Finance (No. 4) Bill

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Putting aside the fact that people on incomes such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned would pay zero in tax, which makes the hon. Lady’s argument purely academic at best, is it not true that she is referring to the same group of people who have just had the biggest ever increase in their pension? That is much different from the previous Labour Government’s 75p insult.

[Rachel Reeves]

The people who will be hit by this tax are those who have an income in retirement of between £10,500 and £25,000 a year. They will pay tax at 20% on any income over £10,500 a year. That is why 4.4 million pensioners will lose out by an average of £83 next year. People retiring next year will lose out by up to £322. That is the reality of the change that we will vote on this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

No. Cuts to vital services such as the NHS and to social care and local transport also hit pensioners hard on top of the increases in VAT and the cuts to their pensions.

Many of the worst cuts are still to come. Analysis of the 2010 spending review showed that, on average, pensioner couples would be hit hard by cuts to services, amounting to £1,275 a year or 6% of their household income, while single pensioners stood to lose services worth £1,300 a year or 11% of their income. As we heard from the Treasury Committee yesterday, many pensioners are also paying a price for the Government’s failure to get the economy moving because the Government are relying on the Bank of England to undertake more quantitative easing to prevent the economy from sinking deeper into recession. That means that annuity rates and returns on pensioners’ savings are lower than they would otherwise be.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady referred to the increase in the pensioners’ allowance and linked it to inflation. How high would the Labour Government have moved it in the current circumstances of inflation? How would they have paid for that with council tax rises elsewhere?

[Rachel Reeves]

I return to my earlier point: if inflation was 10% and pensioners got a £10 increase in their pension, would Government Members celebrate and say that that was huge largesse for pensioners? It is not; it just keeps pace with the cost of living. The increase in VAT, and the increases in gas and electricity prices, which the Government have done nothing to tackle, and the rise in petrol prices, mean that the cost of living for pensioners and other families has increased enormously because of the Government’s choices.

There is a further hit to pensioners’ incomes, buried in the detail of the Budget documents. This year, an estimated 300,000 pensioners stand to lose their savings credit, while others stand to lose as much as £276 a year as a result of reduced rates of savings credit. Under the Chancellor’s latest plans, the savings credit will be abolished completely, costing more than 100,000 new pensioners as much as £897 a year: another stealth tax that the Chancellor tried to slip past pensioners; another slice taken from the constrained budgets of ordinary families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I supported the Budget a couple of weeks ago and I still do now. It is important to look at it in its entirety, and at how it fits in with other things that are going on. At the moment, an increase in personal allowance is being put in place; it will rise by £1,100 in April 2013, taking it to £9,205 in total. That is the largest real personal tax cut for the median earner in more than a decade, from which 24 million people will benefit. It will give basic rate taxpayers a real cash gain. The Government are taking 2 million low-paid workers out of tax altogether.

Let me put that increase in local context as the Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth. It lifts an additional 75,000 people in the east of England out of income tax altogether. That will have a dramatic impact on many low earners in my constituency, which is the 54th-most deprived local authority out of 326. The average earnings in Great Yarmouth are £21,900 per annum, compared with the national average of £26,100.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to benefit from this increase in the tax threshold one first needs to have a job? That is what most of my constituents are asking for—a job.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me a chance to highlight the good news we had this week regarding the number of people in employment. In Great Yarmouth we saw not only an increase in employment this month, which is very welcome, but an increase in the number of young people in employment. That is a testament to the work the Government are doing, and also, I hope, a sign of the improvements that are coming. It is also a testament to the opportunities put in place through the previous Budget and the work of the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly on work experience and the Work programme, which is also having an impact.

In Great Yarmouth, we also have a particularly high number of part-time and seasonal workers due to the nature of the constituency and its tourism industry. The change in personal allowance is a huge help to that sector of the local work force. It puts extra money into the pockets of hard-working families across my constituency.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to talk about the age allowance at any moment. Has he considered its impact on his local economy? That money was not being spent on skiing trips or foreign holidays; it is money that would, in the main, be spent in the local economy.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady has just made a very good argument for cutting taxes and increasing the personal allowance, which is exactly what this Government are doing. The reason why I have chosen to talk about particular issues is that I agree with something my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said a moment ago. Pensioners in my constituency are often concerned about the future for their family—their children and their grandchildren. The work this Government have done has put in place changes, enterprise zones and opportunities for people to increase jobs, as we have seen this month, so there is a real opportunity for people in future.

We must also take into account something else. In Great Yarmouth, a prediction listed by our local health teams in the past few years is that our pensioner group will increase by 35% in the next 15 years. That is a huge increase. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that we have to ensure that this country can provide for people in their pensionable years in future. As we face such an increase in the number of such people, the Government must take the decisions that mean we can provide a good and fair opportunity for the future of all pensioners. That is why I also appreciate the Government’s work to move towards a fair and straight flat-rate pension for pensioners in future, on which I congratulate them. The work done in the last two Budgets will make that possible. It will mean that our economy can move forward and that we can make fair and proper provision for people in various age groups.

As the personal allowance for all people, including under-65s who work hard, increases, there will be an impact on pensioners in future. The changes announced in the Budget that simplify the tax system make it clear that there will eventually be a flat, fair and generous rate of allowance for all people. As Opposition Members have admitted, that means that nobody has a cash loss at all. In fact, pensioners under this Government had the biggest increase in their basic state pension ever seen. More than 5 million of the poorest pensioners are unaffected thanks to the triple lock. All pensioners are therefore better off and will receive the biggest ever increase of £5.30 a week. In 2013, they will receive £130 more than they would have received under the previous Government’s plans. Pensioners will respect this Government for that and appreciate the Government’s credibility for putting together a solid economic base to allow it to happen.

That is why the measure should be looked at as a whole, particularly for an area such as Great Yarmouth, where we have a high proportion of pensioners. We must make sure that we can provide for them properly and fairly in the future, and also that the economy can create jobs for their families and increase our economic growth. Being in government is about making tough decisions. Those must be the right decisions, and that is what being in government is about. As we heard today from those on the Opposition Front Bench, opposition is often about opportunism, not about making right or proper decisions.

[Alison McGovern]

I shall make a few remarks about an important impact of the changes, which is at risk of going unrecognised. I think of that as the cluster impact of the changes. Our country does not have the same kind of people distributed uniformly across the United Kingdom. People of different ages cluster in different areas.

I am deeply proud to represent the Wirral, not least because the area has a higher proportion of older people. It is a great strength of our area. They bring a large amount of expertise and stability, and we should not talk about people living longer as though it was a negative thing. I benefited from having grandparents who lived longer than they might have expected, and I cherished each of those relationships.

With that clustering of older people comes a responsibility to pay attention to the issues that affect them. Even if that was not the right thing to do in and of itself, our local economy in Wirral is highly dependent on the income of pensioners. We have many small independent businesses whose relationship with their customers is important. They have regulars of many years’ standing, and many of those people are retired and on a fixed income, so even if it was not the case that we should care about the needs of older people, the employment of the rest of us in the Wirral and the vitality of some of the local shops is related to the income of older people.

Before I deal with the clustering of the local economy and the attention that Ministers must pay to how our economy works in practice, I want to make a few points about longevity and the increase in life expectancy that we are seeing. We must recognise that this is not a uniform phenomenon. Not everybody in our country is living longer in the same way. There is a social justice element. Poverty is still a pretty strong determinant of the length of people’s life. People such as those in my constituency who have worked in manufacturing might not expect to live as long as those in relatively more affluent parts of the country. My constituency is very mixed, and there are people there who may not be able to expect to live longer as the average increases. That average masks different expectations.

When Treasury Ministers make decisions about, for example, age-related allowances, I ask them to find out how those will impact on different parts of the country and different groups of people. The impact will not be uniform. We are not all uniformly living longer in exactly the same way. The NHS is a wonderful thing, but we still have a heck of a long way to go on public health to make sure that poverty does not limit people’s life expectancy, as it has done in the past and still does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

As a father of three young children, I realise that we are all in this together, and we need to make those sacrifices. The Government’s maximum benefit cap of £26,000 is all to do with that.

[Brandon Lewis]

Following on from the intervention about growth and families, since the Budget one company in Great Yarmouth has made an acquisition and an investment of hundreds of millions of pounds that will create more jobs. Another company, Seajacks, has received investment from a Japanese company of hundreds of millions of pounds, which will allow expansion and create more jobs, which will help those families who need that money and families of pensioners. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sort of work in the Budget, which facilitates such growth, will move our country forward and ensure that we get out of the mess that we inherited from the previous Government?

[Graham Evans]

Absolutely; I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. At the end of the day, the Budget tells the world that this country is open for business because private sector investment and wealth creation through businesses such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned are critical to the success of the whole nation, not just young people and hard-working families, but pensioners.

Thanks to measures such as the clamp-down on tax loopholes, the very rich will pay more. There is an ideological divide: the Labour party wants the rich to pay symbolically higher rates of tax; the Budget ensures that the rich actually pay more tax. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the independent Office for Budget Responsibility agree that the 50% rate raises next to nothing. Indeed, having a higher income tax rate than communist China indirectly reduces tax revenues as it fundamentally undermines the competitiveness of the UK economy, discouraging inward investment and risking a brain drain of our brightest talent.

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. I have huge respect for her and for everything she has done on child poverty, but if the 50% tax rate was so important to right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, why did the Labour Government introduce it only a month before a general election? Why did they not introduce it in 1997, 1998, 1999 or any of those 13 years? They left it until their last month.

[Brandon Lewis]

Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was yesterday when we voted on a Labour new clause that would have cut the rate to 40%?

[Graham Evans]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which the Prime Minister made yesterday at the Dispatch Box.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

No, the hon. Gentleman has just heard my answer. Throughout this Parliament, we would not have done that. No tax rate is set in stone for ever, but the question of whether we would reverse that decision is irrelevant because we are not in government. You lot are, and you cut it, but that would not have been our priority. Neither was it the priority of the present Chancellor just 18 months ago. When we introduced the 50p rate, we said that we wanted those with the broadest shoulders to pay the most, in order to deal with the global turmoil—[Interruption.] Members should just listen for a moment. When he was shadow Chancellor, the present Chancellor said that he agreed with us. In October 2009, he said that

“we could not even think of abolishing the 50p rate on the rich while at the same time I am asking many of our public sector workers to accept a pay freeze to protect their jobs. I think we can all agree that would be grossly unfair.”

I still agree with that.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I am not sure that he is a dilettante, but I certainly think he does not pay terribly much attention to details. Had he paid attention to details, he would not have said what he did earlier today in Prime Minister’s questions, when he told the House that the 50p rate had raised next to nothing, only to have his Exchequer Secretary confirm just a few hours later that the actual amount it had raised was £700 million. By my way of looking at it, in a period of fiscal austerity £700 million is not nothing, it is rather a large chunk of change. Certainly the £3 billion that we might lose over an extended period is a very large chunk of change.

I do not know how the Government continue to argue that we are all in it together, when they have given a tax cut to 14,000 millionaires, or how—this is a political point—they can continue to say that the only thing that matters economically is to cut the deficit. They have chosen to forgo a lot of money next year. Let us call it £700 million, but it will be far more. They have done that to give a tax cut to millionaires, so how on earth can they continue to say that only thing they care about is cutting the deficit?

[Brandon Lewis]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mistake to introduce a bonus tax that was not only a one-off, but that was set up so that it would encourage people to pay less and therefore reduce the amount of money going to the Exchequer, as opposed to introducing an ongoing levy that will continually bring money into the Exchequer and therefore benefit the country?

[Owen Smith]

One needs to consider these things in the round. We have heard repeatedly from the Government that they will take more money from the rich than the previous Government and do more on tax avoidance, but none of those claims stands up to scrutiny. The previous eight Labour Budgets did more on tax avoidance than the current Government—those are not my numbers, but those of the IFS. The notion that the rich in this country are paying five times more than the poorest is clearly fallacious.

[Brandon Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said because he has not answered my point, which was not about tax evasion? Does he agree that an ongoing bank levy will raise more money than a one-off tax would have done?

[Owen Smith]

If Labour had won the election, it may have changed its view and continued the bank bonus tax. The Opposition certainly believe that Government ought to impose a bank bonus tax in addition to the current levy—[Interruption.] Well, the bonus tax was introduced for a one-off period, but I think a Labour Government would have continued it based on our priorities and values that we described in respect of the 50p rate. We would not have thought it right at this juncture, in a period of fiscal austerity, either to give a big benefit to the wealthiest individuals or to ask the wealthiest corporations to pay a lesser amount.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I shall keep going for a moment.

That is before we consider the actual tax cuts being introduced in the year-on-year reductions in corporation tax and the other changes to the controlled foreign companies legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

At the risk of stepping off-piste again and incurring your wrath, Sir Roger, all I would say is that that is another example of this Government’s incompetence. A year ago they were trying to squeeze the oil and gas companies by introducing new taxes on them. Then the Government were lobbied like billy-o for a year, and what have they done? They have effectively reversed the position. They have introduced a slightly different measure, but bluntly, they have taken money from one pocket and put it back in the other. If the Government had been a little more competent, if they had shown a little more foresight and if they had thought things through a little, as they so clearly have not done with this desperate Budget, they might not have made those mistakes.

[Brandon Lewis]

To return to the bank levy, the hon. Gentleman has referred again to the potential reintroduction of the bank bonus tax. Bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said that it could only ever be a one-off, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the previous Chancellor was wrong, or will he say how many times something has to be reintroduced before it is no longer a one-off? I am just curious.

[Owen Smith]

I am saying that Chancellors have to keep things under review. In a period of fiscal austerity such as we are in right now, I am confident that a Labour Chancellor—particularly one as knowledgeable and shrewd as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—would have found ways to try to exact a fair return and a fair set of receipts for the Revenue from the bankers, who, we must all remember, were complicit at least to some degree in some of the problems that we have faced over the last few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that the pasty industry is looking on as we speak and will want to know exactly which MPs have gone and sampled the local delicacies in whichever part of the UK they happen to live.

Those weeks of torrid headlines have led us to the current situation. There is now a pasty petition, and there has apparently been a pasty summit, while Greggs is planning a pasty protest march on Downing street to plead with the Prime Minister to step in personally and kill off the hated pasty tax.

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

You’ve had too many pasties.

[Brandon Lewis]

The shadow Chancellor is quite right. Does the hon. Lady not agree that in removing this VAT anomaly, it is only fair to protect the interests of the fish and chip mongers in places such as Great Yarmouth?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The interests of fish and chip shops have been raised on a number of occasions in this debate, and I am sure that plenty of people will want to patronise those local establishments. However, that does not get us away from the fact that the introduction of this measure has been an absolute shambles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

It is not unusual to see Labour once again abandoning principle in its arguments. Surely we should be looking to allow Scotland to compete with other countries in the world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would reflect on that.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. Does he not accept, however, that there is a simple logistical and geographical difference between Scotland, which is linked with England and its airports, and Northern Ireland, which is obviously competing with a fellow European Union member state? That alone is a big difference.

[Mr MacNeil]

As I have pointed out, our proposal would benefit the south-east of England as well as Scotland. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that, given what Conservatives say about taxation.

Illegal Alcohol and Tobacco Sales

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Dorries, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this debate on a hugely important issue that is particularly timely, following the Budget. I will focus my remarks specifically on the Treasury-covered area of duty stamping. In itself, it could do a great deal to help prevent some of the illegal sales that we have discussed—certainly the illegal sale of alcohol.

One of the questions about smuggling, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), is that there is some debate—even within the alcohol industry—about how much is actually smuggled in. There is a debate about the amount that is physically smuggled in as opposed to paper movements, whereby the product never actually leaves the country and the paperwork is simply moved between countries to avoid duty. That can create a huge issue that is impossible for the UK Border Agency, or indeed any form of border control, to manage, as it is basically a paper shift.

Excise duties on alcohol generate about £9.5 billion a year; they certainly did in 2010-11. However, there is also a Treasury estimate of a tax gap of up to £1.2 billion each year due to duty evasion, principally through fraud. As has already been mentioned, about 10% of the beer sold in this country in 2009-10 was estimated to have been sold illegally. Data from wholesalers show that beer and wine sales have fallen, while those of spirits, which are now duty stamped, have increased. Those are more likely to be legal sales, as duty stamping has reduced illegal sales. Duty stamping brings an increase in duty for the Treasury; at a time when we are looking to plug an economic gap, such an increase could be hugely beneficial.

I have talked to wholesalers and retailers. In particular, the Federation of Wholesaler Distributors has done a lot of work in this area, and it is clear that there is now a correlation between beer and wine. If the Government are considering introducing duty stamping—I welcome the measure in the Budget to consult on it—I hope that they look at beer and wine together, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that those are now direct competitors, certainly where choosing whether to drink beer or wine at home is concerned. Of what men drink, it is estimated that about 60% is beer and cider and 25% is wine. The figures for women are more like 57% wine and 19% beer and cider, so a significant amount of alcohol can be covered through duty stamping.

The retail industry has experienced a significant loss in beer sales over recent years—particularly of products, such as Stella Artois, which are more subject to illegal smuggling and fraud. There is an opportunity to have a huge impact through the health service: a reduction in the amount of cheap beer available through the small outlets that get it through the grey market would be beneficial to the Department of Health through reduced alcohol-related illness. The increased revenue from duty stamping could be used by the Department to increase awareness of alcohol. I hope that, in the consultation on duty stamping, we look not so much at whether it is taken forward by the Government, but at how.

Multi-packs are a particular issue for the beer industry. How can duty stamping be done cost-efficiently and effectively and deliver what we want without it preventing the industry from exporting its product? I appreciate that there are some technical issues and I hope that, working with the industry, the Government will be able to deal with them, so that we can have increased revenue for the Treasury of about £1 billion and also a beneficial impact on health.

The measure may well go some way towards dealing with the issue that police in Norfolk have outlined to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned it, and I know that the Economic Secretary reads about such things. The huge number of issues that the police deal with on a weekend evening, when people are out and about, are not due to alcohol consumed in public houses and clubs, where people are generally more responsible—certainly the landlords and owners are—but to preloading with cheap alcohol, much of which is bought on the grey market at a lower price than should be allowed. I hope that the Government will move forward with duty stamping. It is something that could be welcomed, and it would help not just the Treasury but the health of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

Absolutely. I saw my hon. Friend just last night responsibly consuming beer in the Strangers Bar downstairs.

The UK is a leader in tobacco control, and I want our country and the coalition Government to remain at the forefront in that area. We have seen huge progress over the past couple of decades in the limitation of tobacco companies’ opportunities to market their products. Checking carefully around the room, I think that all of us, perhaps with the exception of the Economic Secretary, remember popular television tobacco advertising, with catchy tunes. They are now a thing of distant memory, and we will see further changes shortly. I am sure that many of us will visit supermarkets in our constituencies during the Easter recess, and we will no longer be able to see displays of tobacco products because all large shops will have to cover them up. Some shops in my constituency have already pressed ahead with doing so, including the Tesco superstore in Eastville on the edge of my constituency.

The next necessary stage in tobacco control is introducing what has been called plain packaging for cigarettes, although that is to some extent a misnomer. The design of plain packs shows that they are anything but plain, but they would be of a standardised design in order to remove what is essentially the last opportunity available to tobacco companies to promote their products: the design of packs, of packaging within the cardboard pack and of cigarettes, which now come in many shapes, sizes and colours to attract the next generation of gullible young people attracted by glitzy products that they think it is cool to consume. Of course, it is anything but.

I am sure that tobacco companies will fight tooth and nail to prevent standardised packaging from being introduced in the United Kingdom. The Department of Health is about to start a consultation exercise on plain packaging on behalf not only of central Government but of the devolved Administrations. I am sure that tobacco companies will come up with all sorts of reasons why plain and standardised packaging should not be introduced. One reason will be that it could increase the opportunity for the sale of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes, which is the topic of this welcome debate.

I doubt whether the introduction of plain packaging will increase the opportunity for counterfeiting. If it does, it will only do so because the tobacco industry inflicts that problem on itself. Most or all tobacco companies already put covert markings on their packs to protect their legal sales from illicit sales in a market where their brands are clearly visible. Their brands will no longer be clearly visible on packs if plain packaging is introduced, as I hope it is. Instead, the packs will have prominent health warnings and standardised colours and fonts. The fact that they will still have covert markings, bar codes and other measures to counteract the best efforts of those who wish to smuggle cigarettes into our country should mean that moving from branded packs to standardised plain packs will not increase the opportunity for illicit sales.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am not a cigarette smoker, but surely one potential problem with plain packaging is not whether experts and officials can check a code to see whether the product is illegal but whether the public who buy the packs can spot it easily. With plain packaging, the codes will be less easy for the public to spot. Therefore, it will be less easy for them to report counterfeit packs, increasing the opportunities for illegal and counterfeit sales.

[Stephen Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I mentioned, the Government are about to embark on a consultation exercise about the various issues that must be considered before we move ahead to a plain packaging regime for the sale of cigarettes. I am sure that that point will be tested with all the current enforcement agencies to see whether it is indeed a legitimate worry and concern. If so, we will have to take measures to ensure that the design of standardised packs makes it easy for the public to distinguish a bona fide, legally sold product of a tobacco company from a bootleg or imported product that does not meet UK standards.

I have just thought of a direct answer to my hon. Friend’s point. At the moment, there are few regimes in the world where plain packaging is the norm. To the extent that the UK follows Australia’s lead, we will be the first in the European Union to adopt it. People who currently import lorry loads or white van loads of tobacco and other products, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, and who make enormous profits as a result, will not be able to import branded products from the rest of the European Union, because those products will not be legally saleable in this country unless they have a standardised pack design. It could be argued that standardised packaging will limit the opportunities for people to import van loads of material supposedly for their own personal consumption, much of which we must suspect is diverted into the illicit market.

It would be wrong of us to assume that the trade is rampant at the moment. It is certainly highly profitable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, but the various Government agencies, working together, have driven down the share of illicit tobacco over the past decade. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that 10 years ago, in 2000-01, the share of tobacco packs sold on the illicit market was just over one fifth, at 21%, but by 2009-10, that market share had been halved to 10%. Unfortunately, the market share of hand-rolling tobacco, which is easier to counterfeit, is still shocking. Some 46% is sold on the illicit market, without any control and at a tax revenue loss to the Treasury.

In closing, I urge the Government, as well as moving to standardised and plain packs, to adopt some other measures. First, all the various agencies that wish to control illicit tobacco should work effectively together. HMRC has a responsibility. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is with us today, has a direct responsibility to work more closely with the UK Border Agency, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire mentioned, also has a key role.

The Government should also work with local authorities. I am all in favour of localism—I have been an evangelist for localism for a long time, and I am pleased that our coalition Government are pressing ahead with it—but we must make it clear as part of the Government’s national public health strategy that local authorities have a duty to use Government public protection officers more effectively in areas of tobacco control. Of course, the police have a role as well. Police and crime commissioner elections are being held in November, and I will certainly ask all the candidates in Avon and Somerset what they will do to stop the sale of cigarettes to underage people and the sale of illicit cigarettes to anybody.

Secondly, there should be a more effective registration scheme for retailers, so that we can separate rogue from responsible retailers. Thirdly, the Government should work with the World Health Organisation to develop more effective tracing of tobacco packs as they travel around the world. The tobacco industry is now global, and many of the cigarettes sold in this country are manufactured elsewhere.

I thank my hon. Friend again for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. Driving down the smoking rate is good for public health outcomes in our country, and driving down illicit cigarette smoking while a legal trade still exists will be good for the public finances.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on securing this important and timely debate.

The House should face up to the reality that the smuggling of and trade in illicit cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol is a multi-million-pound criminal enterprise. It is not some car boot sale nonsense; it is a significant endeavour. The House will have its head in the sand if it does not recognise that fact. It loses the Treasury tens of millions of pounds in revenue, which could be spent on our schools, roads, hospitals and other areas, and we must recognise that.

I serve on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which recently took evidence on the trade in smuggled tobacco and alcohol. One company supplied evidence to show that, in Northern Ireland alone, 170 million illegally gotten cigarettes are smoked every year. That loses the Treasury £42 million every year and has lost the company whose product has been counterfeited £12.5 million. That is a staggering loss in one little part of the United Kingdom.

I thought that it was significantly bad that 17% of all cigarettes smoked in Northern Ireland had been illicitly traded, but in parts of England and the border counties the figure is 24%. In Devon and Cornwall, it is 13%, and in London, it is 20%. This is a massive criminal endeavour and some of the people who make money out of it are the worst, most cantankerous, nasty and evil people imaginable: as quick as they would sell people cigarettes, they would slit their throats. The House has to wake up to the fact that they are engaged in a serious, criminal endeavour. The Government should exercise the most serious measures against them, and we should encourage the Treasury and the Government in that regard.

As I have said, the timing of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire in securing the debate could not be better. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today published its report on the smuggling of counterfeit cigarettes, tobacco products and alcohol and on the illicit fuel trade. This massive trade is central, so we need to take off our gloves and get stuck into countering it.

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that evidence from around the world shows that increasing regulation, whether via plain packaging or by putting up duty on cigarettes and tobacco, can simply increase the illegal trade? Ireland’s budget of 2010 recognised that by not putting up duty. Rather than increase duty or introduce plain packaging, the Government should follow the model suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and use the UK Border Agency and other agencies to crack down properly on the illicit trade itself.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman will find that I am not arguing against his views—he is right—but we need to set out clearly how significant the problem is. Do we tax the product to the extent that it makes the smuggler’s job all the more easy, or do we recognise that there are things that the Government and we as a nation can do to address the problem?

The problem is not helped by the fact that I can drive my car to France or Belgium, fill it to the gills with cigarettes or alcohol and bring it back to this island and sell those products illegally. There should be a complete stop on a person being able to bring back a boot full of wine, alcohol and cigarettes and claim, “These are for me.” That is utter nonsense. Everyone knows that they are being brought back to be sold either on the street illegally or to their friends and neighbours. We have to make sure that such activity is stamped out.

The Government should be rigorous and ensure that, if people buy cigarettes and alcohol, they should buy them in this nation, pay tax on them in this nation and smoke and drink them in this nation, rather than allowing them to circumvent tax policies. It makes sense that I can probably buy twice as much legally in every other part of Europe than I can buy here because our tax policies are so severe. If they are severe, we need to make them work on this island.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The tobacco industry is able to speak for itself, but one of the reasons why it is annoyed is that this is an infringement on its trading rights, its branding and all the things in which it has invested over the years. It would be wrong to turn around and say that we can just remove those things overnight.

The industry argues that it would damage the actual trade, so let us look at that and what it costs. In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are directly employed in the tobacco industry. In Manchester, another 800 people are directly employed in the manufacturing of cigarettes. If we are not careful, those jobs will go to eastern bloc countries and to Europe—they will move out of this country. Will that affect the number of people who smoke cigarettes? Not one jot. The same number of people will continue to smoke cigarettes, but they will be manufactured elsewhere. We will be the biggest losers, because we will have lost the jobs, the tax and the pay-as-you-earn tax.

[Brandon Lewis]

Again, I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The point that he has just made is backed up if we consider the packaging issue. A lot of the cigarette packaging around Europe is produced in this country, and therefore a huge number of jobs would be at risk if plain packaging were introduced. One of the reasons why companies are so protective of their packaging is brand protection. Bearing in mind that cigarette sales are legal and it is a legal product, unless the Government make cigarette sales illegal, companies feel that they have a right to protect their brand, as that is what protects sales and jobs. Companies argue that a clear definition of brand prevents some of the illegal trade that we are trying to stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I would like to put it on the record that, as well as being a great supporter of the British brewing industry, my hon. Friend is a magnificent spokesman for the cider industry. We regularly do battle over whether beer or cider is best.

Let us consider the Government’s alcohol fraud strategy. In 2010, we introduced a new strategy, which has been successful. We have seen the number of illegal goods being impounded and seized increase dramatically: a 71% increase in beer, a 50% increase in wine and a 67% increase in cider. Those figures clearly demonstrate that the smuggling problem is just as prevalent with wine and cider, yet the Government do not propose to put a duty stamp on them. I struggle to understand why beer is being singled out in such a way.

Let us consider the estimated amount of illegal beer that the Government believe is coming into this country. They estimate that 28,000 articulated lorry loads of beer come into this country every year. That is the equivalent of 538 articulated lorry loads of beer every week, with an estimated profit to the smugglers of £18,000 per lorry. That is the equivalent of £9.6 million of profit to the smugglers per week. Of course, we want to stop that profit and that illegal trade. However, are we honestly suggesting that if our border controls have 28,000 articulated lorries going through them every year, the answer is to bring in duty stamps, rather than to tighten up our border controls?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. Is it not true that the industry feels that a lot of the trade that is, in theory, coming in on those trucks is not physically coming in, but is merely a paper movement? The product never actually leaves the UK in the first place. We need to overcome that problem as well.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree that that has been suggested. If we are saying that there is a problem with smuggling—importing bottles and cans of beer into the country—let us deal with that. If we are saying that there is a fraud going on in relation to some grand paper chase of virtual bottles of beer leaving the country and coming back in, let us tackle that. We need the industry and the wholesalers to work with us on that. The answer is not to implement a duty stamping of 5.5 billion bottles of beer at a massive cost to the brewing industry, because that may not solve the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. There is the phrase, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they haven’t got it in for you”. From the brewers’ perspective, it seems as if the Government have a desire to ruin the British beer industry, and I ask the Government why.

The all-party parliamentary beer group—I urge those in the Chamber who are not members to join as a matter of urgency—held a hearing recently, in which, I think, Andy Leggett gave evidence to us. He said, at that stage, that duty stamps were not the number one option for the Treasury and Customs in relation to smuggling and fraud. We are therefore concerned to see that proposal in the Budget.

Does the Minister have any idea what cost this will add to the beleaguered British beer industry? Why single out beer? Why not cider? Why not wine? Does she have any estimate of the cumulative effect of the extra burden and red tape on the brewing industry, when adding in the beer duty escalator and this unnecessary extra cost? I ask the Minister to think about British beer. Some 80% of all beer drunk in this country is brewed in this country. The beer industry employs tens of thousands of people in all our constituencies. It is a great British product of which we should be proud. Let us not ruin it with an over-bureaucratic system that is costly and damages the future of British beer.

Amendment of the Law

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

We have argued for measures to ensure that people on low and middle incomes are taken out of income tax altogether. We have made significant changes to the tax credit system, which, frankly, under the previous Government, reached way up the income distribution. The changes we have made are appropriate and fair, and it is right that we have drawn back on a system that was costing many billions of pounds under the previous Government.

Taken with the previous increase in the income tax personal allowance, this measure means that this coalition Government have reduced tax paid already by basic rate taxpayers by £350 in real terms. It is this coalition Government who, as a result of the measures in this Budget, will have lifted 2 million people out of income tax altogether—59% of them women, to respond to a point made during the debate. That is the right measure on taxation and the Labour party should support it. Labour thought it was right to double the tax on people on low incomes, but we do not; we think it right to halve the tax on people on the minimum wage.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and being so generous with his time. Does he agree that one of the important measures in the Budget that will help people trying to get into work is the change in the oil and gas taxation regime, especially on decommissioning, which could create huge investment and huge numbers of jobs in areas such as Great Yarmouth?

[Danny Alexander]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the decommissioning relief and the additional field allowances that we announced in the Budget will make a significant difference to investment in the oil and gas sector.

Budget Leak Inquiry

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It is only to be expected that coalition parties will want to make their arguments and to set out their case, and we do have a Budget that is formed by a coalition, but it is a Budget that is good for the country.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the consultation work that the Treasury does in order to reach final positions on the Budget. One of those was shown yesterday, with the new regime for oil and gas and decommissioning—something that the industry very much welcomes and which will provide a great boost. Does my hon. Friend agree that such consultations lead to speculation but are vital in terms of getting into the Budget the right result for people?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and our progress on oil and gas will be welcomed throughout the country and, especially, in Great Yarmouth.

Amendment of the Law

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg]

We are here to discuss the Chancellor’s Budget. He is suggesting that it is a fair Budget that helps particularly low-paid people, but, as we have seen, it helps the richest, not least some on his own Benches. Let us be clear about that.

Again, on personal allowances, we need to look at the detail. Let us consider the cuts to working family tax credits and the loss of child benefit. On the latter, by the way, the Chancellor used the phrase “cliff edge”, but we are still on the cliff edge—it is just a bit more complicated to get to it. That is the big change. Then there is the cost of living—energy prices, food prices and, interestingly, petrol prices. The Chancellor used to attack Labour over petrol prices when we were in government. I remember the fuel tax demonstrations. We have not seen many of them recently but the Chancellor has done nothing to ease the burden. We know what he did for VAT. That is what added to the cost of petrol and fuel for the people of this country. But the Chancellor did nothing. Many of my constituents have written to me asking that the Chancellor do something about it, so they will be bitterly disappointed today.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Chancellor has done something about fuel duty by cutting the increases proposed by the previous Government?

[Derek Twigg]

We can go back to the fuel escalator and see who introduced that in the first place. The fact is that the Chancellor put VAT up, and that has been a major problem for people having to pay the extra, but of course the Chancellor has ignored that and done nothing.

The Budget does nothing for growth. We need growth in the economy to provide jobs and investment in businesses around the country. Someone said that all politics is local, and I will return in a minute to the specific issue and how it affects my constituency. Borrowing is £158 billion more than planned, and today we see that the February borrowing figures are much higher than expected, despite some of the spin beforehand.

Let me turn to unemployment, which is a crucial issue for my constituents. Unemployment has increased in my constituency, with a significant increase in the latest figures, not least in youth unemployment. Many hundreds of young people are not being given the chance for employment in my constituency, because the Government have no growth policy. Their policies are not having an impact in my constituency in terms of providing the additional jobs and growth that are needed. I have had more and more people come to me personally to ask specifically what the Government are doing—and what I am doing, as well—to help young people who are unemployed. I had a mother come to my surgery a couple of months ago who has two young sons who are unemployed and who are desperately trying to get jobs. It is all very well for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to talk about how we should clamp down on the benefits system to encourage work, but people cannot find work in many instances. That is an important point that we should bear in mind.

Small businesses have been mentioned already. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Chancellor; indeed, he was even gracious enough to say that he had listened to some of the points that I had made in announcing today’s initiative to help bank lending to small businesses. However, let me give hon. Members two examples of problems in my constituency. One company was unfortunately left with a large debt after the larger contractor it was working for went out of business. The company still had a full order book, but the bank refused to lend it money—a scandalous situation. Another example, which is just as scandalous, is that of a business person in my constituency who needed an overdraft for one day because of a short-term problem. However, the banks refused to grant it.

We shall see whether the Chancellor’s initiative will work in getting banks to give more help to small businesses, but my worry is that although those businesses that are able, much more established and probably in a stronger position may be able to get the money quite easily, the businesses that are struggling—the ones that are riskier to lend to—are the ones that we should be helping in particular. We will wait and see whether the Chancellor’s initiatives today will help those businesses. With the right help, a lot of those businesses can survive and maintain or increase employment. The message that I have been receiving from small businesses in my area is that they have not been getting help from the banks. I hope that the Chancellor’s initiative today will make a positive impact. However, I remain sceptical because of his previous announcements on trying to address the problem. When I mentioned it to the Business Secretary even last week, he said, “Yes, it is a problem.” That was his answer. We need real energy from the Government on helping small businesses. I therefore look forward to seeing whether this initiative works in the way the Chancellor has outlined today, although I remain sceptical.

We heard nothing about local government in the Budget. We have talked about fairness, so let me give some examples of unfairness in the way local government is funded—a crucial area that impacts on jobs, investment, planning and other issues. In Halton, for instance, we will be losing £44 a head in the next financial year because of the cuts. That compares with £28 a head for the much more prosperous Cheshire West and the city of Chester, and a loss of £19.32 for Cheshire East. Guess who is one of the MPs in Cheshire East? Surprise, surprise: the Chancellor. The 27th most deprived borough will face the largest cut in local government expenditure among those authorities. I am amazed—although I should not be amazed, really—that the Liberal Democrats are going along with this deliberate attempt by the Tories to push money out to Tory authorities at the expense of the most deprived areas in the country.

Why is this issue important? It is important not just so that local authorities can maintain crucial services such as education, social services, development and so on—many people on low incomes are particularly affected by cuts to those services—but so that local authorities such as Halton can regenerate and attract businesses to their areas. Indeed, Halton borough council has been particularly good at attracting development—it was mentioned the other day in a BBC report—whether in shopping and retail facilities, or development by other businesses, such as Stobart and Tesco, which opened up a chilled warehouse that is a large employer. Halton has been particularly good, including on planning and trying to encourage business.

The Chancellor talked about trying to reform the planning system to ensure that local authorities do more to secure investment and attract businesses to this country, and, of course, to their localities. We have fantastic opportunities in Halton, not only in our retail facilities or the developments by Stobart, but in business development, in areas such as the Heath business park, which is one of the foremost business parks in the region, and Daresbury laboratory, which Labour saved from closure and invested in and, I am pleased to say, whose science and business development the current Government are continuing to invest in. Our local authority has been able to achieve much in difficult times. A lot of that was put in place thanks to investment by the last Government. However, the cuts made by this Government are having a negative impact and will cause councils around the country a great deal of problems.

Interestingly again, there was no mention of the NHS in the Budget. That is no surprise. The Liberal Democrats have now supported the Health and Social Care Bill, which we have heard so much about. I have to say to them that every other month we get new recruits joining the Halton Labour party from their party, because they are fed up with the Liberal Democrats’ support for the policies of this Tory Government. In fact, people can no longer see the difference between Tories and Liberal Democrats, which is why—I am guessing—Liberal Democrats in my constituency are saying that what they are doing is a disgrace.

I want to say a couple of things about infrastructure. I agree with the Government that investment in infrastructure is crucial to give the economy a boost and attract more investment, not least from overseas. With the Olympic games, Crossrail and so forth, we have seen massive investment in London and the south-east. That will of course benefit certain parts of the country, but it will not deliver major benefits to areas in the north-west such as Halton. On the credit side for the Government, they have given the go-ahead to the Mersey Gateway bridge in Halton—a scheme, by the way, that was started under Labour and supported by Labour, and signed off by the coalition some 18 months in government. The project will help to provide up to 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the Merseyside and Cheshire areas. We have all-party support for the scheme, which will be crucial for encouraging investment in my area, as well as the wider Merseyside and Cheshire areas. However, it will also provide hundreds of construction jobs, which will be important, as we have a particular difficulty with the construction industry at the moment.

At the same time, however, the Government are taking the lion’s share of any toll revenue over and above what is projected, as well as any savings on the project, and they are also limiting the discounts that the council can give to local people. It is important that local people, who use the current crossing for free, should get big discounts or pay nothing at all. I have already written to the Government, but we cannot get a proper answer to why they are doing that. Why should they take the lion’s share of any additional income or savings? They should be ploughed back into Halton, so that local people can be given bigger discounts.

My final point is about town centres and shopping centres. I did not hear much from the Government about how they are going to encourage the regeneration of town centres. We had a debate in this place a number of weeks ago, and I did not hear much in that either. For various reasons, areas such as Widnes in my constituency have done well at improving their town centres and developing their shopping and leisure facilities. However, as I mentioned in a previous speech, Runcorn is struggling to regenerate its town centre, for various reasons that I do not have time to go into today. Runcorn has potential, not least the attraction of its waterways, but the Government have had nothing to say about that. What we want to hear from them is what they are going to do, in real monetary terms, to help town centres such as Runcorn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I wish to focus primarily on the Budget’s impact on business and growth, but before doing so I wish to touch on one other area: duty stamping on alcohol. The Red Book says that the Treasury will look to move forward with its consultation on duty stamping, and I welcome that important step. The wholesale industry estimates that the revenue lost to the Treasury through the lack of duty stamping on beer alone is about £500 million a year and that the loss might be the same again in respect of wine. We need to consider beer and wine together, because the two products are clearly becoming competitors and we cannot deal with one without looking at the other. Duty stamping on spirits is already in place and it has not affected the sale of spirits or the industry, as spirits sales in this country have increased by 8%. So it is really important to examine this area, in order to plug another hole and get back for the Treasury some of the money that was wasted and spent by the previous Government.

Such an approach will also have a knock-on benefit, as so much of the Budget does, for other Departments and other areas. For example, a benefit to the health industry will result from a lack of the cheap alcohol that can be found in small corner shops in some parts of our country. Such shops do not necessarily buy through the legal market, taking advantage of alcohol for which the duty has not been paid and which is then sold cheaply to young people. We can cut that out, too; this has a big economic impact and a big health impact, and I welcome the move in the Budget.

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have just been granted a Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday on precisely this issue, so I am extremely grateful to him for introducing it in the main Chamber.

[Brandon Lewis]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing that debate and I look forward to joining him on Tuesday to discuss the issue in more detail.

No Budget stands alone, and what is important about this one is how it builds on what has been done in the past couple of years, particularly for business. When we consider how we want to move forward in having an economy that grows, with more jobs and more prosperity for all, it is important to remember that we need to rebalance our economy and have growth in the private sector. So the moves that have been taken for business are hugely important, and the further lowering of corporation tax and the speeding up of that process is very welcome. It makes it very clear that our door is open for business. When private sector businesses grow, they need more staff and more money. Less is then spent through the welfare state and our whole economy benefits.

The change in the top rate of tax, which gets rid of the 50% rate, is also important. Apart from the economic arguments that have already been rehearsed today, that has a psychological impact. A message goes out to high earners—the people who are business leaders and business owners—that we value the work they do. People who aspire to get to that position see that they can work hard, develop and grow their business, and benefit as well.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that as well as giving those people that possible incentive, the change also gives them an incentive to spend more time on the golf course?

[Brandon Lewis]

That shows a lack of understanding of how the business world and business leaders work.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is astonishing that the Opposition do not seem to realise that it is the private sector, wealth generation and incentives that create the income for the Exchequer that enables us to pay for good, sound public services?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes an important and valid point.

One of the important things that the Government have done is to introduce enterprise zones. I appreciate that I have an interest in that as chairman of the all-party group on enterprise zones and local growth, but they are hugely important. In the New Anglia enterprise zone alone, we are looking at about 2,000 extra jobs in the next couple of years, growing possibly to 15,000 in just one enterprise zone in the East Anglia region that is focused on energy.

It was pleasing to hear the Chancellor explain today that one of the industries on which the Government are focused is energy. There are huge opportunities for growth for this country, with £50 billion of business available to companies along the coastline of East Anglia. We have a whole energy offer and proximity to the energy market that are almost unique. We are most often competing with countries overseas for that business, so it is hugely important to companies to understand that the Government are supportive and want that business to be based here in this country.

The moves on corporation tax and capital allowances for enterprise zones are hugely important. I have a couple of asks, to follow on from Prime Minister’s questions today. I make a plea to the Chancellor and the Treasury to look hard at whether we can extend that capital allowance opportunity to all enterprise zones to provide a supercharged boost as they move forward to growth.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my hope that we can bring corporation tax down again next year? That would really help business. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s comment today. The further and the faster we can go on that, the more welcoming we will be for business, and therefore jobs and economic growth.

I have one other suggestion for the Treasury to consider in the years ahead—how we deal with regulation. The changes to planning will be a massive advantage to businesses. One of the attractions of the enterprise zones is how they make planning so much easier by freeing it up. We can do more on regulation. One in, one out is a great aspiration, but it depends on what the one coming in is. There is a strong argument for looking at the billions of pounds a year that business has to spend on dealing with regulations, and targeting a value figure to cut the cost of regulations in this country.

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement about creating certainty for decommissioning, particularly for the oil and gas industry. That will be widely welcomed by the industry and I am sure it will be welcome in Great Yarmouth, as we have a huge number of businesses working in that field, developing and investing massively in our country and offering more jobs and more employment. It further builds on the opportunities for the New Anglia enterprise zone.

To see the benefit for business, we need strong, growing, improving infrastructure. I appreciate the work that the Government have done and the announcement last year of the dualling of the A11, which will open up that corridor of economic growth right through East Anglia, particularly in Suffolk and Norfolk. I make a small plea for something on which the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament are working closely—to open up the spine that the A11 joins, with the full dualling of the A47 from Great Yarmouth through to Peterborough. We will continue to build the case for that and the economic growth that it would bring.

The Budget brings further benefits through the mobile infrastructure fund. The A143 from Great Yarmouth to Haverhill will benefit. The Growing Places fund will put almost £6 million into the New Anglia enterprise zone. Both of those provide more beneficial opportunities for business. As well as unlocking infrastructure growth, we should turn our attention to unlocking growth in the construction industry, which is a huge employer. We need more homes and more infrastructure to be built.

Employees and customers must be able to get from their base to the marketplace, and rail infrastructure can play an enormously important part in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is working hard on some ideas about how to take that forward. He is to be congratulated, and I know he will speak in the House shortly. Through the work being done by the Department for Transport and supported by the Treasury, we have a further opportunity to unlock economic growth. We have just over 2,500 railway stations across the country, many of which we would all like to see regenerated and improved. Dealing with them as real estate rather than just as transport hubs would allow us to unlock up to £27 billion of business for the construction industry.

It is important that that kind of infrastructure develops and grows so that people can get to the marketplace quicker and businesses can transport their goods, products and customers from their bases to where they need to be faster. Broadband will open up communications and be a hugely important part of that, particularly for areas, such as Norfolk, with rural hinterlands where the transport infrastructure is not as good as we would like it to be. Broadband communication could make up for that deficit, so the target of 2015 is very welcome in Norfolk.

We have huge opportunities for growth. This Budget knits together work done by a number of other Departments and the past few Budgets and presents a real opportunity to encourage business to grow. It sends a strong message to business that this country is not only open for business, but clearly working hard to create the infrastructure and environment in which business and business people can flourish, and I welcome that from the Treasury.

Living Standards

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

We are tonight invited by the Opposition to join them in sympathising with the squeezed middle. Of course, that is Labour’s cynical project to identify itself with the people hardest hit by the crisis with which it left us. It seems to be the Opposition’s only policy. In the absence of any serious consideration of the crisis for which they are responsible, they now posture as the only people who feel the public’s pain. That is utterly cynical, and we have seen and heard tonight how little truck the House has with that view.

The truth is that we are all being squeezed, but not for the reasons the Opposition set out. The shadow Chief Secretary, in hysterical tones, accused Government Members of indulging in reckless and heartless cuts. We are being squeezed by the actions of a responsible coalition, which was invited by the country to tackle a national emergency. We need to remember the scale of the crisis we inherited, the effect on living standards, which we are all feeling, and the steps the Government have taken.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways the Government could help to improve living standards is by creating an environment in which private sector businesses can grow, employ more people and, potentially, give them pay rises when they do well?

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I could not agree more. We need to rebalance the economy and realise that every pound spent here is a pound that has to be earned by businesses and the people who work for them.

The truth is that we inherited £1 trillion of debt—£25,000 for every man, woman and child in the country—and a situation in which £1 out of every £4 of Government expenditure had to be borrowed. We had debt interest payments of £120 million a day, and debt interest would have risen to £76 billion per annum over the Parliament had we not tackled the deficit. Yes, there was an international credit crunch, but it was the actions of the Labour Government that led us into a position of extreme vulnerability. They inherited a golden legacy in 1997 after the previous Conservative Government had had to put the country through a painful and difficult period. It was a golden legacy that, after two years, they set about—

Tax Avoidance (Public Servants)

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I do not think it sends a very good message. That is why we have ended the arrangement and why I have put in place a review to ensure that any other such arrangements, put in place by either this Government or our predecessors, is unearthed and that appropriate action is taken.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Bearing in mind that what has happened is, technically, entirely legal, as my hon. Friends have noted, and that this issue is a matter of what the Government feel is right in policy terms for Departments to do, can my right hon. Friend outline what safeguards, regulations or guidelines from the previous Government he has found in his early investigations that were designed to ensure that such practices do not happen in Departments?

[Danny Alexander]

There are strict guidelines from the Treasury that have been in place for some time, which are set out in the document “Managing Public Money”, the most recent edition of which was published in October 2007. I quoted the relevant section in my answer to the original question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). The important thing is that Departments, and indeed accounting officers, understand that it is their responsibility to ensure that the rules for managing public money are followed in every case, and I regard it as my responsibility as Chief Secretary to ensure that they are.

Banking Commission Report

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to consider my hon. Friend’s views, but we are equally clear that the depositor preference proposals in the Vickers report are the ones that we support in principle; their implementation in practice will be addressed in the White Paper.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ring-fencing outlined in the proposals will not only protect the taxpayer from casino banking but have the longer-term benefit of encouraging more competition by creating a fairer and more even playing field for small banks, which would be to the benefit of all?

[Mr Osborne]

We want to see more competition, which is why we proceeded with the sale of Northern Rock and why we are pleased to see Lloyds seeking to sell its branches to the Co-operative bank. It is also why we want to see other challenger banks out there. We are also considering a de minimis exemption for some of the smallest banks; we will report back on that when we publish the White Paper.

Alcohol Taxation

Brandon Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The study to which he refers took into account the reduced quality of life years associated with alcohol, which are extremely difficult to quantify.

In three years’ time, the Government will be judged not just on the economy, but on other tangible markers, such as violent crime, the prison population, health inequalities—even markers such as teenage pregnancy. It is hard to think of a social marker that is not affected by alcohol.

However, there are other compelling reasons for taking action. At a time of squeezed police budgets and when the NHS needs to find efficiency savings of £20 billion, we should not be pouring that money down the drain because of the problems that this country has with alcohol. About half the offenders in some prisons are jailed for an offence in which alcohol played a significant role. The relationship between crime and alcohol is not linear, but the positive association between violent crime and alcohol is compelling. There is a wealth of evidence to link alcohol price increases and reduced rates of homicide, rape, robbery, assault, motor vehicle theft and domestic violence.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In terms of alcohol price increases having the effect that she has just outlined, does she agree that one easy, fast and effective route that the Government could take to stop underpriced and low-priced alcohol being sold would be to go ahead with duty stamping on beer and wine to ensure that alcohol is sold at the right price and, equally, to save the Government up to £1 billion a year of revenue that is currently lost through the tax being avoided?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is one of the options. I would like to outline an alternative, but I certainly thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Numerous studies around the world have shown public health benefits as a result of price increases and taxation policies, so is it not time for some evidence-based politics? The trouble is that there is no single, simple solution. We know that there are other factors in addition to price: availability, our drinking culture and marketing. Those are all key factors, but today’s debate is about taxation, so I will focus entirely on price, not because the others do not matter, but because they are not within the remit of the Treasury.

It is worth pointing out that most health experts feel that changing pricing is the most effective way of achieving results. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the letter in today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph signed by 19 organisations. I know that the Treasury is aware of the costs to our economy of dependent drinkers and binge drinking, so I will not ask my hon. Friend to respond in detail on those points. As disposable incomes have fallen, so too has the overall consumption of alcohol, but that comes on the back of decades of steady increases. Alcohol remains about 44% more affordable than it was in 1980.

In 2010, a total of 48.4 billion units of alcohol were sold in the UK. Of those, 31.8 billion units—about two thirds; the great and increasing majority—were sold by the off-trade. The widening gap between the price of on-licence and off-licence alcohol is becoming far more significant and is fuelling the rise in home drinking. Harms are not going down as we might expect as a result of the small fall in overall consumption, because of the low-price deals that are still very widely available in supermarkets, garages and convenience stores pretty much around the clock.