Transferable Tax Allowances

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on transferable tax allowances. I commend the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) for securing time for hon. Members to consider this important subject, on which, as the Member of Parliament for Strangford and a member of the Democratic Unionist party, I have received considerable correspondence. It is an important issue.

At Westminster, the DUP has been pushing the Chancellor to introduce recognition of marriage in the system. We are keen to support the Government on that policy, which the Conservative party advocated in opposition. That party’s proposal envisaged a system whereby married couples would be able to transfer part of their personal tax allowance to their spouse. An individual in the UK could earn £8,105 per year tax free under the Conservative party proposals, and if someone did not use their full personal allowances, up to £750 could be transferred to their spouse, which would amount to a tax cut of £150 for that family. Reports in the media have led us to believe that that might be on the way. The Minister will perhaps respond; he may not have Pandora’s box or all the answers today, but if the proposals are in the Budget or the autumn statement, we will give them our full support on the Floor of the House.

Until relatively recently, the UK recognised marriage in the tax system, but that changed as a consequence of decisions taken by the Labour Government. There is only one Labour Member here, and I usually support Labour on many issues in the House, but I am very much opposed to its position on this. The absence of Liberal Democrats from the debate tells a story in itself.

We find ourselves in the minority in the OECD. Only 20.1% of people in the OECD live in countries that do not recognise marriage or have a spousal allowance. In that context, it is not surprising that married couples get a bad deal. In “The Taxation of Families”, Pearson and Binder, using the latest figures from the OECD, illustrate that in 2011 a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children faced a tax burden 42% greater than the OECD average. The hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned that in his contribution.

The UK tax system currently is intensely individualistic. Taxation gives single people with no family responsibilities a relatively easy ride, by comparison with married couples. That can be clearly seen in the fact that in 2011 the tax burden on a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children was 73% as a percentage of that placed on a single person on the same wage, while the OECD average was just 5%.

The statistics illustrate that the UK makes things more financially difficult for married couples than our compatriots in the OECD do. To my mind, and the minds of most of us here, that is deeply concerning. I have always believed that marriage is a hugely important social institution, which provides significant benefits to the couple involved, the children born to the couple and society at large. We certainly should not make it more difficult for couples to marry in this country than it is in other developed countries, such as France, Germany and the USA. Why would we not want to recognise the importance of marriage and show our support for children being brought up by parents in the stable environment of marriage?

For the couple, marriage produces significant benefits, including public benefits that are not without consequence for the Exchequer. The figures have already been outlined. Research indicates that even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples. Marriage has a positive impact on the mental well-being of the couple. The health gain of marriage could be as large as the benefits of giving up smoking, for example. Such examples are only a small portion of the benefits that marriage can often bring to couples who enter into it.

The social science evidence on the impact of marriage on children demonstrates significant public benefit. The scale of the benefits to children raised in married families is striking. The hon. Member for Peterborough outlined the differences between the outcomes of children of married parents and of unmarried parents. I will not go over that again, owing to the lack of time, but the need for a change has been clearly illustrated.

It is important to stress that I am not so naive as to suggest that Governments have the capacity to make marriages happy and strong—they are not marriage guidance counsellors or Relate. The Government do however have a role in not making it more difficult for couples, who fall in love and want to be together, to marry in this country than in it would be in another country. The current policy position is misguided and we urgently need to change direction.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not the Government’s role to be marriage guidance counsellors, but does he agree that introducing transferable allowances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) outlined, would send a strong and clear message to the whole population that we support marriage? I have been married for 26 years—I hope I have got that right! It is a fantastic institution and has been for many years.

[Jim Shannon]

As someone who has been married for 25 years—just a year less than the hon. Gentleman—I wholeheartedly endorse what he says. Marriage is important for a great many of us.

The problem can be remedied in a positive way by introducing a transferable allowance for married couples, as the hon. Member for Peterborough suggested. The Prime Minister and the Conservative party have promoted the idea, but the main barrier has been the Liberal Democrats. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that

“we should not take a particular version of the family institution, such as the 1950s model of suit-wearing, breadwinning dad and aproned, homemaking mother, and try and preserve it in aspic.”

That statement clearly demonstrates immaturity and inconsistency on his part. The proposal is not about keeping women away from work and forcing them to stay at home, but about allowing the flexibility that we should have in the tax system, so that if either one of the couple does not use their full tax allowance, a portion of it can be passed to the other. At the same time, the Deputy Prime Minister has called for paternity leave to be increased from two to six weeks, but he does not want to make it easier for parents who already stay at home and do not use their full personal allowance. I suggest that that shows double standards.

Such an allowance would make the tax burden more sensitive to family responsibilities. It would also disproportionately benefit families in the poorer half of the income distribution. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, commonly referred to by all parties in the House, says that 70% of the benefit from a transferable allowance would go to those in the lower half of the income distribution. In other words, it would benefit those who need it most in a fair and balanced way, as it should.

We are all interested in reducing child poverty. The introduction of a transferable allowance would particularly help to address it by reducing the number of children living in households with an income below 60% of the median. In considering that point, it is important to remember that how materially wealthy individuals are depends not simply on income but on the size of their family.

A couple on £35,000 with two children is likely to be better off than only 37% of the population, even when tax credits and child benefit are taken into account, whereas a single person on £35,000 is in the top 20% of the population. We can blind people with figures, but they illustrate a clear trend—those in a marriage are disadvantaged under the current system. A two-earner couple with an income of £35,000—one working full-time and one part-time—is also in the poorer half of the population, but better off than the one-earner family. If the income were split equally, they would probably be in the fifth sector—better off than 44% of the population.

Some 2 million children are in one-earner couple households. Around 900,000 of them are in households with an income below 70% of the median. Of those, between 600,000 and 700,000 live in households with incomes below 60% of the median. A transferable allowance would reduce the number of households with incomes that fall below 60% of the median. It makes sense to make changes and to make them soon. A transferable allowance would reduce the number of households currently facing a 73% marginal tax rate. In so doing, it would particularly help the poorest one-earner families, whose efforts to earn their way out of poverty are jeopardised by the extraordinarily high tax rate.

The 73% marginal effective tax rate is a direct consequence of the UK tax system’s failure to recognise family responsibilities in any way. It places the burden entirely with the benefits system, rendering the withdrawal of benefits a more significant event for marginal effective tax rates. In the current tax year, a quarter of all families have an effective marginal tax rate of 73% or more: income tax accounts for 20%; national insurance contributions for another 12%; and the tax credits taper accounts for a further 41%. A family with two children and an income below £31,356 will pay 73% on any additional income. A family with four children will pay 73% on incomes below £43,838.

The figures do not take account of pension payments, so in many cases the 73% tax rate reaches even higher up the income scale. When pension contributions are taken into account, that 73% could apply to families earning £45,000. Around 2 million families are in that position, so one in four of all families in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland faces a marginal rate of 73% or higher. That is deeply concerning and is an important reason for change.

Things will get even worse with the introduction of universal credit. The marginal effective tax rate of such families will actually increase from 73% to 76%—another three percentage points. Only 300,000 people have been affected by the top 50% rate, but, by contrast, 2 million will be locked into a system in which the Treasury will take back more than 76p of every extra pound earned. They are not “welfare spongers” but hard-working families, whom we are here to represent, which is why we are discussing this proposal today. I commend the hon. Member for Peterborough for securing the debate.

The economic and social costs of such a high marginal rate on such an important section of the community might be difficult to calculate, but they are considerable. The only way to reduce the number of families trapped by high marginal tax rates is to reduce the number who need to receive credits. The way to do that is to change income tax rates so that they become more sensitive to family responsibilities and place less of a burden on families, who will therefore not need to be compensated through credits. Transferable allowances are an obvious way of doing that.

The Government are right to place the economy at the top of their agenda—I support that—and to try to cut the deficit to reduce our debt burden. However, underlying problems in our country are contributing to the financial burden on the state. Strong marriage and strong families are key to fixing what the Prime Minister has called “broken Britain”, which is why I support them.

In parliamentary debates and questions, I have put it on the record that, as others have stated, it will take 12 months from the passing of legislation to make changes and implement them. If the Government introduce such changes in March 2014, they will be too late; it needs to be done in this autumn statement to come into effect next year.

Supporting the transferable tax allowance and addressing the double penalty of tax credits and the benefit system would send a significant message and signal the importance that this Government—our Government—are placing on marriage. The proposal will have the full support of the Democratic Unionist party. Today’s debate is exactly a week from the autumn statement, so I call on the Minister and the Chancellor to prioritise the announcement next week that the transferable tax allowance will be in the 2013 Budget. That is the best way forward.

Beer Duty Escalator

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. She mentions the importance of the pub trade in the local economy—the economies of Salford and Hartlepool are very similar—but she also talks about breweries, which brings me to my next point.

We have a major brewery in my constituency: Camerons brewery—I am pleased to confirm to the House that it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister, thank goodness. Camerons brewery has been on the same site for more than 140 years, using the unique Hartlepool water from its own well to make the beer. It now employs 100 people and is involved in large-scale ale and lager production. Not only does Camerons produce quality ales of its own—I would recommend to hon. Members Camerons Strongarm and 6th Sense, which are particularly good pints—but its modern manufacturing facility and investment in plant means that the brewery is now capable of producing 1.3 million hectolitres per annum, with the potential to increase that, given certainty in the brewery trade, to 2 million hectolitres. Camerons has been well positioned to win orders for beer and ale production from global brands such as Carlsberg. The brewery continues to be—and has been for the best part of 150 years—an important part of the town’s manufacturing base.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

I give way for the second and last time.

[Andrew Bingham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just the big breweries that are affected, but small microbreweries, of which there are many in rural constituencies, where pubs are extremely important socially, such as Howard Town brewery and Buxton brewery in my constituency of High Peak?

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If manufacturing is to be an important part of this country’s economic base, with small and medium-sized enterprises forming a key part of that, the food and drink sector—of which microbreweries have to be an essential and growing component—will be vital to that.

I have listened closely to other hon. Members’ contributions to this debate, which has been fair and balanced. It is unreasonable to suggest that beer duty is the sole reason that the pub and beer trade is facing difficulties. There are long-term social and economic forces at work. Over the past 30 years, people have switched away from beer to wine in their alcohol consumption. That is true not just in Britain, but throughout western Europe and the United States. Significantly—this point has been touched on many times in the debate, but it is worth repeating—people are now consuming alcohol in their homes rather than in pubs. In fact, some 70% of the alcohol purchased in the UK is bought for consumption at home. Traditionally, 30 or 40 years ago, people probably bought alcohol only in a pub; now, it is far more likely that beer will be bought in a supermarket.

Beer Duty Escalator

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. One of the consequences of having a Scotsman as Chancellor for quite a period of time is that the duty on Scotch whisky seemed to be frozen. Perhaps now that we have an English Chancellor what we need is to freeze the duty on English beer. There is so much that we need to be doing. We need to be reviving our pubs. We need to be seeing that vigour and sense of community returning to all our pubs across the country.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate; the number of Members here at this late hour shows its importance. Does he agree that pubs not only sell beer, but provide a great community centre in small and rural communities? So many charity collections and fundraising exercises begin in pubs, where people meet and talk.

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In addition, pubs are an important part of the economy and employ young people. In my constituency, 50% of those employed in the beer and pub industry are under the age of 25.

We all talk about the beer duty escalator. Just the other day, I was in a department store. I went up an escalator, and then I noticed that I went down one. So I say to the Minister that we could keep a beer duty escalator, but perhaps put it in reverse.

Petrol and Diesel

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

Again, we need to consider that, as well as considering the charging of foreign lorries that come here. I recognise that the Government have made some progress, but those lorries must be charged a lot more. The playing field is not level. Why should our people suffer because foreign lorries have an unfair competitive advantage?

[Andrew Bingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously every three or four words. We are all taking over his speech. I have two points. Does he agree that not only is fuel dear in rural areas, but rurality makes it far more necessary to have a car, so the impact of fuel prices is far greater there? Also, in High Peak we produce the finest limestone in the world, which is more often than not transported by road, meaning more costs.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is completely right. My argument has always been that it is not whether people can afford to have a car—we have a great car economy—but whether they can afford not to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that example in which the couple’s ages are more distant from each other than is the norm. She makes an interesting point. However, as I said in my initial answer, there are arrangements for those over 60 and for those in retirement in the tax credit system, the pensions system and other benefit systems. As I have said in previous Question Times, the economy is moving, there are work vacancies out there and we believe that the changes to working tax credit are fair. For example, they place couples on a par with lone parents.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to increase the availability of credit to small businesses.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Government have announced a range of initiatives to help small businesses access finance from a wide range of sources, including the national loan guarantee scheme and the business finance partnership.

[Andrew Bingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the Government’s efforts on this matter. Does he agree that in constituencies such as High Peak, micro-businesses are still having difficulties finding loans, despite the assurances of the banks that they are open for business? What words of support and advice can he offer the small, independent business owners upon whom the recovery depends to such a great extent?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and having visited his constituency, I know it is very rural. He might encourage businesses in his constituency to apply for the rural economy grant scheme, which is worth £60 million and is open to businesses operating in rural areas in certain markets, including agri-foods, tourism and digital media technology. I would encourage them to do so.

First-time Buyers

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine]

Absolutely. We have often debated the future of sub-post offices, pubs and primary schools where falling rolls lead to changes and school reconfiguration. There is a need for new people to enter communities, to regenerate them. I ask hon. Members who are home owners to remember when they first walked into the first house they owned, and the excitement of that. We may remember how exciting it was as a child to play house; but that was playing house for real. I remember how exciting it was, and I want other people to experience that excitement. That is what the debate is about, which brings me back again to that word “values”.

I want to outline the scale of the current challenges to the UK housing market, and the difficulties that young families and first-time buyers experience in taking their first tentative step on to the property ladder. It is a daunting challenge. Since 2008, the number of first-time buyers has declined from a long-term average of about 500,000 a year to just 200,000. One of the key factors accounting for that is, of course, the astonishing rise in average house prices relative to earnings in the past 20 years —even taking into account the slight decline in prices in more recent years. I emphasise the word “slightly” because the situation in the part of the world that I represent may be different from that in some other constituencies.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate on an important issue that affects so many of our constituents. I am not an expert on house prices in his area, but High Peak is a particularly beautiful rural area, and consequently house prices are disproportionately high, so it is even harder for first-time buyers to get on the ladder.

[Steve Brine]

I thank my hon. Friend, who argues passionately for rural housing in his constituency. The changes that the coalition Government are bringing in—the neighbourhood plans that will be part of the localism agenda, which will work with the council’s local plan—are critical in achieving local buy-in to add stock sensitively and to increase supply in rural areas. That is not to impose, but to enable local planning, through the neighbourhood plan process, to increase supply, so that local people who have grown up in villages can afford to stay in them. That is critical. The new rules that the Government are bringing in, on local allocation, mean that we can make local homes for local people a reality. I know that my hon. Friend will press for that on behalf of the people he represents.

We know from figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government that between 2000 and 2007 the average UK house price more than doubled, from £106,000 to £214,000. For many first-time buyers, particularly those unable to access finance from the bank of mum and dad—a term that I suspect we shall return to over the next 90 minutes—those high prices have either delayed or ended hopes of owning bricks and mortar. In Winchester, the mean house price in the third quarter of 2011 was £368,500, whereas the mean price for England in the same period was just £245,000. The problem is particularly acute in my constituency.

It is a widely accepted fact of economic reality that house prices are high partly because housing is in relatively short supply in this country. As for the future, I know, having listened to Communities and Local Government questions on Monday, that the Government do not like to make forecasts of house building; but they must surely look carefully at what has happened in the past. In 2007, there were 178,000 housing starts, but by 2009—the last full year of the previous Government—that figure had crashed to just over 78,000. In 2011, the first full year of the coalition Government, it had risen to just over 98,000—a rise of 25%—but we are still clearly well short of where we want and need to be. Building more new, affordable homes should clearly be a priority. I hope, for all our sakes, that the new incentive-led, plan-led approach combined with policies such as the new homes bonus and genuine local buy-in through neighbourhood plans will make a significant difference.

As I have said many times in my constituency and in the Chamber, the stick approach to increasing supply has failed. Under the previous Government, house building fell to its lowest level since the 1920s. My aspiration for the new system of localism is simple: local authorities will step up to the plate and stop looking to London for their orders and work with local communities to deliver the homes that their area needs.

When I talk to people in my constituency—I am sure that Members from across the House will recognise this point—it is clear that they recognise the facts; they understand that we need to build new homes because they know that the people who are looking for those homes and who are locked out of the system are their children and their grandchildren. My children are aged four and one, so they are obviously a long way from owning their own home. None the less, that is what I want for them one day—actually at 5 o’clock this morning, I felt that it would be a good idea right now. I want them to be able to stay near mum and dad, perhaps not too near, but relatively near.

People in Winchester do not want housing estates forced on them that are so big that they can be spotted from the lunar surface, and that are without the support services a community needs when it accepts 200 or even 2,000 new homes. They want to be involved. When we involve people, we find that they take the right decision for their community. That is what localism is about; nothing more and nothing less.

I welcome the coalition’s plan to release public sector land with the capacity for up to 100,000 new homes, and the £400 million that the Treasury has put into the get Britain building fund to support firms in need of development finance. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about her aspirations in that respect.

Although the housing shortage and high prices have conspired against first-time buyers, undoubtedly the biggest obstacle is the size of the deposit that is required before a mortgage can even be considered. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that the average deposit for a first-time buyer now stands at more than £26,000. That represents 79% of the average annual income from which the mortgage is paid.

A constituent wrote to me last month:

“All the mortgage providers we have spoken to have offered 5% deposit mortgages but these come with massive consequences, such as interest rates which would make monthly payments the same as one of our monthly salaries, or a family member/friend who would invest £35,000 for three years to stand behind the loan. I don’t know about you, but we don’t know anyone who could spare £35,000 that they wouldn’t touch for 3 years, do you, Steve?”

No, Steve doesn’t, and that is the problem; I wish I did.

As the credit crunch took hold in 2007, liquidity dried up and more restrictive lending took hold. Thus, even though house prices have started to fall slightly in recent years in some areas, challenging funding criteria have meant that ever larger deposits are required, making the dream of home ownership for many first-time buyers nothing more than a remote fantasy. Add to that the rising costs of living and job uncertainty, and the picture can appear bleak for aspiring home owners.

In preparing my remarks for this morning’s debate, I asked myself whether we had a Government who were prepared to wash their hands of these young people. Do we have a Government who prefer to walk on by, on the other side of the street, and consign a generation of young people to a life living with mum and dad, which can have benefits; sofa-surfing, which does not have benefits; renting in the social or private sector, which works for many; or even, in extreme cases, homelessness? If I thought for one moment that this Government took that view and wanted to turn their back on young people, I would be their fiercest critic and we would be having a very different debate today. Yes, there are limits to what Government can do, especially with a national debt the size that we have, but there are a number of actions that can be taken to boost Britain’s housing market and to assist first-time buyers in getting a foothold on the first rung of the property ladder.

The most important step the Government have taken to support greater home ownership is their commitment to ensuring that interest rates are kept as low as possible for as long as possible. They are getting to work on tackling the national structural deficit. It is a factor that is easily overlooked, but without a credible plan to put the public finances on a stable footing, the inevitable higher interest rates that would result would also lead to higher monthly mortgage payments and increased repossessions. That key point should never be understated.

As well as maintaining the conditions necessary to secure a low interest base rate, the Government have introduced a range of initiatives designed to support prospective first-time buyers to own their own home. With the sort of timing that I could not have planned for—for the record I did not—two key announcements were made this week. The NewBuy guarantee scheme tackles the deposit problem head on, and I am pleased to see that it is led by the Home Builders Federation and the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

At the launch this week, the executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation said:

“NewBuy will help thousands of people to meet their aspirations to buy a new home, freeing up the housing market and helping first-time buyers and those unable to take the next step on the ladder.”

Paul Smee, the director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders said:

“These mortgages will help creditworthy borrowers. It is good news for home-buyers and potentially good news for jobs and the wider economy too.”

Mortgage applicants are typically required to give a deposit of between 15% and 20% at the moment, whereas NewBuy makes it possible for first-time buyers and existing home owners to get a mortgage on a new-build property with only a 5% deposit, without all the strings that my constituent told me about earlier. With that new deal, instead of having to save a deposit of between £30,000 and £40,000, first-time buyers will now need only £10,000. The scheme indemnifies lenders against a limited amount of any future losses, opening up mortgage lending and stimulating demand for newly built houses and flats.

Only new homes built by house builders signed up to the scheme will qualify, but I am told that most of the major and many of the smaller builders are in the process of registering. Yesterday, I was encouraging Radian Housing to be part of the scheme, and it told me that it already was, which was excellent news.

Under the scheme, individual home builders will partner up with one or more mortgage lenders who will offer loans of between 90% and 95% on their properties. Let me stress that NewBuy has nothing to do with sub-prime lending, when mortgages were given to people who could not afford the repayments. Mortgages of 95% operated perfectly well in this country for many decades, and the criteria for lending are now much stricter. Nobody will get a mortgage who is not able to pay for it.

Public Service Pensions

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am very proud indeed that we have managed to achieve something that Members on both sides of the House thought would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do—namely, to reach agreement between the Government and many of the trade unions on the long-term reform that is necessary to ensure that public sector workers continue to get the best possible pension schemes long into the future. The previous arrangements were unsustainable, but this one is sustainable, which is why I am confident in offering the House a 25-year guarantee that no party in the House will need to revisit these arrangements over that period.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition claimed recently that the Government were imposing a 3% tax rise on the lowest-paid workers. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to clarify for my constituents that, under the Government’s offer, the lowest-paid workers will make no extra contribution whatever?

[Danny Alexander]

Yes, I am happy to confirm that. We set out at the beginning that no one earning less than £15,000 should see any contribution increase at all. In fact, through the consultation process, better terms were able to be offered in some cases. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to offer better terms to lower-paid workers in the health sector. This demonstrates once again this Government’s commitment to supporting the lowest paid in these difficult times.

Fuel Prices

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

First, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is no longer in his place, not only on securing the debate but on the tenacious way he has pursued the issue relentlessly since his election last year.

I rise to support the motion and highlight the extra impact of fuel prices on High Peak. We have a large number of quarries, all of which produce the finest quality limestone in the country. That limestone has to be moved by road or rail, but predominantly by road. Quarries have to be where the stone is, so they cannot be moved around. I wish to tell the House a short tale about a constituent of mine, Mark Pearson, who operates his own wagon. He is a single operator who carries 17.5 tonnes of limestone with every load. In the past three years his fuel bill has increased from £1,600 a month to £3,200 a month. That huge increase in his overheads has to be borne by somebody, whether by Mark himself or the end users of the stone. Such overheads will restrict employment and business growth.

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituent, who is clearly being squeezed. Did he bother to ask his constituent how much the increase in VAT is costing him?

[Andrew Bingham]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, many businesses are registered for VAT and so will be able to reclaim it. It is the other tax that is the addition to their costs.

[Karl Turner]

What about his employees?

[Andrew Bingham]

If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, he would know that I said my constituent was an owner-operator with his own truck.

[Andrew Percy]

If that owner-operator did have employees, does my hon. Friend think that he would be happy with the six planned rises under Labour?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We cannot have shouting across the Chamber. It is absolutely unacceptable, Mr Turner. We will have proper debate.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as he always does.

High Peak businesses suffer from rurality. We are midway between Sheffield, Manchester and Derby. The distances from our businesses’ customers and their suppliers mean that bringing goods in or sending them out costs more. My big concern is that as increases in fuel costs are borne more and more by local businesses, they will eventually say, “Enough is enough” and move out of the countryside into urban areas, further exacerbating the difference between the rural and urban economies.

We must remember that families are affected too. Although I understand that this debate is predominantly about fuel costs, I have to mention the increased energy costs that families are having to bear at the moment. I venture to suggest that High Peak is probably the coldest constituency in England. We have had a cricket match snowed off in Buxton in June, so we feel the winters, which are deeper and longer. That puts a further burden on family budgets.

Other Members have made the point that increased car use is required in rural areas. The proportion of households without a car in London is 43%, while in metropolitan areas it is 31%. In rural areas, only 10% of households do not have a motor vehicle. The reason is—

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bingham]

No, I am going to move on, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because we are short of time. Also, I note what the former occupant of the Chair said about those making interventions not being called to speak, and I would not like to deprive the House of her speech later on.

When public transport links are not as good, a motor vehicle becomes a crucial part of family life. Someone spoke earlier about four-wheel drive vehicles. I understand the image they have as Chelsea tractors, but we should remember that sometimes four-wheel drive vehicles are vital in rural areas, as they are the only way that people can get about. As for public transport in my area, anyone who wanted to travel between the two major towns of Glossop and Buxton by bus would need to take a meandering route through New Mills, Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale. A car is the best way.

I believe that one day vehicle movements will perhaps fall slightly as communications improve, but broadband in rural areas is not as fast as it is in urban areas. That reduces people’s ability to work from home, which means that they have to travel to work, again putting more pressures on budgets. Cities and urban areas have faster broadband, better public transport and, more often than not, a better climate. In High Peak it is colder for longer, we have fewer public transport options and families and businesses need to travel further.

Given that I still have about one minute, I shall mention one further aspect. Local mountain rescue teams are staffed by volunteers who use vehicles, but also pay duty. I give hon. Members the image of a cold, snowy mountain in High Peak, with a sheep in one field and a human being in another, and a farmer going to save the sheep and a mountain rescue team going to rescue the human being. Which one pays less for fuel? The farmer will quite rightly use red diesel and pay no duty; the mountain rescue team, as a not-for-profit group of volunteers saving a human life, is faced with paying all the duty on that fuel. However, that is a debate for another day. I put my hon. Friend the Minister on notice that I keep putting in for a Westminster Hall debate on the issue. I hope that one day I may get lucky.

To sum up, rural areas face the challenges of using more fuel, and in High Peak we pay more.

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

No, it was a constituent who informed me that we could not have a referendum on the European Union because the people do not understand the arguments—the usual patronising guff that comes from pro-Europeans.

I fully support the motion, which is why I put my name to it, but we should be going much further. Apart from leaving the European Union, we should be going much further while we are in it to ensure that our budget contribution is substantially reduced. My constituents simply cannot understand why an ever-increasing amount of their hard-earned money is being sent off and spent by that institution.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who have written to ask me why the European Commission just does not get it? They point out that, when they are keeping their own budgets under close control, the Commission should be doing the same, instead of proposing these continual increases.

[Andrew Percy]

Yes, I do.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Andrew Bingham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who talked about disingenuous and spurious policies. I am sure it was disingenuous to promise not to increase VAT before the general election and then to increase it immediately after it. There is nothing more disingenuous than lying to the electorate.

I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) in talking about some of the personal stories that have been brought to my attention and which relate to the Opposition motion.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I would like to make some progress.

My constituents wrote to ask me to bring their stories to the House and put them directly to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so I am disappointed that neither of them is in their place. It shows a real disregard for this place when those two senior Ministers are not present to debate such an important issue. Of course the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench are among my favourites, but it would have been nice for my constituents to have had a response directly from the horse’s mouth.

Let us examine what fuel price rises are doing to the cost of living. I shall start with the case of a constituent in Edinburgh South who runs a small business. Let us look at what these particular fuel increases are doing to growth in the economy; in so doing, I shall echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Worcester. My constituent runs a business in the service sector, so she uses a lot of suppliers. However, suppliers’ price increases are going through the roof, mainly because of additional fuel costs. She told me that some of her suppliers were charging as much as an additional £5 per delivery to cover their own increased fuel charges. My constituent faces a dilemma of what to do about that £5 increase. Should she pass it on to her customers? She finds doing so difficult. Why? Her problem is compounded by the fact that VAT has increased from 17.5% to 20%, which has also impacted directly on prices to her customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be invited to speak in the debate, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who made a passionate if somewhat partisan speech. The Opposition’s problem is that out there in the country no one believes a word that they say about this topic. We all know of their record during 13 years of government, but, just in case a reminder is needed, let me point out that when they took office in 1997 the price of a litre of unleaded petrol was about 56p, which included 43p of duty and VAT. When they left office nearly a year ago, the price was about £1.20 a litre, including tax amounting to about 75p. We hear talk of fuel duty rising “ahead of inflation” or “in real terms”, but if the price of petrol had risen in line with RPI throughout Labour’s term of office, it would have been 80p a litre at the last election rather than £1.20. That is the hike that we have all had to suffer.

As the contents of my inbox make very plain, fuel price rises are a real problem for people and businesses throughout my constituency. In many areas people have no alternative to driving a car if they want to go to work, but the fuel price rises are preventing them from being able to afford to go to work—let alone the damage that they are doing to all manner of small businesses all over the constituency. The Government must take action in next week’s Budget.

[Andrew Bingham]

As a fellow Derbyshire Member, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. Does not the rural character of both his constituency and mine, High Peak, exacerbate the pressures and difficulties experienced by small businesses, in particular?

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful for that intervention from a fellow Derbyshire Member, and I entirely agree with him.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that all Governments had chosen to increase fuel duty over the years. We must accept that it was our Government who, nearly 20 years ago, introduced the fuel duty escalator, but the aim then was to encourage people to improve their behaviour by driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars and considering alternative means of transport. I think we can tell the Government that we have all got that message. Many of us have started using diesel and have bought cars with smaller engines in an attempt to cut our spending on fuel. I know that many of my constituents have done that. However, the scope for such measures is limited, as many people still cannot afford to drive a car. If the nudge is the order of the day, I think that we have got the message and do not need any more nudging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bingham]

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the 10th spending pledge that Labour has made from this banking levy? It has spent that money 10 times—is that not typical of the overspending and double-counting of its years in government, which got us into this mess in the first place?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The shadow Chancellor’s predecessor referred to a financial primer that he felt he should read. Might I suggest that the current shadow Chancellor should borrow a copy? I would be delighted to lend him my calculator because I think that a financially literate Opposition would be a quality Opposition and one that the country would welcome.

I find this muddled and inaccurate motion extremely worrying because it is illegal. The EU directive on VAT states:

“Member States may apply either one or two reduced rates…The reduced rates shall apply only to supplies of goods or services in the categories set out in Annex III”,

but annex III does not list road fuel and other amending articles do not permit a reduced rate or an exemption to be applied to transport fuel. Even if we wanted to do this—if the motion were passed—it would be impossible. This is yet another inaccurate attempt to create a political narrative that joins words such as “bankers”, “tax” and “too far too fast”, but does nothing to address the fundamental problem that the Labour Government left, which we are having to clear up. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but people in my constituency are sick to death of this political posturing and narrative.