Beer Duty Escalator

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Caton. I thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this important debate. As a number of hon. Members have suggested, there is a certain sense of déjà vu, given the number of debates that there have been on the issue, but the timing of this debate, ahead of the Budget, is critical.

I stress at the outset that a number of my hon. Friends have let me know that they would have liked to participate in this debate, but they were not able to do so because of other parliamentary business or commitments that they had already made. I hope that we can continue with the generous spirit in which the debate has been conducted, and focus on a number of issues that Members on both sides of the House would like the Minister to answer—although that is not to say that I will not make some reference to the previous Government’s position or press the Minister on some questions that I think all of us would like to be answered.

It is important to recognise, as many hon. Members have, the organisations that have briefed Members and allowed them to make visits and listen to representatives of the industry in their constituencies. Those organisations include the British Beer and Pub Association, the Society of Independent Brewers, the all-party groups on beer and on pubs and the Campaign for Real Ale. I have worked closely with CAMRA in my constituency; I had the joy of judging one of the beer competitions at a local real ale festival, for which I thank the local CAMRA organisation. We also heard about representations made by the TaxPayers Alliance and The Sun.

I always enjoy such debates, because they allow us to have, as one hon. Member suggested, not just a brewery bingo, but a pub bingo. They give us a list of places to visit when we travel around the UK when not involved in parliamentary business.

A number of hon. Members have talked about the importance of the wider brewing industry and of manufacturing. There is also, of course, the bottling sector, from which representations have also been received. We have discussed small and medium-sized enterprises, micro-breweries, the rural economy, and the focus of the pub trade as a base for the local community. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) recognised the impact on elderly people and the important social role that pubs play in the community. We also heard about the charitable events and the various activities that pub goers regularly get involved in.

In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Nuneaton praised the Minister as a listening Minister. He recognised the need to deal with the deficit and welcomed, as I have, some of the actions taken on fuel duty. He urged the Minister, as other hon. Members did, to assess whether the escalator was disproportionate. I will return to that issue with some specific comments for the Minister to consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) talked about responsible drinking, which is important. Like her, I spent some time working in the voluntary sector before becoming a Member of Parliament. I have worked in a project that dealt with homeless people with drinking problems. I have also spent some time, when I was a social work student, working at a drinking problems unit in a psychiatric hospital. I have seen the difficulties and problems that emerge when people get involved in problem drinking. One theme that has come out from the discussion is the importance of the pub sector in providing a different ethos, culture and way for people to consume alcohol enjoyably and responsibly. We are all concerned to ensure that that continues.

Whatever regimes are put in place—this is where there is a VAT issue—to support responsible drinking, we all want to ensure that supermarkets are not given an unfair advantage over the pub sector. A number of hon. Members have talked about that. Regarding VAT, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) intended to make a hugely party political point—perhaps a slightly party political point. This important issue needs to be addressed.

The Opposition believe that the Government made a mistake in 2011 in increasing VAT, which had an impact not only on the pub trade, but more widely on families and businesses around the country. That rise, which was equivalent to a 12% increase in tax for the industry, was in the same year that the coalition introduced the biggest ever pence per pint increase in beer duty.

[Richard Fuller]

We all know that the last Labour Government left a crippling deficit for this coalition Government—I am being slightly party political—who have had to clear up the mess that they left behind. The escalator increases taxes on working people who enjoy a pint. Does the hon. Lady think that it was a mistake in principle for the last Labour Government to introduce that to our taxation system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the deficit, but the last Labour Government had a very good reason for doing what they did at the time; the circumstances are now different. Far be it from me to try to defend the Minister or give him a way out of dealing with the difficult issues, but I say gently to hon. Members that, as a responsible Opposition, with a stream of people saying, “You must not raise this, tax that or do anything else,” at the same time as dealing with the deficit, there are hard choices to be made.

In the debate in the Chamber on 1 November, I said that it was right, in the present economic circumstances, for the Government to undertake a review of the economic impact of the escalator. Indeed, I have called on them to do the same on a range of other matters, one of which is air passenger duty, about which many people are making representations. I simply make that point because we must address the wider economic issues.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady criticises the Government for what she says was the introduction of the biggest ever increase in beer duty. Will she tell us which Chancellor announced that increase?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the history of the increase, and I simply say that it was at that stage. This Government have to accept responsibility for the decisions that they have taken: they have not chosen to change the escalator that was introduced by the previous Government.

I am all ears to hear what the Minister will say this morning. I have heard a couple of such debates. In the last one in the Chamber, he was in “listening mode”, as he reassured us several times. He said that

“as an incoming Minister who is new to this portfolio, I plan to keep nothing on the shelf. I will be looking at everything, which includes all duties and taxes for which I have responsibility. That would be a sensible thing for any Minister to do.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 439.]

I agreed with that at the time, because I thought that it gave him the opportunity to introduce changes.

As has been mentioned, The Sun is undertaking a campaign about the increase. In a recent article, a Treasury spokesman was quoted as saying:

“Revenues from alcohol excise duty make an important contribution to reducing the deficit. But where we can take action we have.”

I want to hear from the Minister whether that means that any change has been ruled out or is still being considered. I also want him—I will give him plenty of opportunity to respond—to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about the amount of savings and the effect on investment. Is it not now the time for a proper review of the economic impact of the escalator, to give us an evidence base in today’s economic climate? Will the Minister give us his latest assessment of the economic impact of the cancellation of the escalator? Will he simply give us the information that he and his officials have already worked on? Will he address what the impact would be of the Government acceding to our request to cut the rate of VAT temporarily?

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Lady has gone back to the topic of VAT. Does she regret that when the previous Government reduced VAT in 2008, they increased the duty on alcohol, so that the VAT cut had no beneficial impact?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

We are at the stage in the parliamentary cycle when the coalition Government must absolutely take responsibility. Hon. Members who are in government have the power at this time. As I have said, the then Chancellor took that decision on the basis of the economic circumstances of the time, as Ministers must do today.

I simply hope to extract some information from the Minister about what assessment he has made and what the current thinking is. I would not expect a Minister to say what will happen in the Budget. It would clearly not be right for him to do that, but he could give us some information about his thinking and perhaps about what he has ruled out, and I look forward to his speech.

I thank all hon. Members who have taken the time to speak in the debate. As I have said, the fact that only a few Opposition Members could take part this morning does not in any way suggest that they do not take the issue seriously. We look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the wealthiest in society are paying more in every year of this Government’s time in office than they ever did under the Labour party.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that the Chancellor’s cuts to tax credits and benefits will

“swamp any gains from the change in personal tax allowances for almost all low income households…and many middle income families”.

How can that hit on working families be justified on the same day as millionaires are getting a tax cut?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Lady will know that working people in this country are net beneficiaries of the measures announced in the autumn statement. I would have thought that she would welcome the fact that 2.2 million Scots will gain from the increase in the personal allowance. It is a massive policy to ensure that the working people of this country have more of their own money back in their pockets to use for themselves.

The Economy

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches. We heard some excellent contributions, which gives the Opposition hope that when we return to government we will have some extremely good people representing their constituencies. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who made a very dignified speech, brings a wealth of experience from her background in the children’s hospice movement and will be a great asset to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who has direct experience of local government, and indeed of a co-operative council, will also bring us experience. We heard a passionate speech on the plight of the unemployed from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who talked about his home town and the people he represents. I was particularly interested in his speech because he mentioned two things that are close to my heart: football and art. It sounds as though I ought to visit Middlesbrough in the not-too-distant future.

I should also mention the speeches made by other right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). They all demonstrated why there are problems with what the Chancellor did in the autumn statement, and every one of them took the opportunity to make suggestions, to pick up on the problems and to represent their constituents.

When the Chancellor came to the House last Wednesday to deliver his autumn statement, he was clearly determined to have no repeat of the omnishambles Budget that unravelled last time around. He was determined this time to avoid pasties, churches and caravans. There was a bit of hilarity and laughter on the Government Benches while he delivered his statement, but I must say to the Minister and to Government Members that many millions of people across the UK do not feel much like celebrating or laughing because of the bad news the autumn statement brought them.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who is now back in his place, having been removed to the naughty step for a period of time, talked about the gravity of the situation. I am not sure that he really understands the gravity of the situation facing families in my constituency who are struggling on part-time hours and who have seen their working tax credits cut. Nor do I think that Government Members really understand the problems faced by the woman with chronic health problems whom I met recently, who is panicking that she is going to be forced to move house because of the bedroom tax, or the plight of young people desperate to get a start in a real job.

In the middle of what one journalist described last week as “jiggery-pokery” and the hon. Member for South Down spoke of earlier as “sleight of hand”, the harsh reality is that the economy is set to shrink and growth forecasts are downgraded yet again. Over the past two years, the economy has grown by just 0.6% compared with the 4.6% that the Government promised. Nearly 1 million young people are out of work. Prices are forecast to carry on rising faster than wages for at least another year, until 2014. Debt figures are revised upwards this year and for future years. The Government are set to borrow £212 billion more than they planned. The Chancellor has failed on his own fiscal rule and the Prime Minister’s pledge to balance the books by 2015. So much for the Chancellor claiming to be healing the economy.

Last Wednesday the Chancellor made a big song and dance about how borrowing is forecast to fall. As we have heard repeatedly since then—indeed, several hon. Members commented on it today—the only reason he has been able to claim this is that the Government have added the 4G mobile spectrum auction to this year’s figures even though Government delays mean that the auction has not happened yet. Without the receipts pencilled in from the 4G sale, borrowing would be forecast to be £2 billion higher this year than last year. Government Front Benchers may try to brush off those figures, but Labour Members are not going to let the Chancellor get away so easily, because they are the real figures that expose the reality behind his failed economic plan. As we have heard in speech after speech, the fact is—I hope that Ministers are listening to this—that the Government’s policies have failed to bring growth back to the economy.

The Chancellor claimed that he would cut the welfare bill, yet it is forecast to be some £13.6 billion higher in this Parliament than he boasted two and a half years ago. Again, rather than face up to reality and change course, he has decided to carry on regardless and instead make hard-working families shoulder the cost of his failure. Speaker after speaker has highlighted how the impact falls on precisely the people the Government say they want to support. Most working-age benefits, including child tax credit and maternity pay, will rise by only 1% for the next three years—a real-terms cut. Child benefit is to go up by only 1% for two years from 2014—another real-terms cut.

We do need to reform and modernise our welfare system. People who can work should work if the jobs are available for them; there should be no ifs or buts about that. However, that is not what the Chancellor is about. He is trying to characterise this as the workers versus the workshy and trying to get the public to believe that it is about the strivers versus the shirkers. That might make for some soundbites but it does not do anything to help the decent people who are out of work through no fault of their own, who are desperate to get a job, who want to pay their way, and who will do everything they possibly can to do so.

As we have heard, six out of 10 households who will be hit by these real-terms cuts to tax credits and benefits are actually in work. The House of Commons Library has shown that the decisions in the autumn statement, together with all the other changes to tax and benefits that take effect in April, mean that a one-earner family on £20,000 a year with two children will lose £279 a year. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to recognise those figures when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spoke earlier, but perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will have something more to say about them.

Not only is this hitting hard-working people and families who are striving to do the right thing, but research from the Library shows that 81% of the revenue from the key additional direct tax, tax credit and benefit changes in the autumn statement will come from women—£867 million of over £1 billion raised. The Chancellor has added a mummy tax to his granny tax. Women are being hit three times harder than men by a Cabinet with three times more men than women—perhaps no surprise there.

We heard a number of excellent contributions this afternoon. Opposition Members spoke about the true cost of the Government’s failed economic policies and the reality behind the measures announced in the autumn statement. The Prime Minister may have once promised that we are all in this together, but given that hard-working, striving families and workers were singled out on the same day that the Government gave a £3 billion handout to the richest people in the country, it is clear that his promise has been broken.

Constituents across the length and breadth of the UK may well have given the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt, but many of them are now coming to realise that he is more interested in tax breaks for millionaires than in getting people into real jobs. I suspect that the 6,000-odd people in each Tory constituency who will be affected by that will wake up to the reality and that many of them will not repeat their vote for the Conservative party or, indeed, vote for the Liberal Democrats come the next election.

While the Chancellor is playing games and making the worst-paid workers pay for the costs of his failure, Labour will continue to fight to make sure that the voices of those whom he is hitting hard are heard. Opposition Members are proud to represent the voices of those people—the workers and the strivers. We will keep pushing the Chancellor to change course, to cut VAT temporarily, to bring in a bank bonus tax to fund a job guarantee for young people, genuinely to bring forward infrastructure investment, properly to reform the banking system, to introduce a national insurance contributions holiday scheme for small businesses, and to come up with a real strategy for growth, not just a strategy to cover the cost of failure.

To repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor earlier today—I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and others who raised this point—we will look at the Government’s proposed legislation, but if they intend to go ahead with such an unfair hit on middle and lower-income working families while giving a £3 billion top-rate tax cut, we will oppose it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

That is right. If we can deal with worklessness, we can help deal with poverty. In the past two years, 1.2 million private sector jobs have been created—more than were created on a net basis by the previous Government over 10 years.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that more than 6.1 million people in poverty are in working households. Does the Minister believe that a real-terms cut to in-work support for the lowest paid helps to tackle child poverty and will he agree to publish a child poverty impact assessment alongside the Bill on benefits uprating?

[Sajid Javid]

As I have said, we will not take any lectures from the Opposition on child poverty. I used the previous Government’s figures. She talks about workless households, but they increased by 200,000 during Labour’s last term in power and I believe that the policies the Government have in place to deal with the root causes of poverty are the right ones.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Clerks and to Mr Speaker for their forbearance in ensuring that the amendment tabled in my name is debated in the most appropriate group this afternoon. That said, there is but one lonely little amendment—amendment 32, which would amend clause 16—in my name in this group. In some ways, it is a very technical and practical amendment, but it would allow for the closure of existing Scottish schemes by 1 April 2016 instead of 2015. It would put these reforms on a much more realistic time scale.

I am sure Members will be aware that the Scottish Government have devolved executive competence for a number of aspects of a number of Scottish public sector pension schemes. There have been considerable delays in establishing exactly what flexibilities are open to the Scottish Government in those areas for which they have responsibility, and it has been difficult to gain clarity over what that process might look like. That has obviously had an impact on the negotiating process.

Gaining clarity has happened in an extremely piecemeal fashion. Back in March 2012, Ministers initiated partnership negotiations with employers and trade unions about the pension schemes of the NHS, teachers, police and firefighters. On 28 March, a letter arrived from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I am sorry he is not with us for this debate—setting out some new constraints regarding the links between normal pension age and state pension age, which we will debate later. In May, there was more communication from the Chief Secretary, who informed the Scottish Government that they would require explicit Treasury consent for cost-sensitive changes to the teachers or the NHS schemes, and in July the Scottish Government were informed that the UK Government wanted to extend the Bill to non-departmental public bodies and Scottish judicial offices. At that stage, there was still no clarity on flexibilities relating to the pension age requirements, which everyone knows is a key sticking point in the negotiations.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point and I know that some of the trade unions have commented on the matter. Is she aware of the correspondence between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Scottish Government in October, in which the Scottish Government were invited to suggest some amendments to the Bill? Is her amendment one of those that the Scottish Government suggested to the Chief Secretary or to other Ministers?

[Dr Whiteford]

I am afraid that I am not privy to the Scottish Government’s processes on this, so I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question with any certainty whatever. What I can say is that the Scottish Government got clarity only a few weeks ago on the extent to which they can deviate from the proposals for England and Wales, and that the degree is quite limited indeed. I think the Scottish Government will have some flexibilities on accrual rates and some revaluation bases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am more than happy to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we will have further debate on that topic.

If amendment 11 were agreed to, considerable and greater power would be available for the Scottish Parliament than the current Scottish Government appear to want. Within the context of the politics at present, I do not think it would be idle speculation to suggest that that might be convenient.

[Cathy Jamieson]

With reference to the amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) earlier, notwithstanding the comments I made at that stage, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government is complaining that there are only some 28 months to conclude negotiations on pensions when a great deal of the Scottish Government’s effort appears to be going on other things at the moment? Perhaps some of that resource could be used to resolve these issues.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I suspect that it might also be outwith the terms of the new clause, so I shall refrain from commenting.

Finally, there is a risk that we are missing something in Scotland and are not getting—or even trying to get—the powers we could have. That decision might be for purely party political reasons, so that people can lay blame, saying, “There is nothing we can do; we cannot make life better for you because we do not have the power to do so. It is all because of that nasty Government down in London and your only way out of this is to make that amazing leap so that with one bound we are free. Then, everything will suddenly be wonderful,” in the hope that that will persuade the people of Scotland that they should vote for separation. I am confident that the level-headedness of the Scottish people will mean that they will not be taken in by such proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

I am aware of how pressing the question of devolution is for some of our colleagues in Scotland, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) would agree that the Bill is not an appropriate place to rework the devolution settlement put in place by the 1998 Act or the long-standing Sewel convention by making this House’s ability to legislate for local government pensions in Scotland subject to the Scottish Parliament’s consent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The reason why we tabled the amendment is important. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said, concern has been expressed by the trade unions that the ability to make some of the regulations relating to the local government pension scheme in Scotland might change the relationship that had previously existed. We want to ensure that the existing practice is in the Bill and that there would be no change. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

[Sajid Javid]

I respect the hon. Lady’s intentions, but for the reasons that I set out, I do not believe the amendment is necessary. The situation as it stands is quite clear.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Minister for giving way once again. In all the correspondence that has gone back and forth between the Scottish Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, did the Scottish Government at any stage ask for any amendments to be made to the Bill, either to clarify it or to give them further flexibility?

[Sajid Javid]

I have not seen all that correspondence, but to my knowledge the Scottish Government have not asked for any such amendments.

On amendment 12, I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the defined benefit structure of the new schemes. I would hate to think that the hon. Member for Nottingham East is unaware of the 85,000 or so public service workers who are already members of the current career average schemes. His amendment, which he says is designed to reassure public service workers about the nature of their pensions, refers only to final salary schemes. I can reassure all public sector workers, including those currently in career average schemes, that the Government are fully committed to implementing the defined benefit schemes that have been negotiated. I assure the House, just as I assured the Committee, that the Government have no intention of replacing these defined benefit schemes with different types of scheme designs.

There is no secret plot here. We have spent a long time in discussions with trade unions and member representatives to get where we are today. It would be foolhardy to throw away 18 months of work and do something entirely different. We do not intend to move away from defined benefit schemes in public services. Defined contribution schemes would not be the right kind of pension provision for many public servants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

No, I do not. The Scottish Government have had plenty of time to look at the proposals, which originated with Lord Hutton’s report. They may feel that they should have acted earlier, but they clearly had control over that.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I heard the Minister say that the Scottish Government had not made any formal request to change the time scale, but the Finance Secretary referred to that in his speech in the Scottish Parliament when he indicated that he was not bringing forward a legislative consent motion. If the Scottish Government were to make such a formal approach, would the Minister, even at this late stage, be willing to consider amendments once the Bill moves elsewhere?

Small Charitable Donations Bill

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Post-legislative review—

‘The Government shall, within 24 months of this Act coming into force, undertake a review of the operation and administration of the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme and lay a report of the review before the House of Commons.’.

New clause 3—Complementary gift aid for small donations to small charities—

‘(1) Smaller charities, community amateur sports clubs or recently established charities, which do not meet the eligibility criteria in section (1) shall be eligible to apply to HM Revenue and Customs for complementary gift aid for small donations.

(2) “Small donations” for the purposes of complementary gift aid shall be as provided for in section 3 and the Schedule.

(3) That maximum donations limit for complementary gift aid shall be £5,000.

(4) The “connected charities” conditions in sections 4 and 5 shall also apply for charities making claims for complementary gift aid for small donations.

(5)

(a) HM Revenue and Customs may stipulate the supporting verification it may require from relevant agencies or authorities or designated persons in respect of any claims for complementary gift aid for small donations to small charities;

(b) such agencies, authorities or designated persons may include charity commissions, local government officers, police or police and crime commissioners, members of relevant professional bodies or others designated by devolved administrations in agreement with HM Revenue and Customs for these purposes.

(6) This section shall come into force on 6 April 2014.’.

This would provide for a separate scheme of supporting payments from HM Revenue and Customs, in the spirit of gift aid, to smaller or newer charities including those formed in response to a particular event.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

‘(6) The “specified amount” for a charity for a tax year is (subject to section 2(1))—

(a) £5,000 for a charity eligible for the full specified amount; or

(b) £2,000 for a charity eligible for the reduced specified amount.’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) A charity is an eligible charity for a tax year if—

(a) it has made a successful gift aid exemption claim in at least three of the previous seven years. In such cases, a charity will be eligible for the full specified amount; or

(b) it has made successful gift aid exemption claim in the previous year. In such cases, a charity will be eligible for the reduced specified amount.

This amendment introduces a probationary period for charities that do not have the claims history required in subsection (1)(a) of this clause. It allows them to benefit from a reduced specified amount until a claims history has been established. This also removes the requirement for a start-up period.

Government amendment 24.

Amendment 32, page 2, line 14, at end insert ‘or

(c) the charity is a “small charity”;

(d) the charity has been established for a specific event or project which has concluded.’.

This amendment extends the meaning of eligible charity to small charities and those established for specific events or projects.

Government amendments 25 and 26.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 27.

Amendment 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) are eligible for the same rate of specified amount (subject to section 2(1)) for the tax year.’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 12,  page 3, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a) the specified amount (subject to section 2(1)), divided by’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 45, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendments 28 and 29.

Amendment 15, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a) two or more charities (“connected eligible charities”) are connected with one another in a tax year and are charities eligible for the same rate of the specified amount (subject to section 2(1)) for the tax year, and’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 16, page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) if less, the specified amount (subject to section 2(1))’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 21, page 7, line 10, at end add—

‘(8) The Treasury must, within 24 months of this Act coming into force, prepare a report assessing the impact of—

(a) the connected charities provisions; and

(b) the community buildings provisions

on the ability of charities to benefit from the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme and lay it before the House of Commons.’.

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 33, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

‘“small charity” means a charity whose gross income for a tax year is no more than £25,000.’.

This amendment defines a small charity as one whose gross income for a tax year is no more than £25,000. This figure is consistent with that given for lower-income charities in the Charities Act 2011 and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator’s Routine Monitoring Policy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I look forward to further interesting debates on the proposals—we had interesting debates both on Second Reading and in Committee. This large group includes significant proposals, although a number are consequential on acceptance of the main amendments.

We discussed a number of the significant proposals on Second Reading and in Committee. They follow a pattern. I thank the Minister—it might be one of the few times I do so—for listening to some, but not all, of the concerns raised in Committee. At the time, it was not always clear that he would introduce amendments or deal with other things, but I thank him for listening. Crucially for the charities, if not for the Opposition, he has responded to points that the charitable sector raised with us.

Today we have once again heard concerns from the wider charity sector about the reported deficit of more than £300 million in 2011, which it has brought to public attention. That shows the current difficulty of getting donations and income into charities while at the same time they are facing increased burdens on the services they provide—not that the sector sees its services as burdens. Hopefully, more charities will benefit from the Bill now than would have benefited from it when we debated it in pre-legislative scrutiny, on Second Reading and in Committee.

We had long debates in Committee on some clauses and amendments. I am sure the House will be relieved to know that I have no wish to repeat them verbatim—that would be unhelpful—but it is worth noting that the same issues came up in Committee time and again, which suggested that further work needed to be done to amend the Bill. We also need to continue to scrutinise what the Bill will do in the light of subsequent amendments.

There is an extensive list of proposals in the group, and I want to refer to a number of them. It would be wise of me to put on record that we have tabled new clauses 1 and 2 because they would deal with a number of concerns that the Opposition and the charity sector have raised throughout the Bill’s progress. Perhaps the Government have acknowledged—in their amendments in Committee and on Report—that the original Bill was not drafted as tightly as it might have been, or in a way that ensured as much fairness and equity as possible.

It is therefore right and proper that we return to the issue of formally reviewing the Bill after a two-year period. The Minister said many times in Committee that he was willing to look again at the measures and acknowledged that he wished to amend the Bill—we will discuss that later. However, when the Chancellor first announced the scheme, he said he wanted it to deliver

“gift aid on the contents of the collecting tin and the street bucket”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 962.]

He also pledged that the reforms would be “bureaucracy-lite”. That theme has run throughout our discussions.

The Bill will doubtless benefit a number of charities and community amateur sports clubs, which is welcome, but the Government need to reassure charities that they are committed to making the Bill the best it can be. Given that many of the concerns that have been outlined will not result in changes to the Bill before Royal Assent, we can know how well the scheme is performing in practice only if there is a formal review. In any event, it would be good practice to review legislation after a period of its operation. That theme ran through a number of proposals that the Opposition tabled in Committee.

The Minister will note that we are trying in new clauses 1 and 2 to add extra detail to the report that we originally asked for in Committee. Let me say a few words about why a detailed report is so important. I do not want to go through all the arguments again, but we heard in Committee that anywhere between a third and a fifth of charities would benefit as a result of both the strict eligibility criteria and the community buildings and connected charities provisions, which we have debated extensively at various stages. The corollary to that is that a significant number of charities will be unable to benefit. The scheme could therefore be divisive, favouring some types of charities over others. That theme also ran through the debate.

Attempting to solve one problem often produced unintended consequences and difficulties—I am thinking of our debates on churches, and on large versus small charities—and that is why we ask in the new clauses for a breakdown and a review that gives more detail. That is important. New clause 1 mentions registered charities, exempt and excepted charities, and charities in different regions. That would mean that we can fully understand the impact of the scheme once it is in operation and redress any inequalities as soon as possible.

We spoke extensively in Committee about the complexity of the Bill. As we heard, it is estimated that 160 pages of guidance on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs website will be needed to explain it. There are 80 pages on registering for gift aid, so perhaps we can agree that the Bill is more complex than we would like it to be. Not just the Opposition and the charity sector understood that and raised such particulars; the Minister, in the sixth sitting of the Bill Committee on 23 October, admitted that the rules were complex in response to one of my hon. Friends. He said:

“I readily admit that this part of the Bill is complex and that we do not know exactly how it will work until it comes into practice.”––[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations Public Bill Committee, 23 October 2012; c. 207.]

In another Committee sitting, he said that

“the very nature of trying to capture issues such as connectivity—whether it is here where we are dealing with charity, or in other laws where we are dealing with trusts—is complex.”

He has also said that:

“Clearly HMRC is like any organisation; mistakes can always be found.”––[Official Report, Small Charitable Donations Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2012; c. 223-5.]

I make those points simply to reinforce the rationale for building into the process a formal review, because of the nature and complexity of the Bill and the amount of guidance that will be required. At one point in Committee, I said that if a charity had £1 for every word of guidance needed, there would be a fairly significant donation to good causes. It is important that the Bill requires a formal review, so that we can understand the provisions and ensure that we keep tabs on the costs of the scheme.

In the Minister’s deliberations in Committee, he often spoke of having to be a good guardian of the public purse. I would have thought that it would therefore be only right and proper for the Government to commit formally to reviewing the costs of the scheme after an appropriate period—reviewing the spending, because the Minister said that as many charities as were eligible would be able to take part in the scheme, and to ensure that the money was equitably distributed, identifying any problems in the regions of the different nations that make up the UK.

There are a number of concerns about the data on which we begin the process. The Minister was good enough to write to the Opposition to answer a number of the questions we raised in advance of the debate. He mentions in his letter amending the matching rate; amending the eligibility period to two years; introducing a power to amend the eligibility criteria in future; and changing the powers in some of the clauses. He goes on to give some information about organisations that can claim gift aid but are not covered by Charity Commission data. He gives figures, and that is helpful, although—as is often the case in these scenarios—the answers to questions immediately prompt a series of other questions. Some of the responses that we have subsequently had from the charity sector suggest confusion in some areas, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that up. He could also help us to establish that baseline from which the success or otherwise of the scheme could be judged in the future.

For example, in the Minister’s letter he suggests that 60% of the organisations claiming gift aid in 2009-10 were registered charities. I am not entirely sure what that 60% represents. Was that 60% of the 68,357 charities to which gift aid repayments were made in 2009-10? That figure comes from HMRC’s own release. If that is the case, it would suggest that just over 41,000 registered charities were claiming gift aid in that year, which of course means that some 40% of the total were claiming other types. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the point and reassure us.

The Minister also indicates in his letter that HMRC does not hold data on the number of charities making gift aid claims. That is a bit confusing because HMRC has been able to provide some statistics and figures, so it seems that it does hold some underlying data, if perhaps not all of the data that we have sought. It would be helpful to have some clarity on that point. Does HMRC not hold up-to-date data on the number of registered charities or have we somehow misunderstood the Minister’s letter? If so, the charitable sector is saying that it too could have misunderstood, and that does not bode well for good communications.

It would be helpful if we were able to ensure that we have such provision in the Bill. As we know, Ministers come and Ministers go. This Minister is relatively new in post and it is good to see that he is still here to reap the benefits and take the plaudits when the Bill passes—as it no doubt will—but another Minister may come along in due course who may not have paid quite so much attention to the Bill and perhaps has not fully appreciated the amount of attention to detail from this Minister and the commitments that he made in Committee. For that reason, it would be helpful to have something on the face of the Bill, as outlined in new clauses 1 and 2.

I fully appreciate the fact that the Minister has tabled some amendments, to which he will speak in due course. Depending on what he has to say, those amendments may make some of the amendments that we have tabled superfluous or redundant, but it is important to place on record our reasons for tabling them.

A whole series of consequential amendments flow from amendments 8 and 9, which provide for a sort of probationary period for charities before they qualify. The Minister will no doubt already be thinking that his amendments on the claims history would give more benefits to some charities than our amendments. That may well be the case, but the counter-argument would be that under our amendments charities would be able to benefit sooner.

The Minister will also remember that in Committee we tabled several amendments pushing him to reconsider various aspects of clause 2. We did that because the sector essentially felt that the three-year history of successful gift aid claims and the requirement that charities must have been in existence for at least three complete tax years before they could benefit from the scheme were overly onerous and out of proportion to any risk of fraud. The Government have tabled some amendments in this area and I take that as a sign that they have listened to our concerns and taken steps in the right direction.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that Government amendment 31, which seems to allow some flexibility for subsequent changes of the rules, nevertheless—according to the explanatory statement in the notes—insists that previous gift aid claims have to have been made, which of course may well preclude large numbers of the very small charities that the Minister presumably wants to help? Therefore it will still work against the interests of some of the smallest charities, and I am personally very disappointed that an amendment with more flexibility has not been tabled.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that powerful point, and we will come back to it later when we discuss other amendments. Whatever happens, I would hope that the Minister sees the point that the hon. Gentleman raises as a reason for ensuring that, at the very least, a review clause is built into the Bill. We would want to know whether a continuing number of small charities continued to be unable to access the scheme and gain benefits. Indeed, at some stage we will discuss the whole question of charities set up in response to particular circumstances—for very worthy causes—that may not be able to benefit at all from the scheme because the need will have been met and they will have moved on by the point at which they become eligible even to apply.

The idea behind the scheme is to boost the income of small groups that rely on bucket donations, and the hon. Gentleman has pointed out very succinctly that there are many such groups which simply will not be able to take advantage of the scheme, including those which do not have the resources to apply for gift aid or are just starting out. Our amendments seek to help those charities by removing the requirement for the start-up period and instead introducing a qualification period. We had some debate on this in Committee and our amendment would allow charities—new or established —without that claims history of gift aid to claim for a reduced amount of £2,000 after one year of claims history and then to claim for the full £5,000 once they had built up a three-year history.

As we have already heard, there are concerns that the Government’s requirements will be a significant barrier to participation for many charities that have not previously registered. They will also exclude organisations to which even an additional £500 would make a huge difference in income. Instead, it would tend to favour the bigger, more established organisations that may have the finance and fundraising departments to make gift aid claims. Many of the smaller, ineligible charities will already have been registered with the official regulator for three years. They will have had to submit accounts and pass the fit and proper person test, which is pretty robust. For some charities, their major fundraising may be from non-eligible sources, such as donations from trusts, events and charity shops, and they will not have been able to claim gift aid for the required three years even if they have significant income from small donations through collections which would be eligible for this scheme. For trustworthy established charities to be forced to wait a number of years before making claims reduces the incentives for registering.

The sector gave us a couple of examples. I will not go into all the detail, but one example was Wansbeck CVS, which has just set up a small grants fund in memory of a community development worker. It is designed to give small grants to local charities, but it had not been previously registered for gift aid. Under the current proposals, only donations received years after it registers for gift aid will be eligible. That is one of the examples of possible problems we were given.

We suggested that introducing a qualification period would go some way towards allowing charities that stand to benefit most from the scheme to be able to claim a reduced amount of £2,000 after only one year. That would at least allow them to cover their administration costs for claiming, while giving them an incentive to fundraise further and claim for standard gift aid. We tabled the amendments to try to provide a way forward that would balance the risk of fraud, identified by the Minister in Committee, with the ability to give a boost to the scheme for charities that need all the help they can get in tough times.

Amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20 relate to community buildings, on which points have been raised consistently during this process. The Minister will recall that in Committee we tabled a number of amendments to try to change the community buildings provisions substantially. We believe that they are seriously flawed and unfair to charities that would find themselves disadvantaged and unable to benefit. Many in the sector were disappointed that the Government did not give any ground, and I am disappointed that they have not used the opportunity of the Report stage to reconsider, as the Minister has done on other matters.

I suspect that the Minister will not move on these provisions, but if we cannot have a wholesale change to the Bill at this stage, I hope that the Government will at least be persuaded to look again at one particular aspect of the community buildings provisions. Clause 6(3) defines the community building amount as

“the sum of the small donations that are made to the charity in the community building in the tax year by group members while it is running charitable activities in the building”.

Even before Second Reading, that point was raised consistently as one that had the potential to cause difficulty for some organisations. In an attempt to solve the problem in relation to churches—the Minister rightly and understandably wanted to find a solution—we have a scenario in which it will be very difficult for other charities to take advantage of this part of the scheme, and that will potentially cause more problems than it solves. As we have heard previously—it is worth reiterating the point—clause 6(6) goes on to define a group member as:

“a member of the group of people with whom the charity is carrying out the activity”.

We heard a number of examples relating to that point, most vividly from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who spoke about a potential scenario with regard to a charitable group involving Alzheimer’s patients and asked whether it would only be those within the group who were able to make donations.

We have an issue with the principle here. We are concerned that for a great number of charities the beneficiary and the donor groups are likely to be two separate constituencies of people, and we do not want that to become a discriminating factor in whether charities can access the scheme. Indeed, it seems to us to be the exception rather than the rule that funds would be raised during the course of charitable activities by those benefiting from them. If we set aside churches and the collection plate, there are many scenarios where it would be entirely inappropriate for the bucket to be passed around the 10 or more members sitting there while the charitable activity was being undertaken. For example, during counselling work or work that provides activities for young people, or in which young people are involved, that would simply not be sensible.

The nature of fundraising is highly dependent on the type of activity and an organisation’s beneficiary group. The requirement in question would disadvantage the types of charities in respect of which it would not be appropriate or possible to raise funds in this way. Notwithstanding the debates we had in Committee, we still have concerns about whether such provision will go against the benefit principle of gift aid where gift aid is not available and where a donor receives personal benefit. In Committee, the Minister was at pains to say that that was not the case. However, we still have some concerns about the wording in the Bill, so this is another area where it would be important to have some review and some consideration about whether the Bill will work as it is intended to.

I will not repeat what was said in all the debates, but in Committee we heard that it would be difficult for such charities as Victim Support and the Alzheimer’s Society to benefit from these schemes, which is why we have tabled these amendments. Once again, the charitable sector—most recently the Charity Finance Group, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Institute of Fundraising and the Charities Aid Foundation—has stressed that point. Such organisations are concerned that the only donations that will count will be those made within a community building. Although some changes have been made, there are concerns about whom the provision would actually apply to, because the people participating, not including staff or volunteers, might be vulnerable people.

I appreciate that I am speaking at some length, but we have a number of important and significant amendments. In my notes, my shorthand for amendment 21 is that it is a review amendment. It may seem that all Opposition Members talk about is review, review, review, but I hope that I have begun to lay out exactly why we feel that the provision to review is important. Although we have tabled an amendment that focuses on the part of the community building provisions I have just been talking about, however, I do not want the Minister to think that we have given up on all the concerns we had on other aspects of the community building provisions.

From our debates in Committee, the Minister will recall our concerns about clause 7. The clause states that charities must run their charitable activities “in a community building” for them to be eligible for top-up payments. We had a wide-ranging discussion about whether charitable activities could be run from community buildings, whether they had to be in community buildings and the relationship between the organisation setting up and those participating. The Bromsgrove scouts became a touchstone—how the provision would effect the Bromsgrove scouts became the main discussion point. We also heard from charities such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which runs its charitable activities—this has been mentioned on a number of occasions—at sea, and a large number of charities that run their activities in the community, such as Victim Support and the Alzheimer’s Society. They often hold their counselling sessions or work in homes or in other community spaces, and we heard concerns that those organisations should not lose out.

We also raised concerns in Committee about clause 8, which specifically excludes from the scheme properties used for residential purposes, limiting the ability of care homes and hospices to access it. In Committee, the Minister stated that patients in hospices would still be registered at their homes, as he understood it, for the purposes of the Bill. People go to a hospice at a sad stage in their life, but to all intents and purposes their home is elsewhere and therefore a hospice should not count as a residence. He gave us some assurances on the care home sector, but there are still some concerns.

I gave the example of organisations providing residential provision for young people possibly for 52 weeks of the year. To all intents and purposes, such provision might form young people’s home for a time. There remain concerns in that area. The sector is also concerned that this approach might be a bit short-sighted, failing to take into account not only the ageing population and possible changes in hospices’ and care homes’ functions but the possibility, notwithstanding the best will of the Minister, that the legislation might exclude people from benefiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I believe that they fit together, and I hope that the purpose of the Government amendments will become clear.

Concerns were raised that the eligibility criteria in the Bill were too restrictive, that too many charities that did not already claim gift aid would be put off the scheme because it would take too long to become eligible, and that some short-lived charities would never reach eligibility. Balanced against those concerns is the fact that the Government have always been concerned to protect the scheme against fraud. I have looked again at where the balance lies between accessing the scheme and protecting it from people who would try to exploit and abuse it, and I have concluded that we can reduce the eligibility period to two years without undermining the integrity of the scheme. Eligibility for the scheme is defined by reference to successful gift aid claims made by a charity in the past, and I now propose that the minimum period should be set at two years.

I shall explain in more detail what our amendments will do. Four factors will determine the eligibility of a charity or community amateur sports club for the scheme, as set out in clause 2. The first is the start-up period—the number of complete tax years for which a charity must have been established before it becomes eligible for the scheme. We are reducing that period from three years to two years, so a charity or CASC will now be able to access the scheme a year earlier than was originally set out. The second and third elements are that a charity has to have made claims in two of the previous four years, and that there is a gap of no more than two complete tax years between the claims. The amendments will ensure that HMRC is guaranteed to see a minimum level of claiming activity by the charity or CASC in question, so that it can get to know that organisation and understand its ability to claim gift aid correctly.

The fourth element is the impact of a penalty on eligibility. If a charity receives a penalty, it will be excluded from the scheme for the tax year in which it makes the claim and the following tax year. Originally, the charity would have been excluded for the following two years, but amendment 26 means that the exclusion will be for only one year following the year of the claim.

That all adds up to a significantly more accessible scheme for new charities that have not claimed gift aid before, but we do not know exactly how the scheme will operate in practice. As I have said, we will review it after three years, when we might find that fraud rates are much higher or much lower than expected, so it is sensible to build flexibility into the Bill to amend the eligibility criteria in future. Many charities have asked the Government to do that. That power will enable us to vary the elements of the eligibility criteria up or down, depending on the evidence that we see on how the scheme operates and its susceptibility to fraud.

Those four elements interact with each other, and with the matching criteria, to provide safeguards for the scheme. We want to build the maximum flexibility into the Bill by allowing each of those periods to be reduced, increased, removed or reinstated. Any use of that power would be through the affirmative procedure, so it would be consulted on and subject to debate in the House. However, we do not want flexibility to undermine the integrity of the scheme or its important link with gift aid, so the requirement for a charity to make a minimum number of gift aid claims over a set number of years will always remain.

I now turn to the last set of amendments in this group. Since the Public Bill Committee, we have reassessed the distribution of powers to make secondary legislation in the Bill, some of which are conferred on the Treasury and some on HMRC. Broadly speaking, a power that changes the nature of the scheme in some way should be exercised by the Treasury. A power given to HMRC should be to allow the collection and management functions to be carried out correctly. The powers in the Bill are currently inconsistent with that approach, so we are introducing amendments 28 and 29 to change the powers in clauses 7 and 8. Those relate to running charitable activities in a community building and the definition of a community building. The powers are currently assigned to HMRC, but we now think it would be more appropriate to assign them to the Treasury. That is because they could be used to make significant changes to what is in or outside the scope of the rules. I hope that that helps explain why we have tabled those amendments.

I come now to my conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The conclusion is very popular. I do not consider that there is any need for statutory reviews of the scheme at 24 months, and neither is there a need to require HMRC to publish certain data. There will be a full review of the scheme after three years, and HMRC will be publishing what data it has three times a year. New clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 21, would be wasteful and would require duplication of resource for no good reason. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun not to press those to a Division, just as I ask other hon. Members not to press new clause 3, amendments 32 and 33, and amendments 8 to 16.

I hope that hon. Members are comforted by the Government amendments that will reduce the three-year eligibility rules to two years. I am introducing a set of amendments that do what many charities and hon. Members have asked us to do, which is reduce the barriers to entry for this scheme and cut the eligibility period. I accept that some hon. Members wanted me to go further, but that would leave the scheme too exposed to fraud. These amendments represent an important concession by the Government, and I call on hon. Members from both sides of the House to support them. I am also introducing two technical amendments, Nos. 28 and 29. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will not take up much time. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is always great to be popular. The Minister has gone some way towards addressing the concerns we raised in the Public Bill Committee, but I feel it is important that we press new clause 1 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Top-up payments in respect of small donations made to eligible charities

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 17, leave out ‘maximum donations limit’ and insert ‘the specified amount.’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

This amendment removes the matching principle from the bill.

Government amendment 23.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ‘double’ and insert ‘triple’.

To increase the maximum claim to triple the amount of gift aid claimed each year. Cathy Jamieson

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 6, page 4, line 27, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Amendment 17, page 4, line 38, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a) the sum of the small donations that are made to the charity in the community building in the tax year, or’.

This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that donations under the community buildings amount can only be made by group members while the charity is running its charitable activities.

Amendment 18, page 5, line 3, leave out ‘by group members while it is running charitable activities in the buildings’.

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (6).

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 20 and 21.

This is consequential on amendment 17.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 29, leave out ‘for the purposes of section 1(4)’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.

Government amendment 30.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, I hope not to detain the House to any great extent. As the Minister will recall, we consistently pushed the Government to reconsider the matching principle in the Bill as we believed that it was too onerous for many small charities and would mean that many of them could not benefit from a scheme that was supposedly set up to help them.

The Government amendments show that the Minister has bowed to the pressure not just from members of the Committee but from people in the charitable sector who had serious concerns about the impact of the measures from the very start. I will not repeat all the comments made by the different organisations over the course of our discussions about the Bill.

We could of course continue to argue for the matching principle to be dropped completely and could make a case for that. However, given that the Government have seen fit to introduce changes that will take the ratio from 2:1 to 10:1, I think we should recognise that they have moved a significant amount, which has been welcomed by the sector. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about his amendments and I want to make it clear that I do not think our amendments are required at this point as they have been superseded by his.

[Nigel Mills]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. In Committee, the Minister promised to make the situation more generous, but last week I saw that no amendments had been tabled to that effect. I thought that I would just try to help him be a little more generous by reflecting the wishes of a local church in my constituency that had asked me to try to make the figure three times, not twice. I have no desire to be only a third as generous as the Treasury and so welcome this move by the Minister. I think that it is a sign that he has listened to the argument. I genuinely hope that this new-found generosity in the Treasury will extend into next week.

[Sajid Javid]

We have had a constructive and lively debate so far. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and, in particular, her decision not to press her amendments. I also welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and his decision not to press his amendment. He has recognised that Government amendment 23 will reduce the matching rate by 10%, which is even more generous than the reduction proposed in his amendment. I cannot promise him that this generosity will continue into next week—we will have to wait and see what happens then—but he does tempt me.

I will say a few words about why the Government have brought forward these amendments. Although some hon. Members wanted to remove the matching rate altogether in Committee, I understand that they accept that the Government have listened and that a 10% rate is much more generous than what was offered when the Bill was first introduced.

Let me say explain why we have this matching provision. HMRC sees even the 10% rate as an act against gift aid fraud. Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous individuals who want to misuse charitable tax reliefs. They defraud the taxpayer and undermine the good name of the charitable sector, so we must be in a position to protect the taxpayer and the charitable sector. The lack of records also means that HMRC would have less evidence when a charity is claiming correctly under the scheme if there was no kind of matching principle. Gift aid is the closest proxy we can use to help ensure compliance under the new scheme, and the matching requirements will significantly increase protection against fraud and abuse.

Government amendment 30 introduces a wide-ranging power that will allow us to reduce or increase the matching rate. It will allow us to remove the matching provision entirely or reinstate it at a later date if it is removed. Removing the matching provisions altogether would remove the need for charities to claim a set proportion of their small donations claim in gift aid in that year. Even so, charities would always need to claim some gift aid in each year to ensure that they can claim under the scheme. That is because of the provision in clause 1(1)(b). That helps to retain the important link between this scheme and gift aid.

Any use of that power would be through the draft affirmative procedure, so it would be consulted on and subject to a debate in this House. That power means that the matching rule is fully flexible. We have no intention of using the power in the near future, but it will be there if we need it. It is something that many charities have asked us to introduce, so I am pleased that we have been able to do so. I believe that the Government’s approach is better than some of the other amendments that have been tabled, as has been recognised in the comments we have heard.

We debated the community buildings rules in some detail in Committee so, unless hon. Members have questions, I do not propose to go into much detail now, but I would like to remind Members that the purpose of those rules is to recognise that not all charities are structured in the same way. There are charities that, because of the way they were set up or for other reasons, effectively operate as branches of a master charity. We want to ensure that the proposals are as fair as possible and that branches of a bigger charity are effectively treated as individual charities and have their own £5,000 limit. The purpose of the community buildings rules was not to give more than £5,000 by allowing charities to have multiple claims, and I believe that the changes we are making to the Bill will achieve that effectively.

I again warmly welcome the support the House has shown for the Government amendments and thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for looking at them carefully and not pressing her amendments. I commend amendments 23 and 30 to the House.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 23, page 2, line 1, leave out ‘double’ and insert ‘10 times’—(Sajid Javid.).

This amendment changes the gift aid “matching” rate from 2:1 to 10:1. In other words, to make a claim in respect of £5,000 of small donations, a charity would need to make successful gift aid claims in respect of £500 of donations, rather than £2,500.

Clause 2

Meaning of “eligible charity”

Amendments made: 24, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘3 of the previous 7’ and insert ‘2 of the previous 4’.

This amendment, and amendments 25 to 27, change the criteria for determining a charity’s eligibility for the small donations scheme. Under this amendment, the charity must have made successful gift aid claims in 2 out of the previous 4 tax years, rather than 3 out of the previous 7.

Amendment 25, page 2, line 16, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘2’.

Under clause 2(2), earlier gift aid claims are ignored for the purpose of the eligibility rules where a charity doesn’t claim for 3 consecutive tax years. This amendment reduces that period to 2 consecutive tax years.

Amendment 26, page 2, line 22, leave out ‘2 tax years’ and insert ‘tax year’.

This amendment reduces the period for which a charity is not eligible where a penalty is imposed on the charity. Under the amendment, the period will be the tax year the claim was made and the next tax year (rather than that year and the next 2 tax years).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘2’.—(Sajid Javid.)

This amendment reduces the “start-up period” for a charity to the first period of 2 (rather than 3) consecutive tax years during which it is at all times a charity.

Clause 7

Meaning of “running charitable activities in a community building” etc

Amendment made: 28, page 5, line 24, leave out ‘HMRC’ and insert ‘The Treasury’.—(Sajid Javid.)

This amendment makes the Treasury, rather than HMRC, responsible for making orders under clause 7(3).

Clause 8

Meaning of “community building”

Amendment made: 29, page 6, line 4, leave out ‘HMRC’ and insert ‘The Treasury’.—(Sajid Javid.)

This amendment makes the Treasury, rather than HMRC, responsible for making orders under clause 8(5).

Clause 14

Power to alter specified amount etc

Amendments made: 30, page 11, line 5, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Treasury may by order amend this Act for the purpose of—

(a) amending the gift aid matching rule;

(b) abolishing that rule;

(c) reinstating that rule (if previously abolished), with or without amendment.

(1B) In subsection (1A) “the gift aid matching rule” means the rule that limits the amount of top-up payments to which a charity is entitled by reference to the amount of gifts made to the charity in respect of which it has made successful gift aid exemption claims.’.

This amendment gives the Treasury power by order to amend the gift aid matching rule (see clause 1(3), (4)(a) and (5)), to abolish the rule or to reinstate it. The order would be made by statutory instrument subject to draft affirmative procedure in this House (clause 17).

Amendment 31, page 11, line 5, at end insert—

‘(1C) The Treasury may by order amend section 2 (meaning of “eligible charity”).

(1D) Section 2, as amended by an order under subsection (1C), must as a minimum include a condition requiring the making of a successful gift aid exemption claim in a previous tax year.’.—(Sajid Javid.)

This amendment gives the Treasury power by order to alter the eligibility rules in clause 2. But the altered rules must include a condition requiring the making of previous gift aid claims. The order would be made by statutory instrument subject to draft affirmative procedure in this House (clause 17).

Schedule 1

Meaning of “small donation”: conditions

[Dr Whiteford]

I beg to move amendment 34, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘in cash’.

This amendment allows for gifts made by contactless cash card and mobile telephone transactions where it is impractical to obtain a gift aid declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I support many of the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I am trying to achieve a similar end result with amendment 2. Having recognised that the Government have some problems, I tried to find a way of future-proofing the Bill so that in a couple of years’ time, when they saw the trend for cashless donation going beyond even what the hon. Lady set out, they could introduce an order to allow electronic donations to count for these purposes.

We have to be careful. The world is moving on. Only a few weeks ago, my credit card company sent me a strange thing that I can stick on the back of my mobile phone. Apparently, I can make payments with it. I have to say that I was not quite ready to go that far. I thought, “What happens if I lose my mobile phone? I will not only have lost all my contact details but my credit card as well.” However, we can see that this direction of travel is with us. I suspect that in many ways the Treasury is quite keen for us all to become even more cashless. Tax avoidance is made much harder if everyone starts to make payments by an electronic traceable means rather than through cash. The UK is the EU nation with the highest propensity to use cashless technologies, and I think that that trend will continue.

In its evidence to the Committee, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution said that it was not yet ready to replace its cash collecting tins with electronic swiping points. I accept that. However, I suspect that in a few years’ time that system will become rather more common and people will be out there with a placard saying, “Swipe your card here and donate a fiver to this charity.” We heard ideas about how people could swipe their Oyster cards to make small donations and how that might help Transport for London to get fundraisers off its stations. I gave the example of how an Oyster card that someone had finished using and that had some cash left on it could be used to donate to the Railway Children charity. At the moment, there is no way in which such a donation could be traced to see whether the donor was willing to give gift aid.

The Minister argued in Committee that there is no need to take account of that type of giving because it is not that widely used and, where it is, it is still easier to get a gift aid declaration. I am not sure that that argument will stand firm in the next couple of years. We will start to move towards that type of giving and people will see it as an alternative to the quick cash donation. They will think, “I’ll swipe my card and give you £1, £2 or £5, and I don’t fancy stopping to fill out a gift aid form any more than I do with cash. I don’t fancy having some e-mail come from my card provider saying, ‘If you click here you can have gift aid on that.’” We need to try to future-proof the Bill so that in two or three years’ time we are not faced with charities moaning and saying, “Look, we’re getting more and more donations by some electronic means that we can’t use to claim gift aid. Can’t you change the Act?”

I have tried to find an easy compromise for the Minister and to assuage his concerns that this is perhaps too risky, not popular enough, or not needed. I suspect that it is quite unusual for a Back Bencher to offer a Minister the power to make a change in law by order. Usually Back Benchers—I am one of them—say, “I’m a bit concerned that the Government are taking too much power to change this, and we don’t want them to have that power.” Today, I am offering the Minister a power. He does not have to use it now, this year or next year, but at some point, if this became something that would help charities and fit with the aims of the scheme, he would have a nice simplified method of making the change without needing to come back to the House with primary legislation. He has already tabled amendments to give the Treasury powers to change things by order, and none of us had a problem with that. My amendment is a gentle, helpful one, and I commend it to the House.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Many of us who served on the Bill Committee or listened to the Second Reading debate and have heard the representations made by the charitable sector have a degree of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and the for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), particularly in relation to ensuring that the Bill does not become out of date before it gets under way.

The hon. Lady made some powerful arguments. Indeed, her case is reflected in our amendment 22, which relates to some of the difficulties involved in getting information from those who have made donations by means other than cheques, such as JustTextGiving, or—this issue was raised a number of times in Committee—if they have placed a cheque on a plate or in a collection box at an event such as a funeral.

We had hoped that the Minister would give an indication—he may well do so—that he would at least be minded to consider this proposal at some point in the future. I understand that there may be technical reasons against that at present and that the Cabinet Office is engaged in ongoing work on the different methods of making donations and on following up on gift aid. Although I support the principles of amendment 34 and want action to be taken—that is why we have tabled our own amendment on the issue—I understand that there may be some difficulties. It would be odd, however, if the Minister said that at no point would he consider moving in the direction suggested, particularly when the Cabinet Office is engaged in those schemes.

I hope that the Minister will be able to comfort us by saying that he will consider the proposal at some stage. I also hope that the order-making powers that the Government will adopt under the Bill could, if necessary, be utilised at some stage to extend the way in which donations can be made. It seemed odd during Committee that, while someone can donate using whatever currency they choose, donations by electronic means do not count.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will take account of the persuasive case that has been made and that he will take a further look at the proposals in the amendments tabled by the hon. Lady and in my amendment 22.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) for her comments, and I also thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for their contributions. I will try to respond to their points, which they made very well.

The amendments would do slightly different things, but, in general, they all seek to broaden the gift aid small donations scheme to include not only cash donations but donations in the form of electronic payments. Amendment 2 seeks to do that by introducing a power to allow the Treasury, by order, to broaden the scheme, whereas amendment 22 and the group of amendments 34 to 37 seek to expand the scope of the scheme immediately. I thank my hon. Friend for his original amendment on the issue and for all his contributions on this particular topic in Committee.

It might be worth reminding Members of the scheme’s primary objective, which is to provide a gift aid-style top-up payment when it is difficult or unduly burdensome to collect a gift aid declaration from the donor. The most obvious examples are when a charity is making a street collection or when a religious group is passing around a collection plate during a service. In such situations it would be difficult to ask everybody who makes a contribution to fill out a gift aid declaration form. They would have to stop, confirm they were a UK taxpayer and then fill in a form with their name, address and other details. I think we would all agree that that would be unrealistic for a donation of just a few pounds. As a result, charities are missing out on potential gift aid on such donations. That is exactly why the gift aid small donations scheme is being introduced—that is what it is designed to tackle. It will fill the gap in gift aid for donations for which it is difficult or unduly burdensome to collect the necessary paperwork.

Giving by using digital technology means that the donor is already providing some or all of their details to the charity. If any extra information is needed to make a gift aid declaration, it will be relatively small. When a charity has an ongoing relationship with a donor, they should use gift aid, if at all possible. Compared with a bucket collection on a busy street, it is considerably less burdensome to ask someone to provide their details if they are donating through a website or a text message. It is easy to use gift aid when making a donation through a website and it is also possible to attach gift aid donations to a text message.

I want to sound a note of caution about complexity. Text messages and internet donations can be made from anywhere in the world, but I hope Members will agree that the UK Government should not make a top-up payment on donations made from outside the UK unless there is firm evidence that the donor is a UK taxpayer or resident. Introducing other forms of giving to the small donations scheme would make it more complicated. In order to make a top-up payment on UK donations only, charities would need to keep records of the donation’s origin. That is comparatively straightforward when rattling a tin on a UK high street, but it would become much more burdensome, if not impossible, for some charities if donations were made through texts and website visits from around the world.

Hon. Members mentioned the possibility of making the gift aid system easier via text giving. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will be aware that the Government are in discussions with a number of charities and their representative organisations about how we can do just that. The discussions are going very well and have been constructive. The Government are open to the possibility that, eventually, we might have to pass legislation to make the gift aid system easier and we are working with charities to try to achieve that.

It is possible that new forms of electronic giving will be developed in the future that are completely anonymous. Indeed, my hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of using Oyster cards, which are anonymous. It is very early at this stage, however, to understand what technology might come along in a few years’ time, so it would be difficult to set out the circumstances in which the power he proposed could be used. Without complete knowledge of Oyster cards or other developing technologies for giving, it is difficult to know whether they would fall under the scheme’s scope and rationale. It is, therefore, possible that the power could never be used.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns and he has made some important points, so I want a review of the forms of giving to be undertaken when we review the scheme after its first three years. If people are able to make completely anonymous electronic donations, we shall look again at whether the scope of the scheme should be extended. That is the Government’s commitment.

It is harder for charities to collect gift aid declarations in the street or at a religious meeting than through other channels. That is why the focus of the scheme is on cash donations. I accept that things may change, so I am committing the Government to review the situation after three years. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the Minister has indicated, this is an important Bill. I hope the Opposition have delivered on what we undertook to do on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. At the outset, we said that we would attempt to ensure that the Bill came out of the process in better shape, doing more to support charities than the original Bill. I do not say that to be critical of the Bill as it was introduced. The Minister came into things at that stage. He has since listened to a number of the points we have raised and introduced appropriate amendments.

The Minister said that he was sad to say goodbye to the Bill. Perhaps all members of the Bill Committee were sad when the Bill moved on. There was much agreement across the different political parties in our debates. We did not always agree—we sometimes split on party lines and we were disappointed that some of our amendments were not accepted in Committee—but we can safely say that the Bill is in better shape as it leaves the Commons. More charities will benefit more from the Bill as a result of the scrutiny. The fact that charities will benefit from an additional £100 million per annum is positive. The Minister and his team have a responsibility to ensure that the uptake is such that every penny of that money ends up in the coffers of charities and CASCs, which is where he intends it to end up—it is worth emphasising that CASCs will benefit, because we have not spoken about that in great detail and it is none the less important. The Opposition were concerned at different stages that the Minister was focused more on the potential for fraud than on the potential for take-up. We are therefore pleased about the amendments that have been made tonight. They enhance the opportunity for charities to use the Bill.

I noted that the Minister gave the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) a strong assurance on a review. It would be churlish of me to say that I wish that some other areas would be reviewed, and I will do my best to remain positive at this stage. I welcome that commitment and I am sure that the Minister will be as good as his word when he says that all aspects of the Bill will be reviewed in order to ensure that any changes that can be made to assist charities will be undertaken.

The Bill also saw the trying of new ways to deal with legislation as it goes through Parliament. For example, explanatory statements on all the amendments were included, which was helpful to the Opposition in unlocking some of the language with which the parliamentary draftsmen deal daily. It certainly put the onus on the Opposition to ensure that we were clear about the purpose of the amendments that we tabled, so that we could summarise it in 50 words—no bad thing. We also had the public reading stage and the consultation. It took a little time to get that consultation going, and the website was perhaps not as clear or accessible as it might have been, but I am sure the Minister will want to look at that and provide feedback for colleagues in the Cabinet Office. We eventually got a lot of very good information from organisations through that process.

Several bodies engaged with us on the Bill and helped us to scrutinise it effectively and properly. They also supplied the information that we needed to table various amendments. They included the Institute of Fundraising, the Charity Finance Group, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Law Society of Scotland. They all gave us information and campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the constituent organisations that they represent and of the charity sector. The Charities Aid Foundation, the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action and the Foundation for Social Improvement also provided invaluable help, support and advice at various stages. Notwithstanding the efforts that the Opposition have made, the Bill is undoubtedly a better one as it leaves this place because of the input of those organisations and their commitment to do the best they can for the charitable sector.

This is a very important Bill. It may have seemed a small Bill, but we gave it thorough scrutiny in Committee—perhaps more scrutiny than the Minister would have liked on some points of detail. As the Bill leaves this place, we can be assured that we have done our best in making representations. The Bill will make a difference to charities and perhaps changes will be made after the three-year review. I certainly hope that we will continue to look at what additional support we can give.

I thank people for their work in Committee, including the Chairs, the officials and everyone else who gave us inspiration and comments at various stages. All of the organisations in the charity sector and those who will benefit in the future will be glad of the amount of effort that has been put into the Bill. I am happy to support Third Reading and to join the Minister in commending it to the House.

Fuel Duty

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that, at a time when the cost of living is rising and our economic recovery is fragile, it cannot be right to increase fuel duty by the planned 3 pence in January 2013; calls upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cancel this rise in fuel duty at least until next April; and believes that this change could be funded by clamping down on known tax avoidance schemes.

Everyone in the House knows that families are feeling the squeeze, that low and middle-income families are hardest hit, that prices are rising higher than wages, that small businesses are struggling and that the economy is still fragile, all of which makes it exactly the wrong time to hike up fuel costs. At the outset, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us and back our call to delay the January fuel duty rise. I particularly appeal to hon. Members who have rightly voiced concerns in recent months to do so. Difficult decisions have to be made to get the deficit down—we understand that. Yes, there were times in the past when Labour put up fuel duty, and no one disputes that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who I am sure is going to tell me that he supports our motion.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how many times her Government put up fuel duty?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that on about 13 occasions the Labour Government decided not to put up fuel duty, to delay an increase or to change it because of economic circumstances, which was absolutely the right thing to do. We looked at the economic circumstances, and made decisions to delay or cancel when that was the right thing to do, including at the height of the economic crisis.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I hope my hon. Friend noted that about a fortnight ago there was an Adjournment debate in the House with cross-party support for a freeze on the increase. Although Conservative Members may go on about the increase under Labour, we must remember that they are in government now and that they could have stopped this 18 months ago.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is regrettable that some hon. Members who only a few weeks ago called for the very thing that our motion calls for now seem to have cold feet. Given that the economic recovery is fragile, the Government should back the motion.

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

What is the total taxation on a litre of petrol, how does it affect the general public, and should that be advertised in every forecourt in the land?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because it is about 81p per litre at the moment. He is absolutely right: when people go to the forecourt to fill up their car, they want to know exactly how much it is going to cost. They do not go to the forecourt and think about what might have been; they think about what the price is in the here and now. Petrol is 15p a litre more than it was at the general election, and it is 5p a litre more than it was in the summer, when the Government last deferred a rise. Let us remember that the Chancellor made that decision after pressure from the Opposition.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who I am sure is going to tell me how many of his constituents have contacted him asking him to back our motion.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am not sure that this will quite fuel the hon. Lady’s bandwagon, but why did the Labour Government, in their closing stages, include in their Budget six further rises for this Parliament?

[Cathy Jamieson]

It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that his party is now in government, and it has to take responsibility for its actions, including the Chancellor’s VAT rise, which has added 3p to the price of a litre of petrol, costing motorists on average over £100 more.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

May I make a bit more progress, as we want to hear what the Government are doing? Their own figures tell us that the price of petrol is now more than 136p a litre. In my constituency, prices at a rural petrol station at the weekend were 139.9p a litre for petrol, and 144.9p for diesel. Only this morning, I heard a price of 160p a litre in the Scottish highlands.

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

When Labour was in power, other island MPs and I consistently went to see Labour Ministers to ask for an island fuel duty discount. It was refused. Within a year, this Government introduced that policy. Will the hon. Lady tell us what the Labour party’s policy is on a rural fuel discount?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope that when he goes back to his area, the hon. Gentleman is able to explain to his constituents why he has not backed the motion tonight.

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

The hon. Lady said at the outset that this is not the time to put up fuel duty. Will she tell us whether, each and every time Labour put up fuel duty over the past 13 years, it was the right thing to do, or do we have great joy in heaven with the repenting of the Labour hordes this evening?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Once again, I am rather disappointed with the hon. Gentleman’s approach. I should have thought that he, too, would want to be able to go back and tell his constituents that he had supported a motion to ensure that the rise did not go ahead. The tax on a tank of petrol at the general election was £37.60. It has now risen to £40.30, and if the 3p rise goes ahead on 1 January it will rise again to £42.20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady is testing the patience of the House. It is unfair. We are going to have to introduce a time limit already. If she wishes to speak, would she please put her name down? She cannot make a speech now. Short interventions are needed on both sides

[Cathy Jamieson]

I gave way because I respect what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has to say, but I hope she will understand the real pressures on families and the pressures that individuals are facing as they try to get to work and go about their business.

It is not just Labour that is calling for the increase to be postponed. FairFuelUK, backed by the RAC and the Road Haulage Association, among others, has consistently and determinedly campaigned for lower fuel duty.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The public are seldom interested in Opposition day debates, but they are interested in this one. My constituents have contacted me about it. Many organisations have contacted us because they care passionately about the issue. Should the Government not recognise that this is a big worry for all our constituents?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hope the Government recognise that this is a big worry for constituents. We are all familiar with the e-mail campaigns and the correspondence that we have had through the FairFuelUK campaigns and from our constituents. FairFuelUK has produced a comprehensive report, which I know it has presented to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It sets out the impact of retaining the January rise, and gives a stark warning that about 35,000 jobs could be at risk.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

No, I want to make a little progress.

The Federation of Small Businesses says that 85% of its members said that their car or van is crucial or very important to their business, and just over half its members said that rising fuel costs were one of the main concerns for their businesses in the third quarter of 2012.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

No. I have given way already and I want to make some progress. It is important that people hear why we are proposing the motion tonight.

Almost 20% of FSB members identified fuel costs as a barrier to growth. Not only those organisations but—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches—those who tend to think they are the champions of industry—might want to listen to the voice of industry. The Petrol Retailers Association has reminded us of the impact of VAT and the impact on the price of fuel if the 3p per litre increase goes ahead in January.

Those are the voices of industry, but it is not just industry that will be affected:

“We must remember that motorists are not a lobby group. They are mums driving to school, children on buses and pensioners hit by inflation. When the cost of road haulage rises, the price of everything else rises too.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 140WH.]

Credit where it is due—those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in a Westminster Hall debate in May 2012.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but my constituents in Harlow will have much more trust in the Chancellor, who cut fuel duty last year, which the Opposition opposed, and provided two fuel duty freezes, than in the political opportunism that the hon. Lady is proposing today.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Gentleman adopts that tone because I know that he has worked determinedly to raise the issue. I am sure that his constituents will want to know exactly what the Chancellor is going to do. Our shadow Chancellor has said what he thinks, whereas the Chancellor seems to be debating by a nod and a wink, and nothing is determined.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

Those on the Government Benches may want to listen to the consumer organisation Which?. It has told us that 85% of people polled recently were worried about the cost of fuel. That is up nine points since the previous poll in July. One in 10 people polled admitted that they had had to dip into savings to meet the costs of motoring. Many of these people rely on their cars to get to work, to get their kids to school, to take up education and training opportunities, or perhaps to care for elderly relatives.

As I said earlier, these are tough economic times and hard-pressed families out there know that only too well. They are the ones who are suffering most from this out-of-touch Government’s failed austerity plan, which has delivered the longest double-dip recession since the second world war—a plan that is failing on the deficit, with borrowing higher so far this year than last.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

Not only are the Government’s plans failing—they are also deeply unfair.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way in a moment, but it is important that this is heard.

The Prime Minister once promised not to balance the books on the backs of the poor. He also says that we’re all in it together, so perhaps the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) would like to tell me what his constituents think should be done in January. Should the 3p rise be delayed?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She said that we should listen to the voice of industry and of consumer groups. Did the Labour party listen to those groups when it put fuel duty up by 55% during its time in government?

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. This is one issue on which we had the opportunity to unite and send a message to constituents, to all those who have contacted us and to businesses that are struggling, that the whole House could come together and agree. It is disappointing that the parties on the Government Benches have not done that.

My constituents and others are disappointed that while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor focus on giving tax cuts to millionaires, millions of families, businesses and pensioners are being forced to pay more. The cuts in child tax credits and child benefit, the hike in VAT and the cuts in age-related personal allowances have hit people hard throughout the country, just at the time when they and the economy need help.

The Leader of the Opposition has called this slow, remorseless squeeze

“a quiet crisis that is unfolding day by day in kitchens and living rooms in every town, village and city up and down this country”.

That is exactly what it is.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way in a moment.

I suspect that I can predict what those on the Government Benches are going to say. They will tell us that we should celebrate the fact that the economy is finally out of a double-dip recession and things are back on track. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) is, however, going to tell me how many e-mails and letters he has had, asking him to back the 3p cut.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that words are cheap and deeds are what count? That is a simple philosophy. Her Government put up the tax and our Government have frozen it. It seems simple to me.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I agree that words are cheap and deeds are more important. That is why every constituent is going to be looking tonight to see which Lobby hon. Members are walking through and whether they back the delay or not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I want to move on, because it is important that we get to the meat of the debate.

As has been said in earlier discussions on the economy, any recovery we have seen so far is fragile at best. Labour has put forward proposals that we believe the Government should put in place: a jobs plan to boost the economy, including using funds from the 4G mobile auction to build 100,000 affordable homes; a temporary VAT cut, which would cut around 3p off the price of a litre of petrol and give an immediate £450 boost for a couple with children; help for our high streets and pensioners; and a bank bonus tax to fund jobs for young people who are out of work. The Opposition believe that the Chancellor should use his autumn statement to help those on low and middle incomes with the rising cost of living.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and want to make some progress.

We believe that the Chancellor should rethink his plan to give a tax cut to millionaires in April while putting up taxes for pensioners. As the shadow Chancellor announced on Friday, we believe that the Chancellor should cancel the 3p rise in fuel duty planned for January until at least April.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the unfairest aspects of the planned duty rise is the disproportionate effect of such taxation on folk in rural areas, as they have no alternative forms of transport and have further to travel?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I am certainly well aware of the problems faced by people in rural areas where there might be no alternative. I hope that she will support our motion this evening.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister might never have had to worry about the cost of filling up their cars, but millions of people across the country worry about that every day, as we are hearing. To be fair, some Government Members recognise that and have been vocal about it, or at least they were until today, when they suddenly appeared to go quiet.

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

Surely this is a no-brainer. If the Chancellor decided before August to freeze fuel duty and not introduce the additional 3p rise, surely the same logic should be used today, when fuel costs even more, and the increase should not be introduced in January.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have neighbouring constituencies, so I am certainly aware of the difficulties some of his constituents face in trying to access fuel at an affordable cost. He will also be aware that although there have been some price reductions by the big supermarkets, which can afford to use fuel as a loss leader, the small and independent garages, many of which his constituents rely on, do not have that luxury. Many of those small retailers are under increasing pressure as a result of tighter margins and are having to take smaller deliveries of fuel to ensure that cash flow does not become a problem. Those are often the businesses that serve rural areas. If they cannot continue to operate, customers will face having to travel many more miles just to fill up the tank.

It was only after pressure from Labour and campaigns such as FairFuelUK that the Chancellor decided to delay the last rise until 2013. Indeed, if we look back on what could be called the fastest U-turn in history, we see that he backed down only hours after Labour called for that help for businesses and families. We welcomed his climbdown then, and we and millions of motorists up and down the country would welcome a renewed commitment from the Government.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can give that commitment.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that it was her Government who put in place the fuel duty escalator, which is the whole problem facing British motorists today? Does she accept that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Lady must also recognise that it was in her Government’s Budget. What we are asking the Chancellor to do is listen. We have heard a great deal about how he is in listening mode, but I do not know how long he must listen before making the decision. According to the House of Commons Library, the cost of delaying the fuel duty rise again until April 2013 would be around £350 million, and we think that could be paid for through a clampdown on tax avoidance. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) wishes to intervene.

[Mr Redwood]

I am very grateful. Will the hon. Lady explain which specific tax loopholes Labour would close that the Government are not already closing, and why does Labour not provide any money after April when they would be putting the tax up again?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I absolutely will explain that. We think that there are loopholes that can be closed, and I am sure that the Government will also want to close every possible loophole. For example, there is a growing problem with some employment agencies forcing workers to become employees of umbrella companies. They then falsely inflate the workers’ travel and other expense claims, reducing tax and national insurance and pocketing the avoided tax as profits. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs forecast in 2008 that the cost to the Exchequer of that avoidance would be around £650 million by 2012-13. More recent reports have suggested that the current tax loss could be as high as £1 billion. Even if only a proportion of that money was recouped, it could pay for the fuel duty rise to be postponed.

As I said earlier, I know that many Government Members feel strongly about this issue. We have heard over the weekend and today all the talk about the Chancellor being in listening mode, but at the same time the Treasury’s official line is that no decision has been taken. Nods and winks are no good to families struggling in the run-up to Christmas. The approach that says “It will be all right on the night” is no use to the small business trying to balance the books and plan for the first quarter of next year. If the Chancellor has made up his mind to delay the duty rise, his Ministers should say so, and they should say so today. If we do not hear that announcement loud and clear, every hon. Member who wants to see the increase dropped should not only talk the talk tonight, but walk the walk; they should walk into the Lobby with us and vote for the 3p increase to be delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has been doing to promote the seed enterprise investment scheme. His description of it is absolutely right, and I know it is being looked at widely by investors who wish to invest in small firms in this country. I hope it will help to transform the landscape for that sort of investment in newly formed companies in this country, and I hope that he will continue his hard work.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the Government introduced their flagship policy on a national insurance holiday scheme they proclaimed that about 400,000 businesses would benefit. In answer to a parliamentary question in May, Ministers told me that about 16,000 applications had been received. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how many businesses have now applied? Is it not time to listen to Labour and the Federation of Small Businesses, and extend this scheme across the country and ensure that all small businesses can benefit from it?

[Danny Alexander]

I think we have heard yet another unfunded spending commitment from the Labour party in that question. The hon. Lady is right to say that this scheme has not been taken up as widely as we had expected, which is why we are putting in place other measures to support small and growing businesses: the funding for lending scheme will get finance to small firms; tax incentives of the sort just mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) will help to get investment in small and medium-sized enterprises; and of course the Government have set a target of 25% of procurement from small firms, too. That is the right policy for small businesses in this country.

Air Passenger Duty

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not be churlish, so let me say only that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), with whom I have shared a number of flights to destinations both within the UK and further afield. I have therefore heard him speak at great length on some of the issues he has just discussed, but he has still not persuaded me of anything other than that we are better together.

I congratulate those Members who secured the debate. By and large, we have had some helpful and thoughtful contributions, and I was very aware from the outset that a number of Scots were in the Chamber. I was glad to see that. Most of them are still here, although I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), who has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the airline industry and was warning of inclement weather, is no longer in his place. I am worried that the rest of us might be detained here for somewhat longer than we had wished—I hope that will not be the case.

Hon. Members have made the case for the motion powerfully and persuasively. I am not going to repeat everything that has been said, although some points are worth reiterating because the issue has clearly touched a lot of people. The fact that well over the 100,000 people needed to trigger a debate in this place were drawn to sign the fair flying petition is evidence of that. Although I perhaps did not receive as many e-mails as other hon. Members, I know from my postbag that the issue matters to people. It matters to those who fly for business purposes, for family reasons, and for leisure and holidays.

I undertook a short survey of those who responded to the fair flying petition, asking them for their comments. I heard from a 65-year-old woman who flies from Scotland regularly to see her elderly father, who lives in the south of England; from the mother of a young person who is working overseas as a teacher—she told me that she helps to pay for the flights to enable the visits; and from a grandmother who travels regularly to the other side of the world to see her grandchild, who has a long-term condition. Those are the real-life examples that people were bringing to me. It is important to recognise the strength of feeling on this issue.

There has been wider frustration at this Government’s lack of consistency or urgency on aviation policy, as well as concerns about APD. When the economy has been struggling, the family purse strings have been tightened and businesses are crying out for support, the lack of direction has not been helpful. A number of speeches have dealt with the issues of tourism and jobs. I can tell the hon. Members who mentioned the Caribbean question that I have agreed to meet a delegation to discuss that in more detail, just as I have agreed to meet a number of other organisations after this debate to see where we take things in future.

It is important to remember that when Labour was in government APD was restructured so that it would be based on four geographical bands set at intervals of 2,000 miles. It was intended that travellers flying further would pay a higher rate of duty, but I know that hon. Members have discussed some of the anomalies. The intention was that additional taxes on air travel would be targeted at the most polluting, long-haul flights—again, people have raised issues about that today.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), during the election campaign both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats argued for reforming APD further. The Conservatives argued that they wished to

“reform Air Passenger Duty to encourage a switch to fuller and cleaner planes.”

The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto contained more detail, suggesting that they would ensure that pollution was properly taxed by replacing the per-passenger APD with a per-plane duty—PPD—and that air freight would be taxed for the first time. They also said they would introduce an additional, higher rate of PPD on domestic flights if realistic alternative and less-polluting travel was available.

Those statements in the manifestos were supposed to be translated into action following the coalition agreement, which confirmed that the Government would

“reform the taxation of air travel by switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty”

and

“ensure that a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.”

Those allowances were referred to in an earlier debate, and they have been referred to again today.

The Chancellor announced in the 2010 Budget that major changes would be subject to a public consultation. We then saw speculation in the press that the Government had had a change of heart over per-plane duty. Indeed, that was what triggered the organisations coming together to launch the fair tax on flying campaign, to apply pressure in order at least to get some action or clarification on APD.

In the 2011 Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government would consult on simplifying the structure of APD. He also announced that he was dropping the commitment made in the coalition agreement and not pressing ahead with a per-plane duty, and that APD rates would rise in line with inflation, although the next increase would be deferred for a year. After promises of wholesale reform, the industry and the public heard that he was not only keeping the current structure but raising the rates further.

I am always happy to try to give people credit where it is due, not that I have had to do that often in the Chancellor’s case. There was a consultation and it covered a number of areas, including private jets, different tax bands, premium economy flights, flights from regional airports and the devolution of APD—all the things that people have talked about today. However, having consulted, the Government failed to propose anything. They did not propose any changes to the tax’s banding structure, to how different classes of flights are taxed or to the application of APD to the regions. Instead, they seemed for some time to have given up on any reform of APD at all. They argued, as the Minister did again fairly recently, that although no action had been taken there was no reason for another consultation or review.

I have only a couple of minutes left to summarise the debate and I realise that this subject is very difficult, given the range of considerations that must be balanced—including those of industry and business, the travel trade, airlines, consumers and the Treasury. I recognise the Scottish issues and those in Northern Ireland, particularly those outlined as regards Scotland and the connections with the main hub airports.

[Mr David Hamilton]

If a passenger uses the same airline—British Airways, for example—from Scotland to London and then to America, Australia or South Africa, the duty in the regional airport does not matter. The real issue is the double tax.

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and I know that he has raised that question on a number of occasions. A sensible review would allow us to consider such matters. For the Government to undertake a consultation and take no action, without even considering any further work on the issue, was disappointing and showed a lack of leadership. It did not go unnoticed by the aviation industry, and we have heard a string of comments from the travel organisations, airlines and consumers. The Select Committee on Transport stepped in, in a sense, with its inquiry into aviation. The Chair helpfully confirmed that that inquiry would consider APD issues and it has provided an initial focus.

In conclusion, I hope that the Chancellor and the Minister, who will relay this debate to him, will take note of what has been said today and will consider and act on the findings of the Transport Committee’s report when it is published. Many Members are arguing for action and a review. The motion is modestly worded, although at some points I might not have worded it in such a way. However, in the spirit of co-operation, we want to ensure that we have the opportunity to consider the issue in more detail. We recognise the significant economic issues in the UK that need tough decisions, but such decisions should be based on the best available evidence.

The consistent message coming from all sectors of the industry is that the lack of certainty is causing problems, delaying investment decisions, risking future development and, crucially, risking jobs. I hope that the Minister, who comes fresh to this issue—indeed, he is the third Minister I have faced across the Dispatch Box in the relatively short time for which I have been shadow Minister—will take account of the points that have been made today, take away the work that needs to be done and introduce the review asked for in the motion.

Beer Duty Escalator

Cathy Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I first congratulate the Members who secured this important Backbench Business debate. We have heard a number of thoughtful, well-informed and impassioned contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that the various groups in the beer and pub industry that have provided briefings, met with hon. Members and given them information ahead of the debate will be pleased that their comments and concerns have been not only taken on board by Members from all parties, but reflected during the course of the debate. By my reckoning, there have been 20 speeches plus numerous interventions, and I think that that demonstrates the level of concern and the interest in this issue. The question now is whether the Government will not only take those concerns on board, but take some action in response to them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

As we have heard, Backbench Business debates are important because they give everyone the opportunity—perhaps in a less partisan way—to explore issues and to come together and agree on certain things that need to be done. We may have differences of opinion from time to time, but none the less we are able to give advice and guidance on how we would like the Government to take things forward.

As we have heard, the beer and pub industry is a vital part of the economy, both nationally and locally. Many hon. Members have mentioned how local establishments in their areas contribute to the community. I will say more about that shortly.

In 2009, the industry paid more than £6 billion in tax, and the average pub will employ—we have heard this figure repeatedly today—about 10 people, many of whom will be young people who are trying to find their way into the job market or who are having difficulties in finding work at present. We have also heard that, according to the Beer and Pub Association, nearly £21 billion a year is contributed to the UK economy by the production and sale of beer. Worryingly, CAMRA’s latest figures—it released them only today—show that 18 pubs close every week across the UK. The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) referred to that in his opening speech and the point was repeated and reinforced by a number of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who gave an interesting history lesson on the number of pubs that used to be in his constituency. I am sorry that I have not yet had the opportunity to sample any of them; perhaps he will invite me.

[Mr Iain Wright]

indicated assent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I think that I have just been invited. In order to take my duties as a shadow Minister seriously, I have now identified a whole list of areas throughout the UK where I have not yet had the chance to sample the local hostelries. It would be remiss of me if I did not plan a tour at some point over the coming months.

To return to the important points, I have also heard from my local publicans and CAMRA members. Some of them spoke to me about the beer escalator in particular at the recent Ayrshire real ale festival, which was held in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) at which I had the very difficult Friday afternoon task of judging one of the beer contests. I am sworn to secrecy as to which beer won the Scottish heat. All will be revealed in due course. CAMRA members and, indeed, many other people who had travelled to the beer festival took the opportunity to make their case to me.

We have heard about the e-petition, which now has more than 104,000 signatures. I am sure that all Members appreciate the work of both the British Beer and Pub Association and CAMRA in providing information by constituency, and I believe that important information from Oxford Economics has been circulated to all of us, showing how the beer and pub industry affects our own areas.

In my constituency, which is next door to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and not dissimilar from it, there are about 88 pubs. As she said, they provide an average of £80,000 a year to the local economy, and they support about 894 full and part-time jobs. I am aware that that is not as many as in the Economic Secretary’s own constituency, where I understand there are slightly fewer pubs but also a brewery. I am sure he is well aware of the importance of jobs in the industry to his local area, as I am in my area.

I want to put the Opposition’s position on record. I do not want to introduce a discordant note, because everyone has spoken in favour of the motion so far. I hope that the Economic Secretary will take that on board. However, it is incumbent on me to explain why we will support the motion. [Interruption.] I hear somebody say from a sedentary position that it is because we are in opposition, but I have some important points to make that are pertinent to the debate.

A number of Members have referred to the impact of VAT, and we believe that the Government made a mistake in increasing it back in January 2011. That hit families hard, costing a couple with children the equivalent of £450 a year. It also hit confidence, cost jobs and undermined the economic recovery.

The extension to the beer duty escalator was introduced when VAT was 17.5%. The rise in VAT was equivalent to a 12% increase in duty, and in 2011, the coalition Government’s first full year, there was the biggest ever pence per pint annual increase in the beer tax. A couple of hon. Members have mentioned that the VAT rise increased the price of a pint in a pub by some 5p but the price of a can of beer in a supermarket by less than 2p. It has hit pubs harder than supermarkets, and it risks hitting the pub trade harder than the duty increases have.

As hon. Members will know—we have said it in a number of previous debates—as part of the five-point plan for growth and jobs that we set out back in 2011, we called for a temporary VAT cut back to 17.5% until the economy was growing strongly again. We wanted to ease the squeeze on families and ensure that the economy was moving. That would have had an effect on the price of beer in pubs, and I hope that the Government will take account of VAT when considering whether to support the motion.

We will not oppose the motion, because we believe that there should be a review of the beer duty escalator and its impact on the economy and jobs in the pub trade. It would clearly need to include an examination of the impact of VAT as part of the wider debate and discussion. As a number of Members have said, VAT amounts to half the total tax paid on beer in pubs. A review would also provide an opportunity to consider other issues that have been raised today, including barley prices.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton), have made the point that pubs are at the centre of our local communities. He had been doing some research—desk research only, obviously—by comparing prices in local establishments and supermarkets. I note that Dalkeith miners club is a responsible establishment that is well worth visiting.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned their concerns about the traditional community-based pub disappearing, not only in the rural areas to which many Members have referred but in urban ones, where the issues are slightly different. In rural areas, many pubs are closing because they find it difficult to sustain custom for a range of reasons. In urban areas, as we have heard from a number of Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), supermarkets, off-sales and other forms of licensed trade are appearing instead of the traditional pub. As Members have said, that changes the culture and our approach to alcohol and can bring different problems to local communities. Those points have been made powerfully during the debate.

I realise that time is short, so I will conclude. I ask the Minister to give thought to all the points that have been made today, and specifically to ensure that he links up with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the wider economy of the pub trade and the brewing industry is seen as an important issue for BIS, not simply a matter for the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I think he will accept that the Government need to raise taxes to pay for public services in one way or another. However, we continue to keep all taxes and duties under review, including the ones that have been discussed today, and we regularly monitor alcohol duties to ensure that we are on top of their impact on the industry and consumers.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I hear what the Minister says about keeping matters under review, but in my experience that sometimes means keeping something on a shelf. Is it not time to dust down some of that information and hold a review that reaches a conclusion?

[Sajid Javid]

I assure the hon. Lady that, as an incoming Minister who is new to this portfolio, I plan to keep nothing on the shelf. I will be looking at everything, which includes all duties and taxes for which I have responsibility. That would be a sensible thing for any Minister to do.

Let me say a word about the importance that the Government attach to pubs and brewers in the wider economy. The sad truth is that pubs have been closing for many years, and that decline has been influenced by many factors, not just alcohol duty. Lifestyles and consumer tastes are changing and individuals have increased choice in their leisure activities. Those things have an impact, and those factors—not just alcohol duty— determine the size of the pub sector. The number of pubs continued to decline in the early 2000s, despite relatively flat alcohol duties in real terms. The Government are rightly doing a lot to support pubs and brewers, and those businesses will benefit from many decisions taken in the tax system and elsewhere.

Let me give a couple of examples. Changes to business rates mean that small pubs can benefit from small business rates relief, or rural rates relief. The Government have extended the small business rates relief holiday until March 2012. We have also legislated to allow local authorities to give grant discounts to businesses, including pubs and brewers, as appropriate.

Other wider actions will also benefit the pubs and brewing industry, and the cut in corporation tax from 26% to 22% by April 2014 will help brewers. Small businesses such as pubs benefit from the small profits rate, which has fallen from 21% to 20%. The change in machine gaming taxation will affect the majority of pubs. From February 2013, machine games duty will replace the current system of taxation on gaming machines, and more than 70% of pubs will benefit from that move to MGD through reduced tax liabilities.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned small breweries’ relief, which helps small brewers up and down the country, and that is vital to our economy. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) mentioned entrepreneurship. The Government have supported entrepreneurship by lowering beer duty for small producers, and helping small brewers invest and grow. There were 394 small breweries in 2002 when that relief was introduced, and today there are more than 730. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) mentioned the Live Music Act 2012, which came into force on 1 October and is already making it easier for pubs to play live music. The Government have launched a £90 million support programme to help eligible community organisations take on the community ownership and management of assets that are important to them, including pubs.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), mentioned the Government alcohol strategy. Alcohol drunk in moderation can have a positive effect on the well-being of adults, but excessive consumption has negative consequences on both individuals and wider society. The Government published their alcohol strategy earlier this year, which includes plans for minimum unit pricing. Setting a floor price for alcohol will prevent heavily discounted alcohol from being sold in supermarkets and off licences. Raising the price of cheap alcohol will help tackle excessive alcohol consumption, and I hope that pubs will benefit from minimum unit pricing once the demand for cheap alcohol in the off-trade has been tackled.

The Government recognise the importance of pubs and brewers to their local communities and the wider economy. We have done much to try and support that industry—I have given a few examples, which I hope was helpful—and it makes sense for us to keep looking at other ways to continue that support.

May I thank again those who sponsored the debate and all hon. Members who took part, as well as all those who signed the public petition? In conclusion, I will respond to a comment that was made by the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton at the start of the debate. If I remember his words correctly, he challenged me to become known as “the Minister who saved the great British pub.” I am very tempted, although I would have to compete for that honour with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis), who has responsibility for pubs. I am sure, however, that we can work well together and perhaps jointly take that title.

I assure all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that I have been in listening mode. This debate has been valuable and showed just how important debates tabled by the Backbench Business Committee can be. I will take on board a lot of messages from the debate, and ensure that the Government do even more to help the pubs and the brewing industry.