million a year, and that does not include other factors that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. One of those is the Green Book estimate. Green Book estimates are the terms and references for Government investment, and they do not work for the Island because we are physically isolated. We cannot do the things that work for Southampton, Portsmouth or, indeed, for Havant, because we are physically separated. The Green Book estimates process counts against the Isle of Wight in providing infrastructure.

I have mentioned separation by water in terms of the rural isolation grant. For farming grants, things are prejudiced against us because we are in the wealthy south-east. In many ways, we get all the downside of being part of the wealthy south-east—we do not get that extra support as we are seen to be in the wealthiest area of the country—when in many ways our economy is similar to that of west Devon or Cornwall. There is some tourism, some culture, farming and little clusters of high-tech industry. Whereas lovely places such as Cornwall get money thrown at them through EU grants and Government support, we have had very little of that.

The amount of money we would ask for from central Government to make the Island even more of a success is really very small. I would love to sit down and have that conversation with the Minister in greater detail. The answer is not devolution, because the housing system sadly does not work for us, and we will be arguing why we are an exception. We want a modest, tailored package of support that recognises that we are an island. That £6 million extra in fair funding would be of benefit for the council, and would recognise that because we are an island, we need an A&E and a maternity unit, because someone cannot give birth on a helicopter going to the mainland, and the ambulance cannot wait for four hours to get the ferry overnight. Our funding in health services and many other things is skewed by the fact that we are an island, and that is not recognised.

We have many little clusters of excellence. Our tourism economy is significantly improving. We will very soon have one of the best broadband services in the world. Thanks to our wonderful local company, WightFibre, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—I thank them very much indeed—we are getting significant sums of money so that we will get ultra-superfast broadband for five out of six houses on the Island. If someone has a broadband business, the place they want to be is not London, Old Street, Moorgate or Brighton, but Cowes or Newport, where they will get broadband speeds comparable with Singapore. What I need to do, working with colleagues in the council, is determine how we get the other one sixth of houses in the more rural and very rural areas linked up to that as well, so that people can have Singapore broadband speeds in their little farmhouse in Newtown Creek, Brighstone, Chale or wherever.

Most importantly, education is critical to our future. It is improving and is becoming a success story. We probably need to work on restructuring our sixth forms, but most importantly, I would like to have a conversation with the Treasury and the relevant Ministers about getting significantly more higher education to the Isle of Wight, specifically a university campus. I would like that to be in Newport as part of our critical Newport harbour redevelopment. It may be that it goes elsewhere. Higher education would clearly lead to much higher levels of higher education, but it would also drive our software businesses, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about, and other key investments.

We have also won special status from the Arts Council, and we are building a much stronger cultural offer for tourism, education, aspiration and, critically, regeneration. It is important for the Minister to be aware of that. I would love to have a conversation with him about our farming and small businesses. I am having a conversation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), about mobile slaughtermen. Once we leave the European Union, we will be too small to have an abattoir, yet our field structure on the Island is perfectly suited to animal husbandry, and we are very keen to support local food production, which is good for multiple reasons, over and above employment.

[Mr Carmichael]

I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says when he talks about the Island being too small to have an abattoir—we have the same issue in the Northern Isles—but I suggest that is not actually the case. The Isle of Wight is surely too small to have an abattoir only in the way we regulate and manage abattoirs currently. A more sensitive system of regulation would surely allow a good business there.

[Mr Seely]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am happy to take that correction. Post-Brexit, we need to change the rules for farming so that we have smaller abattoirs or mobile slaughtermen who can kill animals humanely on the farm to allow them to go into the human food chain in a way that does not exist at the moment.

Finally, I would like to have a conversation with the relevant Minister in due course about BAE and the need to have a complex radar technology demonstrator in Cowes. If we wish to keep radar technology in this country for the next 50 years—there is a critical national interest in doing so—the only realistic place to have it is where the aircraft carriers, the Type 45 and all the Royal Navy warships are made, which is in West Cowes at the BAE plant. I want to bring together BAE and Government to have that conversation. We are talking about small sums of money—£5 million, £10 million or £15 million—to secure a complex radar technology demonstrator, so that we can keep those high-tech jobs and that high-tech knowledge on the Island. I will wind-up now, Mr Rosindell. I apologise; I have taken a touch too long.

The Island is a success story, but I do not believe the Government have engaged with us enough over the past 10 to 20 years to maximise our success in building a new economy and an advanced education system, doing all the things we need to do regarding our infrastructure, such as our broadband and all the high-tech jobs, and making the Island the economic success story that it is. I reinforce the point about the coastal communities fund and the importance of the Treasury spending a little time and effort to understand islands, their unique circumstances and the amounts of money—very small in the great scheme of things—that could help drive enterprise and economic progress. More than anything, I want my constituency, the wonderful Isle of Wight, to contribute economically, rather than being a place that gets handouts from central Government because we say we are poor and do not have this or that. With a bit of help from the Treasury and the Government, and greater integration and support, we can drive our success story further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

My constituents would not forgive me if I were to allow this opportunity to pass. I must point out that in the Northern Isles, despite a raft of promises over the years, we are still to see the reduced fares promised by the road equivalent tariff.

[Bill Grant]

I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I hope that those endeavours will bear fruit and be recognised. I think that the NorthLink Ferries services do not attract the same support.

We also host the world’s last seagoing paddle steamer, the Waverley, based in Glasgow. She is a wonderful way to do what we say in Scotland is a trip “Doon the Watter” that takes people to various islands such as Arran and Cumbrae, which I am sure we will hear about later. It is a great opportunity to see the wonderful west coast. She also plies her trade off season down here in the Thames.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am very happy to speak in this debate today, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for securing it. I also thank him for the celebratory tone with which he introduced the debate on our beautiful islands right across the United Kingdom and for recognising the unique challenges that our islands face, despite the many attractions that they offer both residents and visitors. Our islands are indeed beautiful but, as we have heard today, they can be quite fragile, too, and deserve special and separate consideration, so I am delighted to contribute today as I have the honour of representing the beautiful islands of Cumbrae and Arran.

Our islands not only face unique challenges, but share common challenges. I want to say a few words about the comments made so far. The hon. Member for Havant painted a beautiful picture of the island of Hayling, which he has made me think about visiting because he painted such an idyllic picture of it. We have also heard about the beautiful islands of Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight. We had a round-up from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I took a photograph surreptitiously as he paid tribute to the Scottish Government. Although the photograph will not have sound on it, it will be a moment captured in time as he went out of his way to pay tribute to the Scottish Government.

I represent the isle of Cumbrae, whose main population centre is the town of Millport. There are few people who grow up in the west of Scotland who do not have a childhood memory of cycling round Millport and this lovely island just off the seaside town of Largs, which I also have the privilege of representing. Cumbrae is a mere hop, skip and a jump from Largs. It offers the beauty and tranquillity of island life while being extremely accessible and a short ferry ride away. In the height of summer there are 40 sailings each way per day to the Isle of Cumbrae. People flock there not only for the beautiful scenery, but to visit the £4.2 million education facility, the Field Studies Council, which was built in partnership with the Scottish Government and has attracted visitors and scholars from across Europe, if not the world.

The Isle of Arran is a little more remote and offers towering mountains and luscious rolling landscape that can, in the right light, simply take your breath away. I mention such things not only for the sake of it, because it is such a nice thing to discuss, but because both islands enjoy a huge influx of visitors, especially, although not only, in the high season.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock mentioned the road equivalent tariff, whereby ferry fares are set on the basis of the cost of travelling an equivalent distance by road, including a fixed element to keep fares sustainable and to cover fixed costs such as infrastructure. RET was introduced to the island of Arran in October 2014. I hope that my setting out the benefits of RET will help the Minister as he deliberates about how to stimulate island economies and help them to grow.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) expressed some disappointment that Orkney and Shetland appear not to benefit from those advantages. He will be aware that the Minister for Transport in Scotland announced that RET would be rolled out to Orkney and Shetland in the first half of 2018. That announcement was very much welcomed by his colleagues Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will also, when he has time to reflect, wish to welcome the announcement.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am on the record as welcoming the good intentions; I am just frustrated that, almost 11 years since the same opportunities were given to communities in the Western Isles, we still have not seen a single penny piece in the Northern Isles. Surely, the hon. Lady understands why our communities are so frustrated by the decisions taken by her Government in Edinburgh.

[Patricia Gibson]

As I said, I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration, because we all want to fight for our constituents and secure for them whatever advantages we can as soon as possible. He will also remember that I said that the Isle of Arran got RET in 2014. From what he said, that was a considerable distance behind the first roll-out. The fact is that the roll-out is a process and a programme. Obviously, the islands that are not at the front of the queue will be frustrated and impatient, as they should be. The fact is that RET—as I suppose his frustration suggests—is a huge benefit to island communities, and any island would be mad not to want to secure those advantages as soon as could be arranged.

The object of road equivalent tariff is to increase demand for ferry services by making ferry travel much more affordable and more accessible, to increase tourism and to enhance the local and wider national economy. That is why the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and I are so excited about it. In order to be as helpful to the Minister as I can—I always try to be helpful to my colleagues—I intend to paint a brief picture to show him the positive impact that road equivalent tariff can have, in case it is something that he wants to consider rolling out in the rest of the UK. It helps to offset some, though not all, of the challenges that are faced by island communities, which we have heard a wee bit about today.

In the case of Arran routes, such as the Brodick to Ardrossan route and the route between Claonaig and Lochranza, stimulation of the economy has certainly been achieved. Arran’s economy—if you can believe this, Mr Rosindell—has grown by 10%, which is a faster rate of growth even than China. That is something to prize, and it can perhaps be best explained by the price of the Ardrossan to Brodick route tumbling by a massive 46% for foot passengers, with a 64% reduction for cars being transported on that route. That comes at a cost of a mere £2.4 million a year to the Scottish Government.

I will set out the advantages that RET has brought in practical terms to the island. Analysis carried out by Transport Scotland has concluded that RET has significantly increased resident ferry travel across all journey purposes, and increased the demand for ferry services. In addition, the number of tourists has increased substantially, with the season extended from Easter and peak summer to the equivalent of the whole summer timetable. RET has enhanced the island-hopping tourist market with neighbouring islands. The Scottish Government are investing £1.8 million a year to support RET for the route between Cumbrae and Bute.

We know that job markets on islands can be challenging and fragile—we have heard a bit about that today. For Arran businesses, the impact of RET has been extremely positive, with increases cited in footfall and turnover. The tourism sector has accrued the greatest benefits, with hotels, guest-houses, campsites, golf courses and visitor attractions all highlighting the positive impact of RET.

Interestingly, RET has been particularly beneficial to the more remote areas of the island of Arran, particularly on the west coast. That is surely down to the increased numbers of visitors availing themselves of the opportunity to bring their cars on to the island at a much reduced cost, and exploring the farther reaches of the island, beyond Brodick and Lamlash. It is heartening to see a new £10 million distillery on Arran, and major expansion of the Auchrannie hotel and spa, which will enhance any visitor experience. RET has also allowed those who live outwith the island to take up jobs that have been challenging to fill, as students or seasonal workers can sometimes fill them. There is even a scarcity of staff to fill the increasing demand for workers in the hospitality industry, demonstrating the success of RET for the island.

Of course, there is no denying that RET has posed challenges for some businesses in the retail sector, because they are becoming increasingly exposed to competition with the mainland. However, studies show that the overwhelming consensus is that there has been a very positive impact on the island in terms of social, cultural and economic opportunities.

We know that connectivity is key, and that is very true of broadband connectivity for our islands. The Arran Economic Group reported last year that, based on cabinet installations, more than 90% of households and businesses now have access to superfast broadband, with take-up on Arran and Cumbrae at around 41%. There have been particular issues with the area of Machrie on Arran, but progress is being made.

We have heard some remarks about connectivity, regarding broadband and mobile phone signals. It is true that that is an issue, but as I always say to constituents when they raise such matters with me, the connectivity of broadband and mobile signal on this very estate sometimes compares to some of the difficulties that people have on the island of Arran and other outlying areas in our coastal communities. The broadband and mobile phone signal on this estate is sometimes, as you will be aware, Mr Rosindell, absolutely shocking. The fact that we have that problem in the middle of London, in the middle of the parliamentary estate, shows the scale of the challenges that our island communities face.

Arran also suffers from the lack of affordable housing. That is a challenge for future economic growth on the island, since it has an impact on the working-age population. One barrier is that 22% of homes on Arran are second homes, with a further 59 empty homes identified. We need to find ways of offsetting those issues, alongside plans to build new affordable homes on Arran. The Scottish Government have helped to fund 96 new homes in partnership working. That is a start, but clearly there is much more work to be done. The Scottish Government are investing £2.2 million on Cumbrae for amenity housing, but there is no room for complacency. Affordable housing remains a big challenge.

We know that there are pressures on Scotland’s budget. I was quite bewildered by the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). He is standing up for his constituents, which is exactly what he is supposed to do, but I flinched when he called the Barnett formula “generous”, given that Scotland’s resource budget was cut by £211 million this year and will be cut by £538 million next year. I am sure that he wants more resources for the Isle of Wight, but I do not think that describing the Barnett formula as generous is the way to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing this debate and bringing the issue to the House to chew over—it is very important. The contributions from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) indicate the complexity, diversity and multifaceted aspects that this issue throws up. It must be seen in the context of the type of islands that we have in this country—from the Isle of Wight, with its 140,000-odd population, right through to some of the inhabited Scottish islands, which have perhaps five or six inhabitants. It is not quite as simple as saying that an island is an island is an island.

There is also the diversity of economic activities on our islands. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked about windsurfing, and I also got the impression that he has tasted whisky. I look forward to hearing his experiences of windsurfing—if not seeing the photographs—next time we debate.

As the hon. Member for Havant mentioned, one of the greatest problems faced by the economies of UK islands is poor infrastructure. The rising cost of transport for people who live on UK islands clearly has a knock-on effect on jobs, suppliers and the population, as many young adults are choosing to leave their island homes in favour of finding work in the rest of the country.

Another challenge is the higher levels of unemployment; the unemployment rate on many islands is well above the national average. The Isle of Sheppey’s unemployment rate stands at 2.6%, while those on the Scottish islands of Arran and Bute are 3.8% and 4.1% respectively. As has been discussed, many islands are tourist destinations, which means that a large amount of the work is seasonal. In the past, that might have been less of a challenge, but with weather becoming increasingly unpredictable due to global warming, it is much harder for those economies to plan and scale. It is not necessarily a major factor at this point, but it is a factor. In relation to the grouse—I mean gross, though grouse is very appropriate for Scotland—the gross household disposable income on UK islands is lower for workers in the Orkney Islands, the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles and Anglesey than for those in much of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Given the increasingly technological nature of advanced economies, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) have quite rightly pointed out the vast differences in broadband connectivity and speeds between parts of the UK and the islands. That has a huge impact on island economies, particularly on the number of small businesses that operate remotely. Naturally, many UK island economies suffer from having less resources, which hon. Members have mentioned, and have a heavy reliance on a limited number of supply chains, which leads to the UK’s island populations paying more for goods and services. When combined with lower-than-average incomes, higher costs of household essentials are a key factor in driving poverty levels.

All those issues have been outlined with clarity by Members from across the House. We have had the analysis of the symptoms, but I am not sure we have had the practical things we can all do to help those communities—I hope the Minister will address that. It falls on me, as Opposition spokesperson, to refer to the elephant in the room: eight years of austerity. Many areas have suffered disproportionately from that because of the lack of investment in those communities, where they have struggled.

Let me take a couple of examples. I understand that Canvey Island has an independence party, with eight or nine councillors. I am not quite sure whether they are going to get to a referendum—but perhaps we should not go there, or talk about customs unions or single markets, as I am sure we have enough trouble with that at the moment. Canvey Island sits in the borough of Castle Point in Essex, a local authority that has seen nearly £1 million of Government grant disappear. Reports now suggest that Castle Point will be running a million-pound deficit in three years’ time.

Perhaps we should turn to Hayling Island, which the hon. Member for Havant mentioned and knows well, as it is in his constituency and covered by Havant Borough Council. A couple of months ago, his local paper, the Portsmouth News, reported that the local authority had been forced to increase council tax by the maximum of 3%. The local population will have to pay that—a population that, as the hon. Gentleman said, are already stressing and straining. Why might a Conservative council feel the need to increase taxes on the good people of Havant and the island of Hayling? It faces a £1.2 million reduction in central Government support as a direct result of the Government’s policies. There is no way to duck that particular issue. The council leader, when describing the measures being taken to try to rescue some services said:

“We didn’t want to go down this route but we had no option”.

The council faces a significant reduction in central Government funding through the revenue support grant, which in 2016-17 was £1.4 million, is now £290,000 and from 2019-20 will be zero. That is a factor in the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

These are not isolated examples. If we consider any of the local authorities of the islands mentioned in this debate, the story is the same—deep and pernicious cuts that threaten the very existence of some of them.

[Mr Carmichael]

Of course reductions in public expenditure are difficult for island communities, as they are everywhere. The real difficulty that they face is not just the amount of money that they have to spend, but the fact that so much of it comes with strings attached and local authorities are given so little discretion over how to spend the money that they have. What island communities need more than anything else is the ability to make decisions for themselves.

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and his point feeds into the whole question of devolution within nations. Whether we like it or not, there is centralisation down here in Whitehall and Westminster. That is not a criticism, as it happens in all parties. In the past, I have called it—forgive the phrase, Mr Rosindell—the anal retention down here. It is not particularly helpful or productive. Local communities know their areas best and it is best for communities to get on and use their discretion, within as wide a parameter as possible, to provide services in their areas. They tend to know best.

Given how these local economies are often heavily reliant upon the public sector, following major structural changes to the economy of the last four decades, it is little surprise that some communities are under stress. The hon. Member for Havant referred to commercial practicalities. Sometimes, they will close down banks, pubs and other services. Do we permit that to happen, or do we do something to ameliorate it? It is sometimes the Government’s job to help and to intervene—not to direct or do too much, but to go in and help communities where such services are the lifeblood. In 10 or 15 years’ time, we will all be concerned that such services have de facto closed down, and we will ask what we could have done to support them.

Some islands are getting increasingly desperate about the way things are. All joking aside, some people on Canvey Island want independence because they do not feel they are getting the deal they should be getting. That underlines the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about devolution and about local communities being able to run themselves where possible.

It is important that the Government begin to invest in the UK island economies and engage with their populations. Whether that means the Isle of Wight or a small island off the Scottish coast, that has to happen. It could mean investing to stimulate employment opportunities on UK islands, as the increasingly unpredictable cycle of seasonal work is clearly not enough to sustain island economies. Anglesey and Orkney have demonstrated that investment in renewable energy can deliver sustainable jobs and put the UK on the path to energy security, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The Government have to stop being blinkered; they must look at these issues and at how they can work with communities.

The Opposition have some transformative proposals, such as our plan for a coastal communities fund—a policy we have been consulting on since the election, and which we will begin to outline in due course. I believe it will address some of the issues that the hon. Member for Havant raised, deliver investment in a number of UK island economies and hopefully bring them back from the brink. In our grey book, “Funding Britain’s Future”, we set out an immediate increase in local government funding while we review council tax and business rates. That in itself will not prevent some communities from going over the edge, but we have to send them the message that we are here to help and support them, and that we will do everything we can to ensure they continue so that we maintain the diversity of our country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome that injection of investment into his community.

We need a radical rethink to help communities that feel under pressure, left behind and under threat. Tinkering at the edges is not good enough, and will not help island communities, in their diversity, to succeed.

Spring Statement

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has asked this question, because it gives me an opportunity to thank her for sparking this line of inquiry in a letter she wrote to me. I did challenge the Treasury with the idea that it is more focused on the returns to infrastructure investment than on skills investment. When we looked at it in detail, we discovered that the metrics for measuring the returns to investment in human capital are not as well developed as they should be. That is something the ONS has to take forward, but it is important, as we move increasingly into a knowledge-based economy, with a huge set of technological changes ahead of us, that we can compare appropriately and objectively investment in physical infrastructure with investment in human capital, and that is what we will be able to do if we get the new metrics right.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doubtless aware that the OECD this morning published its own growth forecasts, putting us at the bottom of the OECD economies, with forecast growth this year of 1.3%. It is pretty clear that there is no Brexit dividend on the scene for the British economy. It is to be welcomed that the deficit is getting back to a manageable level, but he must know—even his own Back Benchers are telling him—that extra money is needed now for our hospitals, our schools and our police. That money is not there because of previous decisions to make premature cuts to capital gains tax and inheritance tax. He must have heard the Institute for Fiscal Studies calling for increased capital investment in housing, up to 3% of our economy. Why does he not listen to the IFS?

[Mr Hammond]

First, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that our economy still faces uncertainty as we go through the negotiation process with the European Union. I am convinced, from every conversation I have had with business leaders and investors, that as we deliver greater clarity about our future relationship with the European Union over the coming months, we will see business investment and consumer confidence increasing. We beat the forecast in 2017. Let us beat it again in 2018. I do believe that economic growth matters. The shadow Chancellor says that it does not matter what the level of GDP is, but I do not agree—[Interruption.] Well, I will send him the quote if he cannot immediately recall what he said. I do believe that GDP matters, because it is what drives living standards. We are putting extra money into public services—£11 billion since I have been Chancellor. I agree that we have a major challenge in the housing market. We have put a significant amount of money—£44 billion—into dealing with the challenge over the rest of this Parliament, but there are significant non-financial constraints on being able to do more, such as physical bottlenecks in relation to skilled labour and materials. But it is something we will keep under review.

Scotch Whisky Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Scotch whisky industry.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am delighted that the Exchequer Secretary is almost in his place. I also acknowledge the presence of, and support from, hon. Members from other parties. I shall take some interventions if time permits but, if colleagues will permit, I shall ration myself, in view of the constraints of time.

The Scotch whisky industry, like just about every other one, has a sense of uncertainty about its future at the moment. Given the wider political context, that is hardly surprising; but there is much positive to be said about the industry, especially for the medium to long term, if we get the big decisions right now. For Scotland, and especially rural Scotland, the industry is enormously important. It is also an important part of the UK economy as a whole. It is a massive exporter and earns in the region of £4 billion a year for us—20% of our food and drink exports are from that one industry. The export performance is crucial, as it underpins a market providing about 40,000 jobs, including about 10,000 directly in the industry. Of those, 7,000 are in the rural economy. Beyond that direct employment there is the supply chain and, of course, the burgeoning question of whisky tourism.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On the supply chain, it is important to emphasise that the jobs are not just in Scotland. A company called Erben in Hadleigh in my constituency provides much of the bottling technology, and bottle caps, to some of the biggest brands in the whisky industry.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. The Scotch Whisky Association and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association would make that point: there is an industry and supply chain across the country. That includes the fact that the grain comes from farms throughout the country. The impact of the industry is particularly acute, however, in rural Scotland. The growth of whisky tourism, in particular, has been phenomenal in recent years, and has been transformative for the most economically fragile communities in Scotland.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

There is an impact on the urban economy, as well as on the rural economy. Dewar’s whisky is produced on London Road in Glasgow. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had the pleasure of drinking it; I am more than happy to share it. His point about the wider supply chain is important. Having visited the bottling plant, I know the impact on Carntyne Transport, which provides many jobs in my constituency.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is always good to have props—but it is wholly unallowed.

[Mr Carmichael]

I anticipated that that might be your reaction, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his intervention—he made a good point—and for his offer, but even by my standards it is a little early at the moment.

As I have said, many of the most economically fragile communities are sustained by the whisky industry and many are flourishing as a consequence of its recent growth. In recent weeks there has been welcome news from Diageo that it will reopen Port Ellen and Brora. That is part of a continuing pattern that has emerged over years. The Highland Park distillery in my constituency has been going from strength to strength for years. It also has a smaller cousin in Scapa, which has emerged not from mothballs—it does not like that term, for obvious reasons—but from a quiet period and grown such that production is now in the region of 1.1 million litres a year. There were three full-time jobs in production, and that number has now gone up to five. It has also expanded into a visitor centre and shop. That all brings money and employment into the community and allows it to stay there. That is a fairly modest but significant increase, and its replication in communities across the highlands and islands highlights the social importance of its economic impact.

Seven new distilleries opened in Scotland last year alone, and many others are still in production. In anticipation of today’s debate I had a brief conversation yesterday with Stewart Laing, of Hunter Laing, one of the people behind the construction, from the foundations up, of a new distillery on Islay, at Ardnahoe. He described it to me as a lifetime commitment, and the Treasury should understand that: those who are part of the industry are not in it just for a quick buck in the here and now. Long-term planning and stability are of exceptional importance. Another Islay distillery that provides a great example for others to follow is that at Kilchoman. It was set up 10 years ago by the Wills family and now employs 25 to 30 full-time employees. It has a turnover of £4.6 million and it is still a family business. Of course Diageo, Pernod Ricard, Chivas and so on—the big players in the industry—are very important, but a pattern is emerging of a much more diverse range of business models. For them in particular, the medium to long-term future of the industry and its stability are of absolute importance.

As the Minister may have anticipated, I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the shorter term. We all know the rules on Budgets, and we know that one is coming up on 22 November, so I have realistic expectations about what the Minister will say now, but I want to test him on a few of the issues arising from the March Budget. That, of course, affects spirits producers in general, not just Scotch whisky producers. For the second part of today’s parliamentary happy hour, the Minister will doubtless return to this Chamber for the afternoon debate on beer and pub taxation.

The spring Budget delivered, somewhat out of the blue, an increase of 3.9% in the level of spirits duty. It is anticipated that the escalator will now produce a 3.4% increase at the end of this month, with a further 3% per annum thereafter. It is something of a supertax, which I suggest is ill conceived and misguided. It requires urgent consideration; otherwise the pattern that I have described of a growing, diverse whisky industry will be under threat.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Moray has 47 of Scotland’s 119 Scotch whisky distilleries, so I could not do as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) did during his intervention. I could not possibly afford a bottle from each one.

On taxation, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Treasury should consider the benefits of reducing taxation? The Scotch Whisky Association, with the independent back-up of KPMG, has shown that reducing the duty on Scotch whisky would increase revenues to the Treasury.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman tees up my next point for me beautifully. I promise that is the last time there will be a reference to “tee” this morning. The work in question was done for the Scotch Whisky Association by KPMG, an organisation that is not just going to tell clients what they want to hear. The work is underpinned and supported by the Treasury’s own figures. The increase in March damaged confidence and led to a sharp decrease in sales—1 million fewer bottles were sold in the first two quarters of this year, compared with last year. That can be tested against the experience of 2015.

I was a Cabinet Minister in 2015 and was proud of the fact that that Government delivered a 2% cut in the level of whisky duty. I cannot remember exactly, but I recall that the expectation in the Government at the time was that a 2% cut would cost in the region of £600 million. That was what we thought we would lose in revenue. In fact, however, a significant increase in revenue was delivered as a result of lower taxation.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a massive defender of the whisky industry and I am sure he likes a tipple himself. Will he comment on the way in which the Treasury is set up? Perhaps the problem is that the Red Book would have to determine a minus figure when the reality might be positive. The Treasury should look more imaginatively at how it taxes not only Scotch whisky but spirits in general.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am keen to encourage creativity within the Treasury. I must say that that message is not always well received in that particular Department and change is often slow in coming, but I encourage the Minister to pursue that agenda, because—to return to the experience of 2015—having anticipated a £600 million decrease, there was an increase of £124 million in revenue to the Exchequer. Although I obviously have some concerns about the Chancellor, I do not believe that he put the rate of duty up in March believing that he would take in less money. The underlying problem is that the elasticities that underpin the modelling used by the Treasury are clearly out of date. They have not been updated since 2013 and they have been wrong at least twice. They were wrong in a good way in 2015, when the cut in duty delivered an increase in revenues, but they were also wrong in March, when the increase in duties delivered lower revenues.

My essential message to the Minister is that to embark on a progressive increase of the sort planned, with a year-on-year 3% increase on the basis of Treasury modelling that is at best flawed and in need of updating, is ill conceived and risks the emerging growth not just in whisky but in other spirits. It is difficult to go on any social media platform these days without seeing an advert for yet another craft gin. Gin is another emerging spirit and important part of our export portfolio. From the outside, as the industry sees it, it looks as if one of our most successful industries is being punished by the Treasury at a time when, frankly, we are going to need the contribution it makes to our economy.

I say to the Minister that it is now time to be bold. The Chancellor could use 22 November as an opportunity to cut duty, as was done in 2015. If he is not prepared to do so, there is a good business case for at least a freeze or for walking away from the escalator effect. If he continues with the escalator, he must come up with some justification for it, because all the indications go in the opposite direction.

Turning briefly to the question of the medium to long term, there is an opportunity to recalibrate the way in which the Treasury engages with the industry. During my time in Parliament, the successful PILOT partnership scheme between Government and the oil and gas industry has allowed the Government to better understand what is happening in the industry and allowed industry to engage, see the direction of travel and plan accordingly. The Scotch Whisky Association now talks about a sectoral deal, perhaps for the whisky industry but more likely for spirits or alcohol manufacturers as a whole. I encourage the Minister to take that suggestion seriously. We have seen tremendous success as a result of the city and regional deals, a model that has worked well. Taking that to a sector such as spirits production or the whisky industry would be a new iteration of the model. Given the opportunities that exist, the model is well worth considering. Those are the medium to long-term opportunities. In the medium to long term, the Government can do good to help the industry and, most importantly, the communities that depend on it. In the short term, on 22 November, the very least they can do is stop doing damage.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. I understand his passion for the subject, given his constituency’s long-standing tradition of producing fine whiskies. He mentioned the Highland Park and Scarpa distilleries; I have been fortunate enough to visit his constituency and those places on my holidays and I entirely agree with his basic point. I also agree with his underlying point that producing whisky is a lifetime commitment. People cannot enter into it for the short term. It takes a long time to produce the product, particularly in the premium sector. It is a proper, significant long-term commitment. We are seeing huge innovation and people entering the marketplace—both signs of a good, strong sector.

I will try to answer as many of the issues raised as I can, but in particular I must comment on the duty rates—a key element of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. However, as one might expect, I am unable in discussing that to pre-empt what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may or may not do in the forthcoming Budget. That is only three weeks tomorrow, so there is not long to wait. Before I discuss the duties, I reassure the House that the Government recognise the important contribution that the Scotch whisky industry makes to both the UK economy and local communities.

I met with the Scotch Whisky Association and with large and small distillers in the run-up to and preparation of the Budget. The Scotch Whisky Association estimates that the industry adds over £5 billion to the UK economy and supports over 40,000 jobs, 7,000 of which are in the rural economy. Its footprint extends beyond those fortunate enough to have a distillery in their immediate constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, the industry creates jobs throughout the UK, whether in the agricultural sector in East Anglia or, in this case, the bottling technology, but primarily it is a great Scottish industry. Distilleries are also increasingly significant tourist attractions in their own right. Some 1.6 million tourists visited distilleries in 2015, an increase of more than 20% in visitor numbers since 2010.

The Government also recognise that Scotch whisky is a UK export success story. Exports account for about 93% of total production. More Scotch whisky is sold in France in one month than cognac in an entire year—an enjoyable stat to consider. In 2015, we exported 1.2 billion bottles of whisky worldwide. The industry estimates that whisky exports were worth nearly £4 billion last year. That is over £7,500 of Scotch whisky sold every minute, accounting for around a quarter of all UK food and drink exports. It is a fantastic success story for the UK to be proud of.

The reach is equally impressive. In 2016, whisky was exported to 184 countries—that means that over 90% of countries have a taste for whisky. South-east Asia in particular has grown as an export market, with Singapore alone importing £224 million of Scotch whisky last year.

We are seeing an increasing premiumisation of some exports, which reflects a broader food and drink trend within the UK, and Scotch whisky is poised to take advantage of the appetite for premium British products in this area.

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with everything the Minister is saying, but two things are worth consideration. First, although we are seeing that growth in premiumisation, it is on the basis of a shrinking market share globally in a very competitive market. Secondly, when opening up new market opportunities, Governments in other countries look here to how we treat our own industry. That is why the domestic market and taxation of it cannot be divorced completely from the export market.

[Andrew Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes points that I broadly agree with. The signal that the UK supports the industry and recognises its impact on our economy and our exports particularly is entirely understood. In recognition of the quality of the product, Scotch whisky was one of the first food and drink products to feature in the Government’s GREAT campaign, which gave it high international visibility in key markets. I assure Members that we will continue to support the Scotch whisky industry, so that it continues to thrive and prosper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the tourism industry of a reduction in the rate of VAT.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

The Government have carefully considered the evidence for applying a 5% reduced rate of VAT on accommodation and visitor attractions, which has come up several times in the House, but we believe, on balance, that the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. We keep all such things under review, but there are no plans for a reduction in the rate of VAT on tourism activity.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is a disappointing answer. The campaign for a reduced rate of VAT for tourism estimates that a 5% rate would produce a higher tax take and could create 121,000 jobs across the country. That would be of particular benefit to many economically fragile coastal and island communities. Will the Minister meet campaigners to discuss things in more detail?

[Jane Ellison]

I am familiar with the right hon. Gentleman’s figures, and Treasury officials have met campaigners over several years to look at them. We will always look at the evidence, but we disagree with the campaign’s economic assessment. Together with HMRC, the Treasury assesses that such a cut would cost around £10 billion a year—approximately £7 billion for restaurants and bars, and about £3 billion for leisure and accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

Absolutely we will. The Government’s finance platform referral policy helps small and medium-sized enterprises whose finance applications have been declined by their bank to explore alternative options. It requires the major banks to refer SMEs that are rejected for finance—with their permission—to finance platforms. We can do a range of other things to support the good point that my hon. Friend makes. I encourage all Members with SMEs in their area that have had finance applications rejected to refer them to some of these schemes, because they are making a difference.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Many small businesses in the Northern Isles are in the tourism sector. Given the Chancellor’s reported comments at the weekend, will the Government look again at the opportunities presented by the tourism industry’s proposals for a lower rate of VAT on that sector?

[Jane Ellison]

The House will not be surprised to learn that the Treasury is receiving a number of suggestions as to what might happen to VAT when we are no longer members of the EU, and I am aware of the pressure from and representations made by the tourism industry. I am meeting the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee tomorrow; this is likely to be one of the issues on its mind. Of course we look at these issues carefully, but we are still members of the EU, and all our legal obligations and so on remain while that is the case.