Household Energy Bills: VAT

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I rise to make a plea to Members from all parties that, regardless of the emotions that are raised in this debate, we maintain our united commitment to decarbonisation and energy transition, because, ultimately, net zero was part of all of our manifestos. I worry about having debates such as this, because they tend to become the start of a slippery slope. The shadow Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), mentioned that this was going to be a temporary VAT cut. Rarely are tax rises or tax cuts temporary. We need a responsible debate about the form that taxation takes, particularly in a post-covid era where Government spending has, regrettably, been at record levels. The fact is that the VAT tax base raises about £134 billion a year—6% of GDP. If we get into the situation of whataboutery where we suddenly say that we will take VAT off here versus VAT off there, it is very difficult to argue a case for maintaining a tax that is actually one of the most sustainable forms of taxation in terms of raising revenue—revenue that is spent on the NHS, on welfare and on the vulnerable constituents mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) in her powerful speech just now.

I want to make the case that the best long-term form of ensuring that we reduce energy bills is investment in renewable forms of energy and in insulation. We need to take a long-term view to achieve a long-term gain, as opposed to this short-term perspective of taking a one-year windfall tax as a revenue-raising exercise. It is not a sustainable mechanism by which to deliver a systems-based approach to net zero. We need everyone, not just in this Chamber, but in the country, pulling together to be able to deliver on net zero. Making certain organisations pariahs will not turn the dial back.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Chris Skidmore]

I will gave way to the right hon. Gentleman and that is it.

[Sammy Wilson]

While the right hon. Gentleman is eulogising about the target of net zero, does he not recognise that the large size of the bills that he says consumers have difficulty paying is a result of the green levies, which are stealthily placed on the consumer and which have reached 26% of what people pay every time they have an energy bill?

[Chris Skidmore]

That is what I mean by the slippery slope. It is the slippery slope of suddenly saying, “Well, what about reducing VAT? Let’s turn to the green levies—they are actually making up 12% of total cost —which are one of the best ways in which we can enact levelling up and regeneration in former coalfield communities and post-industrial landscapes by ensuring that we have future green investment, such as in Net Zero Teesside or on the Humber where we have seen a revolution in offshore wind. If we want to debate how we deliver on energy prices, it must be by looking at the energy sources for the future, and not at the energy sources of the past. The reason we have an energy cost crisis at the moment is that wholesale gas prices have risen by 400%.

[John Cryer]

The hon. Gentleman talks a lot about sustainability. He is quite right. That has been the big question about energy for as long as I can remember. On that basis, was it a wise decision to close the biggest gas storage facility in the country, which this Government did?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, it was not the correct decision to close that gas storage facility. We have the lowest gas storage in the whole of Europe—I think it is about 4% or a couple of days’ worth of gas storage. That historic decision demonstrates why we need to take a long-term perspective, rather than short-term political wins.

We need to act like a Government, which the Opposition are clearly not prepared to do at the moment, and that is to think that difficult decisions need to be taken and need to be taken now, in order for us to think how we not only decarbonise, but reduce our emissions by 70% by 2030, as part of our nationally determined contribution. It beggars belief, to quote the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), that countries attending COP26 in Glasgow will turn to us, thinking, “Actually, an Opposition party was calling for a reduction in taxation on gas and fossil fuels as a result of reducing VAT.” I do not think that that is a responsible position for the Opposition to take.

Instead, when looking at raising taxation, we need to think about how we responsibly introduce a carbon tax, in the same way as we introduced a carbon tax on coal back in 2012—£18 a tonne on CO₂ ended up quite quickly reducing carbon emissions from coal from 140 million tonnes a year to 80 million tonnes a year, and they have dropped ever since. We could do the same with other forms of fossil fuels if we worked responsibly and together, just as we did when we introduced the Climate Change Act 2008 or net zero. We can work together to come up with a consensus that will outlive any one Government or any one party, because that is what we need to do if we are going to be able to deliver net zero by 2050.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) need not worry; I am perfectly clear that he wishes to give us his thoughts. I am saving him up. It would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage of our proceedings.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal that we are at the lowest level of public borrowing since 2006. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out what that will mean for future investment in public services, as opposed to maxing out paying off the nation’s credit card?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that we have successfully turned the economy around. We have brought the deficit down, and next year, for the first time in many years, we will see debt fall as a proportion of GDP—[Interruption.] Some Members are laughing, but the same people are proposing that we increase our debt by half a trillion pounds and push our country into penury.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

It has been an honour to listen to this well-attended and, at times, feisty and passionate debate. I must admit that I am somewhat surprised at the SNP’s obsession with this particular issue and that they would choose this subject for their Opposition day debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) noted, we could have discussed other issues. I lost count of the number of times that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about ermine.

Let us look at the public mood on this matter. A YouGov poll of June 2012 asked a simple question on the proposition:

“Reform of the House of Lords is vital: it should be a priority to change the system”.

Only 18% agreed, with 20% saying the House of Lords should be left alone. The overwhelming majority—52%—said that it was not and should not be a priority. The 2015 Conservative manifesto agreed with this principle by saying that it was “not a priority” in the next—meaning this—Parliament.

As the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said at the beginning of the debate, the House of Lords has begun reform in the last few years. Important reforms have been introduced and they have been successful because they have been driven by the Lords themselves. Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, for instance, peers have been able to retire simply by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Parliaments.

[Jeremy Quin]

The Minister has referred to reforms that have taken place over the past few years. Does he share my concern about the possibility that the motion, as drafted, could reduce the number of appointed peers to less than the number of hereditary peers?

[Chris Skidmore]

That is an interesting point, which I do not think has been made before in the debate. The motion could, in fact, suggest that the number of elected peers remain at 93, which would cause something of a constitutional abnormality.

Since the introduction of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, peers have been able to retire. Such retirement is permanent, and cannot be rescinded. More than 50 peers have chosen to retire, including 16 so far in 2016. That important reform has had an impact not just on the numbers in the House of Lords, but on the way in which it operates. The Act also provided for peers to be expelled for non-attendance, and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 gave the Lords new powers to expel its members for serious misconduct. The cost of the Lords has also been reduced by 14% in real terms since 2010.

Let me now deal with some of the excellent speeches that have been made today. I welcome the return of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) to the Front Bench. We once engaged in a debate together in Westminster Hall, but I am glad to see him back in the Chamber, and I am glad to see the rest of the shadow ministerial team as well.

When speaking of the number of peers who had been created, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention that it was a Labour Government who created 408 of the current number. More recently, Labour used a peerage to appoint Baroness Chakrabarti to the shadow Cabinet. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman decided to undermine her position here today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath made a fiery speech highlighting the essential fact of the British constitution—what matters is what works—and the vital role of the institutions that make up our Union. He also cited a key fact about boundary reform, pointing out that the call for equally sized constituencies had been a clarion call since the Chartists and the People’s Charter of 1838.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), my excellent predecessor, said that he was even willing to put his own marital relations at risk for the sake of his belief in reform of the House of Lords. He also said that boundary reform to bring about equally sized constituencies was an essential priority.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is talking about equalising constituency sizes in the House of Commons, and also about the importance of a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. Will he reflect on the fact that the United States House of Representatives has just 435 members, and the French National Assembly 577?

[Chris Skidmore]

That is a good point. I also recall that back in 2010, I think, the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for a reduction in the number of seats to 500. It is unfortunate that not a single Liberal Democrat is present today to discuss House of Lords reform.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made a lively and hyperbolic speech in which, perhaps somewhat disconcertingly, he demonstrated his expert knowledge of the “Carry On” movies. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) dated Lords reform back to 1719, but as a Tudor historian I can tell him that the issue of membership of the House of Lords and the detested appearance of so-called new-made parvenus such as Thomas Cromwell, the Thomas Audleys and the William Cecils suggest that today’s debate fits very nicely into the finest traditions of history.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) spoke about the issue of retirement. I am pleased that that is already happening, as I mentioned earlier, but I think that if those in the other place have been watching the debate, they may be slightly concerned by his talk of attrition.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned recent comments by the Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, about the size of the House of Lords and the fact that it needs to take the initiative on the issue. The Government agree that the House of Lords is too large, but believe that it must be for the Lords themselves to lead the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised the same issue, and I entirely agree with him. He also spoke about his agnosticism on the subject, and highlighted the need to protect historic precedents such as the Salisbury convention. I agree with that as well.

Let us be clear about the motion that we are discussing. This is not just about reform of the House of Lords; this is an attack on a Government’s manifesto commitment that we are determined to introduce—equal-sized constituencies and a reduction in the cost of politics in this House. At a time when many areas of public service have made sensible reductions and savings, the public will not forgive us if we do not put our own house in order.

Let us be clear: this motion does not seek simply to delay the boundary changes and boundary reform. We have already had a delay thanks to a motion, put down and voted on by Labour and Liberal Democrat Opposition Members. If we went into the 2020 general election with things as they are now, we would be elected on data and figures dating back to 2000 in England and to 2001 in Scotland. That status quo is simply unacceptable.

There is also an historical injustice, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath highlighted. There has been a clarion call to address unequal seats for nearly 200 years, and this Government are determined to enact the historic principle of equal seats. At the moment, some seats are almost twice the size of others. For example, North West Cambridgeshire has around 90,000 electors and Manchester Central has around 87,000, compared with Wirral West, which has approximately 54,200, and Kensington, which has 55,400 electors.

The boundary changes will address the unfairness of these current parliamentary boundaries. In Scotland, the independent Boundary Commission publishes its provisional maps and figures tomorrow drawing up the new-sized constituencies. They are provisional data, and I would encourage anybody watching this debate to get involved in the consultation process; it is closing in England and Wales on 5 December. The independent Boundary Commission is currently touring the country and anyone who is interested in constituency boundary reform should get involved.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Does the Minister accept that consideration must be given not only to the number of electors, but to geography? Constituencies such as mine in Scotland already have a landmass of 12,000 sq km. When we have constituencies that are so large, how on earth are we supposed to represent and be visible to all our constituents? This is not just about the numbers of electors; it has to be about geography and fairness for the electorate.

[Chris Skidmore]

When legislating on this, the previous Government absolutely recognised that point, and there is special provision in the current boundary proposals published tomorrow to protect Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, even though those constituencies are particularly small in voter numbers, given the wide area that they cover. Those remain unchanged. But let us look at the numbers for Scotland. Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has an electorate of 45,898. In comparison, Linlithgow and East Falkirk has an electorate of 83,593. That is a difference of 37,695. There are almost twice as many electors. I cannot believe the SNP is defending having one elector whose vote is worth twice that of another; that is an historical injustice that this Government are determined to correct.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

I am the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Why not reduce the size of seats to an electorate of 45,000 across the UK, instead of increasing them to 75,000?

[Chris Skidmore]

It is up to the independent commission to draw up the figures, but this Government are determined to ensure that we will be the Government to introduce the proposals first advanced in the clarion calls of the Chartists 200 years ago to have equal-sized constituencies and equal votes across the United Kingdom.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to support business creation.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to encourage private sector job creation.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to support business creation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is right that the deficit is how much we add to the debt each year. That is why we have to bring the deficit down—it has come down by 25%—but he is also right that we have to have a competitive private sector. We have to have a private sector-led recovery, which is why we have increased the annual investment allowance, for example. He recommends a cut in the small company corporation tax rate. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor from a sedentary position said, “That’d be a good idea,” but he was going to put the rate up when we came into office. We have cut the rate to 20% and increased the annual investment allowance.

[Chris Skidmore]

Does the Chancellor agree that increasing the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £250,000 will make a huge difference to local small businesses and lead to additional and vital job creation in the private sector?

[Mr Osborne]

I think it will help, alongside the reduction in the small company rate. I am pleased that the Federation of Small Businesses said we had listened to the concerns of members, and the chambers of commerce were also supportive. Over the next two years this measure will encourage investment from small and medium-sized businesses, although all businesses that invest will benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

Let me start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work he did at the Department for Communities and Local Government, especially his leadership of the empty homes programme, which is making a major contribution to bringing homes back into use. I understand the importance of the zero-carbon homes programme. The building industry has argued for that, and I hope we will make progress on it soon.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

2. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

8. What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage job creation in the private sector.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Despite these tough economic times, under this Government private sector employment has increased by more than 1 million since 2010, as firms benefit from our stable and credible fiscal policy, but, of course, we are not complacent. We are helping private sector growth through a radical programme of reforms and investment, including the £2.5 billion regional growth fund, issuing up to £50 billion in guarantees for infrastructure and housing, and funding 250,000 more apprenticeships than the previous Government had planned.

[Chris Skidmore]

Today marks the halfway point of the coalition Government. As the Minister said, there are 1 million more private sector jobs than there were in 2010 and more people in employment than ever before. Will he work even harder to build on his fantastic record in the second half of this Government’s term?

[Danny Alexander]

Yes, I certainly will. [Interruption.] I know the Opposition do not like to hear this, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the good performance of the British labour market and the facts that the private sector has created more than 1 million new jobs in the last two and half years and that there are more people in employment in this country than ever before.

Budget Leak Inquiry

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I would welcome that consistency, but I do not expect it.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Before 10 o’clock this morning, the Labour party press office announced on Twitter:

“Urgent Question in the House this morning @ChrisLeslieMP calling for a Budget leak inquiry”.

Yet I understand from your office, Mr Speaker, that the urgent question was not officially announced to the House until exactly 10 o’clock. Will the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) now call for a leak inquiry on that urgent matter?

[Mr Gauke]

Earlier this morning, the hon. Gentleman denied it. [Interruption.] He is shaking his head now, so he is clearly denying that that is the case. Presumably, it is reasonably easy to work out what time a Twitter post was made and to know what time the urgent question was announced. But it is not for me to lecture the Opposition; I am sure that they would be very concerned if there had been such a leak and they would be cracking down on it straight away.

Amendment of the Law

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

We all agree that, after the global financial crisis, tough choices need to be made on tax spending and pay to get the deficit down, and we all agree that it needs to be done fairly. Two years ago, the Chancellor said that he had a plan—with tax rises and spending cuts, the economy would grow and unemployment would fall—but he has had to come back to the House and announce further tax rises because his plan is not working. But who is paying more tax? The pensioners. And who is getting a tax cut? The millionaires. That is the reality.

The Liberal Democrats call this a Robin Hood Budget, but they have got it the wrong way around. Robin Hood took from the rich to give to the poor, but the Budget takes from lower and middle-income families to give to the rich. Do they not see? The Chancellor is not Robin Hood; he is the Sheriff of Nottingham. As for jobs and growth, he could not give a Friar Tuck. As for Maid Marian—trapped in the castle, desperate to escape—we all feel sorry for the Business Secretary, and not just because, as a result of the pensions tax grab, he is probably the only member of this millionaire Cabinet who will be not better off but worse off as a result of the Budget—possibly with the Justice Secretary as well. I am not sure. But he cannot say he was not warned.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I would be interested to know whether the shadow Chancellor has actually read the Budget and chart B5, which shows that the effect is worst on the top quintile? If he could be bothered to look at that and read the Budget, he might want to come back and change his mind.

[Ed Balls]

The hon. Gentleman should have read the small print. It is fine for him to accuse me of not having read the Budget, but is the effect of the 50p tax cut in that chart? I think not. I have read it. He has not. It is not there. If it were, the benefits would be off the scale.

After that disastrous and woeful intervention, let me return to the Business Secretary. The Business Secretary cannot say that he was not warned. In fact, he did the warning. On deficit reduction, before the election, he said:

“The IFS is right to point out that cutting spending further this year would be extremely dangerous given the weakness of the economy.”

He also said that

“it’s very difficult to believe that large sudden cuts would do anything other than a great deal of harm”.

He was right in his analysis of the dangers of going too far, too fast, and he is right today. In his devastating leaked letter to the Prime Minister, he said that the Government were without a

“compelling vision of where the country is heading beyond sorting out the fiscal mess”.

So why has he signed up to this completely vision-free Budget?

Summer Adjournment

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

The principle that the national health service should be free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, regardless of background or wealth, is one that few in the House would disagree with. It is a principle that we are all proud to defend, knowing that there is nothing as important as the health of the nation. We recognise that the NHS is paid for by taxpayers’ money and is the result of the hard-earned wages of citizens and taxpayers, and as citizens we are happy to provide for those in the greatest need—the vulnerable, the elderly, those who cannot care for themselves and those who are dying; we know that one day that fate will be ours, and we hope that the NHS will be there for each of us then.

We also recognise that the NHS must make record efficiency savings over the next four years, savings that will be reinvested in the service so that the NHS can meet another challenge—rising demand and an ageing population, which will put ever greater pressure on health care services. As a result, NHS spending is coming under greater scrutiny than ever before. But in recent years there has been a rise in the number of foreign nationals, ineligible for free care, who have been using NHS services. A recent parliamentary answer that I received on this issue revealed that since 2002-03 the Department has written off, and is no longer seeking to claim back unpaid bills, of nearly £35.4 million. The figures show that last year alone £6.9 million was written off, three times the £2.1 million lost in 2002-03.

It was made clear in the Minister’s reply to me that this figure does not include money yet to be collected, or money owed to foundation trusts for which the Department does not hold data. I have now begun to collect these data, which the Department does not keep, as a result of a freedom of information request to each trust. As a result of this, a picture is beginning to form that points to a far deeper problem than perhaps we recognise. So far 31 trusts have responded, stating that they have written off a total of £7.8million. This includes my own local trust, North Bristol NHS Trust, which has written off a total of £1,727,000 since 2003. That is as unacceptable as it is unsustainable.

The problem is not just one of cost. The variation and discrepancy in the collection of data is astounding. It seems that no criteria or framework exists under which one hospital or trust might charge another for its services. As soon as I have a more detailed and complete picture, I shall be happy to share these findings with the Minister.

I know that the Minister and the Department have been actively consulting on the problem of how to deal with the use of NHS services by foreign nationals, and I would welcome an update on the Department’s current thinking on how to tackle this issue for the future. We need to expose the reality of the problem, especially at times when the NHS seeks to make savings. We need a comprehensive plan to ensure that local services are not put under pressure by what many are now calling “health tourism”. The NHS may be free, but it is not a free-for-all. It is a national health service, not an international health service. Let us do all that we can to ensure that that remains the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We continue to look at technology and innovation centres, and we need to do so in the context of what we already have in the UK, such as our science capabilities and industries. We need to take advantage of the commercial opportunities that they provide. I note my hon. Friend’s comments, and we continue to consider the matter.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

16. What assessment he has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report on the likely effect of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the budget deficit.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The spending review set out more than £80 billion of spending reductions by 2014-15, and in its latest forecast, published on 29 November, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility judged that the Government’s overall plan had a greater than 50% chance of balancing the structural current deficit in 2014-15, a year ahead of our mandate. Of course, I welcome that judgment.

[Chris Skidmore]

This year, the country faces a deficit of about £148.5 billion. Action taken by this Government will, according to the OBR, reduce that to £18 billion by 2015-16, yet there are those who reject that action and would prefer to do next to nothing. Does the Chief Secretary agree that to do nothing would cripple future generations with unbearable amounts of debt for which they were not responsible?

[Danny Alexander]

I agree completely, and it is worth adding that if the Government did not have a plan to reduce the deficit, as the previous Government did not, and we lost control of our public finances, the poorest in society would suffer most from that failure to take decisive action.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her maiden speech. I know that she has Scottish roots and she is already proving to be an assiduous member of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Before being elected to this House in May I met Equitable Life policyholders from my constituency. I am indebted to Richard Cox, the local EMAG regional co-ordinator, for bringing me up to speed on the issue and the background to the Bill. I did not immediately sign the pledge to support EMAG, because I wanted to ensure that if I signed I would be able to carry through my commitment. Having met those affected and read the numerous reports on the issue, I judged that there is an indisputable moral obligation to compensate the Equitable Life policyholders, so I signed the pledge in the knowledge that I would be judged later by my actions and follow-through.

In today’s debate Members on both sides of the House have said that there are areas on which we can agree and build consensus. We all seem to agree that a compensation scheme is important and must happen. The differences between us appear to be the vehicle for compensation, the amount, the timetable for delivery and the payments. As I listened to the debate, I could not help wondering whether some of the exchanges would be seen as not especially helpful by those who want us to unite and find a way forward to helping those who have been affected by this issue. Some of the to-ing and fro-ing across the Chamber may make for a bit of sport and entertainment, but it does not move the debate on. I hope that we will be able to make progress in further contributions.

I do not have any difficulty with the principle of the Bill in that it will enable a payment scheme to be put in place for policyholders, but I do have reservations about the nature of the Bill, as I always do with Bills that do not contain much detail. It is all very well to lay down the general direction, but the Bill fails to answer several key questions to which those affected have long sought answers. For example, the Bill does not set out who will be entitled to what under the compensation payments scheme, but that is the essence of the issue. Despite all the numerous reports, inquiries and legal actions, the Bill empowers the Treasury to make payments, but gives no details. I regret that that is a pattern in the Bills introduced by this Government. The lack of detail also puts some of us in a difficult position. We want the compensation scheme to be put in place as quickly as possible, but we are reluctant to support a Bill that does not actually outline the detail of that scheme.

It is worth quoting the coalition agreement on this issue:

“We will implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”

There were no ifs and buts in that statement, but we now seem to hear some maybes about what might happen in the future. I urge the Minister to ensure that not only the design of the scheme but its operation is independent of Government, and that is why I welcome the amendment we propose to table.

In the end, not this House but those who voted for the coalition partners will judge whether they have met their promises. Some of those who have brought their concerns to me would not naturally support my politics, but it has become increasingly apparent that while they may not have agreed with the previous Government’s position, they at least knew what it was. Their problem now is that they feel let down, because they were given a clear commitment and now the Government are rolling back on that.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady explain the previous Government’s position and whether she agreed with it? As far as I am concerned, the House will vote tonight for compensation for the victims of a scandal—the people who waited 10 years under her Government and never got a penny.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I would point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly the kind of intervention that people in my constituency do not find helpful. What they do find helpful is that we now have a Bill—albeit with some flaws—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our amendments to it. It is important that we take this issue forward and resolve the matter speedily—

[Chris Skidmore]

You didn’t answer.