Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Loder Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

We are doing everything we can to support small businesses. Businesses like the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions have received, for two years in a row, a 75% discount on their business rates. That is a massive leg up for businesses recovering from the pandemic. We have also made sure that any increases in corporation tax apply only to larger businesses. There is only one major party in British politics that wants to bring down the tax burden for businesses, and it is the Conservative party.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

7. Whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the adequacy of its guidance entitled “The Green Book.”

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)]

In 2020, the Treasury undertook a comprehensive review of the Green Book and how it is used in practice, and we have made several changes as a result. We regularly update the Green Book to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, and we published a further technical update in 2022.

[Chris Loder]

I represent a rural constituency in Dorset in the south-west of England. My right hon. Friend will know that it is important to me and my colleagues in the region that the Government give due consideration to the south-west when it comes to allocating funds and investment opportunities to it. Typically, the Green Book has not adequately allocated funds in favour of Dorset and neighbouring counties. What steps will she take to correct that?

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, a brilliant advocate for his local area. I note that West Dorset is getting £4.4 million from the UK shared prosperity fund, and the wider Dorset area is benefiting from a range of other significant investments, including £9.7 million from the future high streets fund, but I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Council Tax and Stamp Duty Alternatives

Chris Loder Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you so much for calling me to speak in this very important debate, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute my excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.

West Dorset has one of the highest council tax rates in the country. Council tax for the average band D property is in the region of £2,300 per year, which is absolutely outrageous. There are many different components to that: council tax is one, but the revenue support grant—I have lobbied long and hard for its review—also needs to be considered. It is fundamentally wrong that London boroughs, which are often Labour-led, have revenue support grants of £24 million-plus, yet in Dorset we have a revenue support grant of virtually zero.

We do not have to go very far to understand why council tax is higher in rural Britain than in urban Britain. We should pay tribute to the Fairer Share campaign. Its work is excellent; I wholly support it and shall continue to do so. West Dorset, for example, has one of the highest average ages: a third of my population is over 65. That has an associated social care requirement, which is funded through council tax. The burden on local people is therefore much higher than it may be in other areas, such as the London Borough of Wandsworth. That London borough has one of the lowest average ages in the country, yet it receives tens of millions of pounds in revenue support grant. That is wrong, and it needs proper review.

I hope that the Minister hears my message loud and clear. We all expect a full review of council tax and the different levers that contribute to it, as many of us have argued long and hard in debates on local government finance motions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to reading his manifesto—whether it is for his party or for the coalition that his party and the Labour party both seem very keen on.

As we think about proposals, we must think about democracy and about the potentially disempowering impact on local government, of which I suspect that most colleagues are strong advocates. There is also the issue of accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the debate going on in Hartlepool, and I suspect that it is one of the livelier debates that local people are having. However, it would not be able to take place if these things were simply set in Whitehall and the money was distributed algorithmically.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) talked a little about the compensating mechanisms of revenue support grant. The Government are levelling up in many ways, but that is another way in which we can seek a fairer outcome for our constituents.

[Chris Loder]

Will the Minister consider reviewing that for the Dorset Council area so we have fairness for our constituents?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am quite sure that my hon. Friend, who is an effective champion for his constituents, will continue to prosecute his case, but he will understand if I do not give that commitment here and now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and others talked about second home ownership. We understand that, and I have a proportion of second homes in my own constituency. As colleagues know, proposals on the table in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would allow councils local and democratic discretion to attract a council tax premium that goes some way to address that issue. However, we should be cautious. Those homes already bring a disproportionate amount of net benefit to local councils, simply because they pay the full rate of council tax, but do not consume at the same intensity. The ability to have them pay double will increase that further.

Let us remember that this is not a simple issue. The work-from-home, hybrid economy blurs the line. Hon. Members—probably almost uniquely as a group—understand that people may work in one place and live in another, so the line between a first and a second home can be blurred. We should be cautious about discriminating on tax grounds against the person who chooses to work and rest in two different places, in two small homes, rather than in a single home of equivalent value. I offer that to hon. Members as a potential mitigant as we think about this issue.

Today, we have heard some thoughtful proposals, and a number of points have been made on both sides. In conclusion, these issues are important, and there are real consequences not only for our constituents, but for the housing market, in which, as one hon. Member said, there is already substantial intervention. We need to think through the unintended consequences at every point. Help to downsize would be one potential benefit for us all.

The Government will continue to act where appropriate to do so. I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. In securing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has allowed us to hear a variety of different contributions from all parts of the House. The Government will keep listening on this important topic.

Ministerial and other Maternal Allowances Bill

Chris Loder Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I hope she will forgive my ignorance in some of my questions to her, but my understanding is that Members of Parliament are able to take maternity leave and their salary is paid for by the state, and that continues to be the case. My understanding is also that IPSA will provide contingency funding to support the offices of Members of Parliament, to allow them to have that leave and make provision for them to do so. Am I incorrect in my assumption?

[Stella Creasy]

The honest truth is that we do not know, because the only other MP who sought to take advantage of that system was discouraged and deterred, and was not able to do so. What I would say is that right now, it is not clear to me as a pregnant woman what support I would get. There is a conversation about pre-approved support; right now, I am one of the most expensive MPs in London because of the contingency application for maternity cover. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is not appropriate to see maternity cover as an expense that might be reported to the public in that way. There is not parity, in the way that there is parity and clarity about what the scheme is for—

[Chris Loder]

rose—

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way, but I hope that explains the issue to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Loder]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I am afraid I do not concur with what she has said. I think we are in one of the most fortunate situations in the entire nation. This Parliament has the ability to call on the taxpayer to support those who need to take maternity leave, to take care of their children and to physically recover from pregnancy, so if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I think she is wrong. We as a Parliament, as a state and as a nation are in the fortunate position that we do support our MPs, and we must be careful to not put out there that we do not, when there are many people who are struggling. I agree with the hon. Lady’s earlier point that across the nation, there are employers who do not necessarily fulfil their obligations, but I think we have to be careful about giving the impression to the nation that we in this place are hard done by, because I am afraid I do not agree.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just before the hon. Lady responds, I think it is quite important to note that this Bill is about Ministers, and we must not stray too far into the position of Members of Parliament as well.

Equitable Life

Chris Loder Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing the debate, and I take this opportunity to thank very much indeed my predecessor, Sir Oliver Letwin, for all the work that he did on behalf of West Dorset constituents on this matter.

What is before us today is, I am afraid, a shocking example of regulatory failure, and we need to make sure that it does not happen again. It is also about us in this place achieving justice and fairness for many hard-working constituents who have saved for much of their lives. When approximately 2,000 of my constituents began contributing to their pensions at the beginning of their working lives, never did they think that they would lose their savings due to the errors of a company to which they entrusted thousands of pounds. Approximately 500 of my constituents have not received compensation at all. Most people have received around 22% of their pensions, but when we consider that most had less than £20,000 in their pension fund, the desperate nature of this scandal is clear; 22% of £20,000 is £4,400, which is nowhere near enough to retire on.

My constituents affected by this scandal did not work hard to play hard. They worked hard to save hard, and those savings were for their pension. However, the loss of £30,000 from one constituent’s pension fund meant that he had to work right up to the point at which he was physically unable to do so anymore. His wife, sadly, passed away before this injustice was rectified, which I am very sorry to hear. Many other constituents have similar stories.

Equitable Life is not the only fund that has been mismanaged. I also have many constituents who were employees of AEA—Atomic Energy Authority—Technology. They were given incomplete information about the switching of their pensions from the UK AEA scheme, which was backed by the Treasury at the time, to the new scheme, which I am afraid was not. The AEAT went bust in 2012, and the pensions were transferred into the Pension Protection Fund in 2016. The difference in indexation for inflation has seen people’s pensions eroded greatly, and in some cases by up to 20%.

There is a clear need for the joint Committee inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is proposing. I very much encourage the Minister and the Government to do all they can. Once again, it is important that we make sure that we focus on achieving fairness and justice for those constituents who have been wronged.

The Economy

Chris Loder Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who spoke with such common sense. In the short time I have, I will concentrate on the self-employed, the financial world and all the businessmen and women who risk everything to create the wealth and prosperity that we need.

I repeat from Dorset business to the Front Benchers and the Treasury: thank you very much indeed for all the furlough scheme and the announcements made today. The thanks I receive is unanimous—despite what we may hear in other quarters, not least the media. People are extremely grateful for the thousands of jobs in South Dorset that are being saved and for the millions of jobs that are being saved around the country.

Today’s announcement is especially good news for the young, who face threats from this covid in getting into work—my own children included, of course, who are facing the same problem. I welcome that announcement, and the announcement for the hospitality sector, which in South Dorset in particular has been hit hard, because we rely so much on tourism and hospitality to make the economy go around. I will also touch briefly on taxation and the private sector, our armed forces if I have time, and Dorset Council and police if I have a little more time.

Never, in my view, has there been a better opportunity radically to overhaul the taxation system in this country. It is outdated, punitive and bureaucratic. I welcome the announcements made today on VAT and stamp duty. That is a start, but let us get rid of them altogether. Let us go much further—capital gains tax, inheritance tax. Look where our poll rating went when, if I recall correctly, George Osborne raised the threshold to £1 million. It is people’s money, and we have no right to take money off people unfairly.

The economy will only work if we allow the entrepreneurs, the businessmen and women, the financial sector, the self-employed and everyone else that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire mentioned to generate the wealth that we need. From the Opposition Benches, it is the classic old, “Let’s tax them and tax them.” They simply do not understand, and never ever will, that all those risking their homes, their livelihoods and their families generate the wealth that this country needs to generate the wealth, prosperity and jobs that pay for public services.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in constituencies such as mine, where 97% of businesses are micro and small-sized, such businesses should absolutely be at the forefront of what we do?

[Richard Drax]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend and neighbour in West Dorset—I welcome him to his place.

I have time quickly to mention the armed services. The covid crisis has shown how professional, dedicated and truly treasured the armed services are—in addition, of course, to all those who work in the NHS, to whom I pay equal tribute. We must never forget that the armed services need to be funded properly, and in my view 2% of GDP is not enough; we need 3% or 4%. I urge the Treasury to keep fighting on behalf of those whose serve us with such distinction.

On Dorset Council and police, both face huge extra costs because of covid and the hundreds of thousands who descended on our beaches and coves over recent weekends. Dorset Council estimates that it is spending about £50 million a month on covid provision. It has done an outstanding job, and I pay tribute to Dorset Council and to Dorset police for the selfless way in which people have worked over many hours and many weekends for no extra pay. I thank them all.

I will end by saying, we locked the country down once; I recommend to the Treasury that we never, ever do it again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Today the Chancellor has put forward another excellent set of measures to help the UK, and no more so than in West Dorset, where 97% of our businesses are small or micro-sized. We need urgent attention to our connectivity, with 1.42 megabits per second broadband speed compared with 200 megabits per second here in London, and single railway lines across the county with a three-hourly rail frequency. Our economy in West Dorset could have its sprinting potential thoroughly unleashed, not only by the measures the Chancellor has announced today but with further infrastructure investment.

The current wave of remote working presents an enormous opportunity for West Dorset. It has shown that business and commerce does not have to revolve around London, or, indeed, other cities. People can be even more productive from their kitchen table in West Dorset than in urban office blocks. Why have conditioned and recirculated air from the polluted cities when you can breathe the fresh air of West Dorset? If sustained, this shift in working habits can be the catalyst in levelling up the rural and coastal communities of this nation, creating many well-paid opportunities for local people—but we need fast and reliable broadband that is accessible at home and at work.

Local enterprise partnerships should be coming into their own at this point, but from my experience in West Dorset, LEPs vary in their capability to deliver any economic benefits through infrastructure investment. May I therefore urge the Minister, perhaps along with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to review the LEPs’ deliverability against their remit and, where necessary, drive the radical reform required to deliver the Government’s agenda?

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on stamp duty. However, rural economies are not well served by building enormous new housing developments like the one planned for the outskirts of Dorchester. These developments quash the economic potential of building modest numbers of new houses in our villages, which is what will ensure the future of our local schools, shops, pubs, garages and parish churches.

The economic damage inflicted by coronavirus is indeed tragic, but it now presents us with the opportunity to build back better—to stimulate the economy and to address rural isolation, social deprivation and the issues that have challenged our rural and coastal communities for many decades.